First Amendment

Judge Rules Vegan 'Butter' Can Be Labeled as 'Vegan Butter'

American shoppers aren't idiots.


Last week, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Seeborg of California's Northern District Court ruled Miyoko's Creamery, maker of a vegan butter, may use the word "butter" to describe its, well, vegan butter.

As the ruling details, Miyoko's received a warning letter from California agricultural regulators in December that claimed the company's vegan butter products and website "ran afoul of state and federal law." In that letter, California dairy regulators informed Miyoko's that its vegan butter "'is not butter' and may not imply it is 'a dairy food.'"

Miyoko's, which is sold at thousands of U.S. and Canadian retail outlets, including Safeway, Whole Foods, and Costco, sued in February, arguing the state's misguided threats could cost the company millions of dollars while violating the company's First Amendment rights.

Last week's ruling enjoins California from enforcing any ban on Miyoko's use of the term "butter" while the lawsuit proceeds.

"This victory is the latest in a growing trend of common-sense labeling decisions made in courts across the United States," said Michele Simon, executive director of the Plant Based Foods Association, which represents plant-based food producers.

The warning that California regulators sent Miyoko's alleged the company's butters violated state and federal "standards of identity" for butter. As I write in my book, Biting the Hands that Feed Us: How Fewer, Smarter Laws Would Make Our Food System More Sustainable, standards of identity "establish specific rules for what foods may be labeled under a given name," including ingredients that may, must, or may not be present in the food, sometimes even specifying acceptable percentages of such ingredients. For example, as I note in the book, the USDA's standard of identity for hot dogs ("hotdogs") declares they must contain "raw skeletal muscle meat… may (but need not) contain 'poultry skin' and pig lips [and] may not contain more than 30 percent fat."

"In the State's central thesis, Miyoko's product does not meet the federal standard for 'butter' (which it cannot be called without dairy and an 80% fat content), barely evades being 'margarine' (which it would have to be called if it was slightly fattier), and ought to be sold as a 'spread' (non-enforcement around peanut-and-fruit-based "butter" notwithstanding)," Judge Seeborg's ruling explains.

Dictionary definitions of "butter" make clear that use of the term a) is not limited to products made from animal-based ingredients, and b) may include vegetable-based ingredients. For example,, which uses definitions pulled chiefly from Random House's popular unabridged dictionary, defines butter to include "any of various other soft spreads for bread: apple butter; peanut butter" or "any of various substances of butterlike consistency… and certain vegetable oils solid at ordinary temperatures."

I was extremely pleased to learn Judge Seeborg's ruling cited Ocheesee Creamery v. Putnam—a 2017 federal court case in Florida in which I served as an expert—as support for Miyoko's position. In Ocheesee, Florida regulators attempted to force a small, all-natural creamery to stop using the term "skim milk" to describe its 100 percent skim milk because the state's standard of identity for "skim milk" required the frivolous addition of vitamin A* to all skim milk—something Ocheesee refused to do.

In my book and elsewhere, I've argued all standards of identity are absurd and may be unconstitutional. While Judge Seeborg doesn't go that far in his ruling, he makes a point that I made in my expert Ocheesee testimony and report: a government body may not redefine a word to the exclusion of its traditional and usual dictionary definition.

"[J]ustifying governmental speech regulation using the government-issued dictionary is troublingly self-fulfilling," Judge Seeborg writes.

Just as happened in the Ocheesee case, one the chief claims of California regulators in the vegan butter case is that the product in question was somehow misleading consumers. Miyoko's countered that no reasonable consumer has been, is, or could be fooled into thinking its products are derived from animal milk rather than from plants. The company's packaging and messaging prove that fact. For example, the front of the company's European Style Cultured Vegan Butter packaging alone uses the word "vegan" twice, notes the "cashew & coconut oil spread" is "100% crafted from plants," is "lactose free," states that it "contains nuts," and boasts a photo of a dozen or so cashews.

"I don't think there's a single confused consumer out there," owner Miyoko Schinner told Bay Area news station KPIX in February. "No more than a consumer is confused when they order almond milk. They know it's not dairy milk. In fact, they're ordering almond milk because they don't want dairy milk!"

Judge Seeborg agreed, noting that California had failed to identify even one consumer who claimed they'd been misled by Miyoko's. He referred to the state's position as "underwhelming" and "unanchored by precedent, empirical research, or any other form of independently authoritative ballast."

As in the vegan butter case, makers of many other foods produced using cow's milk often claim exclusive domain over words that, both historically and presently, do not even imply such ownership. As I've detailed many times—including in Biting the Hands that Feed Us and here—"the dairy industry has been making a living out of seeking government protection against its competitors since, perhaps, the dawn of time. And the federal government (along with state governments) has a long and sordid history of obliging the industry."

That's protectionism, plain and simple. And that is in fact exactly—wholly and only—what the Miyoko's case is all about. The state really must hate that everyone knows it, too.

"Miyoko believes this is simply a government agency trying to protect an industry that feels threatened by change," the KPIX report notes.

"California's move against Miy[o]ko's comes amid a nation-wide battle by dairy and meat producers to quash the growth of plant-based alternatives," the San Jose Mercury News reported in February after Miyoko's sued the state.

"The dairy lobby's efforts to use the California government as a tool was thankfully overruled by a judge who upheld the First Amendment, not to mention common sense," Simon, of the Plant Based Foods Association, told me by email this week.

This month's ruling is a win for free speech and food freedom and a blow to protectionism. That's like butter.

*An earlier version of this article mistakenly identified vitamin E as a required additive to skim milk. 

NEXT: From the Archives: August/September 2020

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I'm all for speech rights but the danger of me accidentally putting anything vegan into my mouth is just too great. Hopefully President Trump corrects this injustice.

    1. Green beans around the world rejoice!

      1. `I've made $66,000 so far this year w0rking 0nline and I'm a full time student.oiu. I'm using an 0nline business opportunity I heard about and I've made such great m0ney.UFg It's really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it.Here...

        See=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=► Click here

    2. I am making $250 an hour working from home. i was greatly surprised at the same time as my neighboure advised me she changed into averaging $ninety five however I see the way it works now......BizCash98.Com  

    3. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing j0bs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8894 a month. I’ve started this j0b and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
      +++++++++++COPY HERE====Money90

    4. One time I accidentally bought vegan shredded mozzeralla cheese. It didn't taste bad, it just melted very strangely.

    5. [ STAY AT HOME & WORK AT HOME ] Start making money this time... Spend more time with your family & relative by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $65o to $7oo a month. I've started this job and earn handsome income and now i am exchange it with you, so you can do it too. You can check it out here...... Click here

    1. Real people in real supermarkets will continue to seek out real butter in the bacon & eggs aisle.

      Persons on the far left hand side of the Otherly Tasted bell curve should instead look for Vegan Butter in Wholefoods Butter for Vegetables section.

      1. You are full of stereotypes. I've been a vegan and a righty for decades.

        1. Oh, so YOU'RE the one!

          Veganism is generally considered to be on the soft-headed side of the aisle, with Birkenstocks, man-buns and love beads. You can't blame people for continuing to believe the stereotype, even if it doesn't apply in a relative handful of cases.

          1. I am making 70 to 60 dollar par hour at home on laptop ,, This is make happy But now i am Working 4 hour Dailly and make 400 dollar Easily ..PPa This is enough for me to happy my ?? i am making this so u can do it Easily…

            ==========► Click here

  2. "Libertarians for fraud"

  3. And yet I'm still required to label my pig butter as lard and my possum butter can't be sold at all.

    1. my possum butter

      Nice band name.

      1. There are parts of the country where that's called personal lube.

    2. Government Almighty DAMN it then! I was SOOO looking forward to you selling me some possum butter! Just THINK of all the yummy possumabilities!

      Leroy Troy, 5 Pounds of Possum in my Headlights Tonight!

      1. “Just THINK of all the yummy possumabilities!”

        Hey, that was actually pretty funny. (Makes note on calendar)

  4. So criteria for specific things don't matter? I guess we can then label anything we want with any name at all, because "smart people" (wherever they are) know what's up.

    Yup, that pile of used paper towels and yard clippings is definitely "food", and nobody is allowed to contradict me.

    (And even more money to be made in selling "medicine")

    1. Whose criteria? The courts are in agreement that the government doesn't get to create its own dictionary and make any use inconsistent with that dictionary illegal. That's not a radical proposition. On the other hand, everyone agrees that misleading commercial speech can be prohibited or punished after the fact.

      The entire point of THIS case is that there is nothing misleading about the plaintiff's speech or advertising. If the government can come forward with evidence showing that consumers are being misled, then it can regulate the misleading speech.

      This ruling isn't legalizing fraud; it's requiring the government to actually prove that businesses are deceiving consumers before it can limit speech.

      1. How about established industry criteria? If for decades butter has been defined as 80% dairy milk fat, and most previous challenges and penalties came from producers trying to skimp on fat content in order to save money, and if consumers have any reasonable expectations of what a certain food name means (either specific criteria like fat content or just a general concept), then suddenly allowing other products to use the same name is at lest misleading.

        We do have another established option: names that are as manipulated as the product, like krab. How about budder and cheeze for stuff that wants to be like butter and cheese but is not?

        1. " If for decades butter has been defined as 80% dairy milk fat, and most previous challenges and penalties came from producers trying to skimp on fat content in order to save money, and if consumers have any reasonable expectations of what a certain food name means (either specific criteria like fat content or just a general concept), then suddenly allowing other products to use the same name is at lest misleading."

          Like those recently invented products called peanut butter or apple butter. Too bad they haven't been for decades to make this argument completely facile.

        2. Nobdy is stopping the dairy butter industry from defining terms used by the .

          We're just saying that they don't get the only say.

        3. Actually butter has been hundreds of years, not decades. But apple butter has been around for hundreds of years and peanut butter, well over a century. Masons use the term as well.

          Butter itself is well-defined, but derivations of it like those above do as well. There is no harm in adding yet another variation.

        4. See this is what a reasonable adult would devise as a solution. But the same people that want to call a balding dude with a shriveled dick a chick are unsurprisingly the same people that want to call some soy by product butter. Can the margarine producers now sue for damages. They’ve been unjustly precluded from calling their product butter for decades.

        5. If people aren't confused by thinking vegan butter is dairy butter then what's the problem? Why do you want the heavy hand of intrusive government to intervene where no problem exists?

      2. The courts are in agreement that the government doesn’t get to create its own dictionary and make any use inconsistent with that dictionary illegal.

        No, but apparently government gets to create its own dictionary and take away the right of others to insist on the meanings from real dictionaries — viz.: "spouse", "dollar".

      3. Peanut butter is made of ground up peanuts. Apple butter is cooked apples. Cocoa butter comes from cocoa beans that are pressed to get the cocoa butter out. When bricklayers "butter" the mortar, the word is being used as a verb.

        Does "vegan butter" contain any vegans or vegan parts? This is the difference.

    2. Are you telling me that you're *for* English prescriptivism? Enforced by the government?

      This is libertarianism?

      So, fruit butter should be illegal? Because butter means more than 'came from a cow'. Always has.

      1. Also, I haven't seen you bitching about American 'cheese'.

        1. Cheese is an interesting thing, there are 3 levels of legal "cheese"

          Cheese: 100% cheese
          Cheese Food: less than 100% but more than 50% cheese
          Cheese Product: less than 50% and as low as 0% cheese

          The cheese known as American Cheese is produced at all 3 levels. Yes, there is American Cheese that is 100% cheese, although all American Cheese is a process cheese, which means it is a melted down and reconstituted blend of 2 or more cheeses (usually Cheddar and Colby).

          If other things (like milk or cream) are added it knocks it down to Cheese Food or Cheese Product, depending on the amounts

      2. If hizzoner is going to use things like apple butter as an example, then vegan butter would have to mean butter made from vegans.

        1. Like how Girl Scout Cookies are made from real girl scouts?

          1. I was so sad when I found out about baby oil. :-/

  5. Are people from Las Vegas legally allowed to advertise themselves as "Las Vegans" if they eat non-vegan butter?

    1. P.S. In En espanol "Las Vegas" means "the vegas".

      1. And San deigo is Latin for a whales vagina

        1. San Francisco is Texan for billionaire sodomites and hobo sex.

      2. Akchewally - it means 'the Vegases'.

        1. And it probably should be 'Los' as 'Vegas', ending in 's' should be a masculine noun (NORSEL).

          And it actually means the plains/lowlands/meadow.

          1. Vega = Meadow
            Vegas = Meadows
            Las Vegas = The Meadows

            All feminine, all the time 🙂

    2. You can probably find enough people who find that offensive and intolerable to file a viable lawsuit. Just think of the deep pockets to be picked!

    3. Wow, Ken Shultz with a joke. There is hope for the world. I hope you have a great weekend, Ken.

      1. And R Mac said that SQRLSY said something funny. Dogs and cats, getting along.

        1. you're still garbage Mike

          1. Lol. He really is.

  6. More bad economic news.'s benefactor Charles Koch only earned $442,000,000 yesterday.

    The next few months will be difficult, but I'm confident Mr. Koch will turn things around in the Biden economy.


  7. "The motion [to dismiss charges], filed in Hennepin County district court, relies on a June report by the Hennepin County Medical Examiner and a conversation between the examiner, Dr. Andrew Baker, and prosecutors, in which the doctor suggests the level of fentanyl in Mr. Floyd’s system would be at a level acceptable to label as an overdose."

    ----WSJ, August 28, 2020

    There is virtually no chance that the charges against the officer(s) involved in the death of George Floyd will be dismissed, but the autopsy submitted by the county medical examiner to the court suggests that Floyd had enough fentanyl in his system to kill him. Even if that doesn't prove that Floyd wasn't killed by the police, it introduces reasonable doubt that the officer involved purposely used excessive force in an effort to kill him. And that's a big issue.

    The LA riots weren't sparked by the beating of Rodney King. They were sparked by the acquittal of the officers who beat him. If the defense can persuade one out of twelve jurors that there is reasonable doubt, Minneapolis will have another situation on their hands--and I don't know how the county medical examiner's report saying there was enough fentanyl in his system to kill him doesn't introduce reasonable doubt in a case of suffocation.

    When people die because of an opioid overdose, it's because the opioid makes them stop breathing.

    1. Just to go off on a hypothetical tangent or two, what constitutes murder or unlawful death?

      If Floyd was a potential OD at the time, and the police had simply (and gently) locked him in the back of a patrol car--and ignored any pleas for help--would that be murder? If they left him on the curbside, again ignoring any pleas, would that be murder?

      On the other hand, if we had any objective way to assess the physical constraints used against Floyd if he had not had any drug dose at all, could we determine if what the cops did was (more) reasonable?

      1. The prosecutors better make sure they don't overcharge the defendants in this case, that's for sure. They better go with involuntary manslaughter so they don't need to argue about intent. Even with involuntary manslaughter, though, just like you're saying, there is still great potential for reasonable doubt.

        Because Floyd couldn't breathe doesn't mean that was because of what the police were doing to him, and the cop's defense will certainly contend that the amount of force being used was appropriate--that Floyd wouldn't have suffocated under that amount of force if he hadn't had a lethal dose of fentanyl in his system.

        My bet would not be on a unanimous decision.

        1. When we see a WWE wrestler's head getting smashed into the mat by an opponent who's kneeling on his back, what we're really seeing is the guy on the bottom repeatedly smashing his own head into the mat. The wrestler kneeling on his back just needs to gently place his hand in the guy's hair to make it look like he's smashing the guy's head into the ground.

          If I'm the defense attorney, I'm asking the jury to think about the difference between what it looks like when someone is kneeling on a suspect and suffocating him and what it looks like when an officer is kneeling on someone who can't breathe because he's overdosed on fentanyl. If those two things look the same, then we're talking about reasonable doubt.

        2. They already have overcharged. Unless the jury totally ignores the standard of reasonable doubt, there is no way to get a conviction for the murder charges that Ellison leveled because he was pandering to the mob or just incompetent. This is a disaster waiting to happen.

          1. Yeah, they need to dial that back. Take it to a grand jury. Do whatever they can to reduce those charges to something achievable.

            They're probably afraid of riots if they dialed the charges back at this point.

            Meanwhile, they're probably hoping Biden will be elected and the Justice Department will file civil rights charges against the individual police in federal court--just in case the police are acquitted.

            That's what they did in the Rodney King trial--after the riots.


            The left is always susceptible to believing that the facts will change to suit them and any fact that doesn't conform to their fantasies is being stupid or stubborn, but the reality is that this is a slow motion train wreck. This trial probably ends in a hung jury at best or acquittal. They're not looking any further ahead in Minnesota than how to keep people from rioting this week. And the Democrats at the national level aren't looking any further ahead than the election.

      2. I would say that in both cases, no. They didn't take an affirmative action, simply refused to act.

        Which is different from kneeling on a dude's back.

        However, in both cases, their actions should have received strict scrutiny as to whether it was negligence or simply ignorance that lead to the suspect being ignored.

    2. It is worth mentioning here that Dr. Baker’s autopsy report, although it brought up heart disease and fentanyl, still ruled the death a homicide.

      1. I'm not saying there isn't enough evidence to charge him. In fact, I said that the chances of the charges being dismissed are virtually zero. What I'm saying is that the evidence suggests that they probably can't get a unanimous verdict from a twelve member jury to convict the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. And that's is likely to cause problems.

        Political legitimacy is about the willingness of a population to accept authority. The rule of thumb for comparative legitimacy has long been the number of police per capita necessary to maintain order. In the aftermath of the Rodney King trial, local government in Los Angeles lost its legitimacy, and President Bush had to increase the number of police per capita to restore order by way of calling in the National Guard.

        The reason we weren't able to maintain order in Iraq was because the government there was insufficiently legitimate, and the cost of deploying enough soldiers to restore order was prohibitively expensive. Authoritarian governments typically have a high number of police per capita because that is what is necessary to maintain order. Gadaffi's head ended up on a pike because his legitimacy fell below the number of police and military he could afford in the field to maintain order.

        If and when a jury in Minneapolis fails to convict the police in the George Floyd trial, we should probably expect to see the legitimacy of the local government plummet within certain segments of the local population, especially among those who are already distrustful of the criminal justice system for valid historical reasons. And, of course, all these things are true (or not) regardless of whether we like them and regardless of whether we want them to be true.

        1. Don't think I disagree with anything you just said. Just wanted to mention the conclusion of Dr. Baker's autopsy report to give a complete picture of what the report said.

          1. I haven't read the report. I'm just going by what other people are saying. Do you have a link?

          2. This is from the actual county autopsy report:

            "FINAL DIAGNOSES:

            46-year-old man who became unresponsive while being restrained by law enforcement officers; he received emergency medical care in the field and subsequently in the Hennepin Health Care (HHC) Emergency Department, but could not be resuscitated."


            Read it for yourself.

            That he died under restraint isn't the answer to the question of how much fentanyl contributed to his death.

            1. If you look at the report, it says he had 11 nanograms of fentanyl per ml in his bloodstream when he stopped breathing.

              If you look at the data in Table 1 of the following NIH document, you'll see that lots of fatal overdoses happen with far less than 11 nanograms of fentanyl per ml.

              Here's some of the overdose fatalities listed with dosage ranges in the study I linked below:

              Eight fentanyl fatalities in Sweden (1997): - median 5 ng/ml

              80 fentanyl deaths in Montgomery County, OH (2014) - median 9 ng/ml


              At 11 ng/ml, George Floyd didn't have a bloodstream equivalent of every single person who died in that study, but his blood fentanyl level was well within the range of people who would be expected to die of a fatal overdose.

              Of course, our criminal justice system is racist (or not) and needs to be reformed (or not) regardless of whether George Floyd overdosed on fentanyl, but if we're getting ready for the fallout in this case, we better brace ourselves for the likelihood of a not guilty verdict.

              1. I think you are right. If the prosecutors overreach and fail to get a conviction, the rioting will be very bad.

              2. You'll also note the weight of Floyd'sings, 3x more than normal and then look at how Fentanyl ODs occur... liquid in the lungs.

                But if you're WK you just see a cop and blame him.

                1. If you are the White Knight, or most people who have seen video of Derek Chauvin with his knee on Floyd's neck.

            2. Thank you for finding a link to the actual report and posting it.

              1. Lol. I posted it a few days ago. You claimed to have clicked on the link. It was on the Washington examiner article.

                More proof you can't be bothered to educate yourself in any worthwhile manner.

                1. Go back and look. I did look at the article you linked, and even posted further comments from the article.

                  That's already two attempts you have made on this page to lie about or distort things I've said.

    3. If I jump off a 30 story building and you shoot me in the head on the way down - you've still murdered me even though I was inevitably going to die in a few seconds anyway.

      We're all going to die eventually. Doesn't get someone who makes it happen faster off the hook.

      1. I'm not sure this is a first you shot him and then, second, he went splat on the ground kind of situation.

        This is more of a both/and situation. The victim suffocated while both being choked and while having a lethal dose of fentanyl in his bloodstream.

        And i'm not saying we should change the law so that the cops aren't prosecuted for this kind of crime. I'm saying that whether the cop is a guilty depends on whether the prosecutor can get twelve jurors to unanimously agree that there isn't a reasonable doubt.

        And I'm saying I wouldn't bet on a guilty verdict under those circumstances.

        1. You might be right Ken = I’m saying I wouldn’t bet on a guilty verdict under those circumstances.

          Regardless, the video (all of them) do not lie. LEO Chauvin killed this man, whether premeditated or not. Chauvin never let up, even after George Floyd stopped resisting, or even moving. Chauvin showed complete indifference to Floyd's life, even in the face of people who were observing the incident, begging him to stop. To me, Chauvin gets the needle for killing that man. He knew what he was doing.

          It is not the drugs; it is the complete indifference to life Chauvin displayed for everyone to see that must be punished.

  8. "In the State's central thesis, Miyoko's product does not meet the federal standard for 'butter' (which it cannot be called without dairy and an 80% fat content), barely evades being 'margarine' (which it would have to be called if it was slightly fattier"

    Is this true? Are there federal standards it does not meet? You don't explain how the judge's ruling isn't arbitrary and contrary to federal law.

    1. Back in the day, they weren't allowed to make margarine yellow. It had to be sold white, and they would include a packet of dye to mix into the margarine to make it yellow. Before that, the dairy lobby forced them to dye margarine other colors--including red and black.

      "Butter, traditionally, is yellow, a color ideally derived from plant carotene in the milk of grass-fed cows. Margarine, on the other hand, as made in the industrial vat, is white, the unappetizing shade of grade-school paste. Margarine manufacturers, to better appeal to the public, wanted to tint their product yellow; butter producers objected, claiming that yellow margarine, fraudulently masquerading as butter, was a deliberate ploy to deceive the public. (Butter from corn-fed cows is also anemically pale, and is routinely dyed to turn it an attractive butter-yellow; this practice, however, butter makers argued, was simply a cosmetic tweak.)

      By 1902, 32 states had imposed color constraints on margarine. Vermont, New Hampshire, and South Dakota all passed laws demanding that margarine be dyed an off-putting pink; other states proposed it be colored red, brown, or black. The “pink laws” were overturned by the Supreme Court (on the grounds that it’s illegal to enforce the adulteration of food) but the ban on yellow margarine remained. (The last hold-out, Wisconsin, only repealed its margarine-color law in 1967.)

      1. Apparently that Supreme Court ruling (about making it "illegal to enforce the adulteration of food") was from 1898. The FDA predates FDR, but it didn't start until 1906.

      2. Grew up when margarine was considered a healthier alternative. Turns out it is not. It is loaded in hydrogenated fats. These turn into trans fats which kick up your LDL. A modest amount of butter is a better choice.

        1. Yep, I was a margarine household too.

          1. If you grew up in the 60's-80's you mostly had margarine. Butter was both bad for you and expensive.

            And there were margarine commercials everywhere.


            Everything's better, with Blue Bonnet on it!

            Imperial even had a huge crown magically appearing on the head of people who ate it.

            Apparently margarine was a big deal at the time.

        2. And tastes so much better, too = butter

  9. Words have meaning. Isn't that what we're all preaching here when we bitch about "silence is violence" and other newspeak idiocies?

    No, "vegan butter" is not "butter", it is a vegetable spread. "Almond milk" is not "milk", it is thinned out almond paste (or something like that).

    I think most libertarians will allow that providing a mechanism for contract enforcement is one of few valid governmental functions. If a contract is to be enforceable, then all parties must agree to the meaning of the words in it. I would think this applies even to verbal agreements and claims. As such "butter" and "milk" are animal products; only. You shouldn't have to turn the package over to see what's in it if the front claim is a word in common usage. Using those words for other substances is a subtle attempt to delude the consumer that this is "as good as" or "just like".

    1. The government has no legitimate control over the evolution of language. There is no "contract." "Almond milk" has been termed "almond milk" (or it's equivalent in various languages, for the last seven hundred years or longer.

      Apple butter has been called such for just about as long.

      How about peanut butter? It contains no butter either.

      1. I agree, we know what they mean when they say Vegan Butter or Peanut Butter etc. We should not have to dumb everything down for the mentally incompetent. A reasonable person knows what it means the only reason anyone would object is if they work in the dairy industry and don’t want competition or if they are too stupid to know what words mean. Butter is not just dairy butter and anyone with half a brain knows it. Not to mention the dairy industry does it as well, take a look at the dairy aisle at the different types of butter, unsalted butter, low fat and Irish Butter to name a few.

        1. Except we don't know what vegan butter is, apparently.

          Because I would have assumed margarine.

          And this "barely escapes being margarine".

          That's somewhat sketchy. " I'll do just enough non-hydrogenated oils to escape having to label it as margarine, then call it Vegan Butter so I can imply some form of separation and superiority for my margarine over that other margarine that has one percent more hydrogenated oil. "

          These guys are not the good guys in this story.

          The other guys might not be the good guys either, but that doesn't make these guys the good guys.

          1. Except no one is forcing you to buy it, this is not the Soviet Union where you have one choice or go without. There is a veritable smorgasbord of selection in this area alone. If a person wises to look up the ingredients they are on the package, if not then move on to another product. There are quite a few items in the grocery store that I don’t know what is in them exactly and you know what, I either investigate or DON’T BUY THEM. What I don’t do is go crying to the state to use force to take away others choice which is what they tried to do here and yes that makes them the bad guys.

      2. When I started to see "almond milk", I assumed it was almond-flavored milk, akin to chocolate milk. However, I knew coconut milk to be the fluid of a coconut.

    2. I think I agree. Burger King can sell its Impossible Whopper, but it can't call the patty "soy beef". NutraSweet can be sold, but it can't be sold as "sugar".

      "Vegan butter" is not butter. Margarine is also not butter. We get along just fine calling it margarine and not, say, sunflower butter if it's made from sunflower oil.

      I think you can get around any First Amendment issues by allowing it to be called a "butter substitute". You got the exact word you want in there, and you're also making it perfectly clear that it is not, in fact, actually that substance.

      1. I have no real disagreement with that, but the word "vegan," by its definition, means, non-dairy. Best Foods does, indeed, doesn't call its vegan mayo product "vegan mayonnaise," but, in all honesty, if it did, I think that 99% of the population would understand what that means.

        As others have noted, foods are often described, not only by their ingredients, but by their use: apple butter, called that since the Middle Ages, peanut butter, almond milk, cashew butter, soy milk. etc.)

        The feds once (and maybe still do), classify rhubarb as a fruit, rather than as a vegetable, because of the way it is used (primarily in pies).

          1. "...The difference had created what has been called a “no-jams land” which meant that a preserve with a sugar content between 50 per cent and 60 per cent had no legal name..."

            So I guess they had to call it "purple stuff" or something? How quaint.

      2. Margarine is also not butter. We get along just fine calling it margarine

        In fact, we get along fine actually calling it butter. For people in their 40's and up 'margarine' *is* 'butter' and when you want to get actual butter you specifically mention that you want 'real butter'.

        1. True. Bear in mind, that while the original margarines did not include dairy, most commercial margarines you find today contain milk. So it is of concern to some vegans. Maybe "vegan margarine" would be acceptable to everyone?

          1. Maybe “vegan margarine” would be acceptable to everyone?

            Except apparently, (according to the article) it doesn't meet some relatively arbitrary standard to be called "margarine" either.

            "barely evades being 'margarine' (which it would have to be called if it was slightly fattier)"

            Though, maybe that just means it doesn't have to be called margarine, not that it can't be.

          2. Maybe - but margarine exists as a butter substitute.

            Vegan butter is not a margarine substitute, its also a butter substitute and would be trying to differentiate itself from margarine.

            1. Which lets you know that they are not innocent in this confusion.

              They clearly went out to deliberately surf the holes in the regulatory system so they could create a product that they could label as "butter" instead of "Margarine".

              What do they call that when everyone in an argument is wrong?

              1. "What do they call that when everyone in an argument is wrong?"

                The Presidential Debates?

                Heyoooohhh! (I'll see myself out)

                1. Could have gone broader and said "Politics".

                  Solid comment.

              2. I know, right - damn all those people surfing regulatory holes.

                Shut down Uber and Lyft!

        2. Not for me. Of course, I'm from Wisconsin, so...

    3. Using those words for other substances is a subtle attempt to delude the consumer that this is “as good as” or “just like”.

      Are you saying it is not? By what standards - words have meaning, you know. And how do you know its not as good as for *my* purposes?

      Why not go further and regulate advertising. A central purpose of advertising is to get people to believe that a product is better than another product in a similar - note 'similar', not 'identical' - category. Or that its as good as. Or that its better.

  10. Amish apple butter makers and Georgia peanut farmers would like a word with you.

  11. Vegan bacon, on the other hand, should be labeled “Cardboard”.

    1. Well, since the general term for it, even among vegans, is "facon," that might give you a clue. Some varieties are better than others, but yeah, none are all that good.

      1. I tried some once. It was like you made sadness edible.

        1. There are a couple of brands which are useful for flavoring in split-pea soup and such, and one microwavable brand which is "ok" for adding "crunch" to a lettuce and tomato sandwich, but yeah. Bacon is one thing for which I have not found a decent vegan substitute.

          1. I know that there are companies trying to create lab-grown meat, but I think it would be a good starting point to make lab-grown chicken and beef broth. If someone held a gun to my head and said I had to be a vegetarian, I could get by OK with rice with broth.

            1. I think the future of lab-grown meat is pretty good, but it's going to be a long, long time before it can compete with traditional meat. Lab-produced leather is likely to succeed much sooner, since it has a significant advantage over leather in manufacturing processes.

              As far as "forcing" people to be vegetarian, well, here is hoping that won't ever happen (and I doubt it ever would). Generally speaking, it's not the government's place to tell someone what they can or cannot consume.

  12. Nature. Science. Language.

    Only language we can change and we do so to fit our narrative. The truth of nature stays the same, but how we label it changes.

    1. True. But also true is that how we label something, what we all something, can influence our perspective of it.

      1. Please shove your post-modernism all the way up your ass thanks.

        1. Hmm. Interesting. I never thought of Socrates as "postmodern."

          1. Wow... you went there. You should actually read his books. Post modernism isn't the Socratic method.

      2. Which is why its so important that the government not be allowed a say in this.

  13. They should change the name to vegan margarine. Or maybe vegan vasoline, which is highly alliterative, hence psychologically soothing to the vegan SJWs.

    1. Apparently it just missed the fat content cutoff for being called "margarine". Otherwise, yeah, they should call it that. Maybe they should anyway; that word is much closer to what it is.

      1. it just missed the fat content cutoff for being called “margarine”

        Less fat than margarine makes it OK to call it "butter"?

    2. Or maybe vegan vasoline,

      Vegan paste wax.

  14. Can I label real butter as vegan butter?

    1. Only if you are looking to opening yourself up to possible lawsuits. Hint: the term vegan was created, specifically, in the 1940's, to describe "non-dairy vegetarians."

      Hence, there is a widely-accept popular definition of the word.

      Now, if you are using the term to describe butter made from cows from Vega, well, that might be different.

      1. Fuck off SQRLSY.

      2. Hence, there is a widely-accept popular definition of the word.

        Oh no there is not.

        See - your definition is 'non-dairy vegetarians'. Other vegans define it as 'no animal products, whatsoever'. Depending on how strictly you define your veganism - another indication that there's no widely-accepted popular definition - we're talking certain liquors are off limits because they use animal products somewhere in the production process.

        1. "Other vegans define it as ‘no animal products, whatsoever’. Depending on how strictly you define your veganism..."

          True, but that usually applies to those who shun animal products not used for consumption, such as leather, which practice traces some of its roots back to traditions of Taoism. There have been vegetarians, throughout history, who did not necessarily shun all meat, too.

          There a multiple meanings regarding any word. Even the word "plow," to be "defined" by it historical usage, requires in excess of twenty-five pages for a fairly thorough "definition."

          Either way, the government, generally, has no legitimate authority to ban descriptions such as "hot dog," or "frankfurter" (neither contain dogs or are, with rare exceptions, made in Frankfurt.

          Unless it is your contention that people don't actually know that, of course.

          1. Doesn't matter - what matters here is that there are multiple definitions of vegan.

            1. That is true. But, generally, when it comes to food one consumes, it means free of animal products. But some do go as far as refusing, for instance, beer or wine which is clarified through filters made of fish bones. Some refuse to use tires which utilize animal-derived mold-release agents. I don't go that far.

              Then again, religious beliefs will differ, sometimes wildly, even among members who claim the same religious affiliation. Humans are strange critters.

      3. Now, if you are using the term to describe butter made from cows from Vega, well, that might be different.

        Why do the cows have to be from Vega? It's not like all the cows that make Swiss cheese are in or are from Switzerland?

        1. But everyone knows that butter made from extraterrestrial cows from from the planets orbiting Vega are so much superior!!!

        2. Actually, all cows are vegan. They eat grass and corn and stuff like that.

          So their milk is vegan milk.... literally. Milk from a vegan.

      4. Only if you are looking to opening yourself up to possible lawsuits.

        So it's okay for vegans to have lawsuits to keep their words meaning what they say, but it's not okay for anyone else?

        And it's doubly okay for vegans to demand that the terms for delicious food be applied to the vile industrial leavings they pretend is real food?

        And for everyone else to not accede to their demands is unfair to them?

  15. And are Hebrew National hot dogs really Kosher? Not enough for my sister but the only brand I buy. Just because they are better than those ones that contain all those other animals.

    Are polish dills really polish? What is velveeta if it is not cheese? OK there is only one Cincinnati chili. It is made by Skyline and a secret family recipe. Food is so much fun isn’t it?

    I think we can figure all of this stuff out without government help.

    1. Buy a real sausage like a brat instead of hot dogs. Also buy a block of boars head American cheese at the deli for cheese dip instead of velveeta. You will thank me.

      And please nobody buy vegan butter or anything except real salted butter. Why abuse yourself that way.

      1. A brat is not the same thing. They do cook up nice on the grill.

        To make a proper Chicago hot dog for example:

        1 all-beef hot dog (boiled)
        1 poppyseed hot dog bun (steamed)
        1 tablespoon yellow mustard
        1 tablespoon sweet green pickle relish
        1 tablespoon chopped onion
        4 wedge (blank)s tomato wedges
        1 dill pickle spear
        2 eaches sport peppers
        1 dash celery salt

        I do buy off the block American cheese for my grilled cheese sandwiches. My method involves spreading some mayo on the grill side of the bread as it starts to brown from the butter. The mayo cooks at a higher temperature and makes it crispier.

        1. If you boil your hot dog, you are doing it wrong.

          But I will agree with the celery salt... celery salt you your brat is a revelation. But I prefer grilled peppers and onions with some spicy mustard to go with it.

        2. Don't forget to throw some ketchup on your Chicago hot dog.

          (I enjoy watching Chicagoans get hysterical about this.)

        3. Every time I look at the crap that goes on a Chicago dog I can't help but wonder just how vile that sausage was when they created this. Because everything on there hides the taste of the dog.

          Look at a Maxwell's Polish, sausage, onion, mustard. You can taste the meat.

          Or a classic New York dog-- sausage, mustard, sauerkraut. You can hide a bit with the kraut, but not much.

    2. I, too, am a fan of Hebrew National hot dogs! Nathan's dogs are pretty good too.

    3. Exactly and when you bought your Dilantin from me a high IQ person would know it’s really Tylenol because how else would your pharmacist be driving a lambo.

    4. Echospinner...Yeah, they are Kosher...not Glatt Kosher. 🙂

      I buy them too. Although I really wish Hebrew National would come up with a nitrite-free version. Applewood is a nitrite-free hot dog that has some promise (not Kosher, though).

  16. Governor Useless (D), who heretofore proclaimed that not listening to experts like the CDC was reckless and that People Will Die™️, now refuses to listen to experts like the CDC because if he does, People Will Die™️. Because he knows better or something.

    These fucksticks are losing control because reality refuses to fall in line with their models and resulting diktats, and they don’t like it one bit. They’re gonna do everything they can to make sure they don’t have to stop stroking their authority boners.

  17. So the moron (IMO) judge used online dictionary 'definitions' instead of the legal statutes? Wow. Well, I've just declared all the words in this column to be differently defined, so now nobody knows what it means.

    This comment not approved by Silicon Valley brain slugs.

  18. American shoppers aren't idiots.

    If you're buying Vegan butter, however...

  19. American shoppers aren't idiots.

    Please explain the need for all the stupid warning labels on products. If a bag of Peanuts needs the "warning contains nuts" on it.....

    1. Yea but the 2nd wives of investment bankers like those labels. after all little Tyler has three older half brothers he needs to nudge out for pole position in the will and if little Tyler goes into allergic shock when dad is trying to practice his putting...

      So reason doesn’t mind those.

      Meanwhile how’s the PE guy who just spent 700 million dollars buying vegan butter gonna get his money back if he can’t misrepresent his product.

      So reason is acutely attuned to the injustice.

  20. Peanut butter. Boom.

    1. Is vegan butter made from vegans?

      1. No. But peanut butter is not made with dairy either.

        1. Is it made from peanuts? There you go. In fine with soy byproduct butter as a name. Live not by lies. All the shitty underhanded shifty tricks that you bitch like a chick on her period about when the government does them you somehow don’t care when businesses use them. Not every one wants to have their boy pussy put on the stroll by PE companies hawking vegan foods.

  21. the Founders are rolling in their graves

    They could never have imagined that government would get so big and comprehensive that it would have control over whether or not you can label your product "vegan butter". Unreal.

    1. I think they foresaw a lot of it, don't think they fully understood the ramifications of the commerce clause.

      1. The ramifications of the commerce clause aren't the problem. The problem if the perversion of the commerce clause to include things which have nothing to do with interstate commerce much less no commerce at all. When the clause is applied to legislate growing food on ones own property for self consumption, there's a problem.

  22. Harvey Washington Wiley must be spinning in his grave! A large part of the Panic of 1907 arose from prohi-fascist redefinitions-at-gunpoint of words like whiskey, margarine, honey, sardine and narcotic. Calling it the 1906 Pure Food Law was an act of blatant mislabeling, for the enactment only became effective in 1907--just in time to attack ice-houses and completely wreck the economy!

  23. Did they regulators go after belly butter. I mean, it isn’t even a food!

  24. ‘Which Candidate Has Nicer Titties Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris?’

    1. Not watching that, but pelosi has an impressive set of milkers.

  25. Sounds to me like this decision was a victory for common-sense.


    Antifa clash with drivers in the Trump caravan in downtown Portland. They spray urine at the cars, others spray mace and shoot paintballs back. #PortlandRiots #antifa


    “He was a f—ing Nazi! Our community held its own.”

    Antifa & BLM in Portland celebrate the homicide of a purported Trump supporter who was affiliated with Patriot Prayer, a Portland-area conservative group.

    1. The 15-second video is marked “content not available” in Twitter. Did it show a speaker at a Black Lives Matter-organized rally calling this person a Nazi?

      1. "The 15-second video is marked “content not available” in Twitter."

        No actually it isn't.

        1. It was at the time I posted my comment.

          And now that it is back, guess what, it in know ways establishes any affiliation of the person talking in the video with Black Lives Matter.

    2. The tit for tat looks like it's started.

      1. I'm unaware of anybody being murdered simply for being antifa-BLM.

        At least 2 people have been murdered just for supporting Trump/being conservative (last night in Portland and the black bookshop owner in Milwaukee)

        1. "I’m unaware of anybody being murdered simply for being antifa-BLM."

          Antifa doesn't care if violence against them was justified or not, merely that it happened. They wanted payback. They likely got some, last night. I'm not hearing about a bunch of arrests related to it, so the hard Right may start thinking that justice is going to only be a self-help remedy. And so on.

          Further, given what Rittenhouse is going through now, and his violence looked eminently justifiable, do you think many of these people are going to bother involving the police from now on?

          1. Oh I agree.
            Just wanted to clarify the nature of the actions


    After finding out that it was a "blue lives matter" supporter who was killed, antifa in Portland are very happy. They're dancing and chanting now. #PortlandRiots


    It sounds like someone is shouting, “We got a Trumper right here” just before the shots are fired and the man is killed.

    1. Whatever is being shouted in that video is a Rorschach test.

      1. It is absolutely clear. He screams "Here! Here! We got him! Right here! We got another.."

        And then you are right... another fighter? another Trumper? Another biter? Flighter?

        then, very matter of factly:
        "Here? right here?"

        And then someone shoots and kills "him". Double-tap. Execution style.

        The dispute over the word Trumper? Really? A crowd chases someone down, "gets him" and then murders him?

        And your quibble is over whether they use the word "Trumper" or some other descriptor?

        I agree... it doesn't sound like "trumper" to me.

        But if that's where your focus lies, you are doing it wrong.

        Also, someone matter of factly answers "here?" with "the Hotel", which makes no sense to me either. Again, not the focus.

        The only justification for the shooting would be if the person they "have" and are calling a mob to riot on is in fact harming people and putting them in mortal danger. The fact that a bunch of people are surrounding and mobbing him, I sincerely doubt that this is true.

        1. Are you watching a different video than the one Nardz linked to? The one he linked to has poorly recorded, echoing shouting.

          “And your quibble is over whether they use the word ‘Trumper’ or some other descriptor?“

          I did? Where?

          I said the words in the video are somewhat incomprehensible.

          1. OMFG shut the fuck up already shill.

            1. Yeah, at that point you are just being a jerk, spamming things up.

              There was nothing remotely unclear about my post. Playing semantics and stupid in the same response is disingenuous, which is a clue that you know you are wrong and simply don't want to confront that fact.

              1. The audio in the video is absolutely not clear.

          2. you thought the Rittenhouse videos were grainy you dishonest fuck.

            1. I think I used the word "shaky", which you just turned into "grainy".

            2. Yup. Said "shaky".


              "I just spent 11 minutes watching the video that shows everything. Where is the evidence of self defense in a shaky video of people running around shooting guns?"

        2. “ The only justification for the shooting would be...”

          Stop right there. The shooting was not justified. I don’t dispute that.

          1. you just won't admit it was blm or a Tifa unless there is a sworn deposition saying it was them from the shooter.

            1. It may well have been a person who generally supports the "Black Lives Matter" cause.

              It was almost certainly not done as a part of a "Black Lives Matter" event, since they tend to organize rallies, speeches, and marches during daylight or late afternoon, not riots in the middle of the night. And probably wasn't done by anyone with any affiliation with the Black Lives Matter organizations.

              This has always been the limited point I have been trying to get across for the past few weeks.


    Antifa burn a US flag to celebrate the death of the man shot in downtown Portland. They call him a “fascist” despite not knowing who he is. #PortlandRiots

    1. CNN disagrees

      They go out of their way to point out that he was wearing a far-right insignia (calling it an insignia makes it more ominous), and describe "protesters" being approached by people in pickup trucks bearing "Blue lives matters" and "Oregon for Trump" paraphernalia. The people in the trucks spray substances at the peaceful protesters.

      Protesters merely standing on a corner "screamed and tossed items" at passing Trump supporters. Really.... they "tossed" items.. Peacefully. You know, like you always toss items at passers by.

      Check out this paragraph for the hard spin:

      And as a green pickup truck passes, someone riding in its bed can be seen spraying something toward protesters. Passengers in that green truck duck as the other protesters toss something at them.

      1. I'm ready to start playing by the Left's rules.

        1. "I’m ready to start playing by the Left’s rules."

          Wait until after the election. This mob violence looks absolutely awful to Jane and Jamal Swingvoter, and so far, it's only one group on TV doing it. Retaliation will make a crystal clear political picture hazy. Doing well is the best revenge.

          But by all means, start gathering resources and intelligence now.

          1. Oh I know.
            But it is frustrating.
            After the election will be messy, but much needed

      2. Also note:

        The authorities in this case are asking for time to investigate.

        No pronouncements from high-ranking politicians about murder charges. No indictments brought forth before the crime scene is even cleared.

        Please be patient while detectives do their work.

        No national media chiming in with complete clairvoyance as to the entirety of the situation and calls for justice. In fact, those folks are not mentioning that it even happened, for the most part.

        1. You can also see an accomplice looking for and picking up shell casings

          1. Jeez. didn't notice that.

            Funny how the law works.

            Normally, if multiple people are involved in criminal activity and someone gets killed, everyone involved is charged with murder.

            In egregious cases they even go after people for murder when the police shoot and kill someone.

            Now we have a couple of cases where people are committing criminal acts of riot and mayhem, with people getting killed as a result. It is too early to comment on this case, but in prior cases none of the rioters have been charged.

            Absent the current political context, I really can't see a prosecutor passing on the opportunity to charge a bunch of fellow gang members who are attacking a person en mass. They kind of live for that sort of thing.

            1. "Absent the current political context, I really can’t see a prosecutor passing on the opportunity to charge a bunch of fellow gang members who are attacking a person en mass..."

              Yet, the political context is what it is. And the DAs and cops are sitting on their hands. Really eye opening, isn't it?

    2. If you watch these videos, it is impossible to label the people on either side "protesters", but particularly the BLM/Antifa crowd on the street.

      They are wearing helmets and carrying clubs as they approach the vehicles of people who support Trump. Some are wearing body armor of various sorts.

      If you call those people "peaceful protesters", you are simply a liar.

      The Trump supporters could also be rightly criticized - although the complete absence of police protection for motorists on a public street seems to vindicate their self-protective measures at least to some degree. We don't see the gauntlet they have been running prior to the video beginning, but we can imagine what it looked like.

      Assholes, all around.... but the mayor who intentionally does not provide adequate policing bears the major chunk of the culpability in my opinion. If you very deliberately chose to avoid protecting your citizens against the actions of one political faction bent on mayhem while aggressively attacking those who would oppose that mayhem, I say you get the full measure of responsibility.

  31. On the other comment thread this weekend, one of our right-leaning commenters asked why Gaige Grosskreutz hasn’t been arrested yet. I was wondering what he is was referring to, so I did some digging.

    Several alt-right news sources are repeating the story that Gaige Grosskreutz has a burglary arrest on his record, including a screen capture of the arrest record. I’ve even seen James Woods repeating the news that Grosskreutz has a history of burglary.

    Only problem is that the Gaige P. Grosskreutz in the 2013 arrest record is 43 years old. The Gaige Grosskreutz who was shot by Kyle Rittenhouse is 26 years old. Stellar fact checking by the alt-right.

    Maybe there is some grain of truth. With the difference in ages, the guy with the burglary record could be the father of the guy who was shot.

    1. There is a more recent arrest record for
      the 26-year-old Grosskreutz, but it doesn’t say what he was arrested for, and the alt-right sources don’t list any charge or conviction records.

      Linking to the sources is blocked, but go to an alt-right site called national (remove the space between national and file).

      1. You're going to be executed

        1. Just a humble prediction

        2. What the heck does that mean, Nardz?

          1. Are you unaware of the meaning of words?

            You've taken sides in a civil war. I predict you'll do so with the wrong person and be dealt with accordingly.

            1. Just want to be clear on whether you are personally threatening me.

              Also, there is no civil war and I haven’t taken sides. I am just a libertarian calling out alg-righters in this comment section when they try to get away with repeating half-truths.

              1. The half truths that are completely accurate?

                Your communist buddy is barred from firearm possession. Further, he assaulted Rittenhouse with the deadly weapon (as cyto notes) he was prohibited from possessing.

                And how the fuck do you personally threaten someone on an anonymous comment section?

                1. "Your communist buddy..."

                  OK, that's not a half-truth. That's just purely made up from nothing.

                  "And how the fuck do you personally threaten someone on an anonymous comment section?"

                  I dunno, but I've seen people do it, in the heat of online anger. But you clarified that you weren't, so that's good.

        1. Convoluting matters are threads on social media claiming Grosskreutz was a previously convicted felon (intoxication & unlawful possession of a gun) who was not allowed to be in possession of a weapon along with posts that the volunteer was an activist with left wing group, People’s Revolution Movement.

          1. Typed in "gaige grosskreutz arrest" into duckduckgo.
            It took me less than 30 seconds.

            White knight's MO is to find the information he wants to support his narrative, then come post ot here like it's the only information available - hoping that no one will put in the slight effort required to check his lies.
            He'll then feign innocence through ignorance, or ask that you ignore prior posts anyone can clearly see on the page.

            Fuck off and die, Mike laursen

            1. he doesn't find information, he seeks put what media matters and vox are saying.

              See his attempted defense of 17 year ilds not able to open carry. He quadrupled down on his own ignorance because Vox told him otherwise.

              1. Want to discuss it now, JesseAz. I had time on Friday night to research Wisconsin law.

                a) He could not have possibly had a concealed carry permit because Illinois will not allow a 17-year-old to have one.
                b) 17 year olds are not allowed to open carry a gun in Wisconsin, unless hunting.
                c) He wasn't hunting.

                That's the total argument against him, according to Illinois and Wisconsin law.

                Meanwhile, you were totally bluffing. You have never researched it yourself.

        2. You linked to another tweet that links to an arrest record for a 43-year-old Gaige P. Grosskreutz. I do see now that the screenshot of the arrest record lists his birth year as both 1993 (which would be the right person) and 1969 (which would not be the right person), so it's possible either the 1993 or the age 43 is a data entry error.

          1. The correct one for the assailant Grosskreutz is the first one - possession while intoxicated - in Milwaukee County.
            The other one for burglary seems to be a different person, and is in LaCrosse County

            1. Then why are all kinds of right wing people repeating that Grosskreutz has a burglary record?

              1. Of we can prove a right winger was wrong on the internet you can finally convict rittenhouse.

                God you're pathetic.

      2. So the only time you do research is to defend a left wing aggressor so you can convict a 17 year old kid because likes the police?

    2. Could have also been arrested for assault with a deadly weapon.

      This is why our mayors and attorney generals are playing a very dangerous game.

      By swearing to eschew prosecution of rioters and looters and ordering their teams to immediately release anyone arrested for such crimes, they are signalling that "you are on your own" to people and property owners in the area. Mayors removing police protection do the same thing.

      That makes some 17 year old kid think he is doing the right thing by stepping in to protect people and property. He thinks he is protecting BLM from being besmirched by rioters who muddy the message. He thinks he is a hero.

      So does Grosskreutz. He is doing what he thinks is right. He brought a handgun to defend peaceful protesters from Nazis. When he saw a Nazi toting a machine gun through the streets, attacking random people, he heroically jumped into action.

      Both guys were being heroes. And the world is a worse place now because of it.

      And nobody wants to place blame where it belongs. All of these prosecutors who have said criminals will not be held accountable are to blame. All of these mayors who remove police protection during a riot are to blame. All of these media outlets who proclaim rioters to be victims of slander are to blame. All of these affiliated groups who help plan and support these "acts of civil unrest" are to blame.

      The people who are most harmed by this - the people who got shot or did the shooting - are the inevitable result of these actions. Not just inevitable, if you actually bother to listen to what they are saying, you can clearly see that this is the intended result. They want a few eggs broken in the making of this omelet. They need martyrs and villains.

      1. Grosskreutz has no claim to self defense.
        He initially "surrenders" and is only shot when he then levels his gun at Rittenhouse.
        He should be arrested, tried, and imprisoned.
        Or we play by the Left's rules, and he gets dealt with unofficially

        1. Is leveling a gun at someone who just shot two people a criminal act? Maybe we could let a court decide that.

          1. Sure.
            Let Grosskreutz have his day in court.
            But you don't get to selectively apply the law to persecute conservatives and give a free pass to totalitarian leftists.

            1. I would never "selectively apply the law to persecute conservatives". I'm the person who was arguing for waiting to find out more about the Kyle Rittenhouse story before jumping to any conclusions about what happened:


              "Personally, I try never to form an opinion of sensational events like this until at least a week after the event happened. I’ve seen too many news stories where the initial reporting is way off, and new details keep trickling in."

              1. Right - then you kept prevaricating even after clear videos had been posted throughout the thread

                1. It's a prevarication that the videos are clear.

                  Let's say that a trial were being held and there were no more evidence than those shaky videos. Can you say that it would be enough evidence to determine Kyle Rittenhouse's guilt or innocence on various charges, with no other context nor evidence?

                    1. Yes, he is way, way, way over into the "reasonable doubt" territory with a claim of self defense on the three shootings as is caught on video. In all three cases he is being attacked by multiple people and shoots in self defense. In all three cases he attempts to flee and is attacked and pursued.

                      The only missing evidence is "what happened before the first shooting, when people are chasing him?"

                      He may also have committed other crimes related to weapons, etc.

                      But the charge of murder 1 stands almost zero chance. A single run through the video clearly presents enough reasonable doubt that absent political biases this case would never survive a directed verdict of not guilty. There is no way the government can prove murder 1 beyond a reasonable doubt. No honest judge could allow this to even go to a jury. It is unequivocal.

                      The kid might be a douche or a dipshit for a thousand reasons, but he was being attacked by a mob and clearly had reason to fear for his life. That takes murder 1 off the table completely. The prosecutor should lose his job for bringing these charges before the crime scene was even cleared. It is a clear abdication of his responsibility and oath of office.

                      I doubt he will actually take these charges to court. That would be suicide. More likely, he'll either go for a plea deal or he'll take lesser charges like reckless endangerment and negligent homicide. He might be able to make something like that stick - under the theory that bringing a gun into a riot is an inherently dangerous thing to do. I don't know where that case leads, but at least it isn't directly in opposition to the facts.

                    2. The prosecutor should be sued, and brought up on any applicable charges possible.
                      Will Reason write an article advocating either?
                      Failing that, this is why vigilante justice is looking more and more like the only appropriate reaction left

                    3. "Failing that, this is why vigilante justice is looking more and more like the only appropriate reaction left."

                      The thing about vigilantes: they get it wrong. A lot. And they rapidly start becoming uninterested in getting it right.

                      God Damn to Hell the civil authorities in Portland and elsewhere, whose purposeful abdication of their duties have made violence like this inevitable.

                    4. Vigilantes are not ideal.
                      But the state has abdicated its duty at the least, and is waging an active pogrom in a very real sense

                  1. "It’s a prevarication that the videos are clear."

                    Who made you the judge of what is clear?

              2. In the same thread where you said he threw his life away you dishonest fuck?

                1. Here's what I actually said:


                  "Sad that two people are dead and some 17-year-old kid has probably thrown away his life for years of prison."

                  You can try to twist what I said, but I was expressing sympathy for the kid. And even used the word "probably" in regard to his throwing away his life, to try to convey that I was not rushing to judgement.

      2. Well said

      3. Don't disagree with anything you wrote.

        It is, of course, awful that two people were killed and another severely injured, but, as a father, I feel bad for Kyle Rittenhouse. He's just a mixed-up 17-year-old kid (like most 17-year-old boys), who may well be facing years in prison because he thought he was being a hero.

        It is sickening all of the people who want to make him a hero, without acknowledging the role they and their idealogical war had in ruining his life and two others.

        1. Why is it awful that those two people were killed?

          1. It is awful that anyone got killed because of an attempt to gin up racial animus in order to benefit democrat politicians come election time.

            Their individual culpability is lesser than the culpability of the people who put this in motion, IMHO. Sure, they were bad guys doing bad things.

            But other people worked hard to put them in position to do those bad things. And those people were not ignorant of the risks. In fact, they were counting on it.

            1. I don't think it is awful at all that those two people are dead, but I wholeheartedly agree with everything you said.

              BTW, leftists on Twitter almost universally say that the assassination of a man for his political beliefs is either the exact same as or okay because of Kyle Rittenhouse.

              We must cancel leftism

          2. You are really asking why it is awful that people got killed? First of all, because they are people.

  32. Every group is looking for their Horst Wessel.

    1. Ok, I admit it. I had to google that one.

      1. It took me awhile to figure out why the Nazis were so concerned about this Horst guy lying. Then again, I was seven when I first read the name.

    2. There's that typical "both sides" bullshit

      1. creech was making an observation that was even more general than "both sides".

        "The religious character of the Bolshevik and Nazi revolutions is generally recognized. The hammer and sickle and the swastika are in a class with the cross. The ceremonial of their parades is as the ceremonial of a religious procession. The have articles of faith, saints, martyrs and holy sepulchers."
        -- Eric Hoffer, The True Believer, p. 19

        1. "creech was"

          There's something hilariously arrogant about you thinking you get to interpret and explain OTHER PEOPLE'S POSTS you fucking troll.

          1. Commenters here do it all the time.

            1. Yes you are a commenter here.

        2. So what's the swastika here?

          1. Not necessarily any swastika or other symbol, but there have been efforts to create heroes and martyrs lately, from more left and right political groups.

            1. So you're drawing an equivalence between Jacob Blake and Kyle Rittenhouse...

              1. Yes. There are people trying to make heroes/martyrs out of both.

  33. Jfc

    BREAKING: Man attempted to rape a 25-year-old at 11 Saturday on the 63/Lexington St Q platform in Manhattan—bystanders recorded—suspect ran away. Details on #TODAYinNewYork at 9:30a.

    1. from that twitter thread:

      This in the same weekend that saw all of the major news outlets deciding that the main takeaway from the Republican National Convention was that Trump and his wife spoke from outside the White House and people didn't wear masks while sitting every other chair.

      I really enjoyed NBC's coverage, because they went directly from a story where they all decried the irresponsibility of not wearing masks outside at the Trump speech to a story about the BLM march in DC. The first thing their reporter said was that it was "Inspirational to see so many people bravely coming out to support BLM in the face of this dangerous pandemic".

      I mean, you can't even parody these people.

    2. Third World Rules. Don't interfere, don't call the cops, don't render aid. Do record everything for your social media. 'Whirrrrlstarrr!!!' shrieking optional.

      Sad thing is if you had witnessed that and shot the motherfucker (maybe literally) in the face, New York City would be far more interested in prosecuting the hell out of you than Mr. Subway Rapist.

      Fuck that place.

  34. Why not call in Vargerine? They're liable to sell to some who'd think it was a vagina lube or boner supplement.

  35. So I can call my artificially carbonated wine made from Welch's grape juice champagne now?

    1. Is 'butter' protected by a trademark, mark of agricultural origin, or other legally protected term, like Champagne now is in this country?

      1. Well allegedly the butter violated state and federal "standards of identity" for butter.

        1. Like peanut butter or nut butters do... If government were consistent and coherent, it wouldn't be government.

          I don't mind the AOC system, in as much as it's a geographic identifier for consumers. 'Vegan butter' doesn't conflict with that. Ridiculous level of .Gov meddling.

  36. So looks like a Trump Supporter or "patriot prayer' member (whatever those guys are) was shot execution-style in downtown Portland. My local media used a fuck-ton of passive-voice to describe the incident.

    1. Yeah. The white dipshit has been equivocating about it a bit upthread.

      I'm sure the politically motivated violence will stop there...

      1. You are referring to me, right? What equivocation did I do?

        I said I disagree that whatever is being said in the video is clear. That isn't equivocating, that is disagreeing.

      2. Shots were fired, people were killed-- not sure if it was related to the protests. Literally, that was summary of my local media story.

      3. PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — One person was shot and killed late Saturday in Portland, Oregon, as a large caravan of President Donald Trump supporters and Black Lives Matter protesters clashed in the streets, police said.

        It wasn’t clear if the shooting was linked to fights that broke out as a caravan of about 600 vehicles was confronted by protesters in the city’s downtown.

        An Associated Press freelance photographer heard three gunshots and then observed police medics working on the body of the victim, who appeared to be a white man. The freelancer said the man was wearing a hat bearing the insignia of Patriot Prayer, a right-wing group whose members have frequently clashed with protesters in Portland in the past.

        I'm going to start a google search of how often the media refers to protesters as "left wing". I'm guessing outside of Fox and Breitbart, the mentions will be few and far between.

        The caravan marked the third Saturday in a row that Trump supporters have rallied in the city.

        The third saturday in a row. The THIRD in a ROW! When will the violence end?

        Videos from the scene showed sporadic fighting, as well as Trump supporters firing paintball pellets at opponents and using bear spray as counter-protesters threw things at the Trump caravan.

        Counter-protesters (who aren't Bernie Supporters, or BLM supporters, or Biden supporters-- we want to keep this as neutral as possible) threw "things" at the Trump Caravan. The Trump Caravan undoubtedly appearing in the journal's "style guide" I'm sure.

        Fuck it. I'm voting for Trump.

        1. I guess one of the "things" the 'counter protesters' threw at the Trump Caravan was a 9mm bullet out the end of a metal object.

          And, may I ask, honestly who are the 'counter' protesters in this situation? There has been some commotion on the streets of Portland for what, 90 days now? And this is the THIRD SATURDAY IN A ROW for the Trump Caravan(tm). And the people who've been on the streets for 90 days straight are the 'counter protesters'? What the fuck is going on in Journalisming?

  37. 4Chan has apparently identified the Portland shooter, and their evidence seems to be pretty compelling:

    1. Style guide corrections to your comment:

      4Chan = Far Right Message Board
      Portland shooter = Portland Peaceful Demonstrator
      Evidence = unverified hot take

  38. Antifa has doxxed my entire family.

    This guy is the person an antifa pedophile stabbed a couple weeks ago


      Apparently they're going after anyone pro Trump who showed up in Portland

      1. "Kyle Rittenhouse did nothing wrong" gets you suspended though

        1. Here is somone literally saying, "Kyle Rittenhouse did nothing wrong." Not suspended:

          1. Wow.

            Just breathtaking stupidy from white knight

            1. Refuted your claim that it gets you suspended. There are lots of other examples of people who said those words who are not suspended.

              1. "Refuted your claim that it gets you suspended"

                He didn't say it gets everyone suspended.

                So no, technically because it did get one person suspended, you refuted nothing.

                1. Who was suspended for putting those words on Twitter?

                  1. I accept your admssion that you were wrong.

                    1. I was wrong.



                    Gateway Pundit reporter Cassandra Fairbanks’ Twitter account was suspended earlier today, for tweeting “Kyle Rittenhouse did nothing wrong.” Twitter claims that this statement is “glorifying violence.”

                    Twitter sent her a screenahot of her tweet which said only “Kyle Rittenhouse did nothing wrong.”

                    They told her it was why she was suspended.

                    Begin damage control.

        2. Did the person who did the doxxing do it on Twitter?

  39. Vegan butter is otherwise known as margarine. Unless you think soybean oil comes from slaughtering helpless soybeans, those poor innocent soybeans whose ancestors used to roam the prairies in innumerable herds until the white man came along and began slaughtering them for their pelts.

    1. If you can get milk from a soybean, biology would indicate that it must be a mammal.

      The soybeans don't have it all that bad though. They're far better off than the mighty Nauga which was apparently hunted to extinction at some point in the 1970s when the use of their hides was apparently replaced by vinyl.

  40. I'm not particularly a fan of about half of the vegans that I personally know. Half are great & the other half are pretty hateful & militant minded, but even with my distaste from knowing a dozen that are just kooky & borderline mean, I'd have to stand firmly with them on this issue.
    We don't need more government involvement in our food supply. If they want to label a vegan friendly butter tasting product "Vegan Butter" them let them call it "vegan butter". It sounds way better & it will make it a heck of a lot easier for them to search for it when trying to purchase it. Or for that matter, even non-vegans that want to buy it too. I didn't see anywhere where they wanted to deceitfully label it as just butter. If we can label fruit butter with the word "butter", then there's nothing wrong with having a product called vegan butter. The majority of the people using this will be vegans who are well aware of what it is.
    Here's a thought, how about making regular butter "Dairy Butter" then since we wouldn't want anyone to get real butter & Butterfingers confused.
    The point is, this is just more stupid government overreaching. We don't need the government interfering & trying to think for us on this matter. It will still have the ingredients listed on it so people will know what's in it and if there are any potential allergens as well. That's enough to confirm that it's either real butter, vegan butter, fruit butter, butterfingers, nutter butters, etc as if there would be any real confusion anyhow.

  41. I've made $84,000 so far this year working and I've made such great money. It's really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I've been doing HERE? Read More

  42. Google easily work and google pays me every hour and every week just $5K to $8K for doing online work from home. I am a universty student and I work n my part time just 2 to 3 hours a day easily from home. Now every one can earn extra cash for doing online home system and make a good life by just open this website and follow instructions on this page…Follow my page.

  43. All these vegans want fake butter, fake meat. They can't admit the truth. Animal products are what they really desire.
    Mmmmm, meat. Tasty meat.

    1. We've always had vegan butter, it's margarine.

      Or oleo.

      But, those aren't 'healthy' so rather than trying to educate people that the new and improved hardened vegetable oil product is better (or at least not know to be bad) they would rather fool the rubes with a slick marketing tool.

      Personally I would say the Problem with Miyoko's is their use of 'creamery' in their name. Which does tend to indicate the use of dairy products. Which cannot be vegan. So their entire product line is oxymoronic contradiction, making these people hucksters of the worst sort, and their customers idiots of the worst sort.

      1. Meet the new butter, same as the old margarine.

  44. Assuming there isn't a single confused consumer among the population of CA seems like a hell of a leap. This is a state where there are large numbers of anti-vax, anti-GMO, anti-RoundUp, and anti-nuclear power activists who see themselves as believers in science (and some number of whom are also convinced that the anti-vax movement is unique to the religious right).

    CA is the state where levying additional taxes on the 0.1% who already account for over 30% of total revenues collected can be plausibly sold as a "plan to make more Californians pay their fair share", and unconstitutional nonsense like Newsom's Prop 63 can pass with over 60% support. I can almost guarantee that there are hundreds of people in the state who think that "vegan butter" is made from milk from cows that don't eat meat; the good news for businesses is that those people are also too clueless to know why that would make a difference, or what

    1. The court doesn't assume there isn't a single confused consumer. It's the government's burden to prove that consumers are confused in order to justify a restriction on speech. It has to be objectively misleading, which requires more than proof of a single confused consumer.

  45. "American shoppers aren't idiots." I don't know whether it's fair or not to make the use of "Vegan Butter" illegal (although I'm pretty sure that, depending on how its done, it could be liable to civil action). But after watching many hours of various products advertised for health care "that are not designed to treat any disease or condition" by telling people how well it will support this or that system, I can attest just the obvious. If you don't believe it, I would recommend applying vegan butter directly to forehead.

  46. The difference between this and other non-dairy products called "butter" is that this stuff is intended to be used as a substitute for dairy butter.

    Put the word "Vegetarian" in big, bold letters the same size as "butter," and boldly label it as "a non-dairy spread," and I think anyone should be able to figure it out.

    1. And that's one problem with Linnekin's argument: In the picture of the package he links, "vegan" is in smaller print than "butter". My dyslexic brother-in-law who won't wear bifocals might only see "butter". Someone who wanted to avoid any chance of deception would give "vegan" the same size, font, and color as "butter", and place it so it clearly goes with "butter" rather than with the previous words. _This_ packaging is designed to convey "blah, blah, blah BUTTER" to people in a hurry, the visually impaired, and poor readers.

      And the second thing is that they avoid labeling it as "margarine" by diluting it with non-fats. That also makes it lower fat than butter, which is not what I would expect from "vegan butter". It's by far not the most deceptive packaging I've seen in big-box stores, but it's not entirely honest.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.