Friday, December 08, 2006
Government and its Place in Society
--story--
"NEW YORK (AP) - The Board of Health voted Tuesday to make New York the nation's first city to ban artery-clogging artificial trans fats at restaurants - from the corner pizzeria to high-end bakeries."
What is this? This is not the purpose of our government! The purpose of our government is to defend the people's life, liberty, and property, and to ensure that no one person does anything that impairs another person's life, liberty, and property. They are not there to tell us what we can and cannot eat!
This is just nonsense. Our government has become overly corrupt, overly bloated, and overly powerful. For decades, the government has been making laws on what the people can't do. But there hasn't been any laws on what the government can't do since the Constitution days. What happened to the concerns our founding fathers had over a government with too much power? Even the Federalists would be frowning at how things are going on nowadays. This is not a government of the people, by the people, and for the people anymore! It's a government of the government, by the government, and for the government. It's obvious that they think they are smarter than us, and therefore justified in controlling our lives, even up to what we eat. It is not right that the government has so much more power than the people. The power to take away whatever rights from the people that they want, and give whatever rights to themselves that they want.
If you didn't know, the Bill of Rights is not a document that gives rights to people, but restricts the rights of the government. So if the Constitution is so successful because of that, then perhaps we should see more laws being made that restrict the rights of the government like the Constitution does. We do not need to restrict the rights of the people beyond crimes such as theft and murder. What the government is doing is fabricating crimes. They are prosecuting those who need not be prosecuted, and therefore, not being able to focus on the real criminals! The government needs to uphold their job. They need to prosecute those who are violating the liberties of other people, not pursue victimless crimes. But also, they must look to themselves and ask if what they themselves are doing is right.
Maybe it's the government that is violating the people's life, liberty, and property. And they use their position of power to evade any sort of accountability for their actions.
Here's a story to help illustrate that.
--story--
"Deputy Dresses As Elf To Catch Speeders
150 Drivers Ticketed In About 2 Hours"
This is just a sick example of cops just being complete a-holes and trying to hassle you instead of protect you. Think of how many people could be saved by the police if they weren't spending so much time making your life miserable? The fact is, the police are failing in their task of protecting the people because they are too busy with things like the "War on Drugs" and other victimless crimes. But there is no accountability for a failure to do what we the people have hired the government to do.
And what can the people do about it? What? Not too much. It is because the people have been looked at as the problem in society, and the government as the solution, not the other way around. Therefore, thousands of laws are made to make the people accountable for their actions, and little to none have been made to make the government accountable for their actions. If it is true that the government works for us, then why can't we the people tell the government what we need them for? And if they don't meet our expectations, fire them!
I am just sick and tired of the government forgetting what it is there for. They are there to protect your rights to life, liberty, and property. Not to take those rights away.
"NEW YORK (AP) - The Board of Health voted Tuesday to make New York the nation's first city to ban artery-clogging artificial trans fats at restaurants - from the corner pizzeria to high-end bakeries."
What is this? This is not the purpose of our government! The purpose of our government is to defend the people's life, liberty, and property, and to ensure that no one person does anything that impairs another person's life, liberty, and property. They are not there to tell us what we can and cannot eat!
This is just nonsense. Our government has become overly corrupt, overly bloated, and overly powerful. For decades, the government has been making laws on what the people can't do. But there hasn't been any laws on what the government can't do since the Constitution days. What happened to the concerns our founding fathers had over a government with too much power? Even the Federalists would be frowning at how things are going on nowadays. This is not a government of the people, by the people, and for the people anymore! It's a government of the government, by the government, and for the government. It's obvious that they think they are smarter than us, and therefore justified in controlling our lives, even up to what we eat. It is not right that the government has so much more power than the people. The power to take away whatever rights from the people that they want, and give whatever rights to themselves that they want.
If you didn't know, the Bill of Rights is not a document that gives rights to people, but restricts the rights of the government. So if the Constitution is so successful because of that, then perhaps we should see more laws being made that restrict the rights of the government like the Constitution does. We do not need to restrict the rights of the people beyond crimes such as theft and murder. What the government is doing is fabricating crimes. They are prosecuting those who need not be prosecuted, and therefore, not being able to focus on the real criminals! The government needs to uphold their job. They need to prosecute those who are violating the liberties of other people, not pursue victimless crimes. But also, they must look to themselves and ask if what they themselves are doing is right.
Maybe it's the government that is violating the people's life, liberty, and property. And they use their position of power to evade any sort of accountability for their actions.
Here's a story to help illustrate that.
--story--
"Deputy Dresses As Elf To Catch Speeders
150 Drivers Ticketed In About 2 Hours"
This is just a sick example of cops just being complete a-holes and trying to hassle you instead of protect you. Think of how many people could be saved by the police if they weren't spending so much time making your life miserable? The fact is, the police are failing in their task of protecting the people because they are too busy with things like the "War on Drugs" and other victimless crimes. But there is no accountability for a failure to do what we the people have hired the government to do.
And what can the people do about it? What? Not too much. It is because the people have been looked at as the problem in society, and the government as the solution, not the other way around. Therefore, thousands of laws are made to make the people accountable for their actions, and little to none have been made to make the government accountable for their actions. If it is true that the government works for us, then why can't we the people tell the government what we need them for? And if they don't meet our expectations, fire them!
I am just sick and tired of the government forgetting what it is there for. They are there to protect your rights to life, liberty, and property. Not to take those rights away.
# posted by Cody O'Connor @ 12/08/2006 06:23:00 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
I agree with you, for the most part. I do, however, think that the police have every right to catch people who are speeding, as it is against the law. The article, as far as I could tell ,siad that only one officer is on patrol as an elf, not the entire police force or anything. It shouldn't really matter how they go about it--if you are doing something that is against the law and you get caught, it's your fault. I have always been annoyed with people who get mad at the police when they get in trouble...don't break the law and maybe that won't happen...
But yeah, I agree with most of what you're saying. I had a long conversation with someone on a road trip over the summer about the topic of the government legislating what resaurants are able to serve, and I totalyl diagree with that. I don't even think restaurants should feel obligated to regulate what they serve as far as nutrition goes...as long as they provide nutrition information about their food, people should be smart enough to figure it out on their own.
But yeah, I agree with most of what you're saying. I had a long conversation with someone on a road trip over the summer about the topic of the government legislating what resaurants are able to serve, and I totalyl diagree with that. I don't even think restaurants should feel obligated to regulate what they serve as far as nutrition goes...as long as they provide nutrition information about their food, people should be smart enough to figure it out on their own.
NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg (a Republican) said, "Nobody wants to take away your french fries and hamburgers -- I love those things, too. But if you can make them with something that is less damaging to your health, we should do that".
New York's move to ban trans fats has mostly been applauded by health and medical groups... (12/5/2006. NYC Health Board Votes to Ban Trans Fats)
The ban was passed unanimously by the New York City Board of Health.
Cody O. Said... What is this? This is not the purpose of our government!
The purpose of the Board of Health ISN'T to regulate health related issues?? I suppose you'd shut down the FDA if it were up to you. This law is an effort to see that people have the option of eating healthier when patronizing a restaurant. Clearly the law is intended to defend the people's life (by defending their health) -- which, according to YOUR OWN POST, is one of the purposes of the government!
Maybe this law goes a bit too far, but -- regardless of your claims otherwise -- the board of health most certainly does have the right to pass such laws.
Cody O. Said... We do not need to restrict the rights of the people beyond crimes such as theft and murder.
What a completely ridiculous thing to say. Murder is a no-no, but assault is OK?
What about child labor laws? You're saying that if someone wants to send their kid to work 12 hours a day it's perfectly OK -- after all it is THEIR kid. And what about workplace saftey laws? Do you think that an unsafe working environment is OK, since you're free to reject the job?
Do you think we should do away with agencies like the Department of Transportation, the Department of Education, the EPA, the FDA, and the FAA?
New York's move to ban trans fats has mostly been applauded by health and medical groups... (12/5/2006. NYC Health Board Votes to Ban Trans Fats)
The ban was passed unanimously by the New York City Board of Health.
Cody O. Said... What is this? This is not the purpose of our government!
The purpose of the Board of Health ISN'T to regulate health related issues?? I suppose you'd shut down the FDA if it were up to you. This law is an effort to see that people have the option of eating healthier when patronizing a restaurant. Clearly the law is intended to defend the people's life (by defending their health) -- which, according to YOUR OWN POST, is one of the purposes of the government!
Maybe this law goes a bit too far, but -- regardless of your claims otherwise -- the board of health most certainly does have the right to pass such laws.
Cody O. Said... We do not need to restrict the rights of the people beyond crimes such as theft and murder.
What a completely ridiculous thing to say. Murder is a no-no, but assault is OK?
What about child labor laws? You're saying that if someone wants to send their kid to work 12 hours a day it's perfectly OK -- after all it is THEIR kid. And what about workplace saftey laws? Do you think that an unsafe working environment is OK, since you're free to reject the job?
Do you think we should do away with agencies like the Department of Transportation, the Department of Education, the EPA, the FDA, and the FAA?
allisoni said...
"if you are doing something that is against the law and you get caught, it's your fault. I have always been annoyed with people who get mad at the police when they get in trouble...don't break the law and maybe that won't happen..."
Law or not, my point is that cops should be defending people from murderers, not speeders. That's how you save lives, otherwise you are just hassling people and it's completely unneccesary.
Dervish said...
"The purpose of the Board of Health ISN'T to regulate health related issues?? I suppose you'd shut down the FDA if it were up to you."
Yes. I'd shut down any program that intruded upon the free market. Any program that did anything beyond protect the peoples life, liberty, and property.
"This law is an effort to see that people have the option of eating healthier when patronizing a restaurant."
Option? It's their only option now!
"Clearly the law is intended to defend the people's life (by defending their health) -- which, according to YOUR OWN POST, is one of the purposes of the government!"
No, you're misunderstanding my principles. Voluntary choices like eating unhealthy food should be able to be made without government intervention. To do so would be to restrict ones liberty, not protect ones life. Protecting ones life would be to keep dangerous people off the street.
To do anything unhealthy to yourself, is your own choice, because it's your own life and you can treat it however you please. What is wrong though, is for someone else to initiate force on another that puts them in harm against their will.
"if you are doing something that is against the law and you get caught, it's your fault. I have always been annoyed with people who get mad at the police when they get in trouble...don't break the law and maybe that won't happen..."
Law or not, my point is that cops should be defending people from murderers, not speeders. That's how you save lives, otherwise you are just hassling people and it's completely unneccesary.
Dervish said...
"The purpose of the Board of Health ISN'T to regulate health related issues?? I suppose you'd shut down the FDA if it were up to you."
Yes. I'd shut down any program that intruded upon the free market. Any program that did anything beyond protect the peoples life, liberty, and property.
"This law is an effort to see that people have the option of eating healthier when patronizing a restaurant."
Option? It's their only option now!
"Clearly the law is intended to defend the people's life (by defending their health) -- which, according to YOUR OWN POST, is one of the purposes of the government!"
No, you're misunderstanding my principles. Voluntary choices like eating unhealthy food should be able to be made without government intervention. To do so would be to restrict ones liberty, not protect ones life. Protecting ones life would be to keep dangerous people off the street.
To do anything unhealthy to yourself, is your own choice, because it's your own life and you can treat it however you please. What is wrong though, is for someone else to initiate force on another that puts them in harm against their will.
Last time I checked, police weeren't ignoring the murderers in order to catch people speeidng. There is a large amount of crimes with a large renage of severity and it's the police force's job to cover all of them. Getting caught for something minor does not mean the police are "wasting their time." It's their job.
Allosoni: I know what you mean, but the police need to be in uniform or in a police car. If they are not, they need permission to do so. I highly doubt this guy had permission to be in an elf suit, don't you? So while I believe, as you do, that police have the right to stop you when you're speeding (and who doesn't?) they need to do it in uniform, or with permission to be in plainclothes.
Dervish: While the Board of Health's job is as you say to regulate health issues, it's more about warning people about potential dangers and tracking things like bad drugs. Pizza and burgers aren't like that. They're food, which, if you eat in moderation, will not hurt you. Plus, the government has no right to restrict a private business. That's why tobacco companies never lost a lawsuit, because, while cigarettes are dangerous and deadly, people have a right to smoke them without the government telling them not to.
Oh, by the way, I remember you earlier saying that Republicans were the party of big government, not Democrats as I claimed. You seemed to think, as I do incidentally, that big government is bad. Are you reversing that opinion now?
Dervish: While the Board of Health's job is as you say to regulate health issues, it's more about warning people about potential dangers and tracking things like bad drugs. Pizza and burgers aren't like that. They're food, which, if you eat in moderation, will not hurt you. Plus, the government has no right to restrict a private business. That's why tobacco companies never lost a lawsuit, because, while cigarettes are dangerous and deadly, people have a right to smoke them without the government telling them not to.
Oh, by the way, I remember you earlier saying that Republicans were the party of big government, not Democrats as I claimed. You seemed to think, as I do incidentally, that big government is bad. Are you reversing that opinion now?
# posted by 
: 12/10/2006 10:29 AM
: 12/10/2006 10:29 AM
Permission from who? The article says that it's a program being run but the sheriff's department. Who does the sheriff's department need to get permission from?
I was thinking the state. I'd have to imagine there would be state laws prohibiting this kind of thing. There usually are.
# posted by : 12/10/2006 1:12 PM
: 12/10/2006 1:12 PM
Cody O. Said... Law or not, my point is that cops should be defending people from murderers, not speeders. That's how you save lives, otherwise you are just hassling people and it's completely unneccesary.
The police stop speeders in an attempt to make the roadways safter for all drivers -- or are you unaware of how many people are killed each year in auto accidents? Are you suggesting that unsafe drivers have the right to kill safe drivers? Maybe your reasoning is that driving is unsafe, thus anybody who CHOOSES to drive is willingly accepting that risk?
Cody O. Said (in response to my claim that he would choose to shut down the FDA) Yes. I'd shut down any program that intruded upon the free market. Any program that did anything beyond protect the peoples life, liberty, and property.
People don't have the right to be protected from poisoning by contaminated food?! I suppose people have the right to eat beef contaminated with mad cow disease -- since mad cow disease contaminated beef is clearly labeled -- and people have the right to eat it if they so choose? No, wait a minute, that isn't right. Mad cow disease contaminated beef ISN'T labeled as being contaminated! That would be one of the dangers that the FDA protects us from -- the FDA that YOU would shut down.
A completely free market would be regulated by nothing but greed. Allowing hundreds (or thousands) of companies to behave like Enron doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Of course many companies would choose to conduct themselves ethically (if for no other reason than doing so would be conducive to them staying in business), but not all would. Go ahead and deny that. I'd like to see you try.
Cody O. Said... Option? It's their only option now!
Oh no! How terrible! People are being "forced" to eat healthier and they probably wouldn't even be aware of it except for this news story. This is a tragedy!
I did say that maybe the law went a little too far. The article mentioned that recipes would need to be reformulated -- which would cost money. Of course the board of health should avoid putting restaurants out of business which couldn't afford to make the change within the allotted time.
Cody O. Said... Voluntary choices like eating unhealthy food should be able to be made without government intervention.
They aren't restricting that. New Yorkers can eat all the unhealthy food they want. The law restricts what resturants can sell, NOT what people can eat.
The police stop speeders in an attempt to make the roadways safter for all drivers -- or are you unaware of how many people are killed each year in auto accidents? Are you suggesting that unsafe drivers have the right to kill safe drivers? Maybe your reasoning is that driving is unsafe, thus anybody who CHOOSES to drive is willingly accepting that risk?
Cody O. Said (in response to my claim that he would choose to shut down the FDA) Yes. I'd shut down any program that intruded upon the free market. Any program that did anything beyond protect the peoples life, liberty, and property.
People don't have the right to be protected from poisoning by contaminated food?! I suppose people have the right to eat beef contaminated with mad cow disease -- since mad cow disease contaminated beef is clearly labeled -- and people have the right to eat it if they so choose? No, wait a minute, that isn't right. Mad cow disease contaminated beef ISN'T labeled as being contaminated! That would be one of the dangers that the FDA protects us from -- the FDA that YOU would shut down.
A completely free market would be regulated by nothing but greed. Allowing hundreds (or thousands) of companies to behave like Enron doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Of course many companies would choose to conduct themselves ethically (if for no other reason than doing so would be conducive to them staying in business), but not all would. Go ahead and deny that. I'd like to see you try.
Cody O. Said... Option? It's their only option now!
Oh no! How terrible! People are being "forced" to eat healthier and they probably wouldn't even be aware of it except for this news story. This is a tragedy!
I did say that maybe the law went a little too far. The article mentioned that recipes would need to be reformulated -- which would cost money. Of course the board of health should avoid putting restaurants out of business which couldn't afford to make the change within the allotted time.
Cody O. Said... Voluntary choices like eating unhealthy food should be able to be made without government intervention.
They aren't restricting that. New Yorkers can eat all the unhealthy food they want. The law restricts what resturants can sell, NOT what people can eat.
Robert M. Said... I know what you mean, but the police need to be in uniform or in a police car. If they are not, they need permission to do so. I highly doubt this guy had permission to be in an elf suit, don't you?
According to who's rules do the police "need to be in uniform or in a police car"? Yours? Think again, the police department does not conduct itself according to YOUR rules. I highly suspect that this officer did have permission to be in an elf suit. Doesn't it make sense that the "permission" you speak of came from his superior officer?
Robert M. Said... While the Board of Health's job is as you say to regulate health issues, it's more about warning people about potential dangers and tracking things like bad drugs.
It has absolutely nothing to do with that. You're confusing a local board of health with the FDA.
Robert M. Said... Pizza and burgers aren't like that. They're food, which, if you eat in moderation, will not hurt you.
The law doesn't concern "pizza and burgers". It concerns artificial trans fats. As the (Republican) mayor pointed out "Nobody wants to take away your french fries and hamburgers -- I love those things, too. But if you can make them with something that is less damaging to your health, we should do that". You're disagreeing? You don't think they should substitute healthier alternatives? Even if they can? That doesn't sound logical to me.
Robert M. Said... Plus, the government has no right to restrict a private business. That's why tobacco companies never lost a lawsuit, because, while cigarettes are dangerous and deadly, people have a right to smoke them without the government telling them not to.
YES, the government has the right to restrict private businesses! Private businesses need a license to even operate. Also, that is why the health department is able to send inspectors to ensure businesses which sell food are up to code and OSHA is able to send inspectors to ensure businesses are providing a safe working environment.
As for your claim that tobacco companies have never lost a lawsuit -- what the hell are you talking about? Seriously, you're not that stupid, are you? Or do you think everybody else is so incredibly stupid that they would shallow that HUGE lie?
Robert M. said... I was thinking the state. I'd have to imagine there would be state laws prohibiting this kind of thing. There usually are.
I'd have to imagine that what you're imagining is wrong. Why is it that you most of your arugments involve what you "imagine" to be the truth? Why bother posting at all? Your imagination can't prove anyone wrong! Only facts can do that. Which would explain why you avoid them -- the person they usually prove wrong is YOU.
According to who's rules do the police "need to be in uniform or in a police car"? Yours? Think again, the police department does not conduct itself according to YOUR rules. I highly suspect that this officer did have permission to be in an elf suit. Doesn't it make sense that the "permission" you speak of came from his superior officer?
Robert M. Said... While the Board of Health's job is as you say to regulate health issues, it's more about warning people about potential dangers and tracking things like bad drugs.
It has absolutely nothing to do with that. You're confusing a local board of health with the FDA.
Robert M. Said... Pizza and burgers aren't like that. They're food, which, if you eat in moderation, will not hurt you.
The law doesn't concern "pizza and burgers". It concerns artificial trans fats. As the (Republican) mayor pointed out "Nobody wants to take away your french fries and hamburgers -- I love those things, too. But if you can make them with something that is less damaging to your health, we should do that". You're disagreeing? You don't think they should substitute healthier alternatives? Even if they can? That doesn't sound logical to me.
Robert M. Said... Plus, the government has no right to restrict a private business. That's why tobacco companies never lost a lawsuit, because, while cigarettes are dangerous and deadly, people have a right to smoke them without the government telling them not to.
YES, the government has the right to restrict private businesses! Private businesses need a license to even operate. Also, that is why the health department is able to send inspectors to ensure businesses which sell food are up to code and OSHA is able to send inspectors to ensure businesses are providing a safe working environment.
As for your claim that tobacco companies have never lost a lawsuit -- what the hell are you talking about? Seriously, you're not that stupid, are you? Or do you think everybody else is so incredibly stupid that they would shallow that HUGE lie?
Robert M. said... I was thinking the state. I'd have to imagine there would be state laws prohibiting this kind of thing. There usually are.
I'd have to imagine that what you're imagining is wrong. Why is it that you most of your arugments involve what you "imagine" to be the truth? Why bother posting at all? Your imagination can't prove anyone wrong! Only facts can do that. Which would explain why you avoid them -- the person they usually prove wrong is YOU.
Cody I agree with almost everything you have to say here.
The one thing I can't understand is how you can say catching people speeding and the war on drugs aren't important jobs of the police force.
Car crashes account for 400 times the number of people killed by international terrorism. (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=34352)
Car Crashes also account for an average of 42,116 deaths a year compared to the murder estimate being around 15,522.
(http://www.unitedjustice.com/death-statistics.html)
Then you have to realize that its common sense that most car accidents are caused by either high speeds or drunk driving, both of which can be controlled by law enforcement.
The other thing I have a problem with is the fact that you called the War on Drugs a victimless crime.
I don't know how you can say this when over half the crimes that happen in our country in some way have to do with drugs. For example Pharmaceutical robberies, here are idiots so addicted to drugs that they need to rob a Pharmacy,and scare the people in it, just to get their daily dose of oxi-cotton. To me that is ridiculous.
Another number for ya' 56 percent of inmates in state prisons used drugs the month before the crime they commited.(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/newsroom/2006/BJS06072.htm)
Take these numbers whatever way you want to, but their all real.
Thats all I got to say otherwise good post. Oh yeah want to switch secret santas with me I got Shaco Toco haha
The one thing I can't understand is how you can say catching people speeding and the war on drugs aren't important jobs of the police force.
Car crashes account for 400 times the number of people killed by international terrorism. (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=34352)
Car Crashes also account for an average of 42,116 deaths a year compared to the murder estimate being around 15,522.
(http://www.unitedjustice.com/death-statistics.html)
Then you have to realize that its common sense that most car accidents are caused by either high speeds or drunk driving, both of which can be controlled by law enforcement.
The other thing I have a problem with is the fact that you called the War on Drugs a victimless crime.
I don't know how you can say this when over half the crimes that happen in our country in some way have to do with drugs. For example Pharmaceutical robberies, here are idiots so addicted to drugs that they need to rob a Pharmacy,and scare the people in it, just to get their daily dose of oxi-cotton. To me that is ridiculous.
Another number for ya' 56 percent of inmates in state prisons used drugs the month before the crime they commited.(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/newsroom/2006/BJS06072.htm)
Take these numbers whatever way you want to, but their all real.
Thats all I got to say otherwise good post. Oh yeah want to switch secret santas with me I got Shaco Toco haha
# posted by : 12/11/2006 8:29 PM
: 12/11/2006 8:29 PM
Dervish, I'm not going to go point to point on this one because many of your points can be grouped into one basic arguement, same with IATP's.
My arguement is this. The government should not regulate what you can or cannot sell, as long as it only hurts the person who uses it. Fatty foods do not hurt people if eaten in moderation. It's like alchohal. They're not dangerous products unless you misuse them. So logically, what right does the governement have to tell me that I can't eat them? I'm not hurting anyone doing it after all. in otherwords, it's none of the government's buissness is it?
My arguement is this. The government should not regulate what you can or cannot sell, as long as it only hurts the person who uses it. Fatty foods do not hurt people if eaten in moderation. It's like alchohal. They're not dangerous products unless you misuse them. So logically, what right does the governement have to tell me that I can't eat them? I'm not hurting anyone doing it after all. in otherwords, it's none of the government's buissness is it?
# posted by : 12/12/2006 3:13 PM
: 12/12/2006 3:13 PM
Er, could you clarify that please? Why was it a bad example? Why do you disagree? I can't really accept your opinion, or debate it, if you don't back it up.
# posted by : 12/12/2006 4:09 PM
: 12/12/2006 4:09 PM
Because fatty foods don't impair your judgement and alchohol does. They have very different consequences.
Alchohal doesn't impair your judgement either if you drink in moderation. It's not like LSD or herion. Besides, so what? Doesn't that only prove my point, that if the government doesn't regulate that, why should they regulate food?
# posted by : 12/12/2006 5:37 PM
: 12/12/2006 5:37 PM
Robert M. said... Er, could you clarify that please? Why was it a bad example? Why do you disagree? I can't really accept your opinion, or debate it, if you don't back it up.
That's nice -- you make a bunch of ridiculous claims, then refuse to back them up. Next you accuse allisoni for (supposedly) not backing up her claims. Sounds a bit hypocritical to me.
Why throw out these ridiculous claims if, when it is pointed out how ridiculous they are, you refuse to explain yourself? I'll take your failure to stand by what you said earlier as an admission that you were just BSing. As ususal.
The government CAN and DOES regulate what is sold. You believing they should not doesn't change that fact. As for telling you what you can and can't eat -- The government doesn't do that.
By the way I have no clue what the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy has to do with the argument. Or the Illinois Assistive Technology Program. Or Internet Access and Training Programs. Or whatever the hell you were referring to.
Robert M. said... Doesn't that only prove my point, that if the government doesn't regulate that, why should they regulate food?
The government DOES regulate the sale of alcohol. You can't buy it, for instance.
That's nice -- you make a bunch of ridiculous claims, then refuse to back them up. Next you accuse allisoni for (supposedly) not backing up her claims. Sounds a bit hypocritical to me.
Why throw out these ridiculous claims if, when it is pointed out how ridiculous they are, you refuse to explain yourself? I'll take your failure to stand by what you said earlier as an admission that you were just BSing. As ususal.
The government CAN and DOES regulate what is sold. You believing they should not doesn't change that fact. As for telling you what you can and can't eat -- The government doesn't do that.
By the way I have no clue what the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy has to do with the argument. Or the Illinois Assistive Technology Program. Or Internet Access and Training Programs. Or whatever the hell you were referring to.
Robert M. said... Doesn't that only prove my point, that if the government doesn't regulate that, why should they regulate food?
The government DOES regulate the sale of alcohol. You can't buy it, for instance.
That's nice -- you make a bunch of ridiculous claims, then refuse to back them up. Next you accuse allisoni for (supposedly) not backing up her claims. Sounds a bit hypocritical to me.
Dervish, there's a huge difference between expressing an opinion clearly and effectively and writing a two sentence rebuttal, and I think we all know it.
Why throw out these ridiculous claims if, when it is pointed out how ridiculous they are, you refuse to explain yourself? I'll take your failure to stand by what you said earlier as an admission that you were just BSing. As ususal.
I'm not really sure what claims you're referring to that I'm not explaining. I've expressed my opinion on this issue quite clearly I believe.
The government CAN and DOES regulate what is sold. You believing they should not doesn't change that fact. As for telling you what you can and can't eat -- The government doesn't do that.
I never implied that they didn't. I said quite clearly, they should not be telling me or anyone else what to eat. Why would I try to say they aren't doing that when the fact that they are is exactly what I'm debating about? In fact you are the one saying that they don't regulate what we can eat when, in fact, that's exactly what this article is about; the fact that the government is banning trans-fat in New York.
By the way I have no clue what the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy has to do with the argument. Or the Illinois Assistive Technology Program. Or Internet Access and Training Programs. Or whatever the hell you were referring to.
I was referring to a poster by the name of "imagineallthepeople," which I think most people figured out by reading the comment thread. Did you seriously Google that trying to figure out what I meant?
The government DOES regulate the sale of alcohol. You can't buy it, for instance.
That's not what I was talking about, again, something I think most people here realized. I was talking about the fact that they don't ban alcoholic beverages because, if used correctly, they don't cause a problem.
Dervish, there's a huge difference between expressing an opinion clearly and effectively and writing a two sentence rebuttal, and I think we all know it.
Why throw out these ridiculous claims if, when it is pointed out how ridiculous they are, you refuse to explain yourself? I'll take your failure to stand by what you said earlier as an admission that you were just BSing. As ususal.
I'm not really sure what claims you're referring to that I'm not explaining. I've expressed my opinion on this issue quite clearly I believe.
The government CAN and DOES regulate what is sold. You believing they should not doesn't change that fact. As for telling you what you can and can't eat -- The government doesn't do that.
I never implied that they didn't. I said quite clearly, they should not be telling me or anyone else what to eat. Why would I try to say they aren't doing that when the fact that they are is exactly what I'm debating about? In fact you are the one saying that they don't regulate what we can eat when, in fact, that's exactly what this article is about; the fact that the government is banning trans-fat in New York.
By the way I have no clue what the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy has to do with the argument. Or the Illinois Assistive Technology Program. Or Internet Access and Training Programs. Or whatever the hell you were referring to.
I was referring to a poster by the name of "imagineallthepeople," which I think most people figured out by reading the comment thread. Did you seriously Google that trying to figure out what I meant?
The government DOES regulate the sale of alcohol. You can't buy it, for instance.
That's not what I was talking about, again, something I think most people here realized. I was talking about the fact that they don't ban alcoholic beverages because, if used correctly, they don't cause a problem.
# posted by : 12/12/2006 8:29 PM
: 12/12/2006 8:29 PM
What you still are failing to understand is that no matter how much fatty food you eat, it will only ever hurt you. But alcohol, even when used in moderation, has great capacity to hurt both you and other people. There isn't a limit on how fat you can get, but there is a limit on how drunk you can get (as far as driving, etc.). They are nothing at all the same.
That's not really true. People can have a glass of wine, say, and not get drunk. But that's a whole other argument. My point is that the government shouldn't have the right to regulate what you eat. I mean you yourself said in your last comment that it only hurts the person eating it right? So my point is, why should the government tell us what kinds of foods we can and can't eat, or that private businesses can and can't sell?
# posted by : 12/14/2006 2:40 PM
: 12/14/2006 2:40 PM
I was not arguing that the government should be able to, I said in my first comment that I agreed with Cody's post and if you had understood any of my comments you would have known that. My argument was that you should retract your statement about alcohol being comparable because frankly, it isn't.
I'm afraid that that's simply not true. It's a proven fact that you can drink a glass of wine or a mug of beer and not get drunk. Haven't you ever gone to a family Christmas party or Thanksgiving? The adults generally have a glass of wine or something right? Do you see them getting drunk? Can't they still drive home unimpaired?
As for not understanding your comments, well, I did not at any time insinuate that you disagreed with Cody and I; I simply stated my argument and politely pointed out that the alcohol/food argument had little to do with the topic. It was, after all, merely an analogy and not even directed at you. If there's something offensive in doing that I would ask you to call it to my attention as I fail to see what it is.
As for not understanding your comments, well, I did not at any time insinuate that you disagreed with Cody and I; I simply stated my argument and politely pointed out that the alcohol/food argument had little to do with the topic. It was, after all, merely an analogy and not even directed at you. If there's something offensive in doing that I would ask you to call it to my attention as I fail to see what it is.
# posted by : 12/14/2006 3:44 PM
: 12/14/2006 3:44 PM
That is true, but there is still a limit on it and for good reason. It is regulated and you said that is wasn't, and therefore it doesnt make any sense.
Okay, so they regulate it a little bit. But my point is the same. If they barely regulate alchohal why should they even bother with food, which, as you say, doesn't have nearly the same effects?
# posted by : 12/14/2006 4:52 PM
: 12/14/2006 4:52 PM
They shouldn't. We have agreed on that the entire time.
I do, however, think that people should be provided with nutritional information about the things they order/purchase, and that the consequences of things like trans fats should be known.
I do, however, think that people should be provided with nutritional information about the things they order/purchase, and that the consequences of things like trans fats should be known.
They probably should be. The way I think it should be done is through public service announcements. They're cheap, so taxpayers don't have to pay much. They don't infringe on private buisnesses, or force them to do anything.
That being said though, I also think it would have to be made extremely clear that they were not dangerous in moderation. I wouldn't want there to be some kind of economic recession for the industry out of a needless panic.
That being said though, I also think it would have to be made extremely clear that they were not dangerous in moderation. I wouldn't want there to be some kind of economic recession for the industry out of a needless panic.
# posted by : 12/14/2006 6:22 PM
: 12/14/2006 6:22 PM
Do you know what trans fats are? A lot of products already don't have them because they know people avoid them and therefore wouldn't buy their products to begin with. Some restaurants, like McDonalds, for example, are required to have nutritional information available upon customer request. If that is mandated for all restaurants, you don't have to worry about commercials or anything. Most people know trans fats are bad, whether they care or not is up to them, and whether or not they request nutritional information is also up to them. But if it is avaible, then there isn't a problem.
Transfats taste good and cost less, and I want to eat them, so I should be able to. It's as simple as that.
What you said Cody. By the way some wierdo is trying to impersonate you on my blog. I'm not really sure why. It's very odd. Take a look yourself if you want. They created a new account, created Dec. 2006, with no information, named cody_oconnor. Very, very wierd.
# posted by : 12/15/2006 2:31 PM
: 12/15/2006 2:31 PM
Cody O'Connor said... Transfats taste good and cost less, and I want to eat them, so I should be able to. It's as simple as that.
Nobody said you couldn't eat them! Also, you can't have everything your way in life -- or were you not aware of that simple fact?
If the NYC health board wants to restrict what resturants serve, it is completely within their rights to do so. You can whine and complain all you want, but since you don't even live there I doubt anyone is going to listen to you.
The Government regulates every single food product we eat, so Robert M.'s argument is total hogwash, as usual.
Nobody said you couldn't eat them! Also, you can't have everything your way in life -- or were you not aware of that simple fact?
If the NYC health board wants to restrict what resturants serve, it is completely within their rights to do so. You can whine and complain all you want, but since you don't even live there I doubt anyone is going to listen to you.
The Government regulates every single food product we eat, so Robert M.'s argument is total hogwash, as usual.
Robert M: The claim you made and failed to back up was that the Tobacco companies have never lost a lawsuit. Everybody knows that isn't true.
dervish said...
"If the NYC health board wants to restrict what resturants serve, it is completely within their rights to do so. You can whine and complain all you want, but since you don't even live there I doubt anyone is going to listen to you."
Of course the government can do whatever the hell they want, but they shouldn't be able to. Or maybe Liberal nuts like you are just as pro police state as your good friend George W.
"If the NYC health board wants to restrict what resturants serve, it is completely within their rights to do so. You can whine and complain all you want, but since you don't even live there I doubt anyone is going to listen to you."
Of course the government can do whatever the hell they want, but they shouldn't be able to. Or maybe Liberal nuts like you are just as pro police state as your good friend George W.
Dervish, what I said was a figure of speech. You're really going to condemn my entire arguement over a lterary device?
# posted by : 12/17/2006 1:46 PM
: 12/17/2006 1:46 PM
Robert M. said... Dervish, what I said was a figure of speech. You're really going to condemn my entire arguement over a lterary device?
That's complete baloney. Please explain how what you said was either a "figure of speech" or a "literary device". I'm not condeming your entire argument because you used a "literary device". I condemn your argument because you lied and then BSed when you were called on that lie. Obviously you don't know what a "literary device" is, so it stands to reason that you couldn't have used one.
Cody O. Said... Of course the government can do whatever the hell they want, but they shouldn't be able to. Or maybe Liberal nuts like you are just as pro police state as your good friend George W
I'm not sure what George Bush's desire to bring about a police state in the US has to do with the arugement -- but I know with 100 percent certainty that Liberals (including ones who are nuts AND ones who are sane) don't support it. I've also heard that Libertarians are against bush's abuses of power (REAL Libertarians, that is).
I don't think the government should be "whatever" it wants. I never claimed that. I was only pointing out that the BOARD OF HEALTH could place restrictions on resturants serving unhealthy foods. It sounds like you think I would be OK with police bursting into people's homes during dinnertime to make sure they weren't eating "outlawed" food.
For the record I would be against that.
That's complete baloney. Please explain how what you said was either a "figure of speech" or a "literary device". I'm not condeming your entire argument because you used a "literary device". I condemn your argument because you lied and then BSed when you were called on that lie. Obviously you don't know what a "literary device" is, so it stands to reason that you couldn't have used one.
Cody O. Said... Of course the government can do whatever the hell they want, but they shouldn't be able to. Or maybe Liberal nuts like you are just as pro police state as your good friend George W
I'm not sure what George Bush's desire to bring about a police state in the US has to do with the arugement -- but I know with 100 percent certainty that Liberals (including ones who are nuts AND ones who are sane) don't support it. I've also heard that Libertarians are against bush's abuses of power (REAL Libertarians, that is).
I don't think the government should be "whatever" it wants. I never claimed that. I was only pointing out that the BOARD OF HEALTH could place restrictions on resturants serving unhealthy foods. It sounds like you think I would be OK with police bursting into people's homes during dinnertime to make sure they weren't eating "outlawed" food.
For the record I would be against that.
I am a "real" Libertarian, Dervish. I don't know how many times I have to tell you I don't like Bush anymore. I don't like the abuse of power, I don't like the overspending and government growth, and no, I don't like the war in Iraq.
That's complete baloney. Please explain how what you said was either a "figure of speech" or a "literary device".
It's called exaggeration. Or using an expression. Look it up. I really cannot believe you're getting worked up about something so dumb...
It's called exaggeration. Or using an expression. Look it up. I really cannot believe you're getting worked up about something so dumb...
# posted by : 12/18/2006 2:58 PM
: 12/18/2006 2:58 PM
Cody, kissing the you-know-what of this guy isn't going to work. You can change your opinion ten times a day and he'll still argue with you.
# posted by : 12/18/2006 2:59 PM
: 12/18/2006 2:59 PM
You're right, for someone caught in so obvious lie to then try to weasel out of that lie with an incredibly absurd explaination is dumb.
As for Cody's claim that he is a "real" libertarian, I'm still not buying it. There are a number of positions he's taken on THIS blog (not the old one) that don't comport with what I've read about what actual libertarians believe.. I'm thinking specifically of what you said about the military comissions bill. I don't have the time to look that information up right now though... but I will get back to you on that.
As for Robert's "ass-kissing" claim, I don't have any idea what he's talking about. Cody's comments weren't "ass kissing". I'm sure that isn't what he thought he was doing. BTW I wouldn't bother arguing with someone who changed their opinion ten times a day, since said person would have to be an idiot.
Of relevance to the topic of discussion -- I just heard on Air America News that Massachusetts may very well adopt a similar trans fat ban for the entire state.
As for Cody's claim that he is a "real" libertarian, I'm still not buying it. There are a number of positions he's taken on THIS blog (not the old one) that don't comport with what I've read about what actual libertarians believe.. I'm thinking specifically of what you said about the military comissions bill. I don't have the time to look that information up right now though... but I will get back to you on that.
As for Robert's "ass-kissing" claim, I don't have any idea what he's talking about. Cody's comments weren't "ass kissing". I'm sure that isn't what he thought he was doing. BTW I wouldn't bother arguing with someone who changed their opinion ten times a day, since said person would have to be an idiot.
Of relevance to the topic of discussion -- I just heard on Air America News that Massachusetts may very well adopt a similar trans fat ban for the entire state.
I was not insinuating Cody was an "ass-kisser." I was insinuating that you could do that to someone like you dervish and you would still argue and claim to know that person's claim better than he himself did.
# posted by : 12/19/2006 3:44 PM
: 12/19/2006 3:44 PM
Well, if we want to get specific, in the beginning of this blog I called myself a 'Neolibertarian' meaning I was pro-war and okay with Bush's power grab, but by now I have changed from even that. So I apologize for any confusion my ever-changing mind has created. But anyways, I do believe I will stick with Libertarianism. I was a Liberal in 2004, a Conservative in 2005, a Neolibertarian in 2006, and currently am a Libertarian as of now. And now that I've sampled just about every ideology, I think I'll say Libertarianism is my favorite and I'll stick to it a little longer than other ones.
Robert M. said... I was insinuating that you could do that to someone like you dervish and you would still argue and claim to know that person's claim better than he himself did.
You were? Shouldn't you have used different words then? -- because that isn't what you wrote.
I asked you to explain how claiming that the Tobacco companies have never lost a lawsuit is a figure of speech, a literary device, an exaggeration, and/or an expression.
You failed to do so. Because it's impossible. Because none of those means stating the exact opposite of the truth and then lying about what you meant when pressed for an answer. Which indicates to me that what you're doing to trying to confuse people -- so they'll forget what you lied about in the first place. It isn't working.
Cody O. Said... Well, if we want to get specific, in the beginning of this blog I called myself a 'Neolibertarian' meaning I was pro-war and okay with Bush's power grab, but by now I have changed from even that.
Do you think that we never should have gone to war in the first place, or that we should have fought it differently (without the corruption and incompentence)?
It is my belief that, despite what Robert M. says in his current post (on his blog), patience will not win the Iraq war. It is a civil war between the Sunni and the Shia -- and they have no intention of stopping until one side wipes out the other. Currently we are helping the Shia by propping up their government, training them, and providing them with weapons.
They're fine with us staying until they've killed all the Sunni. Is that the victory we should be patient for? Is that the victory we should PAY for (in both lives and dollars)?
Cody Said... I was a Liberal in 2004, a Conservative in 2005, a Neolibertarian in 2006, and currently am a Libertarian as of now.
You started out a Liberal? I find that hard to believe. You seemed so sure of yourself before (on the "betterwing" blog). Hopefully you'll realize that the political idealogy you have chosen (for the moment) is still the wrong one. It has a lot of the same flaws that Conservatism has, plus a lot of it's own unique flaws (Like believing individual rights trump every other concern).
I was listening to the Thom Hartman show today (on Air America) and he had a Libertarian from the Ayn Rand Institute on the show (which he has on numerous occasions). Everytime he does the Ayn Rand Libertarian comes off as a complete nut. Quite a few people who called in after the guest left and commented on what a nut the guy was.
You were? Shouldn't you have used different words then? -- because that isn't what you wrote.
I asked you to explain how claiming that the Tobacco companies have never lost a lawsuit is a figure of speech, a literary device, an exaggeration, and/or an expression.
You failed to do so. Because it's impossible. Because none of those means stating the exact opposite of the truth and then lying about what you meant when pressed for an answer. Which indicates to me that what you're doing to trying to confuse people -- so they'll forget what you lied about in the first place. It isn't working.
Cody O. Said... Well, if we want to get specific, in the beginning of this blog I called myself a 'Neolibertarian' meaning I was pro-war and okay with Bush's power grab, but by now I have changed from even that.
Do you think that we never should have gone to war in the first place, or that we should have fought it differently (without the corruption and incompentence)?
It is my belief that, despite what Robert M. says in his current post (on his blog), patience will not win the Iraq war. It is a civil war between the Sunni and the Shia -- and they have no intention of stopping until one side wipes out the other. Currently we are helping the Shia by propping up their government, training them, and providing them with weapons.
They're fine with us staying until they've killed all the Sunni. Is that the victory we should be patient for? Is that the victory we should PAY for (in both lives and dollars)?
Cody Said... I was a Liberal in 2004, a Conservative in 2005, a Neolibertarian in 2006, and currently am a Libertarian as of now.
You started out a Liberal? I find that hard to believe. You seemed so sure of yourself before (on the "betterwing" blog). Hopefully you'll realize that the political idealogy you have chosen (for the moment) is still the wrong one. It has a lot of the same flaws that Conservatism has, plus a lot of it's own unique flaws (Like believing individual rights trump every other concern).
I was listening to the Thom Hartman show today (on Air America) and he had a Libertarian from the Ayn Rand Institute on the show (which he has on numerous occasions). Everytime he does the Ayn Rand Libertarian comes off as a complete nut. Quite a few people who called in after the guest left and commented on what a nut the guy was.
Dervish, I'm not going to argue whether I meant something figurativally or literally. And if you're going to debate something you saw on my blog, do it there. As for the rest, Cody did start out a liberal. While his viewpoints aren't always right now, they're better than liberalism. But what I can't figure out is why you wouldn't like it. You claimed yourself that Democrats were the party of small government. It's not a true statement, but you did say it. Why don't you like Libertarianism if you like small government?
# posted by : 12/19/2006 8:50 PM
: 12/19/2006 8:50 PM
Robert M. said... Dervish, I'm not going to argue whether I meant something figurativally or literally.
Now in addition to your claim that the Tobacco companies never lost a lawsuit being a figure of speech, a literary device, an exaggeration, and/or an expression -- it was ALSO something you meant figuratively OR literally (and exactly which one is a secret)?
Why can't you just explain what hell you meant? One of the words you used was "exaggeration". So I'll venture a guess that what you meant was that they have won "most" of their lawsuits. Is that right? If so, you're still quite wrong.
Robert M. Said... And if you're going to debate something you saw on my blog, do it there.
Uh, you banned me. I'd take this as an invitation to return, but I'm not going to waste my time typing a reply only to have it deleted. BTW my recent extra hostility towards you is a result of that banning. Not that I really give a damn about being banned, but I thought it was a good excuse to rip into you (That plus the fact that Cody said anything goes). Not to mention the fact that it is mildly amusing seeing you get riled up.
Robert M. Said... As for the rest, Cody did start out a liberal. While his viewpoints aren't always right now, they're better than liberalism.
Obviously I disagree.
Robert M. Said... But what I can't figure out is why you wouldn't like it.
Because Liberals believe in the common good and Libertarians believe in selfishness.
Robert M. Said... You claimed yourself that Democrats were the party of small government.
No I didn't. I said they weren't the party of Big Government. That would be the Big spending Republican party. I think Democrats stand for fiscally responsible and efficient government.
If there is a service that is in the public interest for the government to provide -- it shouldn't decline to do so just so it can stay "small".
Robert M. Said... that's not a true statement, but you did say it. Why don't you like Libertarianism if you like small government?
I don't like "small government". Government should be as big as it needs to be. I agree that there is a LOT of waste which could be cut -- but I know that we wouldn't agree on what should be cut (I'd start with "defense" spending).
Now in addition to your claim that the Tobacco companies never lost a lawsuit being a figure of speech, a literary device, an exaggeration, and/or an expression -- it was ALSO something you meant figuratively OR literally (and exactly which one is a secret)?
Why can't you just explain what hell you meant? One of the words you used was "exaggeration". So I'll venture a guess that what you meant was that they have won "most" of their lawsuits. Is that right? If so, you're still quite wrong.
Robert M. Said... And if you're going to debate something you saw on my blog, do it there.
Uh, you banned me. I'd take this as an invitation to return, but I'm not going to waste my time typing a reply only to have it deleted. BTW my recent extra hostility towards you is a result of that banning. Not that I really give a damn about being banned, but I thought it was a good excuse to rip into you (That plus the fact that Cody said anything goes). Not to mention the fact that it is mildly amusing seeing you get riled up.
Robert M. Said... As for the rest, Cody did start out a liberal. While his viewpoints aren't always right now, they're better than liberalism.
Obviously I disagree.
Robert M. Said... But what I can't figure out is why you wouldn't like it.
Because Liberals believe in the common good and Libertarians believe in selfishness.
Robert M. Said... You claimed yourself that Democrats were the party of small government.
No I didn't. I said they weren't the party of Big Government. That would be the Big spending Republican party. I think Democrats stand for fiscally responsible and efficient government.
If there is a service that is in the public interest for the government to provide -- it shouldn't decline to do so just so it can stay "small".
Robert M. Said... that's not a true statement, but you did say it. Why don't you like Libertarianism if you like small government?
I don't like "small government". Government should be as big as it needs to be. I agree that there is a LOT of waste which could be cut -- but I know that we wouldn't agree on what should be cut (I'd start with "defense" spending).
Ah you don't like small government. Well, the truth finally comes out. That's all I was trying to figure out.
# posted by : 12/20/2006 2:15 PM
: 12/20/2006 2:15 PM
Let me clarify: I don't like your's or Cody's concept of small government. Government should be as large as it needs to be, but no larger. It should be run efficently and cost effectively. Services the government can do for less should not be "outsourced". That is what I've always believed. I haven't been attempting to hide that from you.
NO ON CAN TELL ME WHAT TO EAT!!! I find the whole idea of the government at any level dictating what we eat a bit scary. Great post.
Dervish, that's exactly what we believe. The difference is that we don't think it needs to be so large as to limit what you can eat. That's not neccesary.
# posted by : 12/21/2006 3:26 PM
: 12/21/2006 3:26 PM
Robert M. said... Dervish, that's exactly what we believe.
No, actually it isn't. You want to cut the government so heavily that it can barely function, let alone provide needed programs like those I pointed out on the thread about Communism loving Liberals. You said -- and I quote -- "Obviously we want to cut all those government programs".
That is what makes me so angry at Conservatives and Libertarians -- their hypocrisy. All these programs are NEEDED, because they foster the development of the middle class. Without government intervention the natural trend is towards a population comprised of the extremely wealthy and the working poor. No middle class -- like in Mexico.
Cody talked about how corrupt the Mexican government is (on "the better wing") I doubt his opinion on this has changed. I agree that the Mexican government is corrupt -- yet that is what your political philosophies, if fully instituted, would result in. The gradual elimination of the middle class.
Also, over on your blog you argued for the conservative belief that deficits don't matter (totally false, but that isn't the point I want to make here). The point I want to make is that a lot of our debt is being bought up by China. So, in other words, our debt is helping fund a Communist government. Taking into consideration how much you hate Communism I'd think you'd be against sending the Chinese government large sums of money in the form of interest payments.
Also, awhile back Cody shed some tears for 15 members of a secret church the Chinese government executed. If he feels the same way about our debt that you do I'd say that those were crocodile tears. They are doing EXTREMELY well doing things the way they are -- with our help. Why should they change anything?
And you also want to outsource jobs the government can do at a lower cost. Why is it America's healthcare system is the most inequitable, inefficient, and costly systems among industrialized nations (quote lifted from American Health Care Reform.org)?
Because all that matters to the Republicans and the Libertarians is PROFIT. Who cares if our health care system is inequitable and inefficient? Those things aren't more important than profit! That's what you mean when you say you consider everything "logically". To be logical you must consider the profit to be made first. To consider what is best for everyone is to be "emotional" -- and (according to the Republicans and Libertarians) that's bad.
Obviously I disagree. I believe that what is good for everyone is good for each of us individually. Maybe not the super-rich, but I won't cry if they have to sacrifice a small portion of their enormous wealth for the betterment of the entire country. Most likely they made that money by underpaying their workers or stealing from their retirement accounts. Or by shifting the cost of cleaning up the pollution they cause to the taxpayer (I could go on). It isn't "redistribution of wealth" or stealing. It's fairly assessed fees for government services used.
Robert O. Said... The difference is that we don't think it needs to be so large as to limit what you can eat. That's not neccesary.
It didn't get any bigger to pass the trans-fat ban. The existing board of health did that. I'd say that a board of health is necessary. And I'd say that this ban is a good idea, so long as it doesn't put an undue burden on the restaurants to institute it. Perhaps they should have considered a phased adoption -- starting with larger, higher profit restaurants and giving smaller, lower profit restaurants more time to make the change. In assessment of what they're trying to accomplish -- which is to protect the public health (THEIR JOB) -- I think it's a good move.
Post a Comment
No, actually it isn't. You want to cut the government so heavily that it can barely function, let alone provide needed programs like those I pointed out on the thread about Communism loving Liberals. You said -- and I quote -- "Obviously we want to cut all those government programs".
That is what makes me so angry at Conservatives and Libertarians -- their hypocrisy. All these programs are NEEDED, because they foster the development of the middle class. Without government intervention the natural trend is towards a population comprised of the extremely wealthy and the working poor. No middle class -- like in Mexico.
Cody talked about how corrupt the Mexican government is (on "the better wing") I doubt his opinion on this has changed. I agree that the Mexican government is corrupt -- yet that is what your political philosophies, if fully instituted, would result in. The gradual elimination of the middle class.
Also, over on your blog you argued for the conservative belief that deficits don't matter (totally false, but that isn't the point I want to make here). The point I want to make is that a lot of our debt is being bought up by China. So, in other words, our debt is helping fund a Communist government. Taking into consideration how much you hate Communism I'd think you'd be against sending the Chinese government large sums of money in the form of interest payments.
Also, awhile back Cody shed some tears for 15 members of a secret church the Chinese government executed. If he feels the same way about our debt that you do I'd say that those were crocodile tears. They are doing EXTREMELY well doing things the way they are -- with our help. Why should they change anything?
And you also want to outsource jobs the government can do at a lower cost. Why is it America's healthcare system is the most inequitable, inefficient, and costly systems among industrialized nations (quote lifted from American Health Care Reform.org)?
Because all that matters to the Republicans and the Libertarians is PROFIT. Who cares if our health care system is inequitable and inefficient? Those things aren't more important than profit! That's what you mean when you say you consider everything "logically". To be logical you must consider the profit to be made first. To consider what is best for everyone is to be "emotional" -- and (according to the Republicans and Libertarians) that's bad.
Obviously I disagree. I believe that what is good for everyone is good for each of us individually. Maybe not the super-rich, but I won't cry if they have to sacrifice a small portion of their enormous wealth for the betterment of the entire country. Most likely they made that money by underpaying their workers or stealing from their retirement accounts. Or by shifting the cost of cleaning up the pollution they cause to the taxpayer (I could go on). It isn't "redistribution of wealth" or stealing. It's fairly assessed fees for government services used.
Robert O. Said... The difference is that we don't think it needs to be so large as to limit what you can eat. That's not neccesary.
It didn't get any bigger to pass the trans-fat ban. The existing board of health did that. I'd say that a board of health is necessary. And I'd say that this ban is a good idea, so long as it doesn't put an undue burden on the restaurants to institute it. Perhaps they should have considered a phased adoption -- starting with larger, higher profit restaurants and giving smaller, lower profit restaurants more time to make the change. In assessment of what they're trying to accomplish -- which is to protect the public health (THEIR JOB) -- I think it's a good move.
<< Home
