Why do you want more government in your life?

[Cuyo]

Be very wary when the Government starts telling you "It's for your own good." That usually translates into being only what's good for them. I hear they're now going to start regulating how much salt you will be allowed to consume. Hey,it's for your own good right? So many are willing to buy into anything. Many are just giving their Freedom & Liberty away and that's the saddest thing. People really should start paying closer attention. Is all this Government oppression really so good for you?

Oh yes, that's what's good for them... OOooOoOooOhhhh... Part of the vast left wing liberal conspiracy to bring the salt industry to it's ever-loving KNEES! Then we can replace it with a clandestine product that tastes like salt, but actually is an anti-rejection drug for your mind control chip.

You might actually be clinically insane. Get a cat-scan for Christ's sake.

How bout just allowing American Citizens to decide for themselves how much salt they would like to consume? Pretty revolutionary idea huh? I know how shocking that must sound to Socialist/Progressive nutters but in reality it's just good ole common sense. What other Freedoms & Liberties are they going to take away in the name of "It's for your own good?" Where does this flawed mentality end? Something to think about no?

If there was something in your drinking water that was killing you, would you not want whoever was poisoning it intervened upon? What if a local farm's policy was to fire their manure out of a canon whether than spreading it in the field, and it was landing in your yard. Shouldn't they have the "Right" to do that? After all, you could always just move, right? Why should his right to fire manure out of a cannon be infringed upon just because it's inconvenient for you?

I'd like to hear a con admit that there is a tremendous gray area, and we just disagree with where to pinpoint it. All this "GOVERNMENT'S BAD! THEY ONLY CARE ABOUT THEMSELVES!" just makes you look batshit insane, along with incredibly unintelligent.

 

[Cuyo]

Let's just not have any laws at all.

You're saying that any rules that stop people from doing what they want to do are unconstitutional restraints...take that to its logical end....

ANARCHY...NO LAWS. PEOPLE GET TO DO WHATEVER THE HELL THEY WANT TO.

You can go off and start your own country like that...but that's not what I want.

I never said that. However,allowing American Citizens to decide for themselves how much salt they would like to consume is hardly "Anarchy." How many more Laws do we really need at this point? Where does it end? Does it only end when we become a locked-down Police State? It looks like that's where we're heading unfortunately. Today it's salt but what will be tomorrow and so on and so on? You have to take a stand at some point. I think the time is now to start taking a stand. Hey,that's just how i feel anyway.

And like we said, you can go buy a can of Morton's and pour it all down your throat if you want. But when pre-packaged foods are creating a health epidemic in the name of profits, the government must intervene. You can still buy the low-salt peanuts and add as much salt as you like.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Common sense is common sense. American Citizens deciding for themselves how much salt they would like to consume is hardly "Anarchy" or "Chaos." I think the Socialists/Progressives are just way off base with their never-ending "We know what's best for you" philosophy.

 

[Cuyo]

Common sense is common sense. American Citizens deciding for themselves how much salt they would like to consume is hardly "Anarchy" or "Chaos." I think the Socialists/Progressives are just way off base with their never-ending "We know what's best for you" philosophy.

Please, link me up to the explanation of the bill that puts a camera in your kitchen and limits your salt intake.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

They don't need cameras in your kitchen. If they monitor and threaten industries to tow the line,they have already taken your individual freedom to decide for yourself away from you. Yet another Liberty gone. It can happen just that quickly. Enough is enough for God's sake. Let the People decide for themselves how much salt they want to consume. This is not a Government issue. They are clearly over-reaching again. What's next?

 

[Vanquish]

He's challenging the authority of the FDA. Glad to know that such an unconstitutional institution has been in place for decades.

 

[Cuyo]

They don't need cameras in your kitchen. If they monitor and threaten industries to tow the line,they have already taken your individual freedom to decide for yourself away from you. Yet another Liberty gone. It can happen just that quickly. Enough is enough for God's sake. Let the People decide for themselves how much salt they want to consume. This is not a Government issue. They are clearly over-reaching again. What's next?

What if it was something else other than an excessive amount of salt in these foods that was killing people? Strychnine, or some shit like that? Maybe you could eat it for years and it doesn't kill you on the spot, but develops serious health conditions over time?

That's what the excessive salt in these foods is doing, causing serious health problems over time.

And for the last time, they are not attempting to limit your salt intake, nor could they even if they wanted to. They're attempting to set a benchmark of what is an acceptable level in certain foods. You can add as much salt as you want, just as you could add sugar, raw eggs, rat poison, etc.

And you have offered NO explanation of how this is "Only good for 'Them'", whoever "They" are.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Challenging the authorities is not always a bad thing. In fact sometimes it's absolutely the right thing to do. Seriously,how many more new Laws do we really need at this point? Someone has to stand up and stop the Government from creating a locked-down Police State. I just wish more people would stand up. "It's for your own good" just isn't good enough. The Government is clearly over-reaching at this point and i find it hard to fathom how so many don't see this. Let the People eat as much salt as they want to. This idea is hardly "Anarchy" or "Chaos."

 

[Vanquish]

Dude, LibApoc is batshit on the crazy train of "the gubmit=evil"...why even respond?

 

[Jarhead]

They don't need cameras in your kitchen. If they monitor and threaten industries to tow the line,they have already taken your individual freedom to decide for yourself away from you. Yet another Liberty gone. It can happen just that quickly. Enough is enough for God's sake. Let the People decide for themselves how much salt they want to consume. This is not a Government issue. They are clearly over-reaching again. What's next?

What if it was something else other than an excessive amount of salt in these foods that was killing people? Strychnine, or some shit like that? Maybe you could eat it for years and it doesn't kill you on the spot, but develops serious health conditions over time?

That's what the excessive salt in these foods is doing, causing serious health problems over time.

And for the last time, they are not attempting to limit your salt intake, nor could they even if they wanted to. They're attempting to set a benchmark of what is an acceptable level in certain foods. You can add as much salt as you want, just as you could add sugar, raw eggs, rat poison, etc.

And you have offered NO explanation of how this is "Only good for 'Them'", whoever "They" are.

We do not need the government advising us as it pertains to health. We have personal medical professionals to do that. We do not need government dictating what is on a restaurants menu. That they CAN do.

Just like we dont need government spending our tax dollars on finding a more fair way to play college football; or to decide if MLB is doing the right thing regarding steroids.

Government tends to doubt the personal choice making of Americans. My personal choices are not their business.

What do THEY gain? Control. Once you control the people YOU WILL BE ABLE TO CONTROL THEIR MONEY; as we are starting to see.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Dude, LibApoc is batshit on the crazy train of "the gubmit=evil"...why even respond?

I never said the Government was "Evil." I did say that they are clearly over-reaching at this point. Salt consumption is hardly a "Crisis" and they should just stay out of this non-issue. After salt,what comes next? It's all just a vicious circle in the end. Where does this stuff end? Does it end only when we have lost all of our Freedoms & Liberties? That seems to be where we're heading with all this. "We know what's best for you" could be the beginning of the end for our nation. Call me "batshit" but i don't think it's so crazy. Hey this is just how i feel anyway. You're entitled to your beliefs as well. I just think you Socialists/Progressives are misguided.

 

[drsmith1072]

That's why the fairies are lobbying for government to change the definition of marriage, the feminazis are lobbying for government to cover the cost of abortions, and liberals are trying to outlaw "hate speech"??
Please, all that is so lame.

Hmm? Please tell me that you are not this IGNORANT? They are fighting for their religious right to marry and have it be treated just like any other marriage. As far as I am concerened the federal government has no justification recognizing or defining any marriage because it is a religious institution. However, IF a religion chooses to marry two individuals then what right do YOU have to deny them their right to religious freedom?

However, It was righties who went to the government to have them define marriage as being between a man and a woman. It was righties who tried to pass a law to interfere in a family dispute where terry schiavo was concerned.

Furthermore your rant is nothing more that a dishonest attempt to spin and avoid admitting that righties use big government when it suits them but are now trying to pretend that they are against government involvement when the FACTS and the past show otherwise.

Tell me you aren't this clueless. No one is denying anyone the right to marry. Show me two people who have declared they are married and the gov't is insisting they aren't and breaking up the marriage. No such thing.
What gov't is doing is not giving government sanction to these marriages. And if you think they shouldn't be in the marriage business do you think they should also not be in the divorce business or the inheritance business or the adoption business?
You are being dishonest (duh) insisting that anyone is being told they cannot marry. No one is being told they cannot marry by any clergyman they want or no clergyman at all.

Apparently there is a gay couple in texas that can't get a divorce because the AG in texas says they don't recognize the marriage. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

I believe the terminology used states that they cannot get a divorce because their union was illegal. If their union was illegal to begin with then the message given is that gay marriage is illegal and any who try to get married will be denied.
If you need further proof look up the defense of marriage act which legally defines a marriage as being between a man and a woman. Hmm? Which majority party sponsored that legislation to get the federal government to interfere in the religious institution of marriage?? The fact that the federal government defines marriage as being between only a man and a woman clearly shows that any marriage between same sex couples is not "real" or valid and thereby deines them the right to a real marriage.

As for your lame introduction of divorce into the issue NO the federal government should not be involved since IMO that is a civil issue that can be resolved through the civil courts without the federal government intervening and telling each party what they deserve and don't deserve.
Oh well it's more of the usual obfuscation from you. How typical.

BTW thanks for once again spinning as you try to avoid the FACT that republicans like big government when it suits them and that facts prove it. HAHAHA Keep running away this is fun.

 

[Jarhead]

Hmm? Please tell me that you are not this IGNORANT? They are fighting for their religious right to marry and have it be treated just like any other marriage. As far as I am concerened the federal government has no justification recognizing or defining any marriage because it is a religious institution. However, IF a religion chooses to marry two individuals then what right do YOU have to deny them their right to religious freedom?

However, It was righties who went to the government to have them define marriage as being between a man and a woman. It was righties who tried to pass a law to interfere in a family dispute where terry schiavo was concerned.

Furthermore your rant is nothing more that a dishonest attempt to spin and avoid admitting that righties use big government when it suits them but are now trying to pretend that they are against government involvement when the FACTS and the past show otherwise.

Tell me you aren't this clueless. No one is denying anyone the right to marry. Show me two people who have declared they are married and the gov't is insisting they aren't and breaking up the marriage. No such thing.
What gov't is doing is not giving government sanction to these marriages. And if you think they shouldn't be in the marriage business do you think they should also not be in the divorce business or the inheritance business or the adoption business?
You are being dishonest (duh) insisting that anyone is being told they cannot marry. No one is being told they cannot marry by any clergyman they want or no clergyman at all.

Apparently there is a gay couple in texas that can't get a divorce because the AG in texas says they don't recognize the marriage. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

I believe the terminology used states that they cannot get a divorce because their union was illegal. If their union was illegal to begin with then the message given is that gay marriage is illegal and any who try to get married will be denied.
If you need further proof look up the defense of marriage act which legally defines a marriage as being between a man and a woman. Hmm? Which majority party sponsored that legislation to get the federal government to interfere in the religious institution of marriage?? The fact that the federal government defines marriage as being between only a man and a woman clearly shows that any marriage between same sex couples is not "real" or valid and thereby deines them the right to a real marriage.

As for your lame introduction of divorce into the issue NO the federal government should not be involved since IMO that is a civil issue that can be resolved through the civil courts without the federal government intervening and telling each party what they deserve and don't deserve.
Oh well it's more of the usual obfuscation from you. How typical.

BTW thanks for once again spinning as you try to avoid the FACT that republicans like big government when it suits them and that facts prove it. HAHAHA Keep running away this is fun.

How can anyone say the GOP is not in favor of big government? They are and that is why their base has been slipping over the years.

But please do not confuse conservatives with the GOP. COnservatives do not want bigt government; but if the choice is between a GOP candidate and a DEM canhdidate, the conservatives will more likely vote GOP as the GOP will not be nearly as intrusive on the American people as the DEM.

There is such thing as opting for the lesser of two evils, but not agreeing with either evil.

 

[drsmith1072]

I want to know how the government will be more involved in my life?

Ask Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, etc. They'll explain it to ya just like they have the OP.

They just passed a 2000+ page bill regulation our ability to control how our we recieve our health care, the very process of us taking care of our lives. How on earth does that not involve government more in our life?

Really?? How does it regulate our ability to do that?? Got specifics??

 

[NYcarbineer]

Dude, LibApoc is batshit on the crazy train of "the gubmit=evil"...why even respond?

Any time you're up against someone who insists on using the word 'gubmint' you know the chance of an intelligent conversation is slim.

 

[NYcarbineer]

ones state CAN NOT prevent someone from leaving the state UNLESS they are on bail....have allegedly committed a crime.

*or on parole.

or state of emergency... for public safety concerns... because of public inebriation.. etc

There are times when the state can and does prohibit travel... but as stated, it is rare to lose the freedom or privilege to travel about

Which are all for cause. Which can be invoked against any right you believe you have, speech, assembly, religion, guns, etc.

Travel is still a right.

 

[Vanquish]

Dude, LibApoc is batshit on the crazy train of "the gubmit=evil"...why even respond?

I never said the Government was "Evil." I did say that they are clearly over-reaching at this point. Salt consumption is hardly a "Crisis" and they should just stay out of this non-issue. After salt,what comes next? It's all just a vicious circle in the end. Where does this stuff end? Does it end only when we have lost all of our Freedoms & Liberties? That seems to be where we're heading with all this. "We know what's best for you" could be the beginning of the end for our nation. Call me "batshit" but i don't think it's so crazy. Hey this is just how i feel anyway. You're entitled to your beliefs as well. I just think you Socialists/Progressives are misguided.

DrSmith has already given a perfect example of what should be a reasonable restriction on the chemical composition of food - no strychnine. He showed what the effects of not having this legislation would be. Then he showed how the new salt legislation works the exact same way.

The fact that salt has a warm, fuzzy place in your heart doesn't have any bearing on the matter. The government, via FDA regulation and legislative process has the ability to restrict what you can do with your body and what can be put into food on a commercial level.

Sometimes I read your posts and I think...there's a guy who's really trying honestly to be logical and ends up at a different end than I do. Then there are times when you wont admit what's been plainly presented to you out of what seems like irrational stubbornness.

When you compound that over and over...that's when it seems like willful intellectual dishonesty or just plain batshit crazy. It's just frustrating when DrSmith has said something so logical and plainly understandable and you take a right angle from it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is where lefties really go wrong... expanding almost everything into being a 'right'... right to health care, right to travel., right to smoke dope, right to minimum wage, right to whatever else.... when in fact, while someone has the personal freedoms to do things, it does not make it a right inherently... there are very few and distinctly listed rights as recognized by government... travel is not one of them, bub... it is a privilege that most enjoy without much hindrance

So you think that my state could constitutionally, by law, prevent me from leaving NY state?

States can and do restrict travel, though rarely..... organizations, companies, etc can also restrict travel depending on situations and even POLICIES (I.E. being removed from a plane for concerns, behavior, etc)... roads and walkways can and are closed for many different types of reasons.. you can be refused on public transportation... you can be restrained from travel off your property by authorities.. the list goes on

travel is a privilege that is rarely infringed upon... it is not a right, just as health care is not a right, just as minimum wage compensation is not a right... again.. you and ones like you love to call things rights and assume that they are... however, most of what you deem as 'rights' are freedoms, laws, or privileges

I have every bit as much a right to travel as I do to own a gun. Prove me wrong.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is where lefties really go wrong... expanding almost everything into being a 'right'...

That's a strawman because we are not talking about almost everything being a right we are talking about travel being a right.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is where lefties really go wrong... expanding almost everything into being a 'right'... right to health care, right to travel., right to smoke dope, right to minimum wage, right to whatever else.... when in fact, while someone has the personal freedoms to do things, it does not make it a right inherently... there are very few and distinctly listed rights as recognized by government... travel is not one of them, bub... it is a privilege that most enjoy without much hindrance

So you think that my state could constitutionally, by law, prevent me from leaving NY state?

States can and do restrict travel, though rarely..... organizations, companies, etc can also restrict travel depending on situations and even POLICIES (I.E. being removed from a plane for concerns, behavior, etc)... roads and walkways can and are closed for many different types of reasons.. you can be refused on public transportation... you can be restrained from travel off your property by authorities.. the list goes on

travel is a privilege that is rarely infringed upon... it is not a right, just as health care is not a right, just as minimum wage compensation is not a right... again.. you and ones like you love to call things rights and assume that they are... however, most of what you deem as 'rights' are freedoms, laws, or privileges

If an airline cannot deny me use of their service, provided I pay and am orderly etc., but they can deny me carrying a handgun with me,

which is more the right? The right to travel or the right to bear arms.