Okay, as long as you're consistent.
What about just plain old poison? Can Pepsi put lethal doses of rat poison in the can, and list it on the inredients on the back of the can?
I have little choice when it comes to Long Term anything. Once I get to Stage 4 of Parkinson's, I will start eating as unhealthy as I can.
I hope to die of something else before I get to stage 5....
by that time, I won't have a choice in the matter. I will have to eat what they give me...
IMO, that's what Dr. Kevorkian is for. If it were me, anyway. And that is in no way attempting to belittle or disrespect your situation. That's just how I personally feel about it.
Once my free will is gone, just shoot me in the head.
IMO, that's what Dr. Kevorkian is for. If it were me, anyway. And that is in no way attempting to belittle or disrespect your situation. That's just how I personally feel about it.
Once my free will is gone, just shoot me in the head.
Most of what we eat is potentially a poison, in the right quantities....
IMO, that's what Dr. Kevorkian is for. If it were me, anyway. And that is in no way attempting to belittle or disrespect your situation. That's just how I personally feel about it.
Once my free will is gone, just shoot me in the head.
That is how I feel about getting a heart transplant. I'm not so sure Id want to live the life after the transplant.
And we don't have an NHS yet either.
I'ts not the government's job to regulate salt content in food.
Just in case you didn't know this, when the Constitution was ratified, foods where heavily salted for preservation. The Founders were well aware of this and made no effort to mention salt in the Constitution.
People who don't like crappy unhealthy processed foods don't have to eat them.
Can't get simpler than that.
Why do weinies think the big machine gun of the federal government is the answer to all their little irrelevant complaints in life?
That's exactly one of those battles. Interstate regulation isn't.
If you want to talk about an NHS, you should spend more time arguing against something like Roe v. Wade, a decision that involved the federal governemnt usurping the State's control over intrastate regulations of medical procedures.
That's one of the things that opened the door to a Nationalized healthcare system.
Just in case you didn't know this, when the Constitution was ratified, foods where heavily salted for preservation. The Founders were well aware of this and made no effort to mention salt in the Constitution.
I have no issue with overturning roe v wade.
None at all?
I have no issue with overturning roe v wade.
I DO have an issue with the government trying to mandate sodium in our food because they think we're not making the right choices for ourselves.
See, now that doesn't seem logical to me.
"Good" in this context is an entirely subjective evaluation. That's why we have so many debates about what is the right thing to do. Both sides mistakenly feel that just because they think a law is a good one, it should be shoved down everyone's throat. But they differ on what they think are good laws.
This leads to disenfranchisement, which can lead to civil unrest and eventually the collapse of a society as factions develop that have the sole purpose of trying to force their will upon others uniformly eventually tear each other apart.
This is because any time one group enforces it's morality upon another, the group that is forced to adhere to that morality of the other becomes disenfranchised.
All laws are a reflection of the societal morality, but morality is fluid and subjective.
Thus, if the goal is to preserve the society, decreasing disenfranchisement is prefered to increasing it.
In order to decrease disenfranchisement, the most logical approach is to allow as much variability in legislation as possible to reflect the variability in morality. And there is quite a bit of variability in morality.
That is, of course, if the goal is to prevent discordance amongst the populous. If one is interested in increasing total discord amongst the population of a society, then the best approach is to, every four to eight years or so, continually switch back and forth between the two most prevalent morality systems and implement these rules upon th eentire population.
This will assure that the entire population is disenfranchised at some point during a decade, possibly more than once per decade.
Evidence of this is the liberal disenfranchisement during the Bush Administration compared to the conservative disenfranchisement that exists now under Obama.
And the brilliance of this system of disenfranchisement is that it assures the two factions remain in power because the very thought of the opposing side being in power causes discordance within the population. It isn't even dependent on the laws that are passed, just the threat of laws being passed. This effect can be exacerbated by rabble rousers within each faction.
What it also does is cause the very people who are being disenfranchised people to completely ignore the very simple solution to their disenfranchisement and become willing, even rabid, participants, in their own disenfranchisement.
That very simple solution was what the founders had originally intended when they designed the country. Allow variation in legislation. Don't force what you think is "good" upon those who think it is "bad" and vice versa, don't let them force what you think is bad upon you simply because they think it is good.
Every liberal that is celebrating Obama's administration is setting themselves up for their future disenfranchisement when the conservatives regain power, just as every gleeful conservative set themselves up for their current disenfranchisement by gleefully celebrating the Bush Administration.
The most ****ed up thing is that they never actually stop being disenfranchised. They admit their will is not being implemented by their preferred group adequately, but they prefer to eat the **** prepared by their favorite chefs as opposed to the **** prepared by the other guy's favorite chef.
People like me are the most disenfranchised because we see the solution, and watch as everyone ignores it in favor of nonsense.
Anyway, I know you aren't a big fan of the wordy, wall-of-text replies, so I'll just leave it at that.
It should be a state decision. Overturning RvW doesn't mean a ban on abortion, it just means that the states can decide for themselves.
Again, just checking.
So you don't think women have a right to abortion?
:shock: Is it too late to close the can of worms?
Unbeknownst to both of them, I'm always right.
I think we're overdue for one of those.
That sounds like a horrible system.
Really the only solution is to kick the conservatives out. I hear the Middle East is hiring.
Revolution? I thought we already covered that?
Yes. Best to stop before you get carried away. :lol:
Again, just checking.
So you don't think women have a right to abortion?
Why don't you answer first - you never answered this question when I posed it to you weeks ago.
Every woman has a right to an abortion. I'll even spring for the coat hanger.
They just don't have the right to have one performed by a doctor in any state they want.
The problem is that people also have the right to live in a region that bans abortion, especially if they feel it is murder.
Again, just checking.
So you don't think women have a right to abortion?
So far, your ideal world is full of salt and Pepsi and drugs, but sometimes you have to drive 1,000 miles for an abortion.
So people have a right to an abortion but also the right not to an abortion. Or something like that.
You need to brush up on your logic.
You'd just say I wasn't telling the truth, so why bother.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?