The people who make food products loaded with fat,salt and sugar spend billions advertising their death-dealing products.
Try to watch TV or use the internet without being exposed to their advertisements.
We should be able to end that sort of advertising. We did, after all, end big tobacco's lies about how their product was harmless.
It does, and the effect one seeks during a war seems to be as many dead bodies as possible without completely bringing on the condemnation of the rest of the world.
So, no nukes, and no chemical weapons. Anything else is fair game.
Those items are listed in the packaging labels...
The trouble with many is that the agents themselves are toxic to all humans, not just those in enemy uniforms.
Agent Orange and DU have poisoned our guys too, many of them.
as is the surgeon general's warning on cigarette packs.
I dont get your point then...people know what they are getting.
Yes, if they read the labels, they know what they're getting. They knew what they were getting back when big tobacco was selling us poison using the Marlboro Man as well, if they read the label. The point is that TV advertising is a lot more powerful than a label in small print put on a package of anything.
Yeah. I agree. And?
How much does it cost to basically say no to unvetted immigrants?
How much does it cost to basically say no to unvetted immigrants?
We should follow the Statue of Liberty's poem and only allow in the huddled masses who yearn to be free. If they don't want to be free, they shouldn't be allowed in.
I am not sure what the trillion $ spending has to do with the odds of being killed by a terrorist. I thought that was for jobs and economic development for the country.There are a lot more "huddled masses" than we can actually take in, and that's for sure, so yes, we do need to be selective. I'm not sure what that has to do with spending a trillion or so on a nation building project in a secular state in the name of fighting Islamic Jihad however.
I am not sure what the trillion $ spending has to do with the odds of being killed by a terrorist. I thought that was for jobs and economic development for the country.
Surprised that Trump talked about ending all Islamic terrorism since almost all of it takes place in Islamic countries and hopefully Congress will dissuade him from much of that. But that seems to have nothing to do with his America First economic plan.
It costs nothing to simply not allow in people unvetted.
Probably getting off topic here and I understand why you as a libertarian would oppose foreign wars. I suspect that Trump agrees with you and will not spend on foreign wars but then he had that line about ending terrorism.Correct.
It's foreign wars in the name of the war on terror that cost lives and treasure.
Probably getting off topic here and I understand why you as a libertarian would oppose foreign wars. I suspect that Trump agrees with you and will not spend on foreign wars but then he had that line about ending terrorism.
I am more in line with JFK's "we will pay any price, bear any burden.... in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." Iraq was a good war, removed an international threat, and saved lives of Iraqis. Unfortunately that victory was frittered away. Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, Syria, Iraq 2 are silly wars, ineffectively managed and humanitarian disasters.
and, if we can put a stop to big tobacco selling poison via TV ads, we can put a stop to fake food being sold the same way. (My original point)
Who determines what is fake (inassume you mean fake food is deadly food?)
There lies the problem, who gets to decide?
How does this relate to being killed by terrorists?
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?