DescentBB

null0010 wrote:Personally I see no problem with nutritional laws that require food to sold in a certain way.

For example, if a law were to state that a certain category of food is not to contain more that a certain percentage of salt when sold in the supermarket, I see no problem with that, because if someone really wanted to add more salt to it, they could.

Or they could cook it from scratch, or whatever.

Cuda68 wrote:I don't even know where to begin.

government should not be involved with our lives at this level
or
if I pay for food, give me my food
or
they can share the knowledge of what is good or what is bad and give me the freedom to choose.

Cuda68 wrote:

null0010 wrote:Personally I see no problem with nutritional laws that require food to sold in a certain way.

For example, if a law were to state that a certain category of food is not to contain more that a certain percentage of salt when sold in the supermarket, I see no problem with that, because if someone really wanted to add more salt to it, they could.

Or they could cook it from scratch, or whatever.

I don't even know where to begin.

government should not be involved with our lives at this level
or
if I pay for food, give me my food
or
they can share the knowledge of what is good or what is bad and give me the freedom to choose.

Kilarin wrote:It's not the governments job to protect us from ourselves. Labeling I'm fine with, but other than that, leave the choices up to me.

null0010 wrote:

Kilarin wrote:It's not the governments job to protect us from ourselves. Labeling I'm fine with, but other than that, leave the choices up to me.

I can support this tack if labels are made more obvious, like large, bold print letters saying, "THIS BACON HAS A LOT OF FAT IN IT."

Will Robinson wrote:"Warning, this person is a known liar and almost always has a self serving motivation behind his/her every action!"

Will Robinson wrote:"Warning, this person is a known liar and almost always has a self serving motivation behind his/her every action!"

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason.. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Will Robinson wrote:

null0010 wrote:

Kilarin wrote:It's not the governments job to protect us from ourselves. Labeling I'm fine with, but other than that, leave the choices up to me.

I can support this tack if labels are made more obvious, like large, bold print letters saying, "THIS BACON HAS A LOT OF FAT IN IT."

And I can support that if every time a politician appears on screen or in a photo he has to have a disclaimer banner across the width of the screen: "Warning, this person is a known liar and almost always has a self serving motivation behind his/her every action!"

null0010 wrote:I can support this tack if labels are made more obvious, like large, bold print letters saying, "THIS BACON HAS A LOT OF FAT IN IT."

null0010 wrote:..

Sounds fine to me, as long as it's every politician.

Will Robinson wrote:

null0010 wrote:..

Sounds fine to me, as long as it's every politician.

That is why I said "everytime a politician..."
there is no one in office at the national level that isn't corrupt. You can't get the job without being compromised and that is why we should fire them all.