bpwallace49 Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 This is asinine. Dont they already POST the sodium amounts along with the nutritional facts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Trick Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 My BIL salts EVERYTHING! A slice of pepperoni pizza needs to be white on top, I kid you not. Cereal...not complete without salt. Seriously, it's sick! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat2334 Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 This is asinine. Dont they already POST the sodium amounts along with the nutritional facts? no chit not too mention the fact that sodium ain't even a big deal if your healthy, working out and drinking lots of h20 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 So let me get this straight. People are too stupid to live therefore we are going to have the government force them to live longer because they are too stupid to do it themselves. Oh, and in the process we are going to force additional government regulations on those business and individuals to help expand the role of government. So the government shouldn't protect it's citizens against harmful things (even if they are popular)? I mean what about cigarettes? Should we just call smokers dumb and let them poison themselves? Or would it be better for society to call a spade a spade and say that we shouldn't allow people to become chemically dependent on nicotine (IMO money is the only reason those things are still legally sold). Obviously most Americans have thought it is prudent to draw a line somewhere and say that an item is bad and should be outlawed (and we can get into arguments about the failed war on drugs some other time, but I think it's worth mentioning that it is better that some things are harder to get and not commercially available). As far as salt goes, I think it makes sense to force companies to state their nutritional value and I'd stop there. I have a lot of libertarian leanings and views but I guess I just don't see some of those things working out in the big picture. I guess as I've gotten a little older, I just realize how ridiculous some people are and how they don't make good decisions (me included). I think some people are just trying to help others out more than this line of Rush Limbaugh drivel you end with. It seems clear to me that the lot of you are the same people at the core of the problem. You refuse to take responsibility for the tiniest aspect of you lives, instead foisting it all upon outside agencies whether that be government or religious institutions or other social organizations. Then you sit back and blame the system or society when something goes wrong. Therefore, the answer is more of these failed programs or institutions or what not. Seriously, you all sicken me. I grew up in a very conservative state and the part of conservative (and maybe religion) ideology that always resounded with me is the concept of how flawed humans are. People are capable of all kinds of stupid, irrational behavior. That doesn't mean we should just say, "sucks to be you" and move on IMO. I don't want a "nanny state" either, but there is some room for reasonable legislation where the government tries to force businesses to do what is better for society. For example, most restaurants would never publish their nutritional value and they know that typically less healthy food tastes better. Some of you would say, if you don't like it, don't eat there. To me, I'd rather have the government force them to at least publish what they are doing so the companies can't play games with making a 2000 calorie salad and then saying its healthy to fool naive people. I don't believe the government should have any ownership of my body, but I'd like it to step into protect some people against businesses exploiting people for monetary gain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 We shouldn't have a government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 We shouldn't have a government. That would work out well, no new taxes that is for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 So the government shouldn't protect it's citizens against harmful things (even if they are popular)? I mean what about cigarettes? Should we just call smokers dumb and let them poison themselves? Or would it be better for society to call a spade a spade and say that we shouldn't allow people to become chemically dependent on nicotine (IMO money is the only reason those things are still legally sold). Obviously most Americans have thought it is prudent to draw a line somewhere and say that an item is bad and should be outlawed (and we can get into arguments about the failed war on drugs some other time, but I think it's worth mentioning that it is better that some things are harder to get and not commercially available). As far as salt goes, I think it makes sense to force companies to state their nutritional value and I'd stop there. I have a lot of libertarian leanings and views but I guess I just don't see some of those things working out in the big picture. I guess as I've gotten a little older, I just realize how ridiculous some people are and how they don't make good decisions (me included). I think some people are just trying to help others out more than this line of Rush Limbaugh drivel you end with. I grew up in a very conservative state and the part of conservative (and maybe religion) ideology that always resounded with me is the concept of how flawed humans are. People are capable of all kinds of stupid, irrational behavior. That doesn't mean we should just say, "sucks to be you" and move on IMO. I don't want a "nanny state" either, but there is some room for reasonable legislation where the government tries to force businesses to do what is better for society. For example, most restaurants would never publish their nutritional value and they know that typically less healthy food tastes better. Some of you would say, if you don't like it, don't eat there. To me, I'd rather have the government force them to at least publish what they are doing so the companies can't play games with making a 2000 calorie salad and then saying its healthy to fool naive people. I don't believe the government should have any ownership of my body, but I'd like it to step into protect some people against businesses exploiting people for monetary gain. Holy crap, I've hit the big time! I've been compared to Rush Limbaugh! Seriously though, you and I may have to just understand that we disagree on one very fundamental issue. It is not the job of ANY government to run people's lives through legislation. Especially ours where the specific powers of government have been expressly laid out in the form of our Constitution and the Amendments thereof. People are going to make poor decisions all the time. It is part of the nature of having free will. Yet my ability to make free and unfettered choices concerning my life is continually being curtailed because some other people feel the need to force those that refuse to help themselves. And the thing that pisses me off the most about it is typically the motivator is money, not the good it may be for the individual or society. We make these laws because health care costs are too high or insurance costs are too high or _______________ costs too much or _________________ needs to bolster their profits. Seat belt laws are an excellent example. I've worn a seat belt in a car since the day I could make that choice so it's not that I don't want to wear them. It's that the laws were enacted to help insurance companies and provide an additional source of income for the police. The fact that it saved lives is an added bonus. It also gives police an added reason to pull someone over (Does anyone remember when the police couldn't use seat belts as a reason to pull someone over? I do.) further eroding the rights of the individual. However, if an individual doesn't want to wear a seat belt they shouldn't be forced to. Simply put, if someone dies in an auto accident due to not wearing a seat belt, then two things which are for the good of society have occurred. 1) a very graphic lesson as to the effectiveness of seat belts has been given and 2) the gene pool has been thinned of the stupid. Laws should not be enacted that put the onus on society and government to keep people from hurting themselves. Laws that put the onus of that responsibility on the individual making those choices are the ones that should be enacted. It is unfortunate that the overriding mentality in this country (and it may be of all of humanity, I don't know for sure) is that government and institutions should be the instruments by which individual behavior is governed. IMO, this is eventually self defeating as the more responsibility the government or social institution assumes, the less the individual needs to care about those responsibilities, thereby creating a need for yet more outside regulation. It is a terrible circle that will not end well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 kc, you really think that seat belt laws were enacted to allow police more power???? this is my problem. i agree that one's personal life shouldn't be regulated. but its when those personal decisions affect society is when something needs to be done. i dont mind that someone puts whatever they want in their body, who cares. i care when those people work in my company, are at the doctor's office for all sorts of problems and our rates go up. eat what you want, but pay for it yourself as well. its the same argument with welfare. have as many kids as you want, but YOU(not you) pay for them. i dont want to pay for them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 kc, you really think that seat belt laws were enacted to allow police more power???? this is my problem. i agree that one's personal life shouldn't be regulated. but its when those personal decisions affect society is when something needs to be done. i dont mind that someone puts whatever they want in their body, who cares. i care when those people work in my company, are at the doctor's office for all sorts of problems and our rates go up. eat what you want, but pay for it yourself as well. its the same argument with welfare. have as many kids as you want, but YOU(not you) pay for them. i dont want to pay for them! In a round about way, yes. As a general rule, people look for ways to make their jobs easier. Seat belt laws were enacted because of the insurance companies but the police quickly got behind them. This isn't a knock on the cops but they quickly saw the value of the laws in both saving lives and giving them an extra tool to work with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 In a round about way, yes. As a general rule, people look for ways to make their jobs easier. Seat belt laws were enacted because of the insurance companies but the police quickly got behind them. This isn't a knock on the cops but they quickly saw the value of the laws in both saving lives and giving them an extra tool to work with. It's more than that, IMO. If there's a law against it there will be a fine for breaking that code. Just like the new GA super-speeder law that slaps a $200 surcharge on any speeding ticket over 75 on two-lane roads and over 85 on multi-lane highways/interstates. The NTSB has studies that show excessive speed to be a factor in less than 5% of traffic fatalities but we need this law? Until the governor announces the extra $23 MILLION in revenue he hopes to get his grubby paws on thanks to it. Then it makes sense. I've posted the quote from "Atlas Shrugged" before. About how the gov't doesn't want honest people, because you can't control those people. Trip those people up in your laws and you OWN them. Pretty simple to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 In a round about way, yes. As a general rule, people look for ways to make their jobs easier. Seat belt laws were enacted because of the insurance companies but the police quickly got behind them. This isn't a knock on the cops but they quickly saw the value of the laws in both saving lives and giving them an extra tool to work with. i can see your point. but i think the govt doesnt need to hide the fact that they take from us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 i can see your point. but i think the govt doesnt need to hide the fact that they take from us. true but they know we need them. truff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.