Tyranny arrives in America under the guise of good intentions

[04SCTLS]

Eventually they'll ban that too. Ever watch Doctor Zhivago? Remember this line - "It's more just this way."

You and foxpaws should go out. You both have a fetish for bragging about the cool stuff you buy and how much money you make.

To mix metaphors It is better to have loved (had) and lost then never to have loved (had) at all.

I just don't see the same horror show coming that you do

If you had more money I'm sure you wouldn't be so bitter.

I don't want to engage in ad hominem attacks.

I sometimes like to show off as it is a kinder response than engaging in ad hominem attacks.

With the gifts I was given I spent 130 hrs of physical work gutting the walls floors and ceilings in the main bathroom in my house,
using my 30,000+ hrs of handicrafting/manufacturing experience to create a beautiful roman marble stone looking thing crossed with a space ship.

I didn't just use my money to have a contracter do it.
They could never do it the way I want it.

In the end when you make a score and it's your own.... there's nothing else like it... the feeling of..... success.... and accomplishment, like on a natural high that makes life worth living and then some.

Maybe it's something you haven't experienced yet.

You sound like your worst fears have been realized already as a foregone conclusion and the government has already crushed you.

I'm just voicing my opinion which is much less dark than yours.

 

[Calabrio]

There should be some sort of regulation, I am sick of going out to eat and seeing an obese family in the next booth eat their double cheeseburger's, ribs, pizza, chicken wings, fries, and diet coke, and i am stuck with 2 "healthy" entree's to choose from.

Then stop looking at them or mind your own damn business.

Majority of Americans aren't disciplined enough to exercise, or eat healthy.

...and they need you to tell them what to do or how to live?
Do you realize what you're saying?
After 'they' regulate what you can eat, what will they dictate to you next?
What other behavior will fail to meet the approval of you, or foxpaws, or the ruling class?
Take a look at my signature, or read this quote:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
-- C.S. Lewis

 

[rayner601]

I usually don't read these types of stories, mainly because it reminds me that the nannies will, in my lifetime, have banned most everything, making me depressed. Let the people and business owners decide what they will and won't serve/provide. I am beginning to feel like a 5 year old kid again with all this.

 

[lincolnx2]

Then stop looking at them or mind your own damn business.

It's not about looking at them, it's about my tax dollars paying for their health care when they suffer from hypertension, high cholesterol and heart problems. I have no problem with you eating all your fatty foods, just don't expect to me to pay your medical bill.

and they need you to tell them what to do or how to live?

I am not trying to tell them how to live, people will still gain weight because we dont understand portion control.[/QUOTE]

Do you realize what you're saying?

Yes, I realize what I am saying, the US needs to regulate the amount of salt food manufacterers* use so I can enjoy it with out feeling sick, people can add as much salt as they want after it reaches their table.[/QUOTE]
After 'they' regulate what you can eat, what will they dictate to you next?
What other behavior will fail to meet the approval of you, or foxpaws, or the ruling class?
Take a look at my signature, or read this quote:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
-- C.S. Lewis[/QUOTE]

 

[fossten]

Yes, I realize what I am saying, the US needs to regulate the amount of salt food manufacterers* use so I can enjoy it with out feeling sick, people can add as much salt as they want after it reaches their table.

So what happens when they ban salt shakers in restaurants? Hmm? If you believe this will be the end of our nanny state regulating behavior, think again.

 

[fossten]

I just don't see the same horror show coming that you do

***

You sound like your worst fears have been realized already as a foregone conclusion and the government has already crushed you.

I'm just voicing my opinion which is much less dark than yours.

You need to watch Demolition Man again.

 

[lincolnx2]

You can't ban salt, we need salt to live, if you eliminate salt from a diet, you WILL die! Salt doesn't kill people, too much salt kills people.

 

[lincolnx2]

You need to watch Demolition Man again.

l

I loved that movie, who would have thought, Wesley Snipes, and "Sly".

 

[foxpaws]

All restaurants are Taco Bell...

You can't ban salt. I don't even think the FDA should regulate it - you can read the label, you can decide how much salt you want in your diet.

I can see restaurants needing to tell us how much salt, etc, is in their food-but they should be able to do whatever they want. If they want to put 4 days worth of salt in one meal, and you decide to eat it - who cares. But, you should be informed about it. Making informed decisions is important.

But, Lincolnx2 does have a point - if the person who overindulges on salt, fat, whatever, becomes a ward of the state, we pay to fix the consequences of his lifestyle.

Cigarettes are bad for you - you are allowed to smoke. However, they are taxed, heavily, and some of those taxes go to health care. Your bad choice is paid for by you, in the form of taxes on the product.

Can you tax salt - they used to a long time ago when it was highly prized and rare. It would be much more difficult now. However it isn't like it is all bad for you, moderation is just fine. Taxes would be a bad choice.

Perhaps private enterprise can do something. If you smoke, your health insurance rates are higher. Maybe if your eating habits lead to obesity, high cholesterol, blocked arteries, etc, your insurance rates go up. You pay for your choices. But, it still leads to the problem of when I start paying for your health care costs when you end up in the emergency room with no health insurance.

There won't be a private charity that takes care of this - 'donate lots of money so people who abuse their body, become massively overweight, eat 10 cheeseburgers a day, never exercise, can get free health care from our charity'. The poster child alone would put people off. It ends up as a state problem. Is there a state solution?

Obamacare uses mandatory health insurance as the solution, oddly enough, up until Obama, the Republicans, heck even the Heritage Foundation, thought it was the way to go (it was their solution against Clinton's universal coverage plan in the 90s)...

What other options are there?

 

[Calabrio]

Why do we have to mandate anything?
If a restaurant WANTS to make the nutritional information available, they are free to do so. If they don't, they shouldn't have to.

If you're concerned about such things, support the restaurants that provide the information you want and ask the ones that don't.

But, Lincolnx2 does have a point - if the person who overindulges on salt, fat, whatever, becomes a ward of the state, we pay to fix the consequences of his lifestyle.

Then the state needs to get out of the nursemaid business.
Because this arguments justifies the state being involved in EVERY SINGLE DECISION in our lives.

Every decision has consequences. And since you insist on socializing them, it can reasonably be argued that EVERY ACTION requires some government intervention and regulation.

From salty food to recreational driving to gun ownership to sex.

Perhaps private enterprise can do something. If you smoke, your health insurance rates are higher. Maybe if your eating habits lead to obesity, high cholesterol, blocked arteries, etc, your insurance rates go up. You pay for your choices. But, it still leads to the problem of when I start paying for your health care costs when you end up in the emergency room with no health insurance

It's amazing how you answer every perceived problem with greater government, greater intervention, more rules, and less personal responsibility.

If you eat poorly, don't exercise, and get sick. YOU DIE.
Most likely, before you die, you are hobbled by illness and discomfort.

If we were to have a free market for insurance, then there would be immediate and justifiable economic disincentive for poor health choice. However, you supported a "health care reform bill" that states that it has eliminated pre-existing conditions and the ability to deny coverage, not that it really matters since it's all designed to transition us to a single payer system.

You now want to start regulate our behavior when it comes to salt intake too. Where are you going to draw the line, foxpaws... and frankly, who the hell are you or your political buddies to draw any line in the first place.

Leave me the hell alone.
Even if your authoritarian tyranny is motivated with the best of intentions, it won't work. You can't eliminate failure, and it's wrong to socialize all risk.

If you self-destruct and no one wants to help you... then your screwed.
Liberty comes with responsibility. And independence comes with risk.
You can't socialize failure and still have a free society.

You're regulating salt now, foxpaws. You're trying to conceptualize policy that influences the use of condiments. Where does it end?

Using your utopian model, what decision can I make that you will not be able to argue that you have a controlling economic interest in?

And don't tell me that I can do what I want so long as I have "insurance," because we're movie towards a single payer system right now, and you supported the legislation.

 

[foxpaws]

Why do we have to mandate anything?
If a restaurant WANTS to make the nutritional information available, they are free to do so. If they don't, they shouldn't have to.

If you're concerned about such things, support the restaurants that provide the information you want and ask the ones that don't.

That seems sensible - I understand not 'mandating' a restaurant nutritional disclosure requirement. I support restaurants that put calorie content on their 'light' meals... I certainly would like to know the salt content as well - I will write them.

Every decision has consequences. And since you insist on socializing them, it can reasonably be argued that EVERY ACTION requires some government intervention and regulation.

Every decision does have consequences, like eating way too much salt. And if your decisions only affected you - I could care less. However, they don't. There are additional consequences.

If you eat poorly, don't exercise, and get sick. YOU DIE.
Most likely, before you die, you are hobbled by illness and discomfort.

And I take care of you in the hospital if you don't have health insurance. And believe me cal - I know you don't seem to understand the magnitude of the problem, there is no way private charity would be able to fulfill the need.

If we were to have a free market for insurance, then there would be immediate and justifiable economic disincentive for poor health choice. However, you supported a "health care reform bill" that states that it has eliminated pre-existing conditions and the ability to deny coverage, not that it really matters since it's all designed to transition us to a single payer system.

You can't deny coverage - but you can charge for it. And if people can't afford it, they will go on medicaid.

Oddly, almost exactly like it is now. Humana can't deny you coverage if you weigh 350 lbs, but believe me they can charge you more.

You now want to start regulate our behavior when it comes to salt intake too. Where are you going to draw the line, foxpaws... and frankly, who the hell are you or your political buddies to draw any line in the first place.

Nope - I don't. Maybe you didn't read my post - I don't think the FDA should regulate, I don't think there should be any way the government can mandate how much salt you eat, how much fat you eat, etc. It is your decision.

You are misrepresenting me Cal, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence -

I don't even think the FDA should regulate it - you can read the label, you can decide how much salt you want in your diet.

Even if your authoritarian tyranny is motivated with the best of intentions, it won't work. You can't eliminate failure, and it's wrong to socialize all risk.

Of course you can't - if you want to die, die. I think it would be better if you die informed. But, we already socialize the risk. When you make bad choices, and you don't have health insurance, I pay.

If you self-destruct and no one wants to help you... then your screwed.
Liberty comes with responsibility. And independence comes with risk.
You can't socialize failure and still have a free society.

Personal responsibility would include paying for your choices. Liberty is the freedom that I don't pay for your healthcare choices. I am now. I will continue to do so, because there is no way the public is going to provide for salt loving, fat, lazy people's health care charitably. It has to do with that whole 'personal responsibility' thing. People will donate for health care problems that seem wrong, arbitrary, unpreventable - childhood cancers, breast cancer, birth defects. However, if it looks like your choices created your problem, people will turn away from helping you.

We won't shut the hospital doors - we will pay. It is the whole 'you won't step over a 350 man wheezing on the hospital steps' scenario.

You're regulating salt now, foxpaws. You're trying to conceptualize policy that influences the use of condiments. Where does it end?

No I am not - don't lie Cal - it isn't becoming...

And don't tell me that I can do what I want so long as I have "insurance," because we're movie towards a single payer system right now, and you supported the legislation.

You can do whatever you want even without insurance - if you can pay for it. Heck, you can do whatever you want even if you can't pay for it. I will foot the bill. I just would like some inkling of 'personal responsibility' before that time.

And we aren't heading toward single payer - quit crying wolf - that isn't becoming of you either Cal.

And you might not have noticed my last paragraph-I added it as an edit -

The mandate/fine is the current solution to this problem, why do you think the Republicans and the Heritage Foundation changed their mind about having one?

 

[fossten]

Cigarettes are bad for you - you are allowed to smoke. However, they are taxed, heavily, and some of those taxes go to health care. Your bad choice is paid for by you, in the form of taxes on the product.

If people stop smoking, who's going to pay for healthcare?

Of course you can't - if you want to die, die. But, we already socialize the risk. When you make bad choices, and you don't have health insurance, I pay.

We shouldn't have to tolerate tyranny just because of your greed. On one hand you argue that we should all pay, on the other hand you bitch and moan because you have to pay. You can't have it both ways.

 

[foxpaws]

We shouldn't have to tolerate tyranny just because of your greed. On one hand you argue that we should all pay, on the other hand you bitch and moan because you have to pay. You can't have it both ways.

I do bitch and moan when I have to pay for other people's poor decisions.

I don't bitch and moan when I pay for things that are beyond reasonable personal responsibility.

I worked hard to get welfare reformed because I didn't want to pay for those people's bad decisions forever, or heck, how it was written up before the reform, reward them for bad behavior - gak - that was hideous. Give them a chance to turn around their lives. Give them options for education, et al, that they might not have had before. And if they don't make it, if they don't discover 'personal responsibility' - cut them off. And we do now. But, I strongly believe in trying to help them first - because many of the people on welfare haven't had much in the way of opportunity. If you give them a chance, some of them discover a much better way - a way out and up.

 

[fossten]

But, I strongly believe in trying to help them first - because many of the people on welfare haven't had much in the way of opportunity. If you give them a chance, some of them discover a much better way - a way out and up.

As evidenced by our 83% employment. Good call.

Reality must be a hard thing for you to fathom.

 

[foxpaws]

As evidenced by our 83% employment. Good call.

I believe our high unemployment rates are not caused at this time by the hard core unemployed. Most of the unemployed wish to be working. They aren't welfare candidates.

 

[fossten]

I believe our high unemployment rates are not caused at this time by the hard core unemployed. Most of the unemployed wish to be working. They aren't welfare candidates.

And you'd be wrong. There are news stories about people turning down jobs because they make too much and have been on unemployment too long.

The percentage that have stopped looking is around 7%.

The government keeps extending benefits.

Creating a dependency class is all you're doing.

 

[fossten]

I just don't see the same horror show coming that you do

 

[04SCTLS]

I never said I didn't see some kind of horror show coming, just not one in the style you see.

Yes things can only get tougher paying for all the government workers pensions and benefits and other private sector employees who've contributed to SS and Medicare.

I see the dollar sliding in step over a long period due to the huge numbers of retirees (5000+ per day now) increasing over time and China wanting to use it's money for it's own people unless we generate more things of real value instead of buying them from other countries.

If we were making more of our own stuff most of our problems would go away because of respending of the money inside the country.
You see a sinister Nazi Soviet future.

 

[cammerfe]

Intrusion

Let's see now---Government involved in our lives---

All welfare recipients should be mandated to have a simple surgical procedure---some sort of modification to the genitals, regardless of gender, to make it possible to install a padlock so that reproduction is virtually impossible. Just think of the savings!! And it would necessitate the creation of a giant bureaucracy to satisfy the requirement for government growth. People would be standing in line to become inspectors. And just think of the power involved in having the keys!
KS

 

[shagdrum]

You see a sinister Nazi Soviet future.

For once could you demonstrate a willingness to understand ideas before you respond to time?

 

[Aquabrit]

And just think of the power involved in having the keys!

Newsflash:

Community colleges have been FLOODED with locksmith course applications.

ALOA is NOT taking any more calls.

The key cutting black market has expanded to epic proportions. Police are overwhelmed.

'Bump key' develops whole new meaning... :lol:

 

[04SCTLS]

For once could you demonstrate a willingness to understand ideas before you respond to time?

Fossten has called me and fox "comrades" and until recently had a swastika representing Obama in the gif in his sig.

Do you 2 finish each other's sentences too

 

[fossten]

I never said I didn't see some kind of horror show coming, just not one in the style you see.

Yes things can only get tougher paying for all the government workers pensions and benefits and other private sector employees who've contributed to SS and Medicare.

I see the dollar sliding in step over a long period due to the huge numbers of retirees (5000+ per day now) increasing over time and China wanting to use it's money for it's own people unless we generate more things of real value instead of buying them from other countries.

If we were making more of our own stuff most of our problems would go away because of respending of the money inside the country.
You see a sinister Nazi Soviet future.

I see it because we elected a Marxist as President.

Do you even realize how much the Federal Government has spent this year on bailouts alone? And let me remind you that this is money that we already DON'T HAVE!

Hint: It's more than $19 Trillion.

 

[shagdrum]

Do you 2 finish each other's sentences too

No, I just expect intellectual integrity as opposed to hyperbole...

 

[foxpaws]

And you'd be wrong. There are news stories about people turning down jobs because they make too much and have been on unemployment too long.

The percentage that have stopped looking is around 7%.

The government keeps extending benefits.

Creating a dependency class is all you're doing.

Well, if those people's names were mentioned in those news stories, they won't have benefits for long - you aren't allowed to turn down jobs that match your skills.

And unemployment runs out at 2 years if you are in a really hard hit state - it is as little as 9 months in states with a better employment outlook.

Right now about 6% of the population is receiving some sort of unemployment benefits, however some of it is just COBRA that people can continue to get even after they are employed, but at a job without health care benefits.

Oh - your 19 Trillion dollar estimate is mostly loans - loans that are being paid back... how much is it if you remove the loans. How much is it if the loans are paid back with interest? What is the estimated rate of return on those loans? What is the estimated failure rate on those loans?

Lots of it is asset guarantees - how many of those guarantees are expected to be paid out? How much has been paid out to date?

Some of it was used to buy bad assets. Have those assets been sold, and at what percentage of loss?

How about filling in the story...