View Poll Results: Should the Federal Government push food processors into lowering salt content?

Voters
63. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, this is for the common good.

    14 22.22%
  • Warning labels and a public awareness campaign should be enough

    12 19.05%
  • Government managed healthcare gives them a vested interest in this

    1 1.59%
  • Processed food is so darned salty, I won't protest

    3 4.76%
  • As long as it's legal for folks to add more salt, I'm okay with it

    5 7.94%
  • The government is trying to micromanage our lives! No, this is ridiculous!

    22 34.92%
  • Other, please explain

    6 9.52%
Page 17 of 20 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 198

Thread: Should the Federal Government push food processors into lowering salt content?

  1. #161
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Should the Federal Government push food processors into lowering salt content?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    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.
    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.

  2. #162
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Should the Federal Government push food processors into lowering salt content?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    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.
    The founders placed no limitations on the ways that interstate commerce were to be regulated.

    They didn't specifically say "Congress shall pass no laws regulating salt in interstate commerce."

    Instead it says "[Enumerated powers] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes"

    This is all that is being done here.

    Congress has the Constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce. This regulatory authority was only limited on the type of commerce, not the types of regulations.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  3. #163
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Should the Federal Government push food processors into lowering salt content?

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    I have no issue with overturning roe v wade.
    None at all?

  4. #164
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Should the Federal Government push food processors into lowering salt content?

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    None at all?
    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.

  5. #165
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Should the Federal Government push food processors into lowering salt content?

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    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.
    I can see having issue with the specific regulation, although I see no problem with it myself. I can still put as much salt into my food as I wish to.

    My point is that the regulation is not an increase in federal authority. The federal government has always had this authority (at least when it comes to interstate commerce). Until now it has chosen not to use it.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  6. #166
    The Almighty
    Kelzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Last Seen
    10-21-17 @ 11:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    13,534

    Re: Should the Federal Government push food processors into lowering salt content?

    Is it too late to close the can of worms?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    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.
    Unbeknownst to both of them, I'm always right.

    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.
    I think we're overdue for one of those.

    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.
    Ooo, yeah. Don't agree with that. See above for me always being right.

    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.
    That sounds like a horrible system.

    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.
    Really the only solution is to kick the conservatives out. I hear the Middle East is hiring.

    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.
    Revolution? I thought we already covered that?

    Anyway, I know you aren't a big fan of the wordy, wall-of-text replies, so I'll just leave it at that.
    Yes. Best to stop before you get carried away.
    be humble for you are made of earth; be noble for you are made of stars

    Serbian proverb

  7. #167
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Should the Federal Government push food processors into lowering salt content?

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    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?

    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.
    Last edited by misterman; 04-22-10 at 04:13 PM.

  8. #168
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Should the Federal Government push food processors into lowering salt content?

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    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.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  9. #169
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Should the Federal Government push food processors into lowering salt content?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kelzie View Post
    Is it too late to close the can of worms?
    Probably.

    Unbeknownst to both of them, I'm always right.
    I know. Even when your wrong. My wife's got that skill, too.



    I think we're overdue for one of those.
    It's set to start next Wednesday at 4 pm Central time. It's BYOG.



    That sounds like a horrible system.

    Which one? I described two I the quoted portion.

    If its the latter of those to to which you refer, I agree.


    Really the only solution is to kick the conservatives out. I hear the Middle East is hiring.
    Which can be done under my system. (Of course, it would probably be done to the liberals first since there are more red states, which would vote to kick the liberal states out of the union, but the end result would be the same)



    Revolution? I thought we already covered that?
    See you Wednesday!

    Yes. Best to stop before you get carried away.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  10. #170
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Should the Federal Government push food processors into lowering salt content?

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Again, just checking.

    So you don't think women have a right to abortion?
    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.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

Page 17 of 20 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •