• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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


  • Total voters
    46
Okay, as long as you're consistent.

What about just plain old poison? Can Pepsi put lethal doses of rat poison in the can, and list it on the inredients on the back of the can?

Most of what we eat is potentially a poison, in the right quantities....

BTW, who else here thinks Pepsi tastes like poorly cooked asparagus?
 
I have little choice when it comes to Long Term anything. Once I get to Stage 4 of Parkinson's, I will start eating as unhealthy as I can.
I hope to die of something else before I get to stage 5....
by that time, I won't have a choice in the matter. I will have to eat what they give me...

IMO, that's what Dr. Kevorkian is for. If it were me, anyway. And that is in no way attempting to belittle or disrespect your situation. That's just how I personally feel about it.

Once my free will is gone, just shoot me in the head.
 
IMO, that's what Dr. Kevorkian is for. If it were me, anyway. And that is in no way attempting to belittle or disrespect your situation. That's just how I personally feel about it.

Once my free will is gone, just shoot me in the head.

Oh, I agree.....
Once life has no joy, pull the plug.
 
IMO, that's what Dr. Kevorkian is for. If it were me, anyway. And that is in no way attempting to belittle or disrespect your situation. That's just how I personally feel about it.

Once my free will is gone, just shoot me in the head.

The government already heavily regulates your food. Is your free will gone? You've lost the right to buy chicken loaded with salmonella I guess.
 
IMO, that's what Dr. Kevorkian is for. If it were me, anyway. And that is in no way attempting to belittle or disrespect your situation. That's just how I personally feel about it.

Once my free will is gone, just shoot me in the head.

That is how I feel about getting a heart transplant. I'm not so sure Id want to live the life after the transplant.
 
That is how I feel about getting a heart transplant. I'm not so sure Id want to live the life after the transplant.

That's why Obama created Death Panels!
 
And we don't have an NHS yet either.

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'ts not the government's job to regulate salt content in food.

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.

People who don't like crappy unhealthy processed foods don't have to eat them.

Can't get simpler than that.

Why do weinies think the big machine gun of the federal government is the answer to all their little irrelevant complaints in life?
 
I'ts not the government's job to regulate salt content in food.

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.

People who don't like crappy unhealthy processed foods don't have to eat them.

Can't get simpler than that.

Why do weinies think the big machine gun of the federal government is the answer to all their little irrelevant complaints in life?

Sure, because regulating salt wasn't mentioned in the Constitution, it's unconstitutional to do so. Antonin Scalia would be so proud of your pointed legal logic.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
:shock: Is it too late to close the can of worms?

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. :lol:
 
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:
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.
 
:shock: 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) :2razz:



Revolution? I thought we already covered that?

See you Wednesday! :2wave:

Yes. Best to stop before you get carried away. :lol:

:doh
 
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.
 
Why don't you answer first - you never answered this question when I posed it to you weeks ago.

You'd just say I wasn't telling the truth, so why bother.
 
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.

So people have a right to an abortion but also the right not to an abortion. Or something like that.

You need to brush up on your logic.
 
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.

Okay, it's not an abortion thread and this is going to take it way OT. I'll be brief, in light of that.

I am without a doubt 100% pro-choice.

I am also, without a doubt, 100% in favor of limiting federal power in favor of state.
 
So people have a right to an abortion but also the right not to an abortion. Or something like that.

You need to brush up on your logic.

You need to brush up on your reading comprehension, first, seeing as I never said anything remotely close to "right not to an abortion".

That's not something like "People have a right to live in a region that doesn't allow abortions".

Nor is it something like "People don't have a right to an abortion performed by a doctor".

By the way, it is ironic that you used a logical fallacy (the strawman) to claim I need to brush up on my logic skills.
 
Back
Top Bottom