If you are trying to say...</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, what I'm trying to say is that people are dismissing the premise without thinking. The case against tobacco was dismissed just the same, but after years of court hearings it all ended with a just conclusion.
This case could have equal merits. Those that dismiss it are just being blind.
[QB]TO blame MD for making you fat is dumb idea, because unlike big tobacco, who intentionally made a product to addict the consumer to a point at which they could not stop, MD offers food.<hr></blockquote>
That comic points to the exact type of ignorance I'm seeing in this thread. Somehow there is a new breed of super-intelligent beings that can see the results of a trial without viewing any evidence, listening to any testimony or as far as I can tell even reading the claims in the lawsuits.
We can forget that they were (mostly) all wrong about the tobacco case for the time being. They'll be 100% correct from here on out....
<strong>Somehow there is a new breed of super-intelligent beings that can see the results of a trial without viewing any evidence, listening to any testimony or as far as I can tell even reading the claims in the lawsuits.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I know. It's cool, ain't it? I get this power from Earth's yellow sun.
<strong>You know what I mean. And actually i think i would be hard pressed to find any meat distribuitor who can give me a leg of lamb, of ribs,that were produced without using a knife.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't question BR about his meat. He uses his claws and 3 inch daggers for thumbs. 1 Swoop and you're dead.
I know. It's cool, ain't it? I get this power from Earth's yellow sun.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, there's a hole in the ozone layer over southern california... It lets in steadier streams of Steve's RDF. So that and fish tacos can render anyone superhuman.
That comic points to the exact type of ignorance I'm seeing in this thread. Somehow there is a new breed of super-intelligent beings that can see the results of a trial without viewing any evidence, listening to any testimony or as far as I can tell even reading the claims in the lawsuits.
... </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes! These super intelligent beings are using the lost art of Common Sense to conclude that blaming MD for being fat is the dumbest ****ing thing ever.
As for the pheromone thing, hey can't help nature. It made sound sense to me scientifically. Especially if the mother has multiple boyfriends living in the household over the years. I didn't judge it. I even said that these things have always happened, there are exceptions, this is a generalization and if anything it has just lowered the average age.
Feeling a little touchy are we?
Nick</strong><hr></blockquote>
I was just refering to the idea that there are all those unwed and promiscuous women out there copulating like wild rabits and causing their daughters to grow up too young . . . when it's perfectly clear that they should all be in a nuclear family held together by those bastions of stability . . . . family values
at least that is the covert agenda of said "theory"
I just think it's amazing that people want to regulate what you eat by taxing you if you eat the wrong thing. And yet, those same people went nuts over their freedom to have legal prostitution under the guise that you should be free to do whatever you want. You can't have it both ways
<strong>I just think it's amazing that people want to regulate what you eat by taxing you if you eat the wrong thing. And yet, those same people went nuts over their freedom to have legal prostitution under the guise that you should be free to do whatever you want. You can't have it both ways</strong><hr></blockquote>
The government shouldn't be trying to enact social change through taxation. Taxes should only be levied to cover medical costs that the state is burdened with. I'm consistent.
I was just refering to the idea that there are all those unwed and promiscuous women out there copulating like wild rabits and causing their daughters to grow up too young . . . when it's perfectly clear that they should all be in a nuclear family held together by those bastions of stability . . . . family values
at least that is the covert agenda of said "theory"</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sometimes things just happen to work out that way though. It is like when research shows that our brain can handle memorable chunks about 3-5 items long typically and gee English teachers happen to recommend paragraphs that are about that many sentences. It sounds like a conspiracy but it isn't.
And last time I checked when you started puberty had absolutely no effect on how good or moral a person you are in life.
<strong>I just think it's amazing that people want to regulate what you eat by taxing you if you eat the wrong thing. And yet, those same people went nuts over their freedom to have legal prostitution under the guise that you should be free to do whatever you want. You can't have it both ways</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you trying to say that if something is taxed we're not free to use it? Or are you trying to say that the plans to regulate and tax prostitution aren't the same as regulating and taxing other institutions? Or is taxing legalized prostitution not infringing on your freedom to f*** while taxing unhealthy food is infringing on your freedom to eat?
<strong>Why is the court system an improper place to enact social change?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because the proper place to do it is with the body of government that's closest to the people, the legislature. With the courts you can end up with a ruling that's a result of the whim of a single activist judge. Doesn't matter if it's a "liberal" or "conservative" decision you don't want a single person making important decisions.
<strong>because the proper place to do it is with the body of government that's closest to the people, the legislature.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What if it is the legislature that is the problem?
The legislature doesn't determine the constitutional integrity of legislation, that's the Supreme Court's job.
[quote]<strong>With the courts you can end up with a ruling that's a result of the whim of a single activist judge. Doesn't matter if it's a "liberal" or "conservative" decision you don't want a single person making important decisions.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you have any examples of this happening?
This is an oft-spouted line that I haven't seen fleshed out as a real argument. I can't even see it happening in theory because we, as citizens, have a right to appeal all the way to the highest court. And the argument seems to scoff at the very existence of the court system.
Comments
<strong>
If you are trying to say...</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, what I'm trying to say is that people are dismissing the premise without thinking. The case against tobacco was dismissed just the same, but after years of court hearings it all ended with a just conclusion.
This case could have equal merits. Those that dismiss it are just being blind.
[QB]TO blame MD for making you fat is dumb idea, because unlike big tobacco, who intentionally made a product to addict the consumer to a point at which they could not stop, MD offers food.<hr></blockquote>
That comic points to the exact type of ignorance I'm seeing in this thread. Somehow there is a new breed of super-intelligent beings that can see the results of a trial without viewing any evidence, listening to any testimony or as far as I can tell even reading the claims in the lawsuits.
We can forget that they were (mostly) all wrong about the tobacco case for the time being. They'll be 100% correct from here on out....
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
<strong>Somehow there is a new breed of super-intelligent beings that can see the results of a trial without viewing any evidence, listening to any testimony or as far as I can tell even reading the claims in the lawsuits.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I know. It's cool, ain't it? I get this power from Earth's yellow sun.
"
What are you trying to say?
<strong>You know what I mean. And actually i think i would be hard pressed to find any meat distribuitor who can give me a leg of lamb, of ribs,that were produced without using a knife.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't question BR about his meat. He uses his claws and 3 inch daggers for thumbs. 1 Swoop and you're dead.
<strong>
I know. It's cool, ain't it? I get this power from Earth's yellow sun.
Yeah, there's a hole in the ozone layer over southern california...
[ 01-27-2003: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>
<strong> So that and fish tacos can render anyone superhuman.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I prefer shrimp tacos myself.
<strong>
That comic points to the exact type of ignorance I'm seeing in this thread. Somehow there is a new breed of super-intelligent beings that can see the results of a trial without viewing any evidence, listening to any testimony or as far as I can tell even reading the claims in the lawsuits.
... </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes! These super intelligent beings are using the lost art of Common Sense to conclude that blaming MD for being fat is the dumbest ****ing thing ever.
<strong>
...the lost art of Common Sense....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Laws. Courts. They're what separate upper level beings from the less intelligent species. Join us!
<strong>
As for the pheromone thing, hey can't help nature. It made sound sense to me scientifically. Especially if the mother has multiple boyfriends living in the household over the years. I didn't judge it. I even said that these things have always happened, there are exceptions, this is a generalization and if anything it has just lowered the average age.
Feeling a little touchy are we?
Nick</strong><hr></blockquote>
I was just refering to the idea that there are all those unwed and promiscuous women out there copulating like wild rabits and causing their daughters to grow up too young . . . when it's perfectly clear that they should all be in a nuclear family held together by those bastions of stability . . . . family values
at least that is the covert agenda of said "theory"
<strong>
Laws. Courts. They're what separate upper level beings from the less intelligent species. Join us!</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>I just think it's amazing that people want to regulate what you eat by taxing you if you eat the wrong thing. And yet, those same people went nuts over their freedom to have legal prostitution under the guise that you should be free to do whatever you want. You can't have it both ways</strong><hr></blockquote>
The government shouldn't be trying to enact social change through taxation. Taxes should only be levied to cover medical costs that the state is burdened with. I'm consistent.
[ 01-28-2003: Message edited by: BR ]</p>
<strong>
I was just refering to the idea that there are all those unwed and promiscuous women out there copulating like wild rabits and causing their daughters to grow up too young . . . when it's perfectly clear that they should all be in a nuclear family held together by those bastions of stability . . . . family values
at least that is the covert agenda of said "theory"</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sometimes things just happen to work out that way though. It is like when research shows that our brain can handle memorable chunks about 3-5 items long typically and gee English teachers happen to recommend paragraphs that are about that many sentences. It sounds like a conspiracy but it isn't.
And last time I checked when you started puberty had absolutely no effect on how good or moral a person you are in life.
Like I said... feeling a bit touchy....
Nick
<strong>I just think it's amazing that people want to regulate what you eat by taxing you if you eat the wrong thing. And yet, those same people went nuts over their freedom to have legal prostitution under the guise that you should be free to do whatever you want. You can't have it both ways</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you trying to say that if something is taxed we're not free to use it? Or are you trying to say that the plans to regulate and tax prostitution aren't the same as regulating and taxing other institutions? Or is taxing legalized prostitution not infringing on your freedom to f*** while taxing unhealthy food is infringing on your freedom to eat?
<img src="confused.gif" border="0">
<strong>Why is the court system an improper place to enact social change?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because the proper place to do it is with the body of government that's closest to the people, the legislature. With the courts you can end up with a ruling that's a result of the whim of a single activist judge. Doesn't matter if it's a "liberal" or "conservative" decision you don't want a single person making important decisions.
[ 01-28-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</p>
<img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
<strong>because the proper place to do it is with the body of government that's closest to the people, the legislature.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What if it is the legislature that is the problem?
The legislature doesn't determine the constitutional integrity of legislation, that's the Supreme Court's job.
[quote]<strong>With the courts you can end up with a ruling that's a result of the whim of a single activist judge. Doesn't matter if it's a "liberal" or "conservative" decision you don't want a single person making important decisions.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you have any examples of this happening?
This is an oft-spouted line that I haven't seen fleshed out as a real argument. I can't even see it happening in theory because we, as citizens, have a right to appeal all the way to the highest court. And the argument seems to scoff at the very existence of the court system.