Parihaka

Emotions are essential to human survival. No only reasoning person would choose to have children

Praxus

Define your terms, what do you mean by "emotions"?

Praxus

Not just success, but life.

Confed999

This whole bit of your post is descriminating. It singles out peoples habits, and is designed to penalize them for those habits. It is important to note, the government will be making up the qualifications to be descriminated against, and the punishment for fitting those qualifications. The sad part is, they're being harmed by the government, yet have committed no crime.
Ever heard the term "Saftey Nazi"?
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt
Exactly, and giving the government the right to decide what's good for you, and what's bad for you is amazingly foolish. It's exactly what our forefathers were fighting against.
"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke
I've read a great deal on them, and by them. I know the motivations...
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. " -Thomas Jefferson
Huh? The Articles of Confederation were not meant to be permananent. They were meant to provide a stable government durring the war, reconstruction, and build up of defences. It worked marvelously, the proof is that we are the USA, and not a British colony. It also had the side effect of making a strong centeral government more feasable to the people.
When did I say they did?
Economic attack for something not illegal. Descrimination.
Pol Pot: The Early Days
Then let me rephrse it into this context for you. If you give the government the power to decide what's good for you, you are "all assortment of scum and villainy". Context is key. With the appropriate context, no quote is "misused".
Economically... To start, but it allways gets bigger, and worse. Just as your "plan" wants to make it bigger.
Context my man, context...
Descrimination is a good thing? Pol Pot?
"Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. " -John Fitzgerald Kennedy
I will never be stupid enough to belive there is any difference in descrimination. A bigot is a bigot, where I'm from.
You mean "not Constitutional"? Not Constitutional are items not guaranteed by the Constitution. It's a rather simple concept if you think about it...
No, I equate bigotry with bigotry.
You can call it a "bird" if you wish, that does not make it one...
What word did you not understand? Or was the metaphor too complex?
I would expect no less from someone who is prepared to hurt people, that have not hurt him. We're only two corners away, like it or not, and we had best not keep walking toward that first corner.
Sure would, survival of the species through organic replacement.

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

Bulgaroctonus

The approach I have been considering is one that uses the FDA to crack down on harmful foods. As I stated before, this involves greater education about the products being offered, and removal of especially vile items. My approach attacks the issue on the supply side, it does not take the food out of the hands of fat people. The FDA action I am proposing targets certain products, not people.

Of course, a certain amount of discrimination may arise. This is simply because it is fat people that consume the most of the aforementioned products. However, this discrimination is part of no government policy and is consequential.

From what I understand, you must also consider drug users and cigarette addicts discriminated against. Is this not true? If we cry 'discrimination' at every single government action, not much will get done. The U.S. government already does penalize people for their habits, although you may not like it. U.S. residents are not allowed to have homicidal, kleptomaniacal, or destructive habits. We are not allowed to possess or consume certain products. The U.S. government is definitely in the business of discouraging certain habits, and far less than many countries.

A government that turns a blind eye to its people's habits is doomed to failure.

My approach targets the market, not people. It is preemptive, not post facto.

No. Is that another Seinfeld episode?

Sometimes, that necessity does exist. First of all, there have been many W. Pitts throughout history (two prime ministers of Britain at least). So which do you quote? Anyway, this quote presents the same false dilemma. Allowing the FDA to watch certain harmful foods does not lead to slavery or despotism or anything like that.

Well, then they should have built a direct democracy! For some reason, they created a republic, where elected officials make decisions. One might argue cynically that many people don't know what is best for them anyway (i.e. fat people).

Again, the ghost of Mr. Burke can rest easy. I recognize your fears, but I think you overestimate the danger that things like tax incentives and FDA food labels pose to our great republic.

Yeah, well ol' T.J. also kept more than a hundred slaves, so all his ramblings on liberty need to be taken lightly. Again, this quote is not needed.

The Articles of Confederation were a failure. The Articles supported the Congressional direction of the Continental Army, and allowed the Thirteen Colonies to present a unified front when dealing with the European powers. But as an instrument of government, they were largely a failure. Congress could make decisions, but had no power to enforce them.

Perhaps the most important power that Congress was denied was the power of taxation: Congress could only request money from the states. Understandably, the states did not generally comply with the requests in full, leaving the confederation chronically short of funds. The states and the national congress had both incurred debts during the war, and paying congressional debts became a major issue.

Shay's Rebellion (1786-87) was caused largely by the huge debt that the government under the Articles of Confederation was unable to solve. Thus, the payment devolved onto those farmers that could least afford to pay it. This sparked rebellion and forced a reassesment of the Articles.

I can find nothing about the Articles originally planned to be temporary. I don't know about that point.

The theme of your postings seems to be libertarian. That is, the power that the government exerts today is a perversion of the Constitution. I have interpreted this as a tendency towards powerless government.

There are economic attacks on cigarettes, and that's not illegal. I'd like to see your response on this point. A possible campaign against obesity is very similar. This is not discrimination, and if it is, it is very light and consequential, as I have stated above.

I will ignore all future references to Pol Pot or any other dictators in context of this thread.

You used the Franklin quote in an inappropriate context. So, yes, it was misused. Also, I have said before that my whole approach is centered around nutritional and tax reform. Scientists have already shown that eating junk food and getting fat is bad for you! In this case the government does actually know what's best!

We have to avoid the sweeping generalizations that you are making. Sometimes the government is wrong, and sometimes it's right. That's how it is.

You have not listed what rights will actually be taken away by my plan. There it is. My plan does not want to make it bigger. Trust me, I'm the one making it up. We are not going to go from food labels to wire taps to death camps. It's just not happening.

The context was wrong in your case.

What's that you said? It sounded like something '...Pot.' Thank you O Zen Master Kennedy for such a prophetic statement. I'll say that "Obesity is the jailer of the blood vessels, and the enemy of cardiac health."

Can we stop trading quotes?

I wish I could roast the word 'discrimination' over a slow fire. I wish I could disembowel it and chop it up. I wish I could clone it, only to crucify 'discrimination' all the way down the Appian Way. I wish...I wish... [starts panting, twitching, bangs head against wall...] Damn you bastards...damn you to hell...[raises fist defiantly and passes out]

[arises from stupor] ...I have answered your claims of discrimination!

I grasp the concept. I'm concerned about legal terminology. I think that 'Not Constitutional' is encompassed by the term 'Unconstitutional.' I'm going to do a search of legal terms, since that is what matters.

I equate the above statement with irrelevance.
Haha, smart Alec. The phrase red herring has a number of metaphorical senses that share the general sense of something being a diversion from the original objective:


So nice of you to be condescending. Your metaphor was incredibly obscure. Did you actually expect me to remember your statement, almost fifty posts ago, about turning a corner to death camps?

I have a list of people I want to hurt. It's a small list....

Bulgaroctonus

It was the nature of the reply that annoyed me.

Not a very good method of entrapment then! Anyway, the stealth fat-slapper will never be apprehended.



Sure it does. The fact that many people agree with my findings makes it that much less likely that I am just rambling on.



Am I supposed to walk through the forest? But what if it's a tree farm and I can just multiply the rows by columns? Or do I take an aerial photo? Do saplings count? Deciduous or evergreen? It's all so confusing.

Damn metaphors to hell! I say unto thee man, speak plainly!

Many, many human traits do have economic costs.

Yes.

No, I can actually understand your concern here. Let me first ask, do you concern a lack of children to be an imperfection? I hope not, because it is not, at least not in my book. Of course, some people need to have children or else we're done for. But this shouldn't be a problem (Ehem...if you get my drift).

Moving on. The issue is not perfection. Instead my concerns arise from my medical aspirations, and a concern for civic health. We all know the deadly consequences of obesity. It affects the obese people, their loved ones, and society as a whole. My programs are not punitive. They encourage people to get healthier and help themselves.

Also, obesity is largely a choice (I am aware of those few individuals that have a genetic predisposition). That is, the government is urging people to make better choices. We are not punishing them for unalterable circumstances, and certainly not for a lack of children.

I hope I have allayed your fears somewhat.

Humbug.

Confed999

How are you going to get inanimate objects to pay taxes?
LOL, so now you agree...
Yes, as I've said several times. Probably after each time you brought it up.
Only the things that do not harm people will get done. And that's the whole point, government is there to protect your rights. Anything else is a degree of tyrrany.
Because it harms the rights of others, just as your taxes would.
A government that punishes people who have not harmed anyone's rights is a tyranny. Pol Pot...
An attack on the market costs who money? The people. Take it today, tomorrow, or a year from now, it's still descrimination.
No. It's your suggestion.
No, the need to attack people who have done nothing to harm anyone's rights does not exist. If you believe it does, then we're closer to the corner than I thought.
The tyrrany of the majority. Democracy is one vote away from death camps.
All of this is fine, until they want something of yours right? Rap music causes crime, just look at the rappers...
Watching? No it doesn't. Doing something descriminatory? Yes it does.
Every step, is one step closer. "Making the Jews wear a star on their sleve doesn't really do anything."
You were the one speaking of their motives...
It fits perfectly. Motives of our forefathers, remember? Your lack of understanding does not change that.
We're here...
I never said it was perfect, and none of this addresses any of the successes I listed.
This is helpful, don't read more than is written.
I allready have. Do you read my posts? Descrimination is wrong.
Descrimination is descrimination. A bigot is a bigot.
For quite obvious reasons huh? It really isn't my fault your proposal fits tyrrany. If you're going to keep it, I'd get used to the comparison.
Nope, liberty is the ability to do as you wish without harming anothers rights. Security is the assumed health benefit. Your lack of understanding does not change that.
Descrimination is wrong. That's how it is.
Economic freedom. How many times do I have to say it? You don't understand the concept of an economic attack on someone? Theft? Come on now...
Sure it does. You're suggesting expanding the health facism allready taking it's toll on the liberty of your fellow Americans.
I wonder if Germans said something similar in the beginning?
"History is a vast early warning system." -Norman Cousins
Dead on, your lack of understanding does not change that.
That does not give the government the right to apply penalties for it.
You haven't come up with any. I guess you could quit replying to me, or leave to stop seeing them. Otherwise I can't help you. I value history, and the lessons of those that came before me.
Yeah, you answered them, and have validated them. The only bit you don't seem to get is that it's wrong to descriminate.
What would you call something not specifically listed in the Constitution? Are grapes unconstituional? Or are they not specifically addressed in the Constitution? A very, very simple concept. And I don't know how legal terms are "what matters".
So you're saying bigots aren't bigots? LOL
Sadly, it was right on the money though. You are the one suggesting letting the government decide what is good, and what penalties will be applied to those that do not fit the "good" category.
I tend to treat people, as I am treated by them.
It's right there. Nobody took it away from you. Heck, you quoted it.
I'm going to stick with "liberty and justice for all", myself.

Confed999

They're descriminatory economic attacks. The programs would not be punitive if they did not take money from a specific group of people. The problem is, they do.

dalem

Bulgy, most of your response was silly. The key is right here:

We do? What are they? And why are they important to anyone but the obese person?

Fears? I have no fears concerning your points, I am merely trying to point out where they lead. You want to try social and physical re-engineering of the details of society, you go right ahead. Just don't expect me to pay for it or respect it.

-dale

Bulgaroctonus

Confed,
I'm still debating whether or not to reply to your last post. I find our conversation immensely frustrating. How can I demonstrate to you that FDA programs and tax incentives are not primarily a constitutional rights issue? I don't know why we are not understanding each other.

I am annoyed that you continue to construe my ideas as a great offense to civil liberties.

Ultimately, I don't have time for an indefinite or cyclical argument. I am dissapointed that we have not been able to move forward.

If I get the motivation, I will respond to your last lengthy post. However, I don't think it will do much good.