So it doesn't actually restrict salt, it just makes it "opt in" instead of having no choice.
But you do have a choice. You can refuse to eat somewhere that adds salt to it's menu. You might find the taste a little bland and unappealing but there you go.
you would have no objection to the food companies could put lead in their food as a sweetener
That's a stupid comparison. Lead is a toxin. Salt is required for life.
The bottom line is that part of the reason why we have a government is to precisely to prevent people from passing poisonous or other misleading substances off as nutritious food
Salt is a poisonous substance? Your kidding me, right?
The bill as written deserved to be killed. It will bankrupt our country (the CBO score was based on incorrect assumptions and accounting that puts Enron to shame), do nothing to reduce health care costs and strip away my right to decide whether or not I want to purchase health insurance.
There was a bipartisan reform bill that was brave enough to address some of the underlying issues in our medical system (breaking the linkage between insurance and employment for instance) but the Democratic leadership never allowed it to go anywhere.
It's salty though, and that's not really good either.
Don't worry, the nanny state is hard at work here too. We'll keep you safe, because you are obviously too stupid to make informed decisions for yourself.
Which begs the question, why are they not gettin up off their ass's and building more power generation plants as opposed to whining and crying which eventually leads to these stupid hair brained ideas in the first place.
Because of the NIMBY/BANANA Nazis have teamed up with those concerned about climate change to filibuster any attempts at building new power plants?
One of the strategies of someone who is about to lose an argument is to avoid the real issue by attacking the presenter on unrelated issues.
That would explain why the Democrats used the committee system to muzzle GOP health care reform ideas while claiming that they were the "Party of No" and uninterested in compromise.
Thats good that you dont listen to Fox. Because Roger Ailes (chief of Fox news) has publicly stated that he's not interested in accuracy, only ratings.
Are you naive enough to believe that MSNBC/CNN/NBC/CBS/ABC are motivated by some other consideration?
I'm of a practical mindset. The NRA can look out for the second amendment. The ALCU looks out for the other 26. Rational people can disagree.
I don't accept this rationalization. The ACLU is openly hostile towards the 2nd amendment. It's not that they've just decided that the NRA is better equipped to defend it. They come right out on their own webpage and claim that it doesn't defend an individual right. They would be foaming at the mouth if anybody tried to come up with that reading of any other civil liberty but do the same with regards to the 2nd amendment?
That makes them hypocrites, plain and simple. They will never see a dime of my money for this reason.
No, actually, if you'd stop doing a half-assed job of "cleaning up" other countries, terrorists might not have flown planes into fucking office buildings and we wouldn't be having this retarded discussion.
Like those counties would behave any differently if they wielded the power that we do. Have fun if the 21st century really turns out to be China's century -- you think they'll be as restrained as we have been? I can't wait to see them crack down on the backwards people that somehow wound up with the land containing a useful resource.
This rationalization doesn't hold water. It's not that they've decided to defer to the NRA on defending the 2nd amendment. They are openly hostile to the notion that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right. That's not compatible with an organization that's supposed to defend civil liberties.
Don't take my word for it though. My previous link was their own webpage.
Or do you believe that the US army should be able to execute any American citizen who are not on US soil if the army feels like it?
The US Army can't wipe it's own ass without the permission of the Commander-in-Chief. The question is should the President be allowed to order the US Military to kill Americans who are serving with foreign enemies of this Republic?
The ALCU is probably looking for "due process of law".
If these people wanted due process of law they should have remained on American soil and not enlisted in the service of foreign organizations that are trying to murder American soldiers and civilians.
My rights as a citizen of the US shouldn't expire with respect to the US government if I leave the country.
The people who are being targeted have done a little bit more than leave the country. They've left the country and joined up with enemies of the country who are actively engaged in the process of trying it do it harm.
I'm sorry but if you leave the US, travel to a foreign battlefield and willingly enlist in the service of those who are fighting our country you've committed treason. Why should you be treated any differently than the foreign combatants whom are trying to do us harm?
What's done in war time on foreign soil against non-American citizens doesn't seem to fall within the domain of the American Civil Liberties Union.
IMHO, they have no right to call themselves a "civil liberties union" as long as they refuse to defend the 2nd amendment and continue to cling to the discredited notion that the 2nd amendment only protects a "collective" right. They interrupt every other amendment in as broad of a manner as possible while ignoring the plain text of the 2nd amendment and claiming that "In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue."
If US Citizens are employed in the service of enemies of this Republic on foreign soil, then what the hell does the ACLU want? The FBI to paradrop into Afghanistan, slap the cuffs on them and read them their Miranda rights? What the hell?
Next up: ACLU objects to US Military engaging in warfare, suggests borrowing a page from Steven Spielberg and replacing all issued M-16s with walkie-talkies.
Then I hope they realize that the current President (a Democrat the last time I checked) is in favor of the death penalty and hawkish towards war......
I was being a wiseass. You said you didn't want to use a computer so I pointed out something that doesn't require a "computer".
I honestly don't have an answer for you. Pandora is a great source of new music (in my experience anyway) but as noted it requires some sort of internet connection and device that costs money. The radio is useless, unless you are lucky enough to live in a market that hasn't been assimilated by Clear Channel or Citadel. I can literally set my watch by the music they play. It's pathetic. "Oh, Nickelback, it must be 4:30, time to go home." It's that bad.
However, the selling of drugs should be regulated and taxed just like alcohol and cigarettes.
Why? Why should products that are bad for you be taxed at a higher rate than other products? Vice taxes annoy me, it's no fucking business of Washington or Albany how much fatty food I eat or how much pot I smoke.
Not only would this greatly reduce drug related crime
No it wouldn't. If you tax those products at an excessive rate then people turn to smuggling to get around the taxes. This is already happening with cigarettes in the higher taxed states.
but as far as the government is concerned unborn babies are not citizens of this country yet and therefore outside the governments purview. The mothers life takes precedence as she is an actual citizen of this country.
I'm pro-choice but that's a stupid argument you are making there. Laws against murder do not take citizenship into account. I can't murder a British national on American soil and expect to get away with it.
As far as I'm concerned the only pro-choice argument that makes sense is that the Government has no business telling us what we can do with our bodies. If you can force a mother to carry to term then can you also force me to submit to a bone marrow donation if I'm the only compatible donor for some poor bastard dying of cancer? All the other pro-choice talking points really piss me off -- the "it's not a human life" one in particular. Neither is a brain dead person being kept alive by machines but if I walk into their hospital room and blow them away I'm guilty of murder.
but unless my sperm are involved it's simply none of my damn business
One thing I've always thought of as fundamentally unfair is the fact that females can choose whether or not they want to become parents but males forfeit that right after they ejaculate. It doesn't matter if you wanted to become a father or not -- you partner could even have sabotaged the birth control (or just plain lied about being on it) and you are still on the hook for that child for the next 18 years.
A progressive society would give males the option of abandoning their rights and not being responsible for that child -- apparently the right to decide whether or not you want to be a parent only extends to the female though.
You can't abort an unborn baby, that's murder. But once he's out of the womb, then all bets are off.
Huh? What are you trying to say here? Is there some element of the GOP platform that I'm unaware of that supports murder or some such? Or does it just bother you that the GOP is generally opposed to cradle to grave welfare states that take away our liberty under the guise of protecting people?
members of the New York state assembly seem to make something closer to $90-100,000)
Actually most make considerably more than that. Members of the NYS Legislature get extra pay for serving on committees, even though that's usually regarded as part of the job for legislators in other states/the Federal Government. That's one of the tools that the leadership wields to keep members in line -- if you vote against the leadership in the NYS Legislature they will take away your committee assignments and hit your bottom line to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars per year.
Our State Government sucks donkey balls. The only saving grace is we aren't as dysfunctional as California -- though in a few years I'm sure we'll be where they are today.
Yeah, but from what I understand the with the cost of living in NYC...$100K/yr will barely keep you on the poverty level.
You understand wrong. When I lived there I "only" made $45k. I managed to live a comfortable lifestyle. You can get by without a car in the city -- that's a huge chunk of saved money right there. Your biggest expense is rent. Energy costs are above the national norm (I think I was paying $0.18/kWh when I lived there) but that's not a real big deal when you live in an apartment. Groceries were comparable to what I pay now in Upstate. Maybe a tad bit more expensive but it really wasn't enough of a difference that it hurt my bottom line.
The biggest money pit in NYC is the culture. Museums, shows, arts, etc. aren't cheap and there's a lot of ways to blow money on those items in NYC. But that's all discretionary spending.
Slashdot Mirror
So it doesn't actually restrict salt, it just makes it "opt in" instead of having no choice.
But you do have a choice. You can refuse to eat somewhere that adds salt to it's menu. You might find the taste a little bland and unappealing but there you go.
you would have no objection to the food companies could put lead in their food as a sweetener
That's a stupid comparison. Lead is a toxin. Salt is required for life.
The bottom line is that part of the reason why we have a government is to precisely to prevent people from passing poisonous or other misleading substances off as nutritious food
Salt is a poisonous substance? Your kidding me, right?
The bill as written deserved to be killed. It will bankrupt our country (the CBO score was based on incorrect assumptions and accounting that puts Enron to shame), do nothing to reduce health care costs and strip away my right to decide whether or not I want to purchase health insurance.
There was a bipartisan reform bill that was brave enough to address some of the underlying issues in our medical system (breaking the linkage between insurance and employment for instance) but the Democratic leadership never allowed it to go anywhere.
Yeah, the other networks would never do such thing.
It's salty though, and that's not really good either.
Don't worry, the nanny state is hard at work here too. We'll keep you safe, because you are obviously too stupid to make informed decisions for yourself.
Which begs the question, why are they not gettin up off their ass's and building more power generation plants as opposed to whining and crying which eventually leads to these stupid hair brained ideas in the first place.
Because of the NIMBY/BANANA Nazis have teamed up with those concerned about climate change to filibuster any attempts at building new power plants?
One of the strategies of someone who is about to lose an argument is to avoid the real issue by attacking the presenter on unrelated issues.
That would explain why the Democrats used the committee system to muzzle GOP health care reform ideas while claiming that they were the "Party of No" and uninterested in compromise.
Thats good that you dont listen to Fox. Because Roger Ailes (chief of Fox news) has publicly stated that he's not interested in accuracy, only ratings.
Are you naive enough to believe that MSNBC/CNN/NBC/CBS/ABC are motivated by some other consideration?
eeeez, I'd be happy if they just put a faraday cage into every passenger vehicle in the world.
The millions of us with ez-passes might have a little problem with your plan ;)
I'm of a practical mindset. The NRA can look out for the second amendment. The ALCU looks out for the other 26. Rational people can disagree.
I don't accept this rationalization. The ACLU is openly hostile towards the 2nd amendment. It's not that they've just decided that the NRA is better equipped to defend it. They come right out on their own webpage and claim that it doesn't defend an individual right. They would be foaming at the mouth if anybody tried to come up with that reading of any other civil liberty but do the same with regards to the 2nd amendment?
That makes them hypocrites, plain and simple. They will never see a dime of my money for this reason.
No, actually, if you'd stop doing a half-assed job of "cleaning up" other countries, terrorists might not have flown planes into fucking office buildings and we wouldn't be having this retarded discussion.
Like those counties would behave any differently if they wielded the power that we do. Have fun if the 21st century really turns out to be China's century -- you think they'll be as restrained as we have been? I can't wait to see them crack down on the backwards people that somehow wound up with the land containing a useful resource.
This rationalization doesn't hold water. It's not that they've decided to defer to the NRA on defending the 2nd amendment. They are openly hostile to the notion that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right. That's not compatible with an organization that's supposed to defend civil liberties.
Don't take my word for it though. My previous link was their own webpage.
Or do you believe that the US army should be able to execute any American citizen who are not on US soil if the army feels like it?
The US Army can't wipe it's own ass without the permission of the Commander-in-Chief. The question is should the President be allowed to order the US Military to kill Americans who are serving with foreign enemies of this Republic?
Lots of foreign civilian casualties
Maybe if they'd clean up their own country we wouldn't have to do it for them.
The ALCU is probably looking for "due process of law".
If these people wanted due process of law they should have remained on American soil and not enlisted in the service of foreign organizations that are trying to murder American soldiers and civilians.
My rights as a citizen of the US shouldn't expire with respect to the US government if I leave the country.
The people who are being targeted have done a little bit more than leave the country. They've left the country and joined up with enemies of the country who are actively engaged in the process of trying it do it harm.
I'm sorry but if you leave the US, travel to a foreign battlefield and willingly enlist in the service of those who are fighting our country you've committed treason. Why should you be treated any differently than the foreign combatants whom are trying to do us harm?
What's done in war time on foreign soil against non-American citizens doesn't seem to fall within the domain of the American Civil Liberties Union.
IMHO, they have no right to call themselves a "civil liberties union" as long as they refuse to defend the 2nd amendment and continue to cling to the discredited notion that the 2nd amendment only protects a "collective" right. They interrupt every other amendment in as broad of a manner as possible while ignoring the plain text of the 2nd amendment and claiming that "In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue."
What a bunch of hypocrites.
If US Citizens are employed in the service of enemies of this Republic on foreign soil, then what the hell does the ACLU want? The FBI to paradrop into Afghanistan, slap the cuffs on them and read them their Miranda rights? What the hell?
Next up: ACLU objects to US Military engaging in warfare, suggests borrowing a page from Steven Spielberg and replacing all issued M-16s with walkie-talkies.
Then I hope they realize that the current President (a Democrat the last time I checked) is in favor of the death penalty and hawkish towards war......
I was being a wiseass. You said you didn't want to use a computer so I pointed out something that doesn't require a "computer".
I honestly don't have an answer for you. Pandora is a great source of new music (in my experience anyway) but as noted it requires some sort of internet connection and device that costs money. The radio is useless, unless you are lucky enough to live in a market that hasn't been assimilated by Clear Channel or Citadel. I can literally set my watch by the music they play. It's pathetic. "Oh, Nickelback, it must be 4:30, time to go home." It's that bad.
However, the selling of drugs should be regulated and taxed just like alcohol and cigarettes.
Why? Why should products that are bad for you be taxed at a higher rate than other products? Vice taxes annoy me, it's no fucking business of Washington or Albany how much fatty food I eat or how much pot I smoke.
Not only would this greatly reduce drug related crime
No it wouldn't. If you tax those products at an excessive rate then people turn to smuggling to get around the taxes. This is already happening with cigarettes in the higher taxed states.
but as far as the government is concerned unborn babies are not citizens of this country yet and therefore outside the governments purview. The mothers life takes precedence as she is an actual citizen of this country.
I'm pro-choice but that's a stupid argument you are making there. Laws against murder do not take citizenship into account. I can't murder a British national on American soil and expect to get away with it.
As far as I'm concerned the only pro-choice argument that makes sense is that the Government has no business telling us what we can do with our bodies. If you can force a mother to carry to term then can you also force me to submit to a bone marrow donation if I'm the only compatible donor for some poor bastard dying of cancer? All the other pro-choice talking points really piss me off -- the "it's not a human life" one in particular. Neither is a brain dead person being kept alive by machines but if I walk into their hospital room and blow them away I'm guilty of murder.
but unless my sperm are involved it's simply none of my damn business
One thing I've always thought of as fundamentally unfair is the fact that females can choose whether or not they want to become parents but males forfeit that right after they ejaculate. It doesn't matter if you wanted to become a father or not -- you partner could even have sabotaged the birth control (or just plain lied about being on it) and you are still on the hook for that child for the next 18 years.
A progressive society would give males the option of abandoning their rights and not being responsible for that child -- apparently the right to decide whether or not you want to be a parent only extends to the female though.
You can't abort an unborn baby, that's murder. But once he's out of the womb, then all bets are off.
Huh? What are you trying to say here? Is there some element of the GOP platform that I'm unaware of that supports murder or some such? Or does it just bother you that the GOP is generally opposed to cradle to grave welfare states that take away our liberty under the guise of protecting people?
members of the New York state assembly seem to make something closer to $90-100,000)
Actually most make considerably more than that. Members of the NYS Legislature get extra pay for serving on committees, even though that's usually regarded as part of the job for legislators in other states/the Federal Government. That's one of the tools that the leadership wields to keep members in line -- if you vote against the leadership in the NYS Legislature they will take away your committee assignments and hit your bottom line to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars per year.
Our State Government sucks donkey balls. The only saving grace is we aren't as dysfunctional as California -- though in a few years I'm sure we'll be where they are today.
Yeah, but from what I understand the with the cost of living in NYC...$100K/yr will barely keep you on the poverty level.
You understand wrong. When I lived there I "only" made $45k. I managed to live a comfortable lifestyle. You can get by without a car in the city -- that's a huge chunk of saved money right there. Your biggest expense is rent. Energy costs are above the national norm (I think I was paying $0.18/kWh when I lived there) but that's not a real big deal when you live in an apartment. Groceries were comparable to what I pay now in Upstate. Maybe a tad bit more expensive but it really wasn't enough of a difference that it hurt my bottom line.
The biggest money pit in NYC is the culture. Museums, shows, arts, etc. aren't cheap and there's a lot of ways to blow money on those items in NYC. But that's all discretionary spending.
What do you recommend for discovering music that "isn't on heavy rotation on radio" without having to sit down at a computer desk?
Pandora has a plugin for crackberries ;)