RVNight.. I Got a Question

[h-hour]

18 year old "kids" can die for this country, yet not drink?

I dont really like this comparison. I was in the Navy for four years and I saw so many underage sailors and airmen get into trouble with drinking and driving. In fact, I can remember a guy getting drunk down in Norfolk, hopping on I-264 going the wrong way and hitting a car head-on that was taking a mother in labor to the hospital. The whole family along with the navy guy were killed. Terrible tragedy.

Basically what Im saying is: just because someone is 18 and in the military (very few military personnel are at risk to die...dont let someone driving a hummer around germany fool you into believing anything otherwise) , it doesnt make them mature/responsible enough to be allowed to drink under the age of 21.

 

[numone9er]

18 year old "kids" can die for this country, yet not drink?

I dont really like this comparison. I was in the Navy for four years and I saw so many underage sailors and airmen get into trouble with drinking and driving. In fact, I can remember a guy getting drunk down in Norfolk, hopping on I-264 going the wrong way and hitting a car head-on that was taking a mother in labor to the hospital. The whole family along with the navy guy were killed. Terrible tragedy.

Basically what Im saying is: just because someone is 18 and in the military (very few military personnel are at risk to die...dont let someone driving a hummer around germany fool you into believing anything otherwise) , it doesnt make them mature/responsible enough to be allowed to drink under the age of 21.

Sad story. I've been on the fence about this issue lately, but you bring up a solid point.

Rvnight, for someone who originally said you want Federal gov't out of your lives, you sure are depending on them to make a difference as far as this issue goes. We need to Federal gov't.

 

[DoobieKeebler]

Did you guys know that in Europe (where there are no obesity problems) at fast food restaurants the biggest sodas ANYONE can order are equivilent to our smalls?

That statement is wrong on numerous levels. I hope you were being sarcastic.

 

[Rvnight18]

Some of you need to learn the conservative principles. Not what the people in congress do because they ALL are jokes. There IS a place for the federal government and it is outlined in the constitution and bill of rights.

I think some of you are focusing too much on it being candy bars. Things snowball and gain traction. It starts off small and gets bigger and bigger. People are already so dependent on the federal government as it is with unemployment, we are just making being poor too comfortable. When you give government an inch, they take mile. History repeats itself. I am not saying this is what is going to happen, but the second you let government get away with something small, they will progress to something bigger.

Regan said it best "the nine scariest words in the English dictionary are- hi, we're the government and we're here to help"

The more government stays out of things the better off we are. BUT, the government Has a place. Like border control. To bad they don't actually do the job they are supposed to, but they get involved with stupid shit like this.

Now just want to throw this out there. I am a conservative. That dies not mean I liked bush. That does not mean I like republicans just because I am conservative. I hate almost everybody in politics because I think the republican and democrat parties have been high jacked, and they are all corrupt. I believe in smaller government. I believe in personal responsibility. And I believe there should be consequences for your actions. BUT I also believe and support every single person to have the right to their own opinion and to voice said opinion. Just wanted to get that out there. Saw where Bush was highlighted somewhere when somebody was trying to make a point.

Again this is bigger than just candy bars.

 

[h-hour]

Some of you need to learn the conservative principles. Not what the people in congress do because they ALL are jokes. There IS a place for the federal government and it is outlined in the constitution and bill of rights.

I think some of you are focusing too much on it being candy bars. Things snowball and gain traction. It starts off small and gets bigger and bigger. People are already so dependent on the federal government as it is with unemployment, we are just making being poor too comfortable. When you give government an inch, they take mile. History repeats itself. I am not saying this is what is going to happen, but the second you let government get away with something small, they will progress to something bigger.

Regan said it best "the nine scariest words in the English dictionary are- hi, we're the government and we're here to help"

The more government stays out of things the better off we are. BUT, the government Has a place. Like border control. To bad they don't actually do the job they are supposed to, but they get involved with stupid shit like this.

Now just want to throw this out there. I am a conservative. That dies not mean I liked bush. That does not mean I like republicans just because I am conservative. I hate almost everybody in politics because I think the republican and democrat parties have been high jacked, and they are all corrupt. I believe in smaller government. I believe in personal responsibility. And I believe there should be consequences for your actions. BUT I also believe and support every single person to have the right to their own opinion and to voice said opinion. Just wanted to get that out there. Saw where Bush was highlighted somewhere when somebody was trying to make a point.

Again this is bigger than just candy bars.

I see what youre saying and I do agree with you on a lot of it. Thats why I said originally that more should be expected from parents. These days it seems that the government is more of a parent than parents themselves are...which is really scary. You control the youth and you can do anything you like.

I dont care for Obama and I didnt care for Bush... In fact, I dont like any politician. (and I can go into a whole lot of conspiracy theory here and then you folks would think I was crazy, so Im not) I will say this, I sincerely believe that both sides (left and right) work a whole lot closer together than most would be comfortable with knowing. Theyre leading us to a place where I dont think anyone is going to like being.

 

[Rvnight18]

agree 100% h-hour. I don't trust any of them. I am only 26 years old, and i have a lot of time left, hopefully. The last thing I want to see is the end of America. I don't like Bush and i don't like Obama either. And it just seems so weird that every time there is an election, there is nobody that really stands out as a good candidate to be president. IMO Obama should be easy to beat, but who is out there? Crap. I just feel if the right really wanted to beat Obama and kick him out, why would they not get a better runner than Romney? ohh well I guess.

 

[imac_21]

I think you left your common sense at home. Comparing a candy bar to drinking, driving, and gambling?

Yeah. You're right. Comparing something that is harmful to one's health to gambling and driving isn't right. Candy bars are much worse.

However, this is about the government interfering in your life. The government has the right to tell you when you can drive? Why?

The government has the right to tell you when you can buy lottery tickets? Why?

The government has the right to tell you when you can drink? Why?

Either the government doesn't interfere in the lives of the individuals or it does. It's rather hypocritical to accept government interference in some aspects but insist it doesn't belong in others.

 

[h-hour]

agree 100% h-hour. I don't trust any of them. I am only 26 years old, and i have a lot of time left, hopefully. The last thing I want to see is the end of America. I don't like Bush and i don't like Obama either. And it just seems so weird that every time there is an election, there is nobody that really stands out as a good candidate to be president. IMO Obama should be easy to beat, but who is out there? Crap. I just feel if the right really wanted to beat Obama and kick him out, why would they not get a better runner than Romney? ohh well I guess.

Other than empty promises, is there any difference between politicians regardless of affiliation? I dont believe so. Like I say, there is an agenda to lead this country down a certain path..and whether its a republican or a democrat in office the plan doesnt change.

The one thing that I see being blatantly destroyed here in the US is the family unit..which obviously ties into my thing about parents not caring or, perhaps, not knowing how to even be parents anymore. The other thing I see being destroyed is the sense of community..small towns for example. This is being done in a variety of ways..among other things purposely killing jobs/shipping them to someplace else and (some might disagree with me on this one) consolidating small town schools into huge schools where students no longer care to take pride in anything. People used to be proud of and take care of their communities and the people in it..that doesnt happen anymore.

People can take what they will from that paragraph above. I already see the effects of that stuff in the town I grew up in and countless other little communities spread out here in western Va.

 

[bigninerfan56]

Yeah. You're right. Comparing something that is harmful to one's health to gambling and driving isn't right. Candy bars are much worse.

However, this is about the government interfering in your life. The government has the right to tell you when you can drive? Why?

The government has the right to tell you when you can buy lottery tickets? Why?

The government has the right to tell you when you can drink? Why?Either the government doesn't interfere in the lives of the individuals or it does. It's rather hypocritical to accept government interference in some aspects but insist it doesn't belong in others.

The government has that right because society has given them that right.

Really, the government is either involved in everything or nothing? I just want to make sure that's what your saying...anarchy or communism...those are the only options?

 

[imac_21]

The government has that right because society has given them that right.

Really, the government is either involved in everything or nothing? I just want to make sure that's what your saying...anarchy or communism...those are the only options?

The point rvnight has said, and I assume you are supporting, is that the government has no right to regulate the size of candy bars because it's the parents' responsibility to raise their children and the parents should know what size of candy bar is acceptable for their child.

Why doesn't this apply to drinking or driving? If a parent feels their kid is able to drive at 15, what right does the government have to interfere in how the child is raised? Why is okay for the government in some cases to interfere with how a parent raises a child, but not others?

 

[bigninerfan56]

The point rvnight has said, and I assume you are supporting, is that the government has no right to regulate the size of candy bars because it's the parents' responsibility to raise their children and the parents should know what size of candy bar is acceptable for their child.

Why doesn't this apply to drinking or driving? If a parent feels their kid is able to drive at 15, what right does the government have to interfere in how the child is raised? Why is okay for the government in some cases to interfere with how a parent raises a child, but not others?

I would say the main difference is the safety of others. Drinking, driving, gambling, etc. can endanger not only the person, but others as well.

The risk to others after a child eats a candy bar I would argue is much more minimal than the risk of a child drinking, driving, or gambling. I must note that I am using the word "risk" rather broadly (physically, emtionally, finacially, etc.).

 

[EKmane]

That statement is wrong on numerous levels. I hope you were being sarcastic.

Which statement was wrong? Enlighten me (show me), I could be wrong.

I will admit that I've never been there, I'm going off of second hand info with the soda size comment.

 

[Arete Tzu]

RV you say you are tired of government interference over this candy bar suggestion form the first lady, Obama should be out of office because of stuff like this etc.....but are the other choices really any better? We have conservatives trying to ban contraception, gay rights, standing in the way of marijuana, abortion etc... I don't get the standard people use to pick and choose these things.

 

[Arete Tzu]

I would say the main difference is the safety of others. Drinking, driving, gambling, etc. can endanger not only the person, but others as well.

The risk to others after a child eats a candy bar I would argue is much more minimal than the risk of a child drinking, driving, or gambling. I must note that I am using the word "risk" rather broadly (physically, emtionally, finacially, etc.).

Kids on sugar rushes are a risk to humanity, sugar highs are the gateway drug to marijuana and marijuana use leads to becoming a meth head. this is a slippery slope you are walking on.

 

[MHSL82]

The point rvnight has said, and I assume you are supporting, is that the government has no right to regulate the size of candy bars because it's the parents' responsibility to raise their children and the parents should know what size of candy bar is acceptable for their child.

Why doesn't this apply to drinking or driving? If a parent feels their kid is able to drive at 15, what right does the government have to interfere in how the child is raised? Why is okay for the government in some cases to interfere with how a parent raises a child, but not others?

I get your point and I think rvnight is wrong in saying that the government has no right to regulate certain commerce and other involvements in private life. But I wouldn't do the reverse and say if they have right to do some of it that they have right to do everything, including candy bars, per se. My debate would be where to draw the line, not whether there are permissible gov't actions or none. I understand you were taking things to an extreme to satirize, mock, or show a fallacy in the argument, but doing so wouldn't change that there are limits that should be there.

But I have to stress here, again, there is no government action here (Mars Candy Bars) or in McDonalds case. The light bulbs thing was a state issue?

 

[iHATEdodgers]

I get your point and I think rvnight is wrong in saying that the government has no right to regulate certain commerce and other involvements in private life. But I wouldn't do the reverse and say if they have right to do some of it that they have right to do everything, including candy bars, per se. My debate would be where to draw the line, not whether there are permissible gov't actions or none. I understand you were taking things to an extreme to satirize, mock, or show a fallacy in the argument, but doing so wouldn't change that there are limits that should be there.

But I have to stress here, again, there is no government action here (Mars Candy Bars) or in McDonalds case. The light bulbs thing was a state issue?[/QUOTE]

The light bulb thing was a Federal action signed into law by George W Bush. It was designed to protect the consumer and the environment. It doesn't bar anyone from buying anything, it requires manufacturers to manufacture better light bulbs, you can still buy any crappy light bulbs that have already been created. California enacted the law a year earlier than everyone else because it was a smart thing to do.

And like you said about McDonalds and candy bars there was no government action the companies, of their own free will, decided to change their products for good PR - so relax everyone, no one is taking your right away to buy a big ass candy bar, you want one go make it yourself (or buy it from a company other than mars?)... I believe San Francisco actually did ban giving free happy meal toys, however McDonald's workaround was to include them in the meal for $.10.

 

[MHSL82]

I get your point and I think rvnight is wrong in saying that the government has no right to regulate certain commerce and other involvements in private life. But I wouldn't do the reverse and say if they have right to do some of it that they have right to do everything, including candy bars, per se. My debate would be where to draw the line, not whether there are permissible gov't actions or none. I understand you were taking things to an extreme to satirize, mock, or show a fallacy in the argument, but doing so wouldn't change that there are limits that should be there.

But I have to stress here, again, there is no government action here (Mars Candy Bars) or in McDonalds case. The light bulbs thing was a state issue?

The light bulb thing was a Federal action signed into law by George W Bush. It was designed to protect the consumer and the environment. It doesn't bar anyone from buying anything, it requires manufacturers to manufacture better light bulbs, you can still buy any crappy light bulbs that have already been created. California enacted the law a year earlier than everyone else because it was a smart thing to do.

And like you said about McDonalds and candy bars there was no government action the companies, of their own free will, decided to change their products for good PR - so relax everyone, no one is taking your right away to buy a big ass candy bar, you want one go make it yourself (or buy it from a company other than mars?)... I believe San Francisco actually did ban giving free happy meal toys, however McDonald's workaround was to include them in the meal for $.10.

Ahh, this is why I thought it was a state thing. I didn't pay much attention because it didn't matter much to me. I'm not much of an environmentalist and I am not conservative/liberal per se. I do like saving money, so as far as light bulbs being cheaper, I'm all for it - I prefer the market to get it there, but if it isn't I won't be all up in arms if the gov't makes it cheaper. Health care? Maybe, I'd care because there are shades of grey in quality. Lightbulbs? As long as it lights my house and not my wallet, I don't really care. (If we had to subsidize the energy-efficient lightbulbs, then that would be lightening my wallet.)

About San Francisco McDonalds - that's funny. McDonalds: "You don't like that you get our toys for free with the meal? Fine, we'll charge you for it." Or do you mean, you could walk in and buy an adult's meal for yourself (or one happy meal for two kids) and add 10 cents for the toy? I don't think you could just come in and buy the toy? (If that were the case, I'd feel a little bad for the individual store managers - at least get a quarter for it.)

RVNight - If it is the case, that a city ordinance regulated McDonalds on something that indirectly (the toys don't make anyone fat, it induces parents buy the fat stuff to get the toy) impacts a portion of society (a percentage of kids). that's ok because it's not federal? Or is it not ok, but since it is easier to repeal it's ok? (I can't believe that we're not only regulating kids here, we're doing so because the parents have no control over their kids. Who's the kid here?)

 

[Rvnight18]

RV you say you are tired of government interference over this candy bar suggestion form the first lady, Obama should be out of office because of stuff like this etc.....but are the other choices really any better? We have conservatives trying to ban contraception, gay rights, standing in the way of marijuana, abortion etc... I don't get the standard people use to pick and choose these things.

Please show me where a GOP candidate said he wants to ban contraceptives? I have seen them asked if they believe it was state rights to ban them. And they answered since the federal government doesn't have the power to do so, then it goes to the states. I know you are goinnto say Rick Santorum is against them. And he personally is. But he has always supported funding for contraceptives. He has also supported the teaching of abstinence. Don't go buy others words. Listen to the actual words. Look at their history.

 

[Rvnight18]

And yes I am against killing children. If you are ok with it, feel bad for you.

 

[Rvnight18]

Because at the local and state levels The people of that area are better represented. Texas and California are two different breeds of people. They are going to run their states differently based on their beliefs. People are better represented at these levels than the federal level.