RVNight.. I Got a Question

[Rvnight18]

iMac I am not falling for this. You do this on almost all your arguments. It is either one way or the other. Use commonsense man. A kid eating a candy bar isn't going to threaten anyone's life. And the drinking age is a state law, but if the states want highway money the law has to be 21. Driving is different per state as well. Depending on when kids can start leaning to drive. Gambling is also a state issue. So all three of your points don't work. They are all state rights.

 

[MHSL82]

iMac I am not falling for this. You do this on almost all your arguments. It is either one way or the other. Use commonsense man. A kid eating a candy bar isn't going to threaten anyone's life. And the drinking age is a state law, but if the states want highway money the law has to be 21. Driving is different per state as well. Depending on when kids can start leaning to drive. Gambling is also a state issue. So all three of your points don't work. They are all state rights.

I'll save you the trouble, rvnight. This is not exactly what he'd say, but:

IMAC: Fine, the state is still the government and they're ok telling parents how to run their lives? Why not candy bars? The state's alright telling parents that their kids can't drive at 15 when their kids are good drivers? Plus, tying the drinking age into the requirements to get desperately needed highway funds, is federal action due to the basic fact that state's don't have the money to turn down federal funds.

rvnight: 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. The people could authorize more taxes to fund the highways if they didn't want the federally approved drinking age.

IMac, I'm not actually putting words in your mouth, I know you did not say this. Of curse, feel free to rebut what I said; I was just doing it for fun, like double devil's advocate.

 

[deep9er]

iMac I am not falling for this. You do this on almost all your arguments. It is either one way or the other. Use commonsense man. A kid eating a candy bar isn't going to threaten anyone's life. And the drinking age is a state law, but if the states want highway money the law has to be 21. Driving is different per state as well. Depending on when kids can start leaning to drive. Gambling is also a state issue. So all three of your points don't work. They are all state rights.

haaaa.....

yep, so he can start arguments.

 

[imac_21]

iMac I am not falling for this. You do this on almost all your arguments. It is either one way or the other. Use commonsense man. A kid eating a candy bar isn't going to threaten anyone's life. And the drinking age is a state law, but if the states want highway money the law has to be 21. Driving is different per state as well. Depending on when kids can start leaning to drive. Gambling is also a state issue. So all three of your points don't work. They are all state rights.

The government can tell you how to live your life or it can't. A kid eating giant candy bars is going to threaten his life. You're saying it's up to the parent as to whether the child should be allowed to eat 2 pound candy bars.

But if each of those are state rights, that has nothing to do with the federal government.

Kind of like Mars corp agreeing not to make king size candy bars anymore. That's not a federal issue because there was no legislation.

Your basically saying that the First Lady has no business looking out for the health and welfare of the country.

Now, an interesting spin on this is the role Obamacare plays. Assuming that national health care sticks, doesn't the federal government owe it to its employer (the tax payer) to minimize expenses? Wouldn't that entail promoting healthier lifestyles? Obviously they could do it by restricting who qualifies for the health care, but if it's universal health care the best way to minimize costs is to minimize how many people use the system.

If legislating (this has not happened) candy bar size etc leads to a healthier nation, which leads to lower costs of health care, isn't that a good thing?

But it hasn't been legislated. It's merely been encouraged and the company has agreed. So without tying up the House's time the First Lady has encouraged and promoted healthier eating habits, which will lower long term health care costs.

But this is a bad thing.

 

[h-hour]

All this talk about Mars candy bars made me break down and buy me one last night. Thanks a lot guys.

 

[Rvnight18]

haha h-hour. bet you wished you had a king sized

 

[Rvnight18]

iMac obamacare is unconstitutional. The federal government can't force people to but a product. That is what this is. And part ofthe problem with Obamacare is the fact that the government will come in and yelling what you can and how much you can eat. They could also cut cost by not allowing elders to have surgery that will prolong their life because it might not be cost worthy.

Again it is isn't one or the other. If you believe that, to read the constitution.

 

[imac_21]

iMac obamacare is unconstitutional. The federal government can't force people to but a product. That is what this is. And part ofthe problem with Obamacare is the fact that the government will come in and yelling what you can and how much you can eat. They could also cut cost by not allowing elders to have surgery that will prolong their life because it might not be cost worthy.

Again it is isn't one or the other. If you believe that, to read the constitution.

I'm not debating the constitutionality of obamacare. But it's a reality.

 

[Rvnight18]

It unfortunately is a reality. And just another step toward ruining our freedoms.