atlantabiolab
New member
Testosterone boy said:
You seem to advocate a very streamlined government. What I was saying is that we have internal problems that are more pressing than those in the Middle East.
I am not an advocate of the interventionism that the US upholds, so this argument is not valid. Simply because the US is doing something wrong in one area, does not mean that we should offset it by doing something wrong in another area.
You are changing the subject to insinuate that I advocate government interdiction into home cooked meals while I was not. I'm simply searching for small, meaningful ways to bring up public health.
It is not "public" health, it is personal health, it is the sole responsibility of the individual. Adding the word "public" only grants government the idea that it can intervene.
We pay for the damned food in the school cafeteria, we have every right to wonder what is in it. We also have a responsibility to care about the health of our children.
Tax funded schools are subject to scrutiny by the populace and the majority can vote or pressure for certain food choices, but it is already evident that this idea is going to the extreme. California has banned soft drinks from school vending machines. We tell people that if they don't want to see the shitty programming on TV to switch the channel, but for drink choices in school you can't have a choice?!?!
If we can force the public to buy new stadiums for pro team owners through advocating economic stimulus......then it would seem that more outdoor exercise paths would be appropriate. All it takes is a gravel path.
Taking PE courses, encouraging an understanding of nutrition, serving healthier cafeteria food, and providing gravel paths is hardly legislating personal responsibility.
Your advocating the creation of a waste of money as an alternative to an existing waste of money. I am against the grant of tax money for something that is the business' responsibilty, just as much as I am against the spending of public monies on special projects. These little projects of grand benevolence add up to the staggering waste of money that we currently endure.
What is of more relevance? Iraq living under a dictator or the health of our own citizenry?
Why do you pose an "either or" scenario? I am against the waste of resources on both special interest projects.
"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but
an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794