Hoot and RM agreeing, I think I might have read that somewhere in Revelations.

 

 

It's there...you just have to know how to interpret it.

Hoot, does it disturb you at all that I pretty much agree with you on this, and share your disdain for artificially created foodstuffs? :lol: I'm not necessarily disturbed, but it has given me a lot to think about today. :lol:

:lol: I'm not bothered at all. I agree with you quite often, I just do not always trumpet that fact to the world. :lol:

 

I work with a guy who follows the Paleo diet very strictly. I would give it a try myself if I could get my family to get on board. The premise of the diet is that the longer particular foods have been in the human diet, the better because our bodies evolve to digest foods. Grains, legumes, refined sugar, etc. are to be avoided, along with anything else that entered our diet after the agricultural revolution.

What is this statement suppose to mean?

 

It was a response to the ridiculous comment made in the first post. Apparently some people think that conservatives have all the answers. I disagreed, and I attempted to show that I disagreed by using sarcasm. Is that a good enough explanation for you?

This would be a good time to take this thread another direction.

 

I have no problem with taxing those things that cause additional costs for a government.

 

Fast food that is unhealthy, tax the snot out of it. People still want a triple Whopper, that is fine, just offset the cost that a society constantly eating such monstrosities is going to cost the government.

 

Put a tax on ho-ho's and the like. No problem with an 18% tax on soft drinks.

 

Tax alcohol and cigarettes. I have no problem with it.

 

Adults can still choose to do it but their poor choices can be at least partially offset by the tax revenue that can be raised by it.

 

I have no problem in taxing the luxuries in life.

 

THe Basic necessities, no taxes on at all. Everyone should be given the opportunity to have what they need to survive at the lowest cost possible. Luxuries, you can tax.

 

The government can get out of the Health care business and let individuals pay. The hospitals will compete to get customers and taxes will be lower for everyone. Those who choose to be unhealthy will pay medical bills. The government has no right to take my money because someone else has decided to eat unhealthy.

I am born with the right to make my own Cokes if I so choose. You are confusing the economic freedom of individuals and companies to create and sell products with government greed.

 

It may seem trivial to you but I feel strongly that government has no moral right to unreasonably infringe on our right to eat and drink the foods and beverages of our choice. To me, this seems like one of those basic, self-evident freedoms that the framers of the Constitution had in mind when the affixed their signatures to the documents. The surrender of personal freedom is a slippery slope, regardless of how trivial those freedoms seem to you on an individual basis.

 

I agree! check out Ron Paul if you have not yet.

I agree! check out Ron Paul if you have not yet.

I probably agree with Ron Paul on more issues than any other candidate. Unfortunately, his positions on illegal immigration and the war against Islamic fundamentalists strike me as extremely nutty and outright dangerous. However, on economic matters, fiscal policy, and matters of personal liberty, Ron Paul is the closest thing to Ronald Reagan since Ronald Reagan.

It was a response to the ridiculous comment made in the first post. Apparently some people think that conservatives have all the answers. I disagreed, and I attempted to show that I disagreed by using sarcasm. Is that a good enough explanation for you?

If Obama and the liberals get their way and push through a trillion dollar "stimulus package," and inflation does not raise its ugly head before the end of Obama's administration, then I will retract all of the mean and nasty things that I have ever said about liberals. On the other hand, if printing an unlimited amount of money results in soaring inflation, as has happened every other time such tactics were employed, then I hope liberals such as yourself will reevaluate the wisdom of their position on the political spectrum. Maybe we can discuss this issue further in a soup line sometime.

This would be a good time to take this thread another direction.

 

I have no problem with taxing those things that cause additional costs for a government.

 

Fast food that is unhealthy, tax the snot out of it. People still want a triple Whopper, that is fine, just offset the cost that a society constantly eating such monstrosities is going to cost the government.

 

Put a tax on ho-ho's and the like. No problem with an 18% tax on soft drinks.

 

Tax alcohol and cigarettes. I have no problem with it.

 

Adults can still choose to do it but their poor choices can be at least partially offset by the tax revenue that can be raised by it.

 

I have no problem in taxing the luxuries in life.

 

THe Basic necessities, no taxes on at all. Everyone should be given the opportunity to have what they need to survive at the lowest cost possible. Luxuries, you can tax.

 

I could get on board with a tax-plan like this. :thumb:

It was a response to the ridiculous comment made in the first post. Apparently some people think that conservatives have all the answers. I disagreed, and I attempted to show that I disagreed by using sarcasm. Is that a good enough explanation for you?

Yes. I guess what I would say is that everybody thinks that their way is the best way, or else they wouldn't support those things. They think that their ideas are what are best for the country.

If Obama and the liberals get their way and push through a trillion dollar "stimulus package," and inflation does not raise its ugly head before the end of Obama's administration, then I will retract all of the mean and nasty things that I have ever said about liberals. On the other hand, if printing an unlimited amount of money results in soaring inflation, as has happened every other time such tactics were employed, then I hope liberals such as yourself will reevaluate the wisdom of their position on the political spectrum. Maybe we can discuss this issue further in a soup line sometime.

 

I am not a "liberal" at all. I'm probably very liberal on some issues, but I am also very conservative on many others.

I am not a "liberal" at all. I'm probably very liberal on some issues, but I am also very conservative on many others.

Then you energetic defense of liberal policies is all the more impressive.

Then you energetic defense of liberal policies is all the more impressive.

 

It is of my opinion that you do not know me nearly well enough to make any assessments about my beliefs in politics. I post here only on certain topics for certain reasons. I'll leave it at that.

It is of my opinion that you do not know me nearly well enough to make any assessments about my beliefs in politics. I post here only on certain topics for certain reasons. I'll leave it at that.

I never claimed to know you at all. I am relieved to learn that you are not a liberal. I am looking forward to joining forces with you in debates involving our common conservative beliefs. :thumb: