Red wrote:lets take obesisity (sp) for example....or even high cholesterol..... if a man chooses to eat hamburgers 7 days a week, he's gonna be dead by 50...... there's not laws against overeating...which if the government really cared about us then there would ..but guess what, the government don't care...
J03Y wrote:Red wrote:there's not laws against overeating...which if the government really cared about us then there would...
Why would anyone want the govt. to have laws about how much you can eat? That's about the dumbest thing I've heard in a while.
Quiklilcav wrote:J03Y wrote:Red wrote:there's not laws against overeating...which if the government really cared about us then there would...
Why would anyone want the govt. to have laws about how much you can eat? That's about the dumbest thing I've heard in a while.
The sad thing is that if they get universal health care, that sh!t is next.
Red, read the quote in my sig, and consider it carefully. I suspect once you really think about it, you'll want to retract that statement.
J03Y wrote:Red wrote:lets take obesisity (sp) for example....or even high cholesterol..... if a man chooses to eat hamburgers 7 days a week, he's gonna be dead by 50...... there's not laws against overeating...which if the government really cared about us then there would ..but guess what, the government don't care...
Why would anyone want the govt. to have laws about how much you can eat? That's about the dumbest thing I've heard in a while.
Free will, not govt. rations. If that person eating burgers everyday dies, it was his free will and he should accept the consequences. Not ask the govt. to tell him how he should eat or live his life, and also not have his family sue the burger place for him having no self control and being a big fat bastard.
Red wrote:u idiot, I wasn't implying that there should be laws governing what we eat.... I'm trying to say that we have a right to choose.... and that the government doesn't care about our health....
I can't read that fast.... necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. it is arguement of tyrants. it is the creed of slaves.... is this what you're talking about?
I was just trying to use that as an example....obesity is 9 times out of 10 a result of that persons choice to and lack of control of eating....right? or overeating. obesity is the consequence of that action/choice. Same way with pot. or heroin. I'm trying to say that there are consequences to actions and that just as we have a right to choose what to eat and how to eat, we should have a right to choose to smoke pot or not.....is all I'm saying...lol..... sorry it didn't come out like that the first time around....
Quiklilcav wrote:The oil exec in the BMW behind me is my witness.i assume it was a lacky of George Bush senior, they'll say anything for a dollar. lol
Red wrote:necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. it is arguement of tyrants. it is the creed of slaves.... is this what you're talking about?
Red wrote:sorry for the misunderstanding....I was being sarcastic...
Quiklilcav wrote:2) There are a few around here who have nothing to contribute, but feel the need to post sarcastic one-liners, and/or try to diminish the person they are in disagreement with, in any thread they jump into. Call them on anything, and they don't respond. **cough**Rodimus**cough**Shorthand**cough** If I were to mention any names, I'm sure I would be forgetting someone.rofl. as it is true from what i can tell, from trolling the forum that is. unless i actually care about the matter then i dont post here, but i just peed my pants reading this.
3) Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. thinks he's better informed, and more intellectually developed than everyone else here. He generally makes a fool of himself anytime he attacks someone who can articulate a point he disagrees with. Most often his only answer to an argument is to make a personal attack. If you're up to it, have fun with him.
5) Scottawhite means well, but often posts stuff that comes out wrong. This causes facepalms from those of us who agree with his position, and pulls all of the said people from #2 and #3 out of the woodwork.font]
Quiklilcav wrote:Red wrote:sorry for the misunderstanding....I was being sarcastic...
Since you're new around here, and no one really knows you yet, you might want to indicate with an emoticon or something when you're being sarcastic.
Some other things you should know:
1) The War Forum is a place where some good fights happen. Be prepared to be pissed off, and to piss someone else off. It's just how it is.
2) There are a few around here who have nothing to contribute, but feel the need to post sarcastic one-liners, and/or try to diminish the person they are in disagreement with, in any thread they jump into. Call them on anything, and they don't respond. **cough**Rodimus**cough**Shorthand**cough** If I were to mention any names, I'm sure I would be forgetting someone.
3) Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. thinks he's better informed, and more intellectually developed than everyone else here. He generally makes a fool of himself anytime he attacks someone who can articulate a point he disagrees with. Most often his only answer to an argument is to make a personal attack. If you're up to it, have fun with him.
4) There are those of us who have intelligent debates, offering supporting arguments, and facts, on whichever side we are taking. We will get pretty pointed often enough, but can still appreciate a well articulated and supported argument.
5) Scottawhite means well, but often posts stuff that comes out wrong. This causes facepalms from those of us who agree with his position, and pulls all of the said people from #2 and #3 out of the woodwork.
6) This forum was originally started to discuss the war, and quickly turned into a Bush bashing forum. Since January, the Bush bashers seem to be offended that it's now mostly about Obama, so you will see Bush thrown into many arguments as somehow being a justification of anything going on now. It's kind of like listening to a Whitehouse press conference.
7) What happens here pretty much stays here (not in the Vegas sense, but in the sense that most of us won't hold a grudge and bring it up in other discussions). You won't usually see bickering from this forum spill out into other forums, with the occasional exception of the Off Topic forum.
Weebel wrote:WTF? Did this get linked to AG or something? LOL...
Honestly I dont even know what we're arguing about anymore..... I say one thing and people take it differently than what I meant although im being pretty clear.
I dont know why people are thinking and Anti - marijuana..... All im doing is pointing out the reasons it is and trying to make the pro weed people understand the other side of the debate.... but apparently thats too complicated for most people...
I dont hate weed...
I hate whiny people that are to stupid to realize why things are the way they are...... kinda like the fat guy that cries when he had a heart attack after eating 3 quarter pounders with cheese every day..... its the same idea.
Im all for freedom of choice also..... but you better know what the consequences of your choice will be..... because if you mess up.... its your own fault..
Weebel wrote:but you better know what the consequences of your choice will be..... because if you mess up....you can sue someone else for it...
wysiwyg wrote:i would say they bang, they don't really pound so much. but if
you want to bump, then they will bump and hit real hard and a lot good.