my 2pp

Do you Agree?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No!

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
let me ask

that gun gives you security huh? makes you safe?

except when you die from a preventable condition because you do not have health insurance, from eating food that the government, with guidance from the industry, continues to deregulate even the warning labels:

AP 3/08/06 said:
The House voted Wednesday to strip many warnings from food labels, potentially affecting alerts about arsenic in bottled water, lead in candy and allergy-causing sulfites, among others.

and you, or your children might be affected by mercury poisening. who knows. who knows why the rate of cancer has risen so dramatically in the last hundred years, or autism or alzheimers. except when the answers come out, the people are too stupid and distracted to care. any more questions?

one more news story, just an example of what i am saying, Reuters- War on Terror Saves Few Lives:

On September 11, 2001, 3,400 people died because of the four intentional plane crashes in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. But 5,200 other Americans died that same day from common diseases, according to Frank.
 
Frank is the last name of the person from the article that was linked.

Dr. Erica Frank of the Department of Family and Preventive Medicine at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta

Big title. :v:
 
And when someone dies from a terrorest on a Plane, or is killed from a suicide bomber, thats sad. when someone dies from lets say from smoking for 20 years? that sucks they are 2 seperate things
 
Not really. If food distributors are allowed to not tell you what harmful things that are in your food it is about just as wrong as a suicide bomber, as both can very well lead to your death.
 
A) *EDIT* Censored *EDIT* jks
B) No, Your wrong, I trust lets say Lays, they are a subsidiary of some bigger corp, so I'll use there product, Wendies last year damn near had to close up in an entire state cause a lady said she found a finger in her Chili,
C) The market will show you whats good, Disani can have human fecal matter if its below a certain PPB in the water but, Disani chooses not to allow the lower quality water into there bottles simply because if someone knows everyone knows and then no one buys disani
 
a reply

You'd probably say theres no reason for us to own guns

that's not true at all. in fact, i encourage all progressives and intellectuals to arm up. why? cause of gun toting crazy sonsabitches like yourself, among other reasons.

and if you think i am a pacifist, revisit my statement from last page.

if you are trying to hurt me i will hurt you until you stop or are dead (whichever comes first).

guess which comes first?
 
So why dont you get a pro-gun guy in office you might need those assult rifles to hold off me and my .338 mag at 1000 yards
 
again

C) The market will show you whats good, Disani can have human fecal matter if its below a certain PPB in the water but, Disani chooses not to allow the lower quality water into there bottles simply because if someone knows everyone knows and then no one buys disani

this assumes whatever defect is obvious and therefore the consumer can make an educated choice. you missed the point of my earlier post when i was showing how ARSENIC IN BOTTLED WATER would no longer have to be labled.

the other obvious point you miss is cases where the pollution is subtle and it takes decades to substantiate a causal relationship. an example of this would be smoking. how many centuries of tobacco use before people knew it caused cancer?

another example of this would be mercury pollution and the effect on brain developement in unborn children. tell me which products contain mercury and other heavy metals? not everyone knows.

your arguement of "free market" is wrong and self-defeating. first, the term "free market" is misleading, because all marketplaces have a structure, a set of rules and regulations. the degree of regulation is the matter in play, not whether or not regulations should exist at all.

i would rather support the notion of a "fair market" that is concerned with developing competitive growth.

in a system with less regulation, you run into collusion between indenties, corporations and governments, to cheat the consumer. such a system runs directly opposed to the benefits of so-called "free market" capitalism.

just like in cases of monopoly, competition is stifled, deregulation enables the corporation to create an unfair market in their favor. that's just one example.
 
milk

how many people here know that milk causes cancer?

are you sympathetic to the child that grow up drinking milk and get cancer because of rBGH (bovine growth hormone developed by Monsanto, the same company that brought you Agent Orange) injected into about a third of US cattle?

look it up. i'm tired of providing links since you obviously are not using them.
 
Re: again

Xanex said:
C) The market will show you whats good, Disani can have human fecal matter if its below a certain PPB in the water but, Disani chooses not to allow the lower quality water into there bottles simply because if someone knows everyone knows and then no one buys disani

this assumes whatever defect is obvious and therefore the consumer can make an educated choice. you missed the point of my earlier post when i was showing how ARSENIC IN BOTTLED WATER would no longer have to be labled.

the other obvious point you miss is cases where the pollution is subtle and it takes decades to substantiate a causal relationship. an example of this would be smoking. how many centuries of tobacco use before people knew it caused cancer?

another example of this would be mercury pollution and the effect on brain developement in unborn children. tell me which products contain mercury and other heavy metals? not everyone knows.

your arguement of "free market" is wrong and self-defeating. first, the term "free market" is misleading, because all marketplaces have a structure, a set of rules and regulations. the degree of regulation is the matter in play, not whether or not regulations should exist at all.

i would rather support the notion of a "fair market" that is concerned with developing competitive growth.

in a system with less regulation, you run into collusion between indenties, corporations and governments, to cheat the consumer. such a system runs directly opposed to the benefits of so-called "free market" capitalism.

just like in cases of monopoly, competition is stifled, deregulation enables the corporation to create an unfair market in their favor. that's just one example.

gj you realized i wasnt looking at your links provide me with several that dont allways agree with you and we'll talk, I can show you links that the french suck at life and will allways suck at life and that hitler was right,

there are no monopolies in the U.S.
 
Back
Top Bottom