McDonalds - Page 4
+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 72
Like Tree12Likes

Thread: McDonalds

  1. #31
    Community Host wlillie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    6,469

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alissa_Sal View Post
    Do you think all federal law is unconstitutional? If not, what would make the FDA different?
    No, not all. But about 95% of the programs we have in place at the federal level are.

    I agree with Ron Paul:
    "the proper role for government in America is to provide national defense, a court system for civil disputes, a criminal justice system for acts of force and fraud, and little else
    GloriaInTX likes this.

  2. #32
    Prolific Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    The first Congress was seated in 3/1789, George Washington was inaugurated 4/1789 these amendments were proposed 12/1789. I think that would count as being proposed by our "forefathers". The constitution wasn't even ratified by all the states until 1/1791, and then these amendments were ratified less than a year later. It might not have been the exact same delegates, but I would guess the list is pretty close.

    Timeline of drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    List of amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    This is quoted from the book I was reading:
    "...but actually a lot of the delegates at the Constitutional Convention on 9/17/1787 hated it! Compromise had to be mad in order to get some members of the convention to sign; fifteen never did. They all agreed that "something is better than nothing" so they passed the Constitution with the proposal that new delegates could meet in a few years and draft a superior document. No new document was created and the Constitution as written remained. Alexander Hamilton was so unhappy with the document that in 1802 he called the Constitution "a frail and worthless fabric"

    Book: Stupid History
    Author: Leland Gregory
    Copyright: 2007
    Pg. 142

  3. #33
    Posting Addict Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,770

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wlillie View Post
    No, not all. But about 95% of the programs we have in place at the federal level are.

    I agree with Ron Paul:
    "the proper role for government in America is to provide national defense, a court system for civil disputes, a criminal justice system for acts of force and fraud, and little else
    So do you feel that food manufacturers should not have to print the nutritional info on the packaging of food sold in grocery stores (depending on the states' laws)?
    Last edited by Alissa_Sal; 10-02-2012 at 05:35 PM.
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  4. #34
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,737

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jessica80 View Post
    This is quoted from the book I was reading:
    "...but actually a lot of the delegates at the Constitutional Convention on 9/17/1787 hated it! Compromise had to be mad in order to get some members of the convention to sign; fifteen never did. They all agreed that "something is better than nothing" so they passed the Constitution with the proposal that new delegates could meet in a few years and draft a superior document. No new document was created and the Constitution as written remained. Alexander Hamilton was so unhappy with the document that in 1802 he called the Constitution "a frail and worthless fabric"

    Book: Stupid History
    Author: Leland Gregory
    Copyright: 2007
    Pg. 142
    Sounds like a little bit of interpretation going on there. Some of those 15 didn't sign because they didn't have authority to do so. Only 3 dissented, and most of the things I read said that those that were unhappy with it didn't like it because there was not bill of rights, which is why those were added so quickly. I think it is amazing that they were able to compromise and come up with the document that they did, since it was revolutionary for its time.
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  5. #35
    Posting Addict Spacers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    My avatar is the tai chi -- a symbol of the eternal cycle of life
    Posts
    16,618

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jessica80 View Post
    This is quoted from the book I was reading:
    "...but actually a lot of the delegates at the Constitutional Convention on 9/17/1787 hated it! Compromise had to be mad in order to get some members of the convention to sign; fifteen never did. They all agreed that "something is better than nothing" so they passed the Constitution with the proposal that new delegates could meet in a few years and draft a superior document. No new document was created and the Constitution as written remained. Alexander Hamilton was so unhappy with the document that in 1802 he called the Constitution "a frail and worthless fabric"

    Book: Stupid History
    Author: Leland Gregory
    Copyright: 2007
    Pg. 142
    Emphasis mine.

    I agree to the "something is better than nothing," part because they wanted to move forward with all of the other details of forming a new government from scratch. But that doesn't mean there was ever any intention of scrapping the whole Constitution. They could have easily put in an expiration date, say after the second Presidential election, when things had had a chance to settle down. They chose not to. They chose to put in a mechanism for amending the original document, one that didn't just involve the Founding Fathers but that involved the entire voting populace. (Can't really say "everyone" since women & minorites were excluded.)

    And it's been a long time since I took US history, but I do believe that Alexander Hamilton was not only the only New York representative to sign the Constitution, but he also wrote most of the essays supporting it that later became known as The Federalist Papers.
    70% of the U.S. population now lives in a state where same-sex marriage is legal. At 36 and counting!

  6. #36
    Prolific Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,237

    Default

    ha ha it was called Stupid History because it debunks a lot of things...political, everyday sayings, common myths etc. not because it is stupid so to speak.

  7. #37
    Community Host wlillie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    6,469

    Default

    Yes Alissa, I don't think they should have to. I think as our country starts to take responsibility for their own health (not going to be easy since our government seems to think it can do a better job and SO many people agree despite overwhelming evidence they aren't very good at it), the companies would have been pressured to put that information on their labels by those that wanted to know. Just like how Chick Fil A offers all kinds of fruit and vegetable (OMG-their carrot salad) and soup options because people wanted something besides waffle fries. I think you can even get oranges at Wendy's for the kids meals.

  8. #38
    Posting Addict Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,770

    Default

    It's hard to take responsibility for your own health if you don't know what's in anything or basic nutritional info. This just seems like a good compromise to me. It's not the government stepping in and saying "You aren't allowed to sell anything over X amount of calories or fat" (kind of like the large Coke thing) they are saying "Sell whatever you want and is profitable to your company, but you have to make it so the consumers can make informed decisions about what they buy." I just don't see how giving consumers more info to make a decision is a bad thing, or detracts from personal responsibility. Before you could easily find out the calorie content of your meal, you could claim "I knew it was bad, but I didn't know it was THAT bad..." Now that they have to tell you, you can't blame anyone but yourself. That's totally personal responsibility!
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  9. #39
    Community Host wlillie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    6,469

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alissa_Sal View Post
    It's hard to take responsibility for your own health if you don't know what's in anything or basic nutritional info. This just seems like a good compromise to me. It's not the government stepping in and saying "You aren't allowed to sell anything over X amount of calories or fat" (kind of like the large Coke thing) they are saying "Sell whatever you want and is profitable to your company, but you have to make it so the consumers can make informed decisions about what they buy." I just don't see how giving consumers more info to make a decision is a bad thing, or detracts from personal responsibility. Before you could easily find out the calorie content of your meal, you could claim "I knew it was bad, but I didn't know it was THAT bad..." Now that they have to tell you, you can't blame anyone but yourself. That's totally personal responsibility!
    I don't think giving consumers more info to make a decision is a bad thing either, I just don't think it's the Federal government's responsibility Or right to require it. I don't know of any chain that doesn't have the nutritional info posted on their website (I haven't looked recently, but in 2008, most of them did). If you are concerned about your health, you shouldn't be eating fast food to begin with, eating a "healthier" option still isn't good for you if you don't even know what's in it. I know darn well when I eat anything that doesn't come from the grocery store's outside perimeter (and frozen vegetable section) that it's not good for me and everyone else should too. If you are really wanting to maintain a healthy lifestyle, you have to be more proactive than waiting until you're in line to decide what you are going to eat for lunch or supper.

  10. #40
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,870

    Default

    There has to be a balance of federal guidelines and a business right to be left alone. History has shown us that left alone with no regulations at all that horrible things can happen. I remember reading a book (Don't remember the name) in school about how companies used to be. Mice and other very gross things in the food. Non sanitary conditions at all. At the same time, too many regulations kill businesses. Too many regulations make it so that a company can not survive and doesn't have a choice but to go to a cheaper place to work like China.

    I personally enjoy having the calories listed for me. I do think it will hurt the businesses bottom line though.

    ~Bonita~

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions