![]() |
€uromeinke, FEJ. and Ghoulish Delight RULE!!! NA abides. |
![]() |
#1511 | |
Doing The Job
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: In a state
Posts: 3,956
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
Right now, the statutory mandatory minimum for 50 grams of not particularly pure cocaine base is ten years. You have to be working 5 kilos of powder to get ten years. The crack/powder disparity and its obvious racial implications have come under substantial criticism. The United States Sentencing Commission recommended that it be eliminated, but Congress did not respond. Now that the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines are merely advisory, there is basically a return to discretionary sentencing. Many federal criminal laws have maximums but do not have mandatory minimums. The federal drug laws, which imprison people for far longer than most state laws do, have long been criticized. In short, there is nothing remarkable or out of the blue about this proposal. National health care is a serious issue. Other countries do it well, but probably nothing will come of this. As I recall, diapers are expensive. Diapers for big people probably even more so.
__________________
Live now-pay later. Diner's Club! |
|
![]() |
Submit to Quotes
![]() |
![]() |
#1512 | ||||||
.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 13,354
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
Independent of the "drug war" mandatory sentenzing is almost always a horrible idea and should be resisted wherever possible. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I do support restrictions on access to abortion by minors, so long as there are judicial escape routes for extreme situations. Quote:
So, some good ideas in there. Some bad ones. And if Democrats win in 2006, how many of those bills will pass with enough support to overcome the inevitable veto? If that happens, you should have two years of the spending nirvana you want. Dems won't pass the president's spending and he won't sign theirs. Everybody wins. |
||||||
![]() |
Submit to Quotes
![]() |
![]() |
#1513 | |
Yeah, that's about it-
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a state of constant crap to get done
Posts: 2,688
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
That was not the point of my post to JW- I titled my post based on the articles title- not my words. Thanks- |
|
![]() |
Submit to Quotes
![]() |
![]() |
#1514 |
BRAAAAAAAINS!
|
I wonder how many ex-senators would be allowed to vote if that voting rights bill passes?
![]() |
![]() |
Submit to Quotes
![]() |
![]() |
#1515 |
.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 13,354
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
All of them.
|
![]() |
Submit to Quotes
![]() |
![]() |
#1516 | |
L'Hédoniste
|
Quote:
__________________
I would believe only in a God that knows how to Dance. Friedrich Nietzsche ![]() |
|
![]() |
Submit to Quotes
![]() |
![]() |
#1517 |
Kink of Swank
|
The devil would be in the details, but on the face of them ... I am in favor of every single one of those so-called Crackpot Democratic Bill Proposals.
|
![]() |
Submit to Quotes
![]() |
![]() |
#1518 | |
Worn Romantic
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Long Beach California
Posts: 8,435
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
__________________
Unrestrained frivolity will lead to the downfall of modern society. |
|
![]() |
Submit to Quotes
![]() |
![]() |
#1519 |
Kink of Swank
|
Yes, even that. I'm totally for transparent food content and origin information. Everywhere food is sold. Nutrition, ingredients, sources, etc. What's wrong with letting consumers know what they are putting inside their bodies? And why let such VITAL health information be optional, when consumers can hardly count on businesses to look after the welfare of their customers?
|
![]() |
Submit to Quotes
![]() |
![]() |
#1520 |
.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 13,354
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
The big problem with menu regulation is that the testing necessary for detailed nutritional information is expensive. It also precludes frequent menu changes as that would require relabelling, and requires absolute consistency in portion sizes or the restaurant opens itself up to lawsuits.
But why is it a relationship that requires government intervention? When I buy a package of Oreos it is very difficult to inquire as to what may be in the food I just purchased. But at a restaurant this is very easy. If I don't want to eat foot with a lot of fat, just ask what is in the food and if they can't answer to your satisfaction, don't eat there. Frankly, if you need government mandated labelling to know that the 2-pound plate of fettucine alfredo at Olive Garden has a stupid amount of fat, calories, and sodium then it would be easier for the government ot just put you in an asylum for your own protection. "Would you like some grated parmesan on your pasta? First I must inform you that it contains these 8 indredients, has 4 grams of fat per 1.5 cranks of the grater, 35 mg of sodium, 70 calories (35 of which are from fat), and I'm sorry but your food is now too cold to melt the parmesan so you probably should just pass on it. Would you care instead for some pepper which has 0 calories per twist of the pepper mill (0 calories is defined as less than 1 calorie per 5 grams), 0mg sodium (0mg calories is defined as less than 1mg per 50 grams), and 0mg fat (0mg fat is defined as less than 1mg per 50 grams). No? Then enjoy your meal, salt is on the table (contains a mix of sodium and potassium chloride; 0mg of sodium (0mg is defined as less than 1 gram per serving); serving size is one shake, approximately 0.75 grams." |
![]() |
Submit to Quotes
![]() |