The Question Right Wingers Won't Answer And Were Never Asked~Standards

Carlos Danger said:
Then you contradicted yourself, because I said passing laws is not like casting stones (which it isn't), but you inferred we should legally stop the Amish from using unpasteurized milk.

My point about dolls is they're just toys. Parents should raise men do not be deadbeats.
Click to expand...

Um- I don't think anyone can stop the Amish from using unpasteurized milk from their own cows. It's if they try to sell it that the govt would get involved. And as much as I would love to try raw milk cheese, in this case the govt is probably wise to require milk be pasteurized; it's a lot safer.

In the case of the Amish, they are probably pretty careful about their milk production. I don't think I'd trust a large scale dairy cow operation to be so careful.
 
Oh, and re dolls - kids should play with whatever they want to play with. Dolls can help boys be better fathers down the road. But main thing is kids should have fun with their toys and not pick them based on gender roles.
 
oh - you CAN buy unpasteurized milk in some states, by the way

Arizona, Utah, California and Washington allow raw milk sales in retail stores with appropriate warning labeling. As of May 2010, Massachusetts only allows direct sales from farm to consumer, resulting in "buying clubs" where consumers pool transportation resources to obtain raw milk more conveniently.[11]
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_raw_milk_debate#History
 
evince said:
I don't misconstrue lying about what people said with disagreements.

You fucking LIED about what I said dude.


that is real fucked up
Click to expand...

You said it was illegal for 100 posts. You were proven wrong. Live it, love it, and get the fuck over it.
 
tekkychick said:
oh - you CAN buy unpasteurized milk in some states, by the way



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_raw_milk_debate#History
Click to expand...

Thanks! I assumed it was a Federal Law since Rand Paul brings it up constantly. And he's a Republican that believes States should have the right to their own decisions. Wonder why he thinks it's his right to tell other states what to do. I planned to vote for him but since his exposure on not paying for his spending I've been a little more critical of him. The elections will probably expose him as a hack if this much damage is done this early.
 
Attila the Hun said:
You said it was illegal for 100 posts. You were proven wrong. Live it, love it, and get the fuck over it.
Click to expand...


go get the posts where I said owning a tank is illegal.



I never said that and lying about it shows how even YOU know your ideas are historically failed ideas
 
Part of the point of this thread comes from last election. The big talk was Corporations need less regulations to be more profitable so the money will trickle down. The problem was Romney and few are willing to actually state what regulations they want cut. You ask "What should environmental pollution be by PPM?" They answer "I dunno"

Two of Romney's top ten campaign donors were coal and toxic waste disposal.

The Right Wing wants to lower standards to compete with other Countries and are absolutely willing to admit that. Republicans in Congress DEMAND that Obama cut costs......yet rarely say what costs. That way when Obama makes the decision, they don't suffer the backlash of that decision. So if you really want to lower regulations and standards.......figure out what you want to lower and own it.
 
Anti-Party said:
Part of the point of this thread comes from last election. The big talk was Corporations need less regulations to be more profitable so the money will trickle down. The problem was Romney and few are willing to actually state what regulations they want cut. You ask "What should environmental pollution be by PPM?" They answer "I dunno"

Two of Romney's top ten campaign donors were coal and toxic waste disposal.

The Right Wing wants to lower standards to compete with other Countries and are absolutely willing to admit that. Republicans in Congress DEMAND that Obama cut costs......yet rarely say what costs. That way when Obama makes the decision, they don't suffer the backlash of that decision. So if you really want to lower regulations and standards.......figure out what you want to lower and own it.
Click to expand...

You say you want to debate, but you predicate your discussion on phony premises. It is easier to just mock you than give your premise any credence.
 
Anti-Party said:
I think this thread will die because I don't think ANY Right Winger will stand up and answer this.

The one thing that Fox News teaches the Right is that we need to compete with other Countries to be successful. So let's have that debate now. Or maybe you only repeat what you are told to by your Cult media source and can't........If you are good at debating politics then answer these questions. Debate IS about answering questions.....

Question;
1) What should the lowest age limit be for employment?
Click to expand...

14 with parental approval

2) What should the minimum wage be and/or should there be one?
Click to expand...

Federal should stay where it is. If states want to raise it because their cost of living is higher than the national average, let them do it at that level.

3) Doctors (or anything that presents risk to life in America)can't just become doctors without proof of education on the subject because people can die if the doctor is a fake. Proof of education on the topic is needed. What educational limits should be placed on owning an AR-15 and/or a 100 round drum mag?
Click to expand...

None. It is a constitutional right to own them. If you base it on educational levels, you are creating second class citizens. Besides, what does a high school or college education have to do with knowledge on gun safety? I know 12 year olds that can handle a gun safely and are far less of a risk than some individuals with PHD's that have never handled a weapon.

4) If in theory ALL AMERICANS wanted something, yet the Congress didn't pass it..........who more resembles a Dictatorship in this theory? The Americans or Congress?
Click to expand...

This is a huge problem. The entitlement mentality. The weakness in a Democracy is the point at which the populace realizes they can elect people that will promise to 'give' them a bunch of free stuff.

5) The Bible teaches Free Will Religion. It teaches that using law to enforce Christianity is casting stones. Yet laws against gays punish them for not being Christian. But this topic in the Bible was about people who think that their sins are ok, but someone elses aren't. And people have created a "sin level meter" which makes certain sins worse than others. The only sin rating system I know of is the 10 commandments. And then we have the Constitution that promotes "Freedom of Religion." And the Bible states, "Do not judge or be judged"........... So here is the question........Should gays be allowed to get married? I think if you think they don't have the freedom to you are a non-American and a judgemental Christian. But I also think that if you are a Christian, you shouldn't be forced to marry a gay couple. But guess what, laws even prevent them from getting married at a court house. Louis C.K.~ "If they aren't touching dongs in my front yard...I really don't care."
Click to expand...

I think the above is a lot of non-sense showing your disdain for Christianity. That said, if the government is going to be involved in marriage, then... no, it cannot discriminate. Gay marriage should be allowed by Federal and State law.

6) What air pollution PPM standard would you put on a Corporation?
Click to expand...

I don't think a cookie cutter number pulled from someones ass is a solution to anything. An electric and power company is not on par with a service company.

7) Oil Fracking. Should this be allowed?
Click to expand...

Yes.

8) Does "Obamacare" challenge the Intersate Commerce Clause if the majority of Ameircans want it?
Click to expand...

The majority of Americans do not want it.

9) Should we be FREE to sell unpasteurized milk and if so, what should be the punishment if it kills a child? My current candidate stands behind this even when my local hospitals show that less educated people use this method and sometimes kill their children. Is the "sometimes" ok when profit is at stake?
Click to expand...

Not up on this topic in terms of risk factors etc... I would have to research it.

10) Should boys play with baby dolls?
Click to expand...

If they want to. Kind of a stupid question relative to the others you asked.
 
Superfreak said:
14 with parental approval



Federal should stay where it is. If states want to raise it because their cost of living is higher than the national average, let them do it at that level.



None. It is a constitutional right to own them. If you base it on educational levels, you are creating second class citizens. Besides, what does a high school or college education have to do with knowledge on gun safety? I know 12 year olds that can handle a gun safely and are far less of a risk than some individuals with PHD's that have never handled a weapon.



This is a huge problem. The entitlement mentality. The weakness in a Democracy is the point at which the populace realizes they can elect people that will promise to 'give' them a bunch of free stuff.



I think the above is a lot of non-sense showing your disdain for Christianity. That said, if the government is going to be involved in marriage, then... no, it cannot discriminate. Gay marriage should be allowed by Federal and State law.



I don't think a cookie cutter number pulled from someones ass is a solution to anything. An electric and power company is not on par with a service company.



Yes.



The majority of Americans do not want it.



Not up on this topic in terms of risk factors etc... I would have to research it.



If they want to. Kind of a stupid question relative to the others you asked.
Click to expand...

3) So if someone doesn't pass a hunting safety course they are considered a second class citizen and you want to protect their rights to hunt because you want what......acceptance of failure that endangers others? All you have to do to pass a hunter safety course is pay attention and make decisions that won't cost a hunter their life basically.

4) Your claims like many others on this topic favor big government over the people because you think the people are stupid and will make the wrong decisions. How American is that?

6&7) Just like many others you show a complete lack of knowledge of pollution. It's not a Left Wing thing you bone heads. It affects all of us.........

8) Check the polls again. Some polls are stating that only 36% of Americans want to end Obamacare now but would rather wait and see how it works. But, polls are polls.
 
Anti-Party said:
3) So if someone doesn't pass a hunting safety course they are considered a second class citizen and you want to protect their rights to hunt because you want what......acceptance of failure that endangers others? All you have to do to pass a hunter safety course is pay attention and make decisions that won't cost a hunter their life basically.

4) Your claims like many others on this topic favor big government over the people because you think the people are stupid and will make the wrong decisions. How American is that?

6&7) Just like many others you show a complete lack of knowledge of pollution. It's not a Left Wing thing you bone heads. It affects all of us.........

8) Check the polls again. Some polls are stating that only 36% of Americans want to end Obamacare now but would rather wait and see how it works. But, polls are polls.
Click to expand...

2nd Amendment had nothing to do with hunting. When it was written if you didn't hunt you didn't eat
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top