OK, this LEGITIMATELY scares me!

I feel most often that I'm not arguing, but correcting. Correcting misconceptions for the greater good. Besides, we aren't arguing

"The reason they are limiting the caloric intake of citizens is because it is incredibly unhealthy and causing us to have exorbitant health care costs. Now, I feel that the way you put that sort of changes its meaning, they are actually regulating the amount of salt in a meal, not how much YOU as a person take in. This is serious because it can lead to deaths, so the government is protecting us, I believe there that we just have a difference in opinions. Also, the school can't teach any liberal or conservative doctrine because it would open the school as an international open forum, thus allowing porn stars to advertise there and such, and that is against the rules, so they can't do that, that is why my science teacher said I couldn't put up political action pamphlets around the school to clean up our city river. Another reason that "liberal" ideas are taught is because they are facts, sadly enough for many conservatives, facts that conservatives choose to ignore. At first it was that the earth was the center of the universe, then about 400 years later the church accepted that, and now its evolution and then it will be something else etcetera."

Thats the problem. The government is "protecting" us. If I want to put some extra salt on my food, thats my right, thats my choice, not the governments. I don't need the governments "protection" when in reality it's not protection it's limitations.

"I believe that I did "twist" your words a bit, but, to be fair, the result is the same, joe DIES!! We are founded upon rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" if we don't give life, then we have strayed from our original purpose, that is how our opinions conflict, because while you choose liberty I choose life, salt intake thingy."

The result is not the same. Eventually yes, Joe will die but so will Bob. So will you, so will Dray so will I. That's not the point. Yes, I gladly choose liberty over the government regulating how much salt is on my food. Thank you very much.

I think your twisting the salt regulation Ara. They arent regulating YOU, they are regulating the food provider(restaurant, fast food, hot dog stand). sure you cna ask for the salt and pour it yourself on your food, but many people have been sued for much less ara. Last thing a food provider needs is being sued for endangering their customers life with highly salty foods(believe me, you guys could pull that off). this way, they have a regualted amount, saves them from random sues, makes people healthy, and if you wanna harm yourself, pour the salt on the food yourself.(as a side note, i am a very unhealthy eater, but i love it xD)

The problem still is that government is still regulating salt intake. Whether it's directly through regulating me or the restaurant I am eating at, it doesn't matter. That restaurant is entitled to cook their food according to the recipe they have been using for however long. It's their business, they can cook it how they want.

ok, still, they arent regulating you, they are regulating an establishment wich serves food to people, the same way they regulate sanity issues. what if the chef's recipee involves cooking on an old rusty oven, so the food gains its taste? should they let him do so? salt intake is perhaps taking it too far thou...

But thats my entire point. It is too much regulations and it doesn't matter if it's on me directly or not. The restaurants should be able to do what the want. The rusty oven is an extreme example, but I do see your point.

Regulating Salt INTAKE is too far, regulating the amount of salt that they can put on restraunt foods, that is fair, besides, in some restruants they put over your daily dose in one portion of salt.

"The result is not the same. Eventually yes, Joe will die but so will Bob. So will you, so will Dray so will I. That's not the point. Yes, I gladly choose liberty over the government regulating how much salt is on my food. Thank you very much."

By that reasoning, I could kill you and justify it by saying that everyone will die eventually.

Jesus says: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' I don't think you would let yourself die.

The only reason I said that was to show you that everyone is going to die. That doesn't mean I was justifying killing someone because we're all gonna die. Again, you're either misunderstanding what I'm saying or you're twisting my words...again.

No, I wouldn't let myself die. My point is, I have a right eat how/what I please just like the restaurants can cook how they please since it's their restaurant.

And they can put poison in their food, its their restraunt.

So, like I said, that is why welfare is good, because you don't want Joe to die, that should be end of discussion, but its not, because you will trust business men, who want to make money, to save people, by spending money, thus decreasing their profits, just like most politicians who are funded by industries so they maintain ties to them and prevent progress.

You're taking to the extreme here. It's obvious that poison would kill the person. Salt will to but it's not deadly like poison. Again, you're taking it too far. Salt is different than poison. Poison tastes nasty while salt tastes good But in all seriousness, there is a difference.

There are odorless poisons and tasteless poisons, all one really needs to do is cook a blowfish a little bit wrong.

Salt is causing you and me to pay exorbitant premiums on health care because it causes more people to have health problems, that should be evident, so, in the end, its almost one or another. Salt will inadvertently be deadly to others in the long run with other factors, such as a lack of exercise on the American's behalf

Yes, but the Americans have the free choice of putting salt on their food as well as the restaurants. The customers know when they go into a restaurant that there will be salt on the food, they take that risk. So let them. If they wanna have more salt on their food, have at it.

The point of the law is to set the salt maximum, but not the choices that people make, meaning that you can ask for more. Because many times the people don't know the salt that the meal actually contains.

Yeah, i would have no problem regulating a restaurant. It is customary in portugal in a restaurant to not put salt in your fries or salad. Normally there is a salt and pepper thingy on the table if you wanna put it yourself.

Ya I completely agree with what you are saying Dray, it seems much more fair.