Essentially what the House is saying is - "If you stuff your face with whoppers and bacon and fries it's your own damn fault if you blimp up!" You have to be pretty much brain dead to not know that fast food is unhealthy. If this isn't a case of common sense, I don't think there is one. And if your kids become fat because you feed them a diet of fries and burgers, you are not doing right by them in the least, and it is YOUR fault. I've grown to believe that the US is quickly becoming a place where personal responsibility doesn't matter (hey it's anyone's fault but mine!), but this development is encouraging.
In an equally stunning act of ignorance, burgeoning dictator and hero to kook liberals the world over Hugo Chavez claims the US is planning to invade Venezuela!
Of course Chavez is blowing smoke, but the liberal media grabs hold to anything that is remotely anti-US or anti-Bush and runs with it whether it is fact or fiction. He gives us the eternally flawed reasoning that we want Venezuela's oil just like we went to Iraq to get their oil. Yeah buddy, sure. I'm beyond tired of explaining to you all why this argument betrays logic, reality and common sense. I'm not sure what's funnier, that or Chavez's claim that we would pay for "100 centuries" and drown in our own blood if we indeed launched his fantasy invasion. Rather than doing the correct thing (passing this stuff off as crazed nonsense), the media instead rolls with it, believing Chavez and his looney talk. How amusing.
Jason
Well, as far as the oil issue is concerned, to suggest that this was an oil war is an argument that has long been debunked. Its incredibly silly, and I'll illustrate it this way - at this point its more credible to say that President Bush uprooted Saddam because of a personal grudge than to say that this was an oil war. Considering how extreme an idea that is (by the way, nobody actually believes that either) I think proper perspective needs to be established. We're still paying 3 bucks a gallon, we haven't "stolen" a drop of crude from Iraq and the Iraq government has had control of their pipelines for quite a while now. I think people are missing the bigger picture - its not just in our best interest but the entire globe's best interest to have a stable Middle East. I have no problem with the anti-war stance; whether or not you like war isn't the issue here. The problem is that the diplomatic way of doing things failed for a decade and a half, and a couple more months would have meant jack squat. Words mean nothing to people whose only language is violence. Think about that for a while.
I love fast food but I do think that fast food places do bare some responsability. I'm not saying that you should be able to sue them for your eating habits. But I think putting this type of law gives them to much power. Some stuff that these places pass off as healthy isn't. For example McDonalds I think has one of those salads you mix and shake. But once you get one with the meat and dressing the fat content skyrockets and it isn't so healthy anymore. McDonalds still askes if you want it upsized (yes they did get rid of the supersizes). The pictures of a lot of the food isn't a true reresentation of how it looks. Some fast food places don't give healthy alternatives. The real problem is the suburban work and living style. You drive everywhere and are in a hurry so you buy crap food. In NY state you have to have the nutritianl information posted somewhere in the resturant, some places it is hard to find. If I was BK Or KFC or any other of those places I would put a warning on the wrapper High in fat may lead to heart attack. Is it true that most of the blame is on the people who chose to eat it? Yes, and they do need to be personaly resposeable but the people who sell it need to be to. I don't sell drugs because I don't want to go to jail. But also because I hurt the addicts for my own gain.
:::link::: There is the "Statement of Principles" that outlines PNAC's strategy. Look at the bottom and see who is involved - Bush Administration officials and our Veep! Reading it and applying it to our Iraq situation makes me think that without a doubt this is what's going on, not simply oil theft.
You're right Paul, I should have explained myself further. I call the rationale flawed because if all we really wanted was to steal oil from them we wouldn't need to destroy Baghdad nor any other city. There wouldn't be so much unnecessary bloodshed. Hell, we wouldn't even need to depose Saddam. We could seize an airport (200 Army Rangers did in less than 5 minutes) and just seize the oil fields, trucking that beautiful oil along to the airport and over to US shores. There would be nothing the Iraqis could do to stop us.
No, I think the true reason is a lot more sinister than simply stealing oil. The Neocons have the belief that the US way is the best way, culturally, economically, so on and so forth. The PNAC, chaired by Neocon Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard, explains the strategy. I think Bush did exactly what he said he WOULDN'T do - nation building. The administration wants some kind of democratic country smack dab in the center of the middle east. I think Iraq's location is one of the more important factors, along with the fact it was one of the easier targets. The Neocons want to have more American influence over the way things are done in the middle east (actually, all over the globe), and they are building a "New Iraq" to get it started. They want to broaden US influence over the middle east. They think people will gravitate towards the American Way if they are given an opportunity. They want to build the world in our image.
I think if you compare the two, my belief sounds a hell of a lot worse than stealing oil.
"He gives us the eternally flawed reasoning that we want Venezuela's oil just like we went to Iraq to get their oil. Yeah buddy, sure."
I am not into Chavez at all and am no way suggesting that we are going to attack venezuela. But do you really believe that we attacked Iraq for anything other than oil? What was the real reason. Was it for democracy, to avenge his father, weapons of mass destruction, what do you believe?