Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (599821)	2/4/2011 10:25:29 AM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 1583867

Here's some mandates for ya: .... Science has determined that two drinks a day for men and one for women is quite beneficial. It reduces the chances of death from any major cause by 18%, and people who drink 1-2 drinks a day (men) or 1 a day (women) have better cognitive functions later in life as compared to those who do not. (USDA 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans/Italian study found on MSNBC.) Therefore; I could make the argument that's made for the ACA: Alcohol sale is interstate commerce, which it most assuredly is, and that "moderate" drinking is good for your health so under the general welfare clause it shall be decreed by Congress and the President that all persons in the United States shall buy a minimum of enough liquor to ingest two drinks a day or face a fine (tax, whatever you want to call it). Of course we'll have to lower the drinking age, because not doing so would be denying 16-21 year olds their health! Or is it 14-21 year olds? Further there are studies out there which show that areas of high legal gun ownership have less violent crime than area's with low legal gun ownership. So we'll cherrypick a few of those studies that show that guns are "good" and add that into the law as well. So go buy your guns and booze... or else! [Nothing could possibly go wrong with that idea, especially if add God knows what to it and make it 2700 pages long.] And if you're not on board with this idea, clearly you don't care about Americas health, are a member of the "Party of NO", support violent criminals, you're a racist bigot and you probably kick puppies when no one is watching. ..... americanthinker.com

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (599821)	2/4/2011 1:10:42 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583867

"Similarly its good that a decent number of law abiding citizens are armed, because many criminals are armed." That's why we have police...... When seconds count, police are only minutes away. Then you are saying that all nuclear nations have nukes for deterrence not defense? Primarily for deterrence, secondarily for intimidation of others, and defense against non-nuclear attack that's strong enough to conquer them. Also sometimes to feel powerful or important, to be taken more seriously by other countries, and to distract the people with the feeling of progress to be powerful and important. Possibly in some cases to actually attack and destroy others. If so why are we concerned about NK and Iran building nukes for deterrence? They are concerned about deterrence, but that isn't there only motivation. Also deterrence itself, at least deterrence broadly defined, isn't always a good thing. Iran or North Korea might want to deter intervention by outside powers in to wars that they themselves start. They would attack conventionally, and threaten anyone who intervened with nuclear attack. Then there is also the risk that with more proliferation, its more likely for terrorists and/or non-rational actor to get there hands on nuclear weapons (either a country currently ruled by non-rational actors, a country with a non-rational actor that takes over, or a country that falls in to chaos and terrorists gain control of some nukes, or a country gives some to terrorists. Terrorists and non-rational actors would care less about deterrence and more about initiating attacks.