The example I used was salt.

"There really is nothing to show that salt is bad for you."

Increased salt intake is generally believed to be bad for you in the scientific community.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Very low level of salt consumption is bad -- and so is very high. And the amounts in many canned foods are very high for single entrees (example already provided).

I say "generally canned foods contain a lot of salt". This is true.

You say that the canned tomatoes you use do not, which I will accept as true.

If I say most people lose the the lottery, is it really a counter argument to say "No! I won once!"?

What about the other extreme? Go to the market and pick up a can of spaghetti (yes, spaghetti, not sauce). You'll find most have a sodium content of something like 1000 mg per serving (with 2 or so servings per can). That's pert near close a full days worth of salt -- over a full day if someone eats the whole can. Or close to half on a few of the more loose recommendations -- in a single entree.

Yes, processing doesn't mean bad. A lot of salt does and I was trying to find some meaning up the thread. And this is only a single example.

"Avoid all WHITE foods with the exception of cauliflower."

Racist.

"Really? Where? Just because canned food is "processed" it does not make it bad for you. And i have never seen a study to support this assertion in any way or form. After all bread is processed foods!"

Maybe he meant 'indirectly' bad for you. Generally, canned foods contain a lot of salt -- which is generally believed to be harmful if consumed in excess and regularly over time.

"At some point in our past we decided that eye-for-an-eye was not a workable approach to justice and three lifetimes plus hundreds of years for an offense of twelve hours, no matter how awful those twelve hours may have been, goes so far beyond eye-for-an-eye..."

Dozens of multiple counts -- three of which hold 25 to life terms. I'm sure if you knew the details you would say it's not enough.

Again -- anyone who's brain is broke enough to be attracted to kids should not walk free -- ever. Just because they walk, talk and wear clothes doesn't mean they aren't dangerous animals.

"Not that I don't get what you're saying, but if a woman molested your son (one of the many, many female child molesters) would you hunt her down and presumably kill her?"

My 10 year old son? Yes. My 17 year old son? No. There are many variables. How "under 18" was she?

My daughter was kidnapped when she was 10 years old an suffered a horrific 12 hours with a monster. Over 2 years later the monster still hasn't been to trial but that's coming up soon. He's looking at 3 life sentences + a few hundred years.

A history of sexual predation should never be erased from the public memory. I don't give a rip if this particular guy is "living a new life" -- if your brain is broke in such a way as to be attracted to kids then you should no more be allowed to walk the streets than a lion who thinks kids are tasty.

I suggest we program all robots with some type of rules that prevent this from happening. Some 'laws', if you will that prevent them from hurting people. Force them to follow their programming (unless it tells them to hurt people). Finally, prevent them from damaging themselves or their work (unless it would cause them to hurt people or not follow their programming).

These are pretty basic 'laws'. I don't know why someone hasn't come up with this yet.

Not exactly. The process varied from state to state, but yes -- a bit more than half the states didn't select senators via legislative or gubernatorial appointment. But that was fairly close to the ratification of the 17th anyway -- as you go back even a few years (say 1906), that wasn't the case. The momentum was already building.

"The reason that the amendment got passed is that the process of picking senators was completely corrupt."

But you also said the following BEFORE that statement:

"You need to spend more time understanding why this amendment got passed"

Apparently you don't fully understand why it got passed. One of the issues was corruption, but it wasn't the only one.

Also, the "solution" had an impact which damaged and continues to damage the republic. I would argue that the solution created a much larger problem than it fixed, should be undone and another "solution" pursued.

"And you do realize that you are actually arguing for less democracy and more corruption by begging to return to those "good old days", right?"

Yes, I do realize I'm arguing for less democracy. No, I'm not arguing for more corruption. That's just ridicules.

First some background -- I'm an amateur historian with a strong focus the early federal period of the United States. I have assisted/directed more than a few scholars to reference letters/documents supporting their respective thesis'. Anyone who's read Madison's notes and letters, letters of Hamilton, Jay (beyond just the Federalist Papers), and Morris for example can clearly see that there was nearly as much fear of too much democracy as there was of monarchy. Madison took copious notes during the convention (which is amazing considering how often he also spoke during the convention). He wasn't even the official secretary -- that was Jackson. His citations are well documented.

With regards to the legislature, they kept wanting to "cool" the "passions" of the people and their influence on the House while making sure the people had a voice. It is impossible to balance democracy and reason when both the House and the Senate can be swayed by popular passions.

I can continue the history lesson but I would suggest seeing if you can find an old book by St. John -- "The Constitutional Journal" or "A Constitutional Journal" (it's been a few decades since I read it) but it provides an excellent overview of the CC and presents it in an entertaining format (as if it were being reported daily by an embedded journalist).

Again, the "solution" to whatever the perceived problems were pre 17 had a profound and unintended negative impact on our republic. I find it astonishing that just because you heard people you don't like saying it that you reflexively dismiss it. Ok -- maybe not astonished. But I certainly find it amusing that you accuse me of parroting 'talking heads'.

"No of course you don't because you just repeat what the right wing talking heads told you to think."

That is a silly comment. I've held this belief for well over 30 years. I acquired it myself reading the letters of our framers. Not "snips" of text -- but their actual full letters (some original, most copies).

The concessions were made to DEMOCRATS to risk their seats voting for it.

A single payer system never would have made it to the floor because a large number of DEMOCRATS wouldn't have voted for it.

Again, the only bipartisan aspect of the ACA was it's opposition.

"Its doing neither."

Yes it is. With regards to the judiciary, they are deliberately affirming judicial nominations who believe in the idea of re-interpreting the constitution -- and in the extreme, basically writing law themselves.

" so now the Judiciary branch made the decision that America lives in the real world"

Sorry, but when they can bend over backwards and re-define eminent domain to allow the government to take private property from a citizen and force a sale to another private citizen or entity for the sole purpose of the enrichment of the government coffers we've jumped the shark.

Repeal the 17th amendment. At least you would have one house that isn't campaigning all the type.

IMO, the 17th broke a fundamental safeguard of our republic.

Ayup. I mis-typed. That should read "Congress is ceding power to both the Executive and Judiciary".

My bad.

Are you that misinformed or just making things up?

The republicans had no say whatsoever in the ACA. It passed with zero support. The only bi-partisan aspect of the ACA was it's opposition. This is completely owned by an overwhelming democrat majority in congress at the time.

Implied powers. Their authority is spelled out in the constitution -- how it was to be exercised was not. But that's true for all three branches of our government.