29 Dec 14
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIf you don't want to come off as racist, then qualify your statement with "the company..."
If you consider the name Anglo American Platinum racist you should blame the people who chose that name.
http://ewn.co.za/Topic/Anglo-American-Platinum-miners-on-strike
Since you are a racist who hates Anglos I think you just like saying it.
29 Dec 14
Originally posted by WajomaDo we get the benefit of any reasoning behind this judgement of Solomon?
Sugar should not be a banned ingredient, food containing sugar should not be banned.
Are you agreeing that sugar is a poison for example or do you dispute the evidence that it is? Do you even know about the evidence?
29 Dec 14
1 edit
Originally posted by finneganYou believe sugar to be poison. If it is, then the answer to KN is yes manufacturers should be able to include toxic ingredients.
Do we get the benefit of any reasoning behind this judgement of Solomon?
Are you agreeing that sugar is a poison for example or do you dispute the evidence that it is? Do you even know about the evidence?
They do so now under guvamint oversight.
Defeats the argument that the guvamint is looking after all those that haven't got a clue how to look after themselves.
29 Dec 14
Originally posted by WajomaCorrect and in seeking an explanation for that failure of government we need to find ways of making government democratic, open and accountable.
You believe sugar to be poison. If it is, then the answer to KN is yes manufacturers should be able to include toxic ingredients.
They do so now under guvamint oversight.
Defeats the argument that the guvamint is looking after all those that haven't got a clue how to look after themselves.
29 Dec 14
Originally posted by finneganSo they can outlaw sugar? Or ration it? Or reduce it from some arbitrary amount to some other arbitrary amount?
Correct and in seeking an explanation for that failure of government we need to find ways of making government democratic, open and accountable.
That's your 'democratic' ideal?
29 Dec 14
Originally posted by WajomaNo my democratic ideal is an open and accountable government that is not open to bribery and corruption and that acts in the best interests of the public, not the interests of the wealthy and their corporations.
So they can outlaw sugar? Or ration it? Or reduce it from some arbitrary amount to some other arbitrary amount?
That's your 'democratic' ideal?
29 Dec 14
Originally posted by finneganAny country's guvamint that allows sugar to be used as an ingredient is being bribed.
No my democratic ideal is an open and accountable government that is not open to bribery and corruption and that acts in the best interests of the public, not the interests of the wealthy and their corporations.
A bold claim indeed.