[mikelizard860]

Originally Posted by FILF

Which isn't far off from what we have now...

Visit Falujah Iraq during the Iraq war or even new orleans during katrina. We are no where near anarchy. That's complete lawlessness = Anarchy

[BPt111]

Only in CT they want to ban chocolate milk and raise taxes

[FILF]

Originally Posted by mikelizard860

Visit Falujah Iraq during the Iraq war or even new orleans during katrina. We are no where near anarchy. That's complete lawlessness = Anarchy

Chicago and Detroit are only a days drive for the same effects.

[mikelizard860]

Originally Posted by FILF

Chicago and Detroit are only a days drive for the same effects.

There are police there and murder rate is not even comparable to the dangers in a war zone in a civil war with no central authority. Hardly a comparison to a state in anarchy. In Chicago you can call 911 and someone will respond. It's not anarchy. You don't know what anarchy is if you think that is anarchy. It's when a central government has failed and no one is in control. Vigilantes/death squads run amok and there is total chaos. Visit Liberia a decade ago to see what anarchy looks like. Please do some research on Liberia to see what anarchy is. Read about general buttnaked and the child death squads that would run around high on crack cannibalizing people. Humans are wild dangerous animals that need a government.

[mikelizard860]

The second you destablize a central government complete anarchy will develop. People will form into gangs, which will turn into mobs and then you a civil war with multiple factions. This is the human condition. This is what the "no government" people don't get. There's a difference between limiting government power(which the U.S. as a free voting republic does as well as a spread of power) and having no government at all. Large groups of people can't function without a central government/authority

[AnonChick]

Originally Posted by seymourct

Oooh boy. Lol. Yup I know a bunch of kids who'll crave getting their protein from "entirely distinguishable" beverage.

In other words, the kids would not confuse it with white milk. They'd know on sight and on taste that it's chocolate. What I'm saying, in terms that one of those kids would understand...

Is instead of putting 3 teaspoons of Hershey's Syrup in the glass of milk, you only put 2 teaspoons in the same glass. It's still Hershey's chocolate milk. It's just not AS chocolatey, and if you're a 9 year old kid you aren't likely to notice the difference. But you WILL notice the difference between it and white milk. And that's good. That's the goal you want to achieve. Milk that IS distinguishable from white milk, so that kids know they're drinking chocolate milk, which is what they want.

[FILF]

I was in the first Gulf war, Bosnia, and Haiti so you can spare some of the analogies. You're another one that likes to exaggerate my comments. I never said there should be no government. I know there needs to be some type of government, it's a necessary evil unfortunately. I just think they should be very limited in their powers like not being able to ban chocolate milk, beverages more than 12 oz, commonly used guns and so forth. Ohhh and Executive orders should be considered treasonous acts no matter which president institutes them.

[DrPizza]

Whats next...ban pizza because it has too much sodium

[Stylo]

Soda is worse.

[in_newengland]

Originally Posted by Stylo

Soda is worse.

Exactly. Why ban a simple thing like chocolate milk? Milk is good for kids and if putting chocolate in it will get them to drink it, that's good. Soda, on the other hand, is harmful. Instead of banning, why not educate? A lot of them are going to go home and drink soda, even with their meals. They'll go and have junk food because that's where their parents take them to eat.

But if they are taught in school, as many of us were, they could just develop good habits without being forced and without actual banning of foods.