Westside Steve Posted June 5, 2012 Report Share Posted June 5, 2012 First off I don't drink pop with sugar. Second I realize white sugar is bad for you. Third it's not the biggest issue in my life. But it really annoys me when asshole self important politicians feel they should regulate every aspect of a citizen's life. I don't think that's a particularly right wing attitude either. Bloomberg your'e not my mother Leave us the f*** alone. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted June 5, 2012 Report Share Posted June 5, 2012 Yup. I think it's a bizarre, non-sensical approach to a serious problem. It's in the government's interest to promote public health. This is not the way to do it. The first way to do it would be to stop subsidizing farmers to grow unhealthy foods. That'd be the first step. But that's a huge battle against the agribusiness and food industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted June 5, 2012 Report Share Posted June 5, 2012 Or how about tell your fat fucking kids to go out and play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted June 5, 2012 Report Share Posted June 5, 2012 >>But it really annoys me when asshole self important politicians feel they should regulate every aspect of a citizen's life. Bloomberg your'e not my mother Leave us the f*** alone.>> I believe you'd be hard pressed, Steve, to find a bigger 'Nanny State' abuser than Bloomberg. I don't have the inclination to dig them all out, but he has legislated a number of 'can't dos' that are outrageous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted June 5, 2012 Report Share Posted June 5, 2012 So what would you want to see done to address obesity and the health care costs associated with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted June 5, 2012 Report Share Posted June 5, 2012 So what would you want to see done to address obesity and the health care costs associated with it? A lot of the problem lies in the home, Heck. You know that. How do you get fat and lazy parents away from monitoring Kim Kardashian's menstral cycle on TV to address MANY problems, obesity-related diseases among them? I'd start by having kids spend more time outside - outdoors - not our of their video room and into a friend's video room. Same for the parents, themselves. I wouldn't start by encouraging somebody to buy two cans of soda instead of one. OTOH, what is the tax revenue implications? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 5, 2012 Report Share Posted June 5, 2012 People should be able to make choices for themselves but.... People are stupid and Americans are fat. Healthy people shouldn't have to pay for others unhealthy lifestyle. If the government isn't going to get in the way then legalize gay marriage, legalize pot, and allow abortions up to a certain point in the pregnancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 5, 2012 Report Share Posted June 5, 2012 A lot of the problem lies in the home, Heck. You know that. How do you get fat and lazy parents away from monitoring Kim Kardashian's menstral cycle on TV to address MANY problems, obesity-related diseases among them? I'd start by having kids spend more time outside - outdoors - not our of their video room and into a friend's video room. Same for the parents, themselves. I wouldn't start by encouraging somebody to buy two cans of soda instead of one. OTOH, what is the tax revenue implications? The standards for school lunches also suck. Lol, video rooms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted June 5, 2012 Report Share Posted June 5, 2012 A lot of the problem lies in the home, Heck. You know that. How do you get fat and lazy parents away from monitoring Kim Kardashian's menstral cycle on TV to address MANY problems, obesity-related diseases among them? I'd start by having kids spend more time outside - outdoors - not our of their video room and into a friend's video room. Same for the parents, themselves. I wouldn't start by encouraging somebody to buy two cans of soda instead of one. OTOH, what is the tax revenue implications? But the government can't get into people's homes and make them parent better, and make their kids go outside. In fact, if you even have the First Lady suggest what you're suggesting, that kids go outside and play more often, the right wing shits itself and screams about liberty. Which is ...completely sane. So what can government actually do? Woody mentioned school lunch standards. That'd be one place I'd look too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted June 5, 2012 Report Share Posted June 5, 2012 But the government can't get into people's homes and make them parent better, and make their kids go outside. In fact, if you even have the First Lady suggest what you're suggesting, that kids go outside and play more often, the right wing shits itself and screams about liberty. Which is ...completely sane. So what can government actually do? Woody mentioned school lunch standards. That'd be one place I'd look too. Well, our school system started by offering 'healthy' food, banning soda, candy, etc. Still a lot of fat kids but, hopefully and over time, the trend turns. In case people haven't noticed, it is very unusual to see slim parents with phat kids. Michelle Obama isn't the first person to encourage healthy activity - she is no pioneer - and, perhaps, she can continue to do this work. No sane person should have a problem with that. Maybe she can have her husband stop smoking. Like with a lot of things, Heck, parents should be held accountable for their kids, activities, etc. But how can you do that? Your prescription, most of the time, appears to be government intervention like those cited before. I prefer punitive measures but my guess phatness is more concentrated in low socio-economic households. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted June 5, 2012 Report Share Posted June 5, 2012 That made no sense at all. I'm talking about removing subsidies, which are government interventions, and you're accusing me of government interventions, while saying you prefer punitive measures which are, of course, government interventions. Second of all, I'd be all for smart interventions by government, like mandating that school lunches, which are a government program, be held to a higher health standard. Why should the money we spend on school lunches be spent on crap that makes kids fat and provides little to no nutritional value? They shouldn't. I'm not for stupid government interventions, like mandating the size of soda in NYC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted June 5, 2012 Report Share Posted June 5, 2012 A ecard for you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 5, 2012 Report Share Posted June 5, 2012 Pizza is considered a god damn vegetable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted June 5, 2012 Report Share Posted June 5, 2012 That made no sense at all. I'm talking about removing subsidies, which are government interventions, and you're accusing me of government interventions, while saying you prefer punitive measures which are, of course, government interventions. Second of all, I'd be all for smart interventions by government, like mandating that school lunches, which are a government program, be held to a higher health standard. Why should the money we spend on school lunches be spent on crap that makes kids fat and provides little to no nutritional value? They shouldn't. I'm not for stupid government interventions, like mandating the size of soda in NYC. I was talking about the TYPE of government interventions, Heck. Simmer down. I'm talking about approach - not concept. Otherwise............\ Where do we disagree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 5, 2012 Report Share Posted June 5, 2012 Otherwise............\ Where do we disagree? in the spelling of fat/phat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted June 5, 2012 Report Share Posted June 5, 2012 I was talking about the TYPE of government interventions, Heck. Simmer down. I'm talking about approach - not concept. Otherwise............\ Where do we disagree? I can't tell. I don't know what punitive measures you're talking about, and I can't think of any I'd support. For the most part, I support letting people do and eat whatever they want, but that government policy should encourage healthier lifestyles, not subsidize the production of crappy foods, especially for children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted June 5, 2012 Report Share Posted June 5, 2012 >>I can't tell. I don't know what punitive measures you're talking about, and I can't think of any I'd support. For the most part, I support letting people do and eat whatever they want, but that government policy should encourage healthier lifestyles, not subsidize the production of crappy foods, especially for children.>> Let's start with sterilization. That would take care of many problems. I AM (half) KIDDING. I am not suggesting this is an option but it WOULD solve many, many problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted June 5, 2012 Report Share Posted June 5, 2012 So would taking old people out and shooting them in the head. So, let's stick with non-Nazi solutions instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 5, 2012 Report Share Posted June 5, 2012 I'm not old and I don't think I'd be sterilized (i have valuable sperm) so I'm down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted June 5, 2012 Report Share Posted June 5, 2012 You think I'm kidding. We're only moments away from Steve posting something like: Come on Heck. You realy think evryone who has kids should be havng kids? I don't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted June 5, 2012 Report Share Posted June 5, 2012 >>So would taking old people out and shooting them in the head. So, let's stick with non-Nazi solutions instead.>> In your opinion, it is ever correct to determine 'there is no solution' and, therefore, stop pithing away money on it? Like the D.A.R.E. program. If memory serves me right - and my memory is selective - that program has been deemed ineffective. So why continue funding it. Why not find something that is effective. If there is none, cash it in. I know you're talking about degrees, Heck. Why not tax those unhealthy items? I know it would probably be regressive in nature but, it again seems to me, those are the worse offenders so why not have them put some of their (abundant) skin in the game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted June 5, 2012 Report Share Posted June 5, 2012 >>So would taking old people out and shooting them in the head. So, let's stick with non-Nazi solutions instead.>> In your opinion, it is ever correct to determine 'there is no solution' and, therefore, stop pithing away money on it? Like the D.A.R.E. program. If memory serves me right - and my memory is selective - that program has been deemed ineffective. So why continue funding it. Why not find something that is effective. If there is none, cash it in. I know you're talking about degrees, Heck. Why not tax those unhealthy items? I know it would probably be regressive in nature but, it again seems to me, those are the worse offenders so why not have them put some of their (abundant) skin in the game? Of course. D.A.R.E. is a perfect example of a program that gets no proven result. I don't know what this has to do with our discussion though. And I'd consider taxing unhealthy inputs like that. That would make more sense than picking on soda, as if soda is the only way Americans get sugar, or more likely high fructose corn syrup. (Which we get because we subsidize corn.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 5, 2012 Report Share Posted June 5, 2012 ... I did D.A.R.E. I'm clean got me through the mean streets of strongsville Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted June 5, 2012 Report Share Posted June 5, 2012 Read this: Let's Step It Up a Notch From 1998 to 2008, opiates and coke are up 34.5% and 27%. Yet we employ tens of thousands of officers to combat a war that has failed. Sounds familiar.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 5, 2012 Report Share Posted June 5, 2012 Whatever. We've got a DARE car with fucking rims and big ass speakers and video games and tvs in the back and a cool paint job and chrome and shut so it's working Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted June 5, 2012 Report Share Posted June 5, 2012 >>Yet we employ tens of thousands of officers to combat a war that has failed.>> Trick question: Which of the following Wars was successful: The War on Terrorism The War on Poverty The War on Drugs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted June 5, 2012 Report Share Posted June 5, 2012 >>Yet we employ tens of thousands of officers to combat a war that has failed.>> Trick question: Which of the following Wars was successful: The War on Terrorism The War on Poverty The War on Drugs None, that is why I said, "Sounds familiar.... " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted June 5, 2012 Report Share Posted June 5, 2012 They're all different. The War on Drugs is an unmitigated disaster. The War on Terror has lots of successes, and we've removed a lot of bad people. It also has tremendous costs. The War on Poverty had some successes as well, and large costs. And none of it is really relevant to what we're talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted June 5, 2012 Report Share Posted June 5, 2012 People should be able to make choices for themselves but.... People are stupid and Americans are fat. Healthy people shouldn't have to pay for others unhealthy lifestyle. If the government isn't going to get in the way then legalize gay marriage, legalize pot, and allow abortions up to a certain point in the pregnancy. Citazens and those who pay for health care shouldn't have to pay for the illegal and the indigent either, but liberals have no problem with that. Funny how that works, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted June 5, 2012 Report Share Posted June 5, 2012 Well, our school system started by offering 'healthy' food, banning soda, candy, etc. Still a lot of fat kids but, hopefully and over time, the trend turns. In case people haven't noticed, it is very unusual to see slim parents with phat kids. Michelle Obama isn't the first person to encourage healthy activity - she is no pioneer - and, perhaps, she can continue to do this work. No sane person should have a problem with that. Maybe she can have her husband stop smoking. Like with a lot of things, Heck, parents should be held accountable for their kids, activities, etc. But how can you do that? Your prescription, most of the time, appears to be government intervention like those cited before. I prefer punitive measures but my guess phatness is more concentrated in low socio-economic households. The only thing I actually like about Obama is that he smokes. Stick it to the man, black president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.