People laughed when we said the government would go from banning smoking to...

You're in favor of people voting to eat dog food? Or is it that you're in favor of people eating dog food when they vote against having to eat dog food because you believe that using the government to keep people from having to eat dog food will inevitably lead to them eating dog food?

 

The people who are voting for an unsustainable welfare system out of sloth and greed will ultimately suffer the most. For them to suffer for the pain they inflict on everyone else is called justice. When they are eating dog food, they will have no one to blame but themselves.

 

Yeah because we're so healthy now with the FDA in control.

 

It is an individual's problem....lol. That is the point.

You leftists have turned it into "America's problem" by forcing everyone else to pay for everyone else's stuff....lol.

Funny how you socialists don't see this.

If fat boy wants a big Mac, then fat boy can pay his own medical bills. But you the leftist, thinks that is unjust b/c you think fat boy isn't big boy enough to make his own decisions so the rest of us need to be responsible for him.

Be proud of the societal rotting you have helped usher in. Now go pay for fat boy's big Mac.

 

But see that is the point IF I have to pay for the kids meal I should get a say on what that meal is. Public school is just that public. Now if a person does not want the public involved then there are many options that are not publicly funded such as home school, religious schools, or private schools. I do not want to pay for garbage in my schools and I do want to pay for education that includes exercise and neutrition.

 

But if their crime is voting for a system that keeps anyone from eating dog food, how is it justice for them to eat dog food? When they're eating dog food, wouldn't it be just for them to blame the people that voted for a system that had them eating dog food? It would actually be just to make those people (the ones voting for other people to eat dog food) eat dog food, not the ones that vote against anyone eating dog food.

Which system would you vote for -- the one where people eat dog food, or the one where people don't eat dog food?

 

Government only regulates how food is processed so as not to be misleading or poisonous.

I appreciate you may think it should do more to improve our collective poor consumption habits, but some of us think there is a line about how much Govt should control what we eat.

 

Government: We had determined that beer is not only bad for you (intoxication), but it also contributes to the obesity problem. Therefore we will be enacting a $10 per bottle "beer" tax to discourage beer consumption.

Government: We have determined that many people frequent political forums and spend hours of their day posting on these sites. This issues not only increases the obesity problem we have in this country, but the hours spent are unproductive. Therefore, all individuals will be limited to 30 minutes a day on these political forums. If a person is caught spending longer than 30 minutes, they will be issued a $200 fine.

Government: We will be suspending voting privileged for the masses starting the first of the year. We have determine that too many people are voting when they are not fully informed of the issues nor the candidates. In the future, all elected official for the Federal Government will be chosen by the Board of Legislation. The Board of Legislation will be a 5 member panel chosen by the President of the US.



I have lived long enough to see our liberties and freedoms slowly stripped away. Some of you may think that the above examples are ridiculous, but they are real enough. It won't happen all at once, it will happen slowly....once other rights and freedoms have been stripped. This is why the people can not allow the Federal Government the power to dictate how we live our lives.

In regards to the OP, I can see Government protect our foods from companies that would harm our health for reasons of profit, but the Government should never dictate WHAT we eat because it is determined to be unhealthy. The Government needs to approach the problem through education....not regulation.

 

Because what they are voting for is fat living at the expense of others and it will justly lead to their eating dog food.

You are pretending that the left simply exists to prevent anyone from going hungry. But the reality is they are creating a welfare hammock where people live their entire lives depedent on government subsidies. Just look at Obama's life of Julia.

That system will ultimately collapse as it is elsewhere and the people who stupidly support such policies can die in the streets for all I care when the money runs out.

 

It's not an individual's problem , that is the point . !!!!
Everywhere I look , let alone go to , there are other things proclaiming to be individuals . So many like big sea slugs that have beached and now are trying to waddle through human territory .
There's nothing more revolting that a block of lard with ears , trying to ape a human --with their fat jowls full of my oxygen and their fat bodies blocking my path .
They hurt my sensibility -- no real shape or stature . Just waddling freaks out to cause other people untold misery .
Fat Boy , as you so crudely put it , cannot make decent decisions in the first instance . He would not be fat l if he could .
Encourage Fat Boy to explode --- radical Christian suicide bomber might be a good career move . And let's see how Jesus copes with getting huge elephantine Fatties from last to first place .
Meek and mild is presumably a cooking instruction .

 

All those joggers, stairmasters, exercise people. Get them next. Your healthcare system can't afford the hip/knee surgeries when they get older. SIN/Excise TAX them now.

This vast army of spongers of the population are getting away with a freebie. Get them and the fatties and the smokers and the drinkers....and...and...NEXT!

 

But when you tell them that, they claim they paid for SS and medicare. Many of them don't even know they are Govt programs!

 

So you believe in the legalization of drugs, right?

 

I always get a chuckle when people try to tell me as a smoker, I am a burden to the system. So...I pay the same taxes as you, plus a massive excise tax to $10.00+ currently a pack.

I pay twice. I ain't the burden.

 

This is actually a really interesting comment. It shouldn't be hard to compare the data of how much a poor obese person costs the state vs a healthy poor person who live into their 90's. Especially when you factor in the fact there are many "obese" people in non-labor type careers who pay their own medical costs through insurance, but all elderly people milk the state. Never known a rich old person to turn down a SS check.

 

Gotta get the gobment out of my vittles. It is communsocialisfascism the them der gobment workers tell my hotdog vendor how many parts per million in the hotdogs he sells can be rat droppings. I has to brings rat droppings from home just to get the right flavor.

 

Right now, Social Security is based on one in four not reaching retirement age.

 

So which would you vote for -- a system where people eat dog food, or a system where people don't eat dog food?

 

Jeez... denying them even dog food seems harsh.​

 

Someone being fat is their problem. If they want to die at 35 from eating nothing from McDonalds and Dunkin Donuts, that's their choice. The only thing the government should have control over is healthier foods in schools. Everything else is free choice.

The problem I have is that these same people (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing abou the government deciding what they eat turn around and claim that a person should not be allowed to smoke a joint if they want to. They are all for free choice when it comes to them stuffing their face, and their kids faces, with unhealthy foods, but they are against free choice when it comes to drugs.

 

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en...ts=PdK5Fnrv5N&sig=afsFEayVtMza5CNV_9xP5KsNPHA
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPa...andle=hein.journals/hasint15&div=19&id=&page=
Farm subsidies and obesity in the United States (PDF)
How American Sugar Buys Protection

Right, one does not automatically imply the other. That's also exactly why I pointed out in my post that it is a correlation. Since we all know that correlation is not causation, I can leave it up to the reader to do his or her own research.

Given the strong correlation, it seems to me that it's up to the government, before it begins to thrust yet more intrusive, fascist programs on the populace in order to get them to "eat right", that it should prove that the correlation is spurious. After all, it is the government that often claims that correlation is causation. For instance, part of the anti-obesity programs include severe restrictions on food advertising to children, even though there is little proof that such advertising has lead to obesity or overeating by children.

If you are going to be critical of my weak arguments, you ought to be critical of the weak arguments of government.

Now, to show the causation, we can look at the USDA food pyramid, of which the grains is the very base and the recommendation is 5 servings of grains every day. There are strong linkages between grains and obesity, as grains are not easily digested, must be significantly processed in order to remove the natural toxins in them, and usually sugar is added to grain items to make them more appealing. Those "heart healthy" (as allowed by the USDA and FDA) boxes of Cheerios are loaded with sugar and corn starch. Grains provide *no* nutritional benefits beyond what one can get from vegetables, and yet contain gluten, lectites and phytates, each a toxin the body.

The USDA food pyramid encourages the consumption of high carbohydrate, low quality food, and the USDA, along with it's public and corporate partners, labels foods as "natural" or "nutritious" that are loaded with sugar and other low quality carbohydrates which spike insulin production and lead directly to obesity.

You mean, they cannot compete with economies of scale. But why would a small producer want to compete on economy of scale? I run a software business. I don't try to compete with Microsoft. I offer services that Microsoft would find difficult to provide because, being the size that they are, they can't give the sort of service that I can provide in a consistent manner.

Fortunately for me, my type of business is almost completely unregulated. I do not have inspectors and paperwork and several huge bureaucracies to answer to. I have to satisfy my customers, and if I do a poor job, there is the danger of being sued into bankruptcy, but I don't have to benefit from economy of scale in order to compete against Microsoft. Nor does Microsoft have to have huge rooms full of paper shufflers who fill out the paperwork that is required of food producers. A meat producer has to have at least one USDA inspector on site at all times, and must pay for the cost of that inspector. Imagine if your neighborhood IT firm had to have a "US Computer Inspector" on staff at all times. He'd have to charge you at least triple to remove a virus or upgrade your machine, or go out of business. Best Buy can afford it, and would love to put the little IT companies out of business if they could get those regulations passed. Then they could charge higher prices, offer lower quality service, and force you to buy their products. I'm sure that you'd be all for it.

Yeah, the government does a great job of that. Which servings of heart-healthy, natural vegetables did you have tonight? Catsup or pizza?

 

What sort of junk and poisons were food companies putting into food that the FDA removed? Do you mean High Fructose Corn Syrup? How about hydrogenated cottonseed oil? Canola oil? Modified Corn starch? Yeah, the FDA has done a fine job of protecting our food choices. That's why everyone is so fat, there is an epidemic of diabetes, and life expectancy may be going done. Everyone is eating stuff that is "safer."

Once the FDA completely regulates the term "organic", people like you will be telling us that Kashi is organic because the government says so.

 

Yes, according to the constitution it is. You loose.

 

The problem is that government has not proven capable of determining what foods are healthy. A "healthy foods" movement by government is a corporate rent-seeker's wet dream. A granola bar isn't that much healther than a Snicker's bar, especially if it's heavily processed, loaded with sugar and corn starch and other fillers to make it more appealing to children.

 

do you oppose same sex marriage?