PDA

View Full Version : General Politics The Liberal mind.


HonestChieffan
05-31-2012, 01:05 PM
“We’re not taking away anybody’s right to do things, we’re simply forcing you to understand that you have to make the conscious decision to go from one cup to another cup.”

Mayor Michael Bloomberg on the move to ban big soda pop.

Is this what we are spending time on for fuckalls sake?

ILChief
05-31-2012, 06:15 PM
Isn't he a republican?

La literatura
05-31-2012, 06:16 PM
Independent.

La literatura
05-31-2012, 06:18 PM
We send a lot of soldiers off to die for the fundamental freedom of purchasing large sodas. Bloomberg is attacking the American identity.

J Diddy
05-31-2012, 06:28 PM
“We’re not taking away anybody’s right to do things, we’re simply forcing you to understand that you have to make the conscious decision to go from one cup to another cup.”

Mayor Michael Bloomberg on the move to ban big soda pop.

Is this what we are spending time on for ****alls sake?

Like the all important gender specific abortion vote today, which had virtually no chance of success, but was done to get on records peoples votes for the purpose of elections.

Chiefshrink
05-31-2012, 09:36 PM
I wonder if he would wipe "Jensy's ass" for him as well which I'm sure Jensy would let him.:rolleyes:

banyon
05-31-2012, 09:44 PM
Thought it was going to be another fake joke "three guys walk into a bar" and this was in my email thread.

Instead it's an oops thread.

Taco John
05-31-2012, 10:14 PM
We send a lot of soldiers off to die for the fundamental freedom of purchasing large sodas. Bloomberg is attacking the American identity.

You are a caricature.

Pawnmower
05-31-2012, 11:33 PM
You are a caricature.

That is an insult to caricatures.

At least caricatures are entertaining.

Guy is just utterly worthless.

Taco John
05-31-2012, 11:58 PM
That is an insult to caricatures.

At least caricatures are entertaining.

Guy is just utterly worthless.

Not true. He changed his name to "Literature" as a peacock's show of pretense. That's worth a laugh at least.

Pawnmower
06-01-2012, 12:00 AM
Not true. He changed his name to "Literature" as a peacock's show of pretense. That's worth a laugh at least.

It is an ironic name, considering his problems with reading comprehension. I stand corrected, he is laughable.

chiefzilla1501
06-01-2012, 12:09 AM
“We’re not taking away anybody’s right to do things, we’re simply forcing you to understand that you have to make the conscious decision to go from one cup to another cup.”

Mayor Michael Bloomberg on the move to ban big soda pop.

Is this what we are spending time on for ****alls sake?

Obesity is one of America's biggest problems. I don't know if this solution will solve anything. Probably not. But whether you're liberal or conservative, how can anyone deny that obesity is one of the biggest problems in the u.s.

Taco John
06-01-2012, 02:27 AM
Obesity is one of America's biggest problems. I don't know if this solution will solve anything. Probably not. But whether you're liberal or conservative, how can anyone deny that obesity is one of the biggest problems in the u.s.

Problem for who? Are you so fat that you need the government to mandate the size of your Big Gulp?

Obesity isn't my biggest problem. Nor is it the biggest problem of America. There are a lot of fat people who have a problem though, and it's for them to solve, not the state.

redsurfer11
06-01-2012, 04:20 AM
I wonder if he would wipe "Jensy's ass" for him as well which I'm sure Jensy would let him.:rolleyes:


If you only use one square of toilet paper.

chiefzilla1501
06-01-2012, 05:58 AM
Problem for who? Are you so fat that you need the government to mandate the size of your Big Gulp?

Obesity isn't my biggest problem. Nor is it the biggest problem of America. There are a lot of fat people who have a problem though, and it's for them to solve, not the state.

Heart disease is America's biggest killer by a mile. Diabetes is reaching epidemic proportions and already has almost 200 billion in health care costs.

It's not a difficult concept. Healthier people = less health care payouts= lower health care costs for everyone. Unhealthiness is also making our work force and schools more unproductive. Why do you think the private sector is spending billions on wellness programs? Because they know it cuts down their health care costs and increases productivity.

It is absurd to suggest that a healthier America doesn't have enQormous benefit that far outweigh the cost of prevention.

Fat people are driving up your health care costs dramatically. You don't live in a system where you can fully determine your health care. Insurance is a pooled system. So you pay for the bad habits of other people.

Now, I get that government often acts in their own self interest instead of to curb health care costs. But I really don't care about this. J

KC_Lee
06-01-2012, 08:10 AM
So when will NYC put a ban on pasta and potatos? Both of these items are high in carbs / sugars.

This is less 1984 and more Demolition Man.

La literatura
06-01-2012, 08:27 AM
You are a caricature.

Of Sandra Day O'Connor? Because she wrote that about the regulation of adult entertainment clubs.

chiefzilla1501
06-01-2012, 08:35 AM
so then what is the conservative mind? we support massive cost cuts but deny initiatives that try to control costs.

mikey23545
06-01-2012, 10:05 AM
“We’re not taking away anybody’s right to do things, we’re simply forcing you to understand that you have to make the conscious decision to go from one cup to another cup.”


"We're not trying to make any sense, we're just saying we don't know what the **** we're talking about."

blaise
06-01-2012, 12:39 PM
Obesity is one of America's biggest problems. I don't know if this solution will solve anything. Probably not. But whether you're liberal or conservative, how can anyone deny that obesity is one of the biggest problems in the u.s.

You're right. We should start doing more things that probably won't make a difference anyway.

Pawnmower
06-01-2012, 01:23 PM
You're right. We should start doing more things that probably won't make a difference anyway.

We could make people order 10 mini-big macs instead of one big one

chiefzilla1501
06-01-2012, 02:37 PM
You're right. We should start doing more things that probably won't make a difference anyway.

This isn't a one-off initiative. New York City has been on the cutting edge of requiring restaurants to stop cooking with artificial trans fat, PARTNERING with restaurants and food manufacturers (based in New York and across the US) to reduce salt content in their foods, and requiring fast food restaurants to post their calorie counts. They also were one of the earliest cities to adopt a smoking ban.

Are these working? I don't know. But I applaud efforts on the city and state level to try new things out.

But the idea that we should stand back and watch our health care costs demolish our economy? That's nonsense.

RNR
06-01-2012, 03:29 PM
This isn't a one-off initiative. New York City has been on the cutting edge of requiring restaurants to stop cooking with artificial trans fat, PARTNERING with restaurants and food manufacturers (based in New York and across the US) to reduce salt content in their foods, and requiring fast food restaurants to post their calorie counts. They also were one of the earliest cities to adopt a smoking ban.

Are these working? I don't know. But I applaud efforts on the city and state level to try new things out.

But the idea that we should stand back and watch our health care costs demolish our economy? That's nonsense.

Having our government make more choices for us, is nonsense~

chiefzilla1501
06-01-2012, 04:13 PM
Having our government make more choices for us, is nonsense~

Smoking bans, quarantining epidemic viruses, noise restrictions in residential neighborhoods, required auto insurance...

These are all built around the idea that when bad risks make life worse for people who don't take those risks, we have to restrict choice. It is a great thing that all drivers are required to have insurance.

I live a healthy lifestyle. I pay into a health insurance system where I am paying huge bucks to fund coverage for unhealthy people. So yeah, if there are ways for an uninvisible hand to keep all our premiums down, let's embrace them.

Im sorry that in order to save millions in health care costs, people can't have a little more mountain dew at McDonald's.

RNR
06-01-2012, 04:23 PM
Smoking bans, quarantining epidemic viruses, noise restrictions in residential neighborhoods, required auto insurance...

These are all built around the idea that when bad risks make life worse for people who don't take those risks, we have to restrict choice. It is a great thing that all drivers are required to have insurance.

I live a healthy lifestyle. I pay into a health insurance system where I am paying huge bucks to fund coverage for unhealthy people. So yeah, if there are ways for an uninvisible hand to keep all our premiums down, let's embrace them.

Im sorry that in order to save millions in health care costs, people can't have a little more mountain dew at McDonald's.

Yeah the government knows best. It should tell us what to eat, who to sleep with, what to think. It is best to allow them to decide what we should do or think~

chiefzilla1501
06-01-2012, 04:28 PM
Yeah the government knows best. It should tell us what to eat, who to sleep with, what to think. It is best to allow them to decide what we should do or think~

Governments make stupid decisions. I don't trust them to make the right decisions. They are as big of a reason for this obesity epidemic as anybody.

But to deny that we are reaching a health epidemic that is crippling our economy and that we should stand back and watch is nonsense. The obesity epidemic isn't going to reverse itself. And as long as it doesn't reverse itself, it is an enormous cost.

Again, auto insurance is mandated by the government. And that's a good thing.

RNR
06-01-2012, 04:30 PM
Governments make stupid decisions. I don't trust them to make the right decisions. They are as big of a reason for this obesity epidemic as anybody.

But to deny that we are reaching a health epidemic that is crippling our economy and that we should stand back and watch is nonsense. The obesity epidemic isn't going to reverse itself. And as long as it doesn't reverse itself, it is an enormous cost.

Again, auto insurance is mandated by the government. And that's a good thing.

And again I will repeat, giving it more power than it already has is nonsense. It has too much as it is~

mikey23545
06-01-2012, 05:52 PM
Governments make stupid decisions. I don't trust them to make the right decisions. They are as big of a reason for this obesity epidemic as anybody.

But to deny that we are reaching a health epidemic that is crippling our economy and that we should stand back and watch is nonsense. The obesity epidemic isn't going to reverse itself. And as long as it doesn't reverse itself, it is an enormous cost.

Again, auto insurance is mandated by the government. And that's a good thing.

You are about as stupid as stupid can be.

Human beings in the U.S. have never lived longer. What ****ing "health epidemic" are you talking about? Are you pissed that people are living into their 80's but not dying of the things you want them to die of?

This health crisis bullshit is yet another invented crisis..."We have to do something, people are dying of influenza pneumonia heart attacks strokes cancer something at the age of 85!!!!!"

AHGGGGGGG! GOD HELP US!!!

notorious
06-01-2012, 05:56 PM
Problem for who? Are you so fat that you need the government to mandate the size of your Big Gulp?

Obesity isn't my biggest problem. Nor is it the biggest problem of America. There are a lot of fat people who have a problem though, and it's for them to solve, not the state.

This.

La literatura
06-01-2012, 05:56 PM
And again I will repeat, giving it more power than it already has is nonsense. It has too much as it is~

This isn't a grant of more power. It's an agency of a state putting into practice a power it has always been granted. Cities can experiment with their power. If people feel their lives were better when they could drink 16 ounce pops, then they vote new people in who will bring back the 16 ounce pop glory days.

notorious
06-01-2012, 05:57 PM
Governments make stupid decisions. I don't trust them to make the right decisions. They are as big of a reason for this obesity epidemic as anybody.

But to deny that we are reaching a health epidemic that is crippling our economy and that we should stand back and watch is nonsense. The obesity epidemic isn't going to reverse itself. And as long as it doesn't reverse itself, it is an enormous cost.

Again, auto insurance is mandated by the government. And that's a good thing.

Personal consequences.

If a person decides to eat himself into Jabba the Hut, he shouldn't expect anyone else to pick up the medical tab for his fat ass. He needs to pay the price for not having self control.

La literatura
06-01-2012, 05:59 PM
You are about as stupid as stupid can be.

Human beings in the U.S. have never lived longer. What ****ing "health epidemic" are you talking about? Are you pissed that people are living into their 80's but not dying of the things you want them to die of?

This health crisis bullshit is yet another invented crisis..."We have to do something, people are dying of influenza pneumonia heart attacks strokes cancer something at the age of 85!!!!!"

AHGGGGGGG! GOD HELP US!!!

We are just at the beginning stages of the obesity problem. Today's 200 pound 12 year olds are probably not going to live healthy lives until they die of obesity at age 85. They are probably going to be in and out of clinics their entire lives, which lasts til 47 when they die of a heart attack, leaving behind 3 teenage children.

War on family.

La literatura
06-01-2012, 06:01 PM
Personal consequences.

If a person decides to eat himself into Jabba the Hut, he shouldn't expect anyone else to pick up the medical tab for his fat ass. He needs to pay the price for not having self control.

But when a single problem is multiplied by millions, it affects the national economy. It affects insurance rates, business productivity, and families.

notorious
06-01-2012, 06:05 PM
But when a single problem is multiplied by millions, it affects the national economy. It affects insurance rates, business productivity, and families.

Educate, and if they still want to eat themselves to death, let them die unless they pay a lot extra for their medical cost. It's their decision.

La literatura
06-01-2012, 06:06 PM
Problem for who? Are you so fat that you need the government to mandate the size of your Big Gulp?

Obesity isn't my biggest problem. Nor is it the biggest problem of America. There are a lot of fat people who have a problem though, and it's for them to solve, not the state.

The state isn't solving it. Laws are inherently incentivizing agents. We tax gas more, and the incentive for alternative fuels rises. We set firm and consequential property boundaries, and owners pay particular attention to not have their roof encroach upon their neighbor's lot. The state isn't saying "No pop" or even "No more than 16 ounces of pop." It's saying that if you really want something so bad for you and everyone else, you have to pay extra for it.

It's pretty reasonable. If it's not working, then change it. If it's a fundamental freedom, then courts will strike it down.

La literatura
06-01-2012, 06:07 PM
Educate, and if they still want to eat themselves to death, let them die unless they pay a lot extra for their medical cost. It's their decision.

Why not just have people pay a little extra now for more pop, instead of a lot extra later for the medical cost?

headsnap
06-01-2012, 06:11 PM
can you get a 32 oz diet drink?

Thig Lyfe
06-01-2012, 06:11 PM
Libruls can go back to France where ALL soda is illegal!!!!!

RNR
06-01-2012, 06:35 PM
This isn't a grant of more power. It's an agency of a state putting into practice a power it has always been granted. Cities can experiment with their power. If people feel their lives were better when they could drink 16 ounce pops, then they vote new people in who will bring back the 16 ounce pop glory days.

I agree with insurance companies charging higher rates for those who smoke, or are overweight. If you think the state or federal government regulating how many ounces of soda someone can have or sell in one cup is a good thing you are an idiot. However from the babbling you do on here, I am convinced you are proof an idiot can get a degree. Oh well at least your spelling and grammar is proper~

La literatura
06-01-2012, 06:38 PM
I agree with insurance companies charging higher rates for those who smoke, or are overweight. If you think the state or federal government regulating how many ounces of soda someone can have or sell in one cup is a good thing you are an idiot. However from the babbling you do on here, I am convinced you are proof an idiot can get a degree. Oh well at least your spelling and grammar is proper~

I didn't say it was a good thing or a bad thing. I said it was a reasonable thing (for a city). Cities have a broad ability to shape the type of communities they want, as long as its reasonable. The city of New York seems to want to shape their community into a healthier one, so they are reasonably enacting ordinances that help nudge the community that way.

HonestChieffan
06-01-2012, 06:53 PM
I didn't say it was a good thing or a bad thing. I said it was a reasonable thing (for a city). Cities have a broad ability to shape the type of communities they want, as long as its reasonable. The city of New York seems to want to shape their community into a healthier one, so they are reasonably enacting ordinances that help nudge the community that way.

So, do you mandate the amountt of pop some can have? No seconds? Are you this insipid?

La literatura
06-01-2012, 07:08 PM
So, do you mandate the amountt of pop some can have? No seconds? Are you this insipid?

The law doesn't prohibit getting refills. You can differentiate between this law and a law that bans refills because the latter limits the ability of people to drink as much pop as they want. The law currently being proposed does not limit your ability to drink as much as you want, but imposes upon the drinker to make more effort in getting the drink (the idea is that more people will drink less if it involves more effort).

HonestChieffan
06-01-2012, 07:20 PM
That will work

La literatura
06-01-2012, 07:35 PM
That will work

It's not supposed to solve entire problems. Laws primarily act at the margins, and shape from the outside in. There's a whole field called the Economic Analysis of Law which is all about understanding how laws can incentivize actions, and hopefully good actions.

HonestChieffan
06-01-2012, 07:36 PM
Ok

La literatura
06-01-2012, 07:39 PM
Ok

I guess the Conservative Mind can sometimes catch up with the Liberal Mind.

RNR
06-01-2012, 07:52 PM
It's not supposed to solve entire problems. Laws primarily act at the margins, and shape from the outside in. There's a whole field called the Economic Analysis of Law which is all about understanding how laws can incentivize actions, and hopefully good actions.

Wrap it up and put a bow on it. You still have bullshit with pretty wrapping and a bow~

tredadda
06-01-2012, 07:53 PM
No law will fix the obesity problem as long as the culture makes people think there is nothing wrong with being overweight.

La literatura
06-01-2012, 07:57 PM
Wrap it up and put a bow on it. You still have bullshit with pretty wrapping and a bow~

What's bullshit about trying to have a healthier community? If the community decides that they would rather have the convenience of a ordering a 16+ ounce pop, they can elect legislators who will focus on that. If courts find that the convenience of ordering a 16+ ounce pop is a fundamental freedom, then it will be struck down.

RNR
06-01-2012, 08:01 PM
What's bullshit about trying to have a healthier community? If the community decides that they would rather have the convenience of a ordering a 16+ ounce pop, they can elect legislators who will focus on that. If courts find that the convenience of ordering a 16+ ounce pop is a fundamental freedom, then it will be struck down.

Piss off Jensen~

alanm
06-01-2012, 09:25 PM
This isn't a one-off initiative. New York City has been on the cutting edge of requiring restaurants to stop cooking with artificial trans fat, PARTNERING with restaurants and food manufacturers (based in New York and across the US) to reduce salt content in their foods, and requiring fast food restaurants to post their calorie counts. They also were one of the earliest cities to adopt a smoking ban.

Are these working? I don't know. But I applaud efforts on the city and state level to try new things out.

But the idea that we should stand back and watch our health care costs demolish our economy? That's nonsense.It seems to be working. 3.4 million people have fled the state in the past 10 yrs.

chiefzilla1501
06-01-2012, 09:37 PM
You are about as stupid as stupid can be.

Human beings in the U.S. have never lived longer. What ****ing "health epidemic" are you talking about? Are you pissed that people are living into their 80's but not dying of the things you want them to die of?

This health crisis bullshit is yet another invented crisis..."We have to do something, people are dying of influenza pneumonia heart attacks strokes cancer something at the age of 85!!!!!"

AHGGGGGGG! GOD HELP US!!!

Ok. I'm stupid.

Yeah, obesity is NOT a problem.

Projected that 50% will be obese by 2030.
Projected that 33% will have diabetes by 2050, with 90% of those cases being type 2 diabetes, which is driven by obesity.
1/4 of teenagers are projected to have pre-diabetes, which is largely driven by obesity, which is a precursor for diabetes.

Diabetes alone accounts for $175 BILLION dollars in health care costs a year.
Obesity, according to Bloomberg, will project to reach $66B in increases per year.

It's a fucking health epidemic when half of the world is diagnosed to be fat. And when 1/3 of the world is projected to have a diagnosable disease driven by obesity.

Seriously. Get your head out of the sand. Are we seriously arguing that obesity is a problem?

But I'm the one that's stupid.

The US is skinny.

Health care costs are low.

Your health care isn't affected by obesity.

Matt Cassel is a great Quarterback.

RNR
06-02-2012, 04:39 AM
Ok. I'm stupid.

Yeah, obesity is NOT a problem.

Projected that 50% will be obese by 2030.
Projected that 33% will have diabetes by 2050, with 90% of those cases being type 2 diabetes, which is driven by obesity.
1/4 of teenagers are projected to have pre-diabetes, which is largely driven by obesity, which is a precursor for diabetes.

Diabetes alone accounts for $175 BILLION dollars in health care costs a year.
Obesity, according to Bloomberg, will project to reach $66B in increases per year.

It's a ****ing health epidemic when half of the world is diagnosed to be fat. And when 1/3 of the world is projected to have a diagnosable disease driven by obesity.
M
Seriously. Get your head out of the sand. Are we seriously arguing that obesity is a problem?

But I'm the one that's stupid.

The US is skinny.

Health care costs are low.

Your health care isn't affected by obesity.

Matt Cassel is a great Quarterback.

From what I have read from you here, I do not get the impression you are stupid. We seem to think differently about some things. I have traveled the states quite a bit, and have noticed the large amount of overweight people everywhere I have been. This conversation has come up with friends and family for years. That said IMO it is not the governments job to fix every problem in people's lives, nor is it capable of doing so. This law is beyond silly. Do you think we need more government in our lives? Where does it stop? Should the government regulate how many calories we are allowed, how much we excercise The answer to this is education and awareness. Personal responsibility seems to be frowned on by the left~

J Diddy
06-02-2012, 05:11 AM
From what I have read from you here, I do not get the impression you are stupid. We seem to think differently about some things. I have traveled the states quite a bit, and have noticed the large amount of overweight people everywhere I have been. This conversation has come up with friends and family for years. That said IMO it is not the governments job to fix every problem in people's lives, nor is it capable of doing so. This law is beyond silly. Do you think we need more government in our lives? Where does it stop? Should the government regulate how many calories we are allowed, how much we excercise The answer to this is education and awareness. Personal responsibility seems to be frowned on by the left~

Do you agree with legislating cigarettes, alcohol or any drugs for that matter?

Obesity is the next big thing that will send healthcare costs through the roof.

RNR
06-02-2012, 06:34 AM
Do you agree with legislating cigarettes, alcohol or any drugs for that matter?

Obesity is the next big thing that will send healthcare costs through the roof.

This silly law would work the same with alcohol. Let us set forth a law that only allows alcohol to be sold in a limited quantity. That way a person must make a choice to drink more. This will most certainly cure alcoholism and drunk driving. Our government has proven to be corrupt and incompetent. It is hopelessly in debt. I see no need for more government than we already have, in fact less would be better~

chiefzilla1501
06-02-2012, 07:03 AM
This silly law would work the same with alcohol. Let us set forth a law that only allows alcohol to be sold in a limited quantity. That way a person must make a choice to drink more. This will most certainly cure alcoholism and drunk driving. Our government has proven to be corrupt and incompetent. It is hopelessly in debt. I see no need for more government than we already have, in fact less would be better~

This law works differently, in that soft drinks are usually single-serve. Most people don't go to McDonalds or Taco Bell and drink more than one drink. If you're going drive through, definitely true. And I don't see any occasion where someone who feels gipped that they can't get a super-sized drink decides they need to go to the grocery store to buy a 12-pack of soda. Even though I'm not necessarily a huge fan of this law, it does do one thing: people will probably drink less soda.

To your second point... yes, government is corrupt and incompetent. But the fact remains that one of the big contributors to our debt is health care. The private sector understands that. What does that say when the private sector believes that their top cost-cutting opportunity is to spend a shitload of money (on wellness programs)?

RNR
06-02-2012, 07:06 AM
This law works differently, in that soft drinks are usually single-serve. Most people don't go to McDonalds or Taco Bell and drink more than one drink. If you're going drive through, definitely true. And I don't see any occasion where someone who feels gipped that they can't get a super-sized drink decides they need to go to the grocery store to buy a 12-pack of soda. Even though I'm not necessarily a huge fan of this law, it does do one thing: people will probably drink less soda.

To your second point... yes, government is corrupt and incompetent. But the fact remains that one of the big contributors to our debt is health care. The private sector understands that. What does that say when the private sector believes that their top cost-cutting opportunity is to spend a shitload of money (on wellness programs)?

The government is the main contributor to our debt~

chiefzilla1501
06-02-2012, 07:23 AM
From what I have read from you here, I do not get the impression you are stupid. We seem to think differently about some things. I have traveled the states quite a bit, and have noticed the large amount of overweight people everywhere I have been. This conversation has come up with friends and family for years. That said IMO it is not the governments job to fix every problem in people's lives, nor is it capable of doing so. This law is beyond silly. Do you think we need more government in our lives? Where does it stop? Should the government regulate how many calories we are allowed, how much we excercise The answer to this is education and awareness. Personal responsibility seems to be frowned on by the left~

I'm still iffy about this law. But I don't feel iffy about government regulating people's choices when people show they can't make good choices for themselves. The law doesn't HAVE to punish drunk drivers, but it does, and for good reason. The law doesn't HAVE to create a smoking age, but it does. I also really like cigarette taxes.

Now, where is government the solution? I agree there's a point where they are over-intrusive. This law could hurt businesses, such as theaters (they heavily rely on concessions). I don't know that this law is the solution. I have other ideas on where the government needs to intervene (my idea is on mass awareness and forcing manufacturers and restaurants to be clearly transparent around what we are putting in our bodies). I would prefer laws where we gave consumers the choice on what they eat or drink, but they knew enough about the product to be absolutely disgusted by it. But I appreciate efforts, especially on the state or city level, to try big things to take care of the health care problem. If it works, more states will introduce it. If it fails, it never gets past New York.

Here's the concept that a lot of people aren't grasping. One person's horrible decisions create a huge cost to society. Healthy people pay for other people to be unhealthy. And stats are showing that that problem is going to get worse. It's interesting to me that the same conservatives who get pissed off that the wealthy are paying taxes for poor people, are the same ones who don't grasp that healthy people are paying for fat people. They're making good decisions and others are driving their costs through the roof.

chiefzilla1501
06-02-2012, 07:35 AM
The government is the main contributor to our debt~

Yes, it is. I am largely a fiscal conservative. I am all for cutting bad government programs and spending, and there are a lot of them.

But as any person with a business background should feel, I also know that controlling debt is just as much about cutting costs as it is controlling costs. Fiscal conservatives seem to have no concern whatsoever that society as a whole is paying billions of dollars (and growing alarmingly fast) because we can't take care of themselves. They shrug their shoulders at health care being a priority. They get pissed off at any attempt by government to try to control health care costs.

If we cut $2B in spending, but health care costs rise $2B at the same time... what did we accomplish?

RNR
06-02-2012, 07:56 AM
Yes, it is. I am largely a fiscal conservative. I am all for cutting bad government programs and spending, and there are a lot of them.

But as any person with a business background should feel, I also know that controlling debt is just as much about cutting costs as it is controlling costs. Fiscal conservatives seem to have no concern whatsoever that society as a whole is paying billions of dollars (and growing alarmingly fast) because we can't take care of themselves. They shrug their shoulders at health care being a priority. They get pissed off at any attempt by government to try to control health care costs.

If we cut $2B in spending, but health care costs rise $2B at the same time... what did we accomplish?


I am all for the private sector requiring fitness levels for employees, and insurance companies charging higher rates for those who are high risk. I have no interest it the government making sure how much fucking soda pop can be sold in a cup~

mikey23545
06-02-2012, 08:05 AM
Here's the concept that a lot of people aren't grasping. One person's horrible decisions create a huge cost to society. Healthy people pay for other people to be unhealthy. And stats are showing that that problem is going to get worse. It's interesting to me that the same conservatives who get pissed off that the wealthy are paying taxes for poor people, are the same ones who don't grasp that healthy people are paying for fat people. They're making good decisions and others are driving their costs through the roof.


You realize if you would just slit your throat right now, you would save us all a lot of money in the long run.

chiefzilla1501
06-02-2012, 08:09 AM
I am all for the private sector requiring fitness levels for employees, and insurance companies charging higher rates for those who are high risk. I have no interest it the government making sure how much ****ing soda pop can be sold in a cup~

Then you miss out on the other half of America that is public sector and costing America an exorbitant amount of money.

And it's not as simple as just charging higher risk people more for high risk. A lot of these people can't afford those increases. Which means that more people will become uninsured, which is bad for everyone. It means that hospitals have to treat more uninsureds (even if they have no ability to pay), which means hospital costs go through the roof (and responsible people like me pay the bill). And a smaller pool means there are less people to spread risk to, meaning healthy people have to pay a higher premium because the health insurance company has less ability to cover their risk.

It's very simple. There is an enormous incentive for every single person in America to become healthier.

And by the way, any supporter of private sector health care (which I am) should be singing from the same song sheet. If we lower health care payouts for all, they have greater opportunity to offer competitive premiums. Instead, we are driving up their costs to such a massive extent that they can't offer competitive insurance.

J Diddy
06-02-2012, 08:13 AM
You realize if you would just slit your throat right now, you would save us all a lot of money in the long run.

He is right and that's a very nasty thing to say.

chiefzilla1501
06-02-2012, 08:15 AM
Then you miss out on the other half of America that is public sector and costing America an exorbitant amount of money.

And it's not as simple as just charging higher risk people more for high risk. A lot of these people can't afford those increases. Which means that more people will become uninsured, which is bad for everyone. It means that hospitals have to treat more uninsureds (even if they have no ability to pay), which means hospital costs go through the roof (and responsible people like me pay the bill). And a smaller pool means there are less people to spread risk to, meaning healthy people have to pay a higher premium because the health insurance company has less ability to cover their risk.

It's very simple. There is an enormous incentive for every single person in America to become healthier.

And by the way, any supporter of private sector health care (which I am) should be singing from the same song sheet. If we lower health care payouts for all, they have greater opportunity to offer competitive premiums. Instead, we are driving up their costs to such a massive extent that they can't offer competitive insurance.

Let's put this simply. Bloomberg projects that obesity is going to cost the US $66billion by the year 2030.

Imagine you're a CEO of a plastics company. How would you react if your economic guy walked up to you and said "the cost for plastics is going to cost $66B more in the next 20 years"?

How do you think private sector health insurance companies feel when they see that they're going to pay out $66B per year in claims within the next 20 years?

chiefzilla1501
06-02-2012, 08:36 AM
I am all for the private sector requiring fitness levels for employees, and insurance companies charging higher rates for those who are high risk. I have no interest it the government making sure how much ****ing soda pop can be sold in a cup~

New York City estimates that $4B is spent on obesity related health care alone.

http://blogs.sacbee.com/the-public-eye/2010/09/brookings-obesity-costs-the-us.html
The Brookings Institute projects that obesity is now a $215B economic drain on the US. That's a factor of not just direct medical costs, but also the amount of sick days, worse productivity, etc....I believe about 3/4 of that is in direct medical costs.

That's $150B in addition to payouts health insurance companies have to pay out. It's not a hard concept. If they pay out less for claims, insurance companies can charge lower premiums. Everybody benefits. I benefit because I pay less. Businesses benefit because they can offer better benefits to their employees for cheaper.

RNR
06-02-2012, 11:01 AM
New York City estimates that $4B is spent on obesity related health care alone.

http://blogs.sacbee.com/the-public-eye/2010/09/brookings-obesity-costs-the-us.html
The Brookings Institute projects that obesity is now a $215B economic drain on the US. That's a factor of not just direct medical costs, but also the amount of sick days, worse productivity, etc....I believe about 3/4 of that is in direct medical costs.

That's $150B in addition to payouts health insurance companies have to pay out. It's not a hard concept. If they pay out less for claims, insurance companies can charge lower premiums. Everybody benefits. I benefit because I pay less. Businesses benefit because they can offer better benefits to their employees for cheaper.
And people have been bailing out of that city and state at record rates. I am not interested in any solutions from the people in charge there. I am not saying it is not a problem, I am saying our government is a bigger problem~

BucEyedPea
06-02-2012, 11:03 AM
No law will fix the obesity problem as long as the culture makes people think there is nothing wrong with being overweight.

Exactly! Law cannot impose personal discipline or personal ethics about one's health. It's just raw force.

BucEyedPea
06-02-2012, 11:04 AM
can you get a 32 oz diet drink?

No but there will be free refills to get around the law. Just wait.

RNR
06-02-2012, 11:07 AM
No but there will be free refills to get around the law. Just wait.

If they do, let us hope the soda pop police are there quickly to arrest them~

notorious
06-02-2012, 02:46 PM
If New York wants this, let them have at it. I have no problem with local governments deciding local policy. If the people don't like it, they can move to another state or city.

RNR
06-02-2012, 03:06 PM
If New York wants this, let them have at it. I have no problem with local governments deciding local policy. If the people don't like it, they can move to another state or city.

They are. The high tax rates will continue to go up as the tax base gets smaller.
I have said before, I knew my rage had lessened and the healing had began from 9/11, the day I realized I hated NYC again~

blaise
06-02-2012, 03:18 PM
New York City estimates that $4B is spent on obesity related health care alone.

http://blogs.sacbee.com/the-public-eye/2010/09/brookings-obesity-costs-the-us.html
The Brookings Institute projects that obesity is now a $215B economic drain on the US. That's a factor of not just direct medical costs, but also the amount of sick days, worse productivity, etc....I believe about 3/4 of that is in direct medical costs.

That's $150B in addition to payouts health insurance companies have to pay out. It's not a hard concept. If they pay out less for claims, insurance companies can charge lower premiums. Everybody benefits. I benefit because I pay less. Businesses benefit because they can offer better benefits to their employees for cheaper.

And the ban on drink sizes would save us how much?

Asking people to be healthier is one thing. Just picking products and saying, "Well, this is too much," is different. There's no evidence that limiting cup size would have any effect at all. What about Joe Worker who can only get down to McDonalds for lunch, but wants a drink that lasts him for a while at his desk? Suppose he fills it 75% with ice and goes back up to his desk. What about the couple that wants to split a soft drink at the movies rather than buying two? There's no rhyme or reason to a cup size ban.
It's not fair to businesses to say, "Well, we sort of randomly decided that you're the problem. Not the multitude of other unhealthy dietary choices in the city." Why not cut the hot dog sizes in half? People say, "Well, we have to start somewhere." That's not fair, though. That's dirty pool.

blaise
06-02-2012, 03:20 PM
He is right and that's a very nasty thing to say.

He's right that people don't understand fat, uninsured people cost money? I think people understand that.
I also think people understand that limiting drink cup sizes is horesehit.

notorious
06-02-2012, 03:29 PM
They are. The high tax rates will continue to go up as the tax base gets smaller.
I have said before, I knew my rage had lessened and the healing had began from 9/11, the day I realized I hated NYC again~

:D



As long as those assholes don't move to my state.



Think of California and Montana or Colorado. Those no-dick pussies try to move to a state and change it to their liking through any means possible.

KCBOSS1
06-02-2012, 03:50 PM
It's amazing. And how are they going to stop them from buying 2?

KCBOSS1
06-02-2012, 03:56 PM
I don't think the folks who voted for these snakes realize what the health care bill has started in an assault on freedom. We need repeal or defund before it ever starts, not that it's ever going to happen.

chiefzilla1501
06-02-2012, 07:36 PM
And the ban on drink sizes would save us how much?

Asking people to be healthier is one thing. Just picking products and saying, "Well, this is too much," is different. There's no evidence that limiting cup size would have any effect at all. What about Joe Worker who can only get down to McDonalds for lunch, but wants a drink that lasts him for a while at his desk? Suppose he fills it 75% with ice and goes back up to his desk. What about the couple that wants to split a soft drink at the movies rather than buying two? There's no rhyme or reason to a cup size ban.
It's not fair to businesses to say, "Well, we sort of randomly decided that you're the problem. Not the multitude of other unhealthy dietary choices in the city." Why not cut the hot dog sizes in half? People say, "Well, we have to start somewhere." That's not fair, though. That's dirty pool.

Like I said, I'm not a big fan of this initiative. But I understand where it's coming from. You can't ban hot dogs. You can't ban soda. This is merely a test to see if banning ridiculous consumption of soda might do anything.

But yeah, I understand resistance to this specific initiative. I resent the ridiculous premise that we have freedom of choice, therefore, we should reject any initiative that tries to get people to make much less stupid decisions that are driving health care that are driving costs to our economy.

J Diddy
06-02-2012, 08:53 PM
To all you outraged penis floggers,

Has this ever occurred to you that this is nothing more than a political ploy so at the end of the day the could say, "we're worried about our people's health."

Of course it is stupid and no where near enforceable, but your outrage over this IS GOD DAMNED ****ING HILARIOUS.

La literatura
06-02-2012, 09:04 PM
It's amazing. And how are they going to stop them from buying 2?

They don't want to stop them from buying two. They figure that people just won't buy two.

La literatura
06-02-2012, 09:05 PM
Another way to do this, and maybe a better way, is by imposing a higher tax on meals that include a regular pop. That way people still have the ability to purchase whatever size they want, and the revenue collected from the increase can go to health education.

La literatura
06-02-2012, 09:08 PM
And the ban on drink sizes would save us how much?

Asking people to be healthier is one thing. Just picking products and saying, "Well, this is too much," is different. There's no evidence that limiting cup size would have any effect at all. What about Joe Worker who can only get down to McDonalds for lunch, but wants a drink that lasts him for a while at his desk? Suppose he fills it 75% with ice and goes back up to his desk. What about the couple that wants to split a soft drink at the movies rather than buying two? There's no rhyme or reason to a cup size ban.
It's not fair to businesses to say, "Well, we sort of randomly decided that you're the problem. Not the multitude of other unhealthy dietary choices in the city." Why not cut the hot dog sizes in half? People say, "Well, we have to start somewhere." That's not fair, though. That's dirty pool.

Do you think it's fair to increase the gas tax, even though fuel emissions are not the only reason for melting ice caps?

J Diddy
06-02-2012, 09:13 PM
Perhaps we should do a soda settlement like tobacco.

La literatura
06-02-2012, 09:14 PM
What about Joe Worker who can only get down to McDonalds for lunch, but wants a drink that lasts him for a while at his desk? Suppose he fills it 75% with ice and goes back up to his desk. What about the couple that wants to split a soft drink at the movies rather than buying two? There's no rhyme or reason to a cup size ban.

Well, what about the person who wants a 16+ ounce pop? Did they think of that!?!?

headsnap
06-02-2012, 09:38 PM
Another way to do this, and maybe a better way, is by imposing a higher tax on meals that include a regular pop. That way people still have the ability to purchase whatever size they want, and the revenue collected from the increase can go to health education.
Regular pop?

La literatura
06-02-2012, 09:46 PM
Regular pop?

Non-diet.

headsnap
06-02-2012, 09:54 PM
Non-diet.

LOL... Diet drink chemicals are worse for you than Corn Syrup.

La literatura
06-02-2012, 09:55 PM
LOL... Diet drink chemicals are worse for you than Corn Syrup.

But they're definitely not causing obesity.

headsnap
06-02-2012, 10:05 PM
But they're definitely not causing obesity.

LOL, are you sure about that?

La literatura
06-02-2012, 10:19 PM
LOL, are you sure about that?

Pretty sure. There's no calories in diet pop. They might be causing cancers. But apparently obesity is the bigger issue now.

headsnap
06-02-2012, 10:22 PM
Pretty sure. There's no calories in diet pop. They might be causing cancers. But apparently obesity is the bigger issue now.

the brain is a complicated thing...

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/story?id=4271246&page=1#.T8rjbL9mk3Y

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1711763,00.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/mercola/mercola116.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_substitute#Weight_gain_and_insulin_response_to_artificial_sweeteners

J Diddy
06-02-2012, 10:22 PM
But they're definitely not causing obesity.

Unfortunately, friend, studies show otherwise...

http://www.uthscsa.edu/mission/article.asp?id=382

Statistics from the San Antonio Heart Study, a longtime epidemiologic study conducted at the Health Science Center, paradoxically suggest that the more diet sodas a person drinks, the greater the chance he or she will become overweight or obese. Extra weight is a strong risk factor for the development of type 2 diabetes.

"On average, for each diet soft drink our participants drank per day, they were 65 percent more likely to become overweight during the next seven to eight years, and 41 percent more likely to become obese," said Sharon Fowler, M.P.H., faculty associate in the division of clinical epidemiology. She presented the finding at the American Diabetes Association’s 65th Annual Scientific Sessions.

La literatura
06-02-2012, 10:41 PM
Does diet pop contribute to obesity to similar degrees as regular pop? And even if it does cause overweight, does it contribute to obesity?

blaise
06-02-2012, 10:45 PM
Well, what about the person who wants a 16+ ounce pop? Did they think of that!?!?

John Knowles.

La literatura
06-02-2012, 10:47 PM
John Knowles.

I'm so terribly sorry.

headsnap
06-02-2012, 10:51 PM
Does diet pop contribute to obesity to similar degrees as regular pop? And even if it does cause overweight, does it contribute to obesity?

I think we need to start telling Jenson Jokes...

chiefzilla1501
06-03-2012, 12:03 AM
If New York wants this, let them have at it. I have no problem with local governments deciding local policy. If the people don't like it, they can move to another state or city.

This. A million times this.

As I've said before, I am all about city and state's rights. And there's one thing we all know unless you are live in a shell of denial -- obesity is becoming an epidemic, it's destroying our health care system, and it's imposing an enormous cost to our society. We have to start exploring ideas for how we fix this. I appreciate city's trying new approaches to this, because this is exactly the level of government where we should try things out.

I'm not a particular fan of this initiative, but I like the intention. And who knows, maybe it will actually work in practice.

chiefzilla1501
06-03-2012, 12:07 AM
Unfortunately, friend, studies show otherwise...

http://www.uthscsa.edu/mission/article.asp?id=382

Statistics from the San Antonio Heart Study, a longtime epidemiologic study conducted at the Health Science Center, paradoxically suggest that the more diet sodas a person drinks, the greater the chance he or she will become overweight or obese. Extra weight is a strong risk factor for the development of type 2 diabetes.

"On average, for each diet soft drink our participants drank per day, they were 65 percent more likely to become overweight during the next seven to eight years, and 41 percent more likely to become obese," said Sharon Fowler, M.P.H., faculty associate in the division of clinical epidemiology. She presented the finding at the American Diabetes Association’s 65th Annual Scientific Sessions.

And yet we're allowed to label these things as diet. This is the problem with this country. We're all arguing about people's freedom to have choice to eat and drink what they want. Yet, here we have a clear example of people making bad choices because they have no idea what damage they're doing to their bodies. You shouldn't be able to call something "diet" if it's worse for you than the original.

There are plenty of people who are drinking a lot more diet soda because they legitimately think they're doing something good for their bodies. This is one of a gazillion reasons why this country has health care issues.

Iz Zat Chew
06-03-2012, 06:54 AM
The name of this thread is a misnomer. We all know there are no minds in the liberal collective, only the party line.

notorious
06-03-2012, 07:44 AM
As I've said before, I am all about city and state's rights. And there's one thing we all know unless you are live in a shell of denial -- obesity is becoming an epidemic, it's destroying our health care system, and it's imposing an enormous cost to our society. .

I agree 100%.



We have to start exploring ideas for how we fix this. I appreciate city's trying new approaches to this, because this is exactly the level of government where we should try things out.

I'm not a particular fan of this initiative, but I like the intention. And who knows, maybe it will actually work in practice.

There is only one idea that will work. Allow the person that is causing the drain on society to pay the price. If they can't pay the extra for their health care, tough shit. They were educated on eating properly, yet still made their own bad decisions.

When the unhealthy eaters see that a horrible death is the end if they keep up with being gluttons, they will change their eating habits or end up in a piano-sized coffin.

chiefzilla1501
06-03-2012, 08:27 AM
I agree 100%.




There is only one idea that will work. Allow the person that is causing the drain on society to pay the price. If they can't pay the extra for their health care, tough shit. They were educated on eating properly, yet still made their own bad decisions.

When the unhealthy eaters see that a horrible death is the end if they keep up with being gluttons, they will change their eating habits or end up in a piano-sized coffin.

The problem is, that's the approach we're taking now, and it's not working. People know obesity is a problem and we often know we're doing the wrong habits, but we still eat anyway. The problem here is that people don't realize they paid the price until something bad actually happens to them.

The bigger problem is in your first paragraph. People aren't well educated on eating properly, and that's made worse by the fact that our food industry is making it virtually impossible to do so. Diet drinks aren't really diet drinks. Panera isn't a healthy alternative to McDonalds. Even grocery raw meat isn't as healthy as meat fresh off the farm. People don't know how to cook because the schools don't teach it anymore. People don't get into physical activity because phys ed has been on the chopping block in many schools.

The problem is that our government doesn't do the common sense thing, that special interests are way too often getting in the way of common sense, and also that people like us are so stubborn about being helped. I still think Jamie Oliver is one of the most forward-thinking people when it comes to fixing the problem. He's all about coaching people to eat better and forcing a much bigger health agenda in our schools. If you watch his show "Food Revolution", you'll see a very interesting case where he tries to create meaningful healthy change in communities, and is treated like a villain because people don't want to be told what to do.

In other words, we have to get off our high horse. This country needs to get out of denial that we have a health problem. If anything, this soda ban shows how clueless we all are about the obesity problem in the US, which is hitting epidemic proportions.

RNR
06-03-2012, 08:32 AM
I agree 100%.
There is only one idea that will work. Allow the person that is causing the drain on society to pay the price. If they can't pay the extra for their health care, tough shit. They were educated on eating properly, yet still made their own bad decisions.

When the unhealthy eaters see that a horrible death is the end if they keep up with being gluttons, they will change their eating habits or end up in a piano-sized coffin.

I know one thing for damn sure, looking for the government to solve every problem is a bad idea. Where does it stop? Look at the train wreck welfare has turned into. People have this mentality that personal responsibility is not the answer, the government is! Lets go ahead and start more unfunded programs and regulations that require more government employees! Hey we are creating jobs! That way we can watch them become bloated and inefficient and see the problem remain~

chiefzilla1501
06-03-2012, 09:18 AM
I know one thing for damn sure, looking for the government to solve every problem is a bad idea. Where does it stop? Look at the train wreck welfare has turned into. People have this mentality that personal responsibility is not the answer, the government is! Lets go ahead and start more unfunded programs and regulations that require more government employees! Hey we are creating jobs! That way we can watch them become bloated and inefficient and see the problem remain~

As usual, the answer is somewhere in the middle. Government can be the solution to this mess, but we have zero trust in them because they don't know what they're doing and because they value special interests over the right thing. On the flip side, the opposite side wants government to back out of their lives, which only drives them to increasingly destructive decisions. You've already said people need to take personal responsibilit, but we are now only further empowering them to make what we know will be destructive decisions

The key point is that it's not just about personal responsibility, it's that one persons lack of personal responsibility affects all of us. If a person makes the personal choice to not care about school, fine, he affects a small web of people. When a person makes the personal choice to abuse his or her body, every person In their health insurance pool pays to fund their abusive decision.

That's what I'm trying to impress upon. This isn't just a public sector problem. This is a huge problem where people are making it impossible for the private sector to do business because we are forcing a massive amount of cost in the system, when the answer could so easy be solved with proper intervention. And this is a case where one persons bad decisions screw over people who make good decisions.

RNR
06-03-2012, 09:21 AM
As usual, the answer is somewhere in the middle. Government can be the solution to this mess, but we have zero trust in them because they don't know what they're doing and because they value special interests over the right thing. On the flip side, the opposite side wants government to back out of their lives, which only drives them to increasingly destructive decisions. You've already said people need to take personal responsibilit, but we are now only further empowering them to make what we know will be destructive decisions

The key point is that it's not just about personal responsibility, it's that one persons lack of personal responsibility affects all of us. If a person makes the personal choice to not care about school, fine, he affects a small web of people. When a person makes the personal choice to abuse his or her body, every person In their health insurance pool pays to fund their abusive decision.

That's what I'm trying to impress upon. This isn't just a public sector problem. This is a huge problem where people are making it impossible for the private sector to do business because we are forcing a massive amount of cost in the system, when the answer could so easy be solved with proper intervention.
The only government involvement I would endorse is education and awareness~

chiefzilla1501
06-03-2012, 09:41 AM
The only government involvement I would endorse is education and awareness~

I would agree with that. But it's not just consumer responsibility. It's corporate responsibility too. The awareness and education problem are difficult to solve if we can't understand what we are putting into our bodies. Which is why I'm not a huge fan of the soda ban per se, but implied is that if people are going to drown their bodies with gigantic diet sodas, there should be an obligation that people see some rough idea about what kinds of disgusting things they're putting into their bodies.

I also like seeing things Jamie Oliver is doing and hope one day they can become a model for how government can play a role. Sorry, but without government intervention, we can't get this message into schools. And they can fast track how quickly this stuff gets implemented. Or, at the very least, cut out the red tape to allow people like Oliver quickly implement ideas on the private sector side.

I hate our labeling system. I wish the government would force simple and easy labeling. For example, this is how much sugar or corn starch, this is how much salt, how many calories, and how much fat.

RNR
06-03-2012, 09:54 AM
I would agree with that. But it's not just consumer responsibility. It's corporate responsibility too. The awareness and education problem are difficult to solve if we can't understand what we are putting into our bodies. Which is why I'm not a huge fan of the soda ban per se, but implied is that if people are going to drown their bodies with gigantic diet sodas, there should be an obligation that people see some rough idea about what kinds of disgusting things they're putting into their bodies.

I also like seeing things Jamie Oliver is doing and hope one day they can become a model for how government can play a role. Sorry, but without government intervention, we can't get this message into schools. And they can fast track how quickly this stuff gets implemented. Or, at the very least, cut out the red tape to allow people like Oliver quickly implement ideas on the private sector side.

I hate our labeling system. I wish the government would force simple and easy labeling. For example, this is how much sugar or corn starch, this is how much salt, how many calories, and how much fat.
I do not think you and I are that far apart. I just am very anti government growth~

ThatRaceCardGuy
06-03-2012, 05:53 PM
“We’re not taking away anybody’s right to do things, we’re simply forcing you to understand that you have to make the conscious decision to go from one cup to another cup.”

Mayor Michael Bloomberg on the move to ban big soda pop.

Is this what we are spending time on for ****alls sake?

The conservative mind "We live in a free country , and we don't the government telling us what to do...unless it has to do with religion, gays, and abortion, and any thing else that conflicts with OUR point of view..other than that ..FREEDOM!!"

ThatRaceCardGuy
06-03-2012, 05:55 PM
“We’re not taking away anybody’s right to do things, we’re simply forcing you to understand that you have to make the conscious decision to go from one cup to another cup.”

Mayor Michael Bloomberg on the move to ban big soda pop.

Is this what we are spending time on for ****alls sake?

You have to be the biggest conservative zombie I have ever come across on any interweb forum. You sir do not think for yourself, you leave that up to Rush, Fox "news" and the rest of the right wing army..keep it step soldier.

Otter
06-03-2012, 05:59 PM
I think we need to start telling Jenson Jokes...

Try the 'build your own' edition Jenson...

http://www.fleshlight.com/build-your-own/?link=281&gclid=CIjgz_-is7ACFQlN4AodFG-ZTQ&ad=3191468774

tredadda
06-03-2012, 09:17 PM
:D



As long as those assholes don't move to my state.



Think of California and Montana or Colorado. Those no-dick pussies try to move to a state and change it to their liking through any means possible.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Keep them out of Colorado.

notorious
06-03-2012, 09:48 PM
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Keep them out of Colorado.

Californians have already infested Colorado in quite a few areas.


Thank God most West and East coasters think that western Kansas is a wasteland.........(they are probably right :D)

cosmo20002
06-03-2012, 11:04 PM
Isn't he a republican?

His last party affiliation was Republican.

cosmo20002
06-03-2012, 11:08 PM
Obesity is one of America's biggest problems. I don't know if this solution will solve anything. Probably not. But whether you're liberal or conservative, how can anyone deny that obesity is one of the biggest problems in the u.s.

It is a problem, but I can't see this putting a dent in that problem. Liberal or conservative, anyone should be able to see that this is a ridiculous idea.

Why not limit the number of pizza slices someone can buy or number of hotdogs?

cosmo20002
06-03-2012, 11:14 PM
Unfortunately, friend, studies show otherwise...

http://www.uthscsa.edu/mission/article.asp?id=382

Statistics from the San Antonio Heart Study, a longtime epidemiologic study conducted at the Health Science Center, paradoxically suggest that the more diet sodas a person drinks, the greater the chance he or she will become overweight or obese. Extra weight is a strong risk factor for the development of type 2 diabetes.

"On average, for each diet soft drink our participants drank per day, they were 65 percent more likely to become overweight during the next seven to eight years, and 41 percent more likely to become obese," said Sharon Fowler, M.P.H., faculty associate in the division of clinical epidemiology. She presented the finding at the American Diabetes Association’s 65th Annual Scientific Sessions.

I've never seen one of these diet pop studies actually link any of the indredients to causing obesity. Could very well be that diet drinkers also eat more crap in general. McDonald's biggest selling drink is Diet Coke.

tredadda
06-04-2012, 08:07 AM
Californians have already infested Colorado in quite a few areas.


Thank God most West and East coasters think that western Kansas is a wasteland.........(they are probably right :D)

Mainly Boulder and Denver. There is plenty of other places in Colorado that do not have the California influence and most would like to keep it that way.

tredadda
06-04-2012, 08:09 AM
It is a problem, but I can't see this putting a dent in that problem. Liberal or conservative, anyone should be able to see that this is a ridiculous idea.

Why not limit the number of pizza slices someone can buy or number of hotdogs?

^ This

RedDread
06-04-2012, 09:08 AM
I was trying to figure out where in the political spectrum something like this would lie, but then I thought again and realized it's just a really dumb idea in general.