CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Lieberman out to save the children yet again!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Lieberman out to save the children yet again!

post #1 of 96
12/5/03 at 10:13am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Lieberman takes on jelly doughnuts
Associated Press

Warning: Jelly doughnuts may be hazardous to your child's health. That's what Democratic presidential candidate Joe Lieberman is telling America's parents as he seeks a federal investigation into the marketing practices of junk food companies.

THE CONNECTICUT senator, who led the fight to put parental warnings on movie, video game and music advertising, wants the Federal Trade Commission to determine whether there is a connection between junk food advertising and the rise in obesity among youngsters.

"I like doughnuts. I like sweets. I like candy," Lieberman said Thursday. "I'm not saying if you eat a jelly doughnut or have a high-sugar bottle of soda, you're going to get sick, but if you have too many it's going to affect your health."

As president, Lieberman would push for three interim moves while the FTC conducts its study:

--Require junk food advertisements to include nutritional information that somehow issues a warning to parents, much like movie ads are accompanied by parental ratings.

--Ask Congress to require restaurant chains to include nutritional information on menus and mini-boards. There already is a bill pending in Congress to do this.

--Empower the Agriculture Department to set standards for food sold in schools, primarily vending machines. The USDA currently regulates lunch menus, but there are no limits on what companies can sell kids through vending machines.

Lieberman's campaign officials said the senator will not define what junk food is, leaving that to dietary and health care experts.

In the 1990s and into the 2000 presidential campaign, Lieberman spurred an FTC investigation into the marketing practices of the movie, video game and music industries. Aides say he has found a similar pattern with food advertising: Companies are marketing unhealthy products to children too young to read.

While parents can refuse to bring junk food into their homes, advertisements prompt demands from the youngest children and make it more likely that they will buy the products -- sometimes in schools -- as soon as they get enough money of their own, Lieberman aides said.

The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has declared obesity the top health issue in America. It estimates that 15 percent of children are overweight.

The announcement is part of a weeklong project by Lieberman to push family friendly initiatives.

On Wednesday in Manchester, N.H., he proposed expanding the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Clinton-era program that allows up to 12 weeks of family leave per year without pay.

Under Lieberman's plan, employees would pay about $1 per week into a program that would provide up to four weeks of leave at half pay.
I have a term for people like Joe Lieberman - FUCKING DO-GOODER, a person who is hellbent to make the world a better place for everyone whether we want him to or not! The man is like Ralph Nader and William Bennett spliced into one person.

The movies and TV shows you watch...
The music you listen to...
The video games you play...
And now the food that you eat!

But hey, someone's got to protect the children, right? After all, if you're fat its because of that damn Chef Boyardee and The Noid. Can't wait to see if they end up trying to turn Ronald McDonald in the next Joe Camel.

And just wait until he finds out about the Hamburglar! A character that encourages kids to eat an unhealthy diet and promotes stealing at the same time!
Reply
post #2 of 96
12/5/03 at 11:12am
I miss Joe Camel!!

*as I gaze longingly at my brand new, still un-opened hard pack of Camel Lights*

Thank you for the inspiration!!! Early break time at work!

Carry on.
Reply
post #3 of 96
12/5/03 at 11:30am
Actually, I kind of agree with the guy on this score. He's made it clear he's not trying to ban Big Macs or anything stupid like that, he's just trying to curb the tsunami of advertising that - yes - has turned fatty, greasy junk into a way of life for thousands of kids.

Taking the most nutrionally useless poison and forcing home the message that it's the greatest meal in the world is a coup de grace that the junk food industry is justifiably proud of. They just sell it to the kids as a fun meal, and their pester power does the rest of the work as parents are worn down and actually believe that a $1 burger is an exciting treat.

It's the marketing that's at fault, not the food itself. And on that, I agree with him. All advertising aimed at kids needs regulating.
Reply
post #4 of 96
12/5/03 at 11:35am
Also, who wouldn't want nutritional information when they eat out?

I'm conscious of my weight and I have extensive food allergies, so it'd be great for me.

Screw the chil....I mean, and I love the kids, too.
Reply
post #5 of 96
12/5/03 at 11:42am
I agree that it does get frustrating to see regulation after regulation get proposed, especially when you suspect these statements are made just to stay in the spotlight (although this is probably not always the sole objective). However, remember that you have a unique perspective. Personally, I really wonder why some things get everyone so wound up, like ratings on cds and video games. I'm pretty liberal in what I let me kids listen to and make an effort to hear it myself. But other parents aren't and thats not necessarily bad. As far as junk food goes keep in mind that there's a ton of kids out there who are basically on there own because of parents who 1) are working hard to survive either singularly or as a couple and can only trust their kids at maybe a too early age to get along 2) just don't care. In any event a kid with little wisdom and no experience and as they get older with some money, does end up making decisions they aren't good at making. Having said that I don't see labeling nutritional requirments and such on packaging as the solution. Hell, I can't figure them out (of course I am >smart). If the government is going to label food they should do it like albums and movies and video games are rated.WARNING: PACKAGE CONTAINS FOOD STUFF LIKELY TO CAUSE FAT GIRL ASS AND MALE BOOBISM
Reply
post #6 of 96
12/5/03 at 11:56am
I don't mind labeling fast food with one of those nutrition facts boxes - while the fast food places generally have a giant poster that tells you how much over your RDA that burger, fries, and Coke will put you, putting it on the label is a good move because most people don't check the poster. As far as putting warnings on the commercial, I think that's a bit much. What would it be?
"Surgeon General's warning: This product could kill you by age 40."
I can see that kids are susceptible to advertising, but at the same time we need common sense from the parents. Don't go getting your kid a happy meal every day, don't let them get continuous refills, etc. In the same vein, we could put warnings on toys, because they could be a worthless pile of crap. "Warning: This product is cheaply made and a waste of your money."
At some point in time people just have to take responsibility for their actions.
Reply
post #7 of 96
12/5/03 at 12:07pm
Nutritional info on the packaging and in the "restaurant" is one step, but warnings on the advertising isn't the solution. The solution is to restrict the manner and timing of how this stuff is marketed. Every ad break in kids TV (in the UK, and every time I've watched in the US) has an ad for KFC, or McDonalds or Burger King, or Pizza Hut. And these ads show happy, healthy kids dancing and running around celebrating the endless fun factor of greasy meat and saturated fat.

Just as alcohol companies are restricted from showing their products as enhancing quality of life, just as cigarette companies were stopped from selling smokes as being good for you. Junk food has NO benefits, is actively unhealthy and is creating a society full of lardarses.

Curbing the industries rampant marketing to the most vulnerable demographic is a sensible step.
Reply
post #8 of 96
12/5/03 at 12:09pm
The only thing about all of this that bugs the hell out of me is the fact that a lot of this "legislation" is being passed to protect society from itself.

That is bullshit.

Somewhere, Darwin is doing a crazy little dance in his grave.

If you do not have the self discipline to make your own choice, and are simply led to the trough like sheeple, because of "glitzy advertising and media blitzes", you deserve to be a fat, miserable, man boob beast with Big Mac "special sauce" oozing from your pores.

I smoke, I like it. I have no illusion that I'm "immune" to the evil weed. I actually enjoy it, so I make the conscious choice to save my Camel Dollars for the "limited edition Iron Lung". (Great graphics on that one, I'm sure)

I'm fatter than I should be. I blew out 2 disks in my back and spent 3 full months not able to walk. At all.

I put on 85 pounds in that time.

I've lost 50 of it, and still slowly working on it. Do I eat crap sometimes? YOU BET!!! I also drink to much, and smoke a pack a day.

I can also still run 2 miles, last for a few hours on any martial arts mat in the world, and about anything else I want to do in life.

I hate when the government feels they must protect society from themselves. It comes down to individual responsibility. If you have NONE, don't cry. Don't sue. Don't run for office. Don't expect "society" to owe you anything.

Learn, educate yourself, and those around you to the consequences of your actions, and be willing to accept them.

Let's have an international holiday for Darwin, and elevate understanding of personal responsibility.

When it is "socially acceptable" to take responsibility for yourself, the world will be a better place.

Instead of a mankind motto of "I owe, I owe, it's off to work I go!", it's been bastardized into "I'm owed, I'm owed, who will hold my hand next?"
Reply
post #9 of 96
12/5/03 at 12:16pm
Quote:
Curbing the industries rampant marketing to the most vulnerable demographic is a sensible step
If the sheeple would take responsibility, just a little, and "just say no", then the almighty advertising dollar would lose some of it's luster, and the "market" would correct itself.

There is no need for mandated, governmentally restricted curbing of this stuff.
Reply
post #10 of 96
12/5/03 at 12:22pm
Why do you put legislation in quotes? It really is legislation.

And your sig is hilarious. You win a prize if you can actually tell me where that Orwell quote came from (when or where he said it).

This is a piece of legislation that's actually trying to help people. Shocking that you would be so hard against it.
Reply
post #11 of 96
12/5/03 at 12:29pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Dale 'Grifter' Wicker
I hate when the government feels they must protect society from themselves. It comes down to individual responsibility. If you have NONE, don't cry. Don't sue. Don't run for office. Don't expect "society" to owe you anything.
I agree with this, but it doesn't always apply. This is specifically about the way junk food is marketed directly to kids, creating a culture in which a Big Mac every day isn't seen as unusual. It's easy for us to say "Just don't buy it", but when you've got kids who don't even know what a vegetable tastes like, and a society where it's easier and cheaper to eat processed meat products than fresh fruit, it's a recipe for obesity on a national scale. Which is what we're getting. Junk food isn't the only cause of this, but its a major contributing factor, and doing something to break kids out of the notion that a nutrition-less hunk of "beef" and plastic "cheese" is a meal can only be a good thing.

Individual responsibility is vital, but so is corporate responsibility and corporations aren't best known for putting public welfare first. If McDonalds had their way, we'd all be eating a McRib Sandwich for breakfast every day, and people would be keeling over from heart failure before they reached 40. If kids are sold on this idea from an early age, then further down the line it DOES become a problem that requires government intervention. A flabby, unhealthy society ultimately requires a bigger infrastructure to support as it encroaches on everything from health issues to the labour market.

So while I don't think that the government should have the power to restrict our freedom to buy what we want, and eat what we want, but I do believe that they should be able to define the way in which marketing and advertising manipulates those needs.
Reply
post #12 of 96
12/5/03 at 12:44pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Guttenberg Fan Club
Why do you put legislation in quotes? It really is legislation.

And your sig is hilarious. You win a prize if you can actually tell me where that Orwell quote came from (when or where he said it).

This is a piece of legislation that's actually trying to help people. Shocking that you would be so hard against it.
Here's another one for you!

"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it."
- George Orwell

Reply
post #13 of 96
12/5/03 at 12:45pm
So I take it you can't tell me where the quote is from & you just took it from the intro of some pro-war opinion piece that you read.
Reply
post #14 of 96
12/5/03 at 12:47pm
Quote:
Individual responsibility is vital, but so is corporate responsibility and corporations aren't best known for putting public welfare first.
I do not disagree with what you are saying. My point is that corporate responsibility is driven by the consumer. With our dollars.

If society took responsibility, as a whole, it would dictate a change in corporate mentality. There is no need for government to implement this, when we have the power in our wallets.

But, then again, I am an idealist.
Reply
post #15 of 96
12/5/03 at 12:48pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan Whitehead
It's easy for us to say "Just don't buy it", but when you've got kids who don't even know what a vegetable tastes like, and a society where it's easier and cheaper to eat processed meat products than fresh fruit, it's a recipe for obesity on a national scale. Which is what we're getting. Junk food isn't the only cause of this, but its a major contributing factor, and doing something to break kids out of the notion that a nutrition-less hunk of "beef" and plastic "cheese" is a meal can only be a good thing.


Who's fault is it that the kids don't know what a vegetable tastes like?

Who's is directly responsible for what kids eat?

Feeding your children is a FUNDAMENTAL parental function. And it's not like 5 or 8 year old kids are getting on cars and going through the drive-thrus of McDonalds and Wendy's, it's lazy parents that don't want to cook and take them there.

Quote:

Individual responsibility is vital, but so is corporate responsibility and corporations aren't best known for putting public welfare first. If McDonalds had their way, we'd all be eating a McRib Sandwich for breakfast every day, and people would be keeling over from heart failure before they reached 40.
You have to be careful with any sentence that starts with "individual responsibility is vital, but ...". It's the McDonalds corporation's job to keep you thin and healthy. Their job is to have you eat as much of their food as possible. Let parents be the responsible ones. Invest more in our horrid education system to let kids know how your arteries clog up when you eat crap. Promote more physical education, and after school activities for kids. Educate the parents. But this "feel good" measures are just a waste of time, and are laughable.

Obviously, Lieberman is trailing on the polls so he's trying to get any type of attention. It's not going to work.
Reply
post #16 of 96
12/5/03 at 12:51pm
Helping people is a waste of time?

What is it about these laws that are so awful that they must be fought? What exactly does it do except make a business responsible for what they make money off of? Of course kids should be eating right and parents should educate themselves on what is in the food their children are eating. But many don't. This will help them. People bitch about our nation being overweight & then they bitch because someone tries to do something about it.
Reply
post #17 of 96
12/5/03 at 12:56pm
The regulating of ads for chidren to eat crap food is a waste of time, because mommy and daddy are too lazy to cook and feed their children.

Quote:
While parents can refuse to bring junk food into their homes, advertisements prompt demands from the youngest children and make it more likely that they will buy the products -- sometimes in schools -- as soon as they get enough money of their own, Lieberman aides said.
Basically, mom and dad have so little control over their kids they can't say no to daily eating at McDonalds.

Again, why are kids eating so much junk food, because of ads or because of mom & dad?
Reply
post #18 of 96
12/5/03 at 12:57pm
If it helps, what do you care? How is this such a problem?
Reply
post #19 of 96
12/5/03 at 1:00pm
I mentioned other things that would help, just because it's a feel good measure doesn't mean it's going to work.

So if anything "helps" we can't criticize it? weird.

It's not going to help, it's not going to solve the problem in any significant way. The problem is with the parents, and the FCC "investigation" farce is not going to address that issue. It's just going to open up the possiblity of more lawsuits against the fast food companies, that lawyers are salivating to savage.

That's the @#@% wrong message, the message is "STOP EATING CRAP, ITS YOUR FAULT!".
Reply
post #20 of 96
12/5/03 at 1:01pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Guttenberg Fan Club
So I take it you can't tell me where the quote is from & you just took it from the intro of some pro-war opinion piece that you read.
It's from " Second Thoughts on James Burnham, 1946", an essay by Orwell.

Which can be viewed: Here

And to add more of my fav's by him:

"To survive it is often necessary to fight and to fight you have to dirty yourself."

"Enlightened people seldom or never possess a sense of responsibility."

"So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot."

"Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship."

"No advance in wealth, no softening of manners, no reform or revolution has ever brought human equality a millimeter nearer."

"Most people get a fair amount of fun out of their lives, but on balance life is suffering, and only the very young or the very foolish imagine otherwise."

But, I digress.........
Reply
post #21 of 96
12/5/03 at 1:04pm
Quote:
What is it about these laws that are so awful that they must be fought
Because these stupid laws cost money. Real money. Lot's of it.

This money comes from all of our pockets.
Reply
post #22 of 96
12/5/03 at 1:06pm
To take this argument to the extreme, do you believe that children should be legally allowed to drink and smoke? Cigarette companies could produce Happy Smokes, where you get a toy with every pack. Then it's up to the parents to control their kids consumption of these products.

If you smoke every day, your health will suffer and it may even contribute to your death.

If you drink booze every day, your health will suffer and it may even contribute to your death.

And if you eat junk food every day then your health will suffer and it may even contribute to your death.

The government shouldn't be allowed to stop adults from doing these things if they want to, but nor should a responsible government look at the rising health issues related to these products and not do anything about it, especially when the marketing of the product is aimed squarely at kids, and sells them poison dressed up as a fun lifestyle choice.
Reply
post #23 of 96
12/5/03 at 1:08pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Dale 'Grifter' Wicker
It's from " Second Thoughts on James Burnham, 1946", an essay by Orwell.

Which can be viewed: Here
I suggest you actually read the article.

But I'm glad I was right.
Reply
post #24 of 96
12/5/03 at 1:08pm
Quote:
Originally posted by CapitanAmerica
The regulating of ads for chidren to eat crap food is a waste of time, because mommy and daddy are too lazy to cook and feed their children.
Do you have proof for this sweeping statement?
Reply
post #25 of 96
12/5/03 at 1:10pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Dale 'Grifter' Wicker
Because these stupid laws cost money. Real money. Lot's of it.

This money comes from all of our pockets.
We pay taxes. They have the money. They're not going break down your door and make you give more.
Reply
post #26 of 96
12/5/03 at 1:15pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Guttenberg Fan Club
We pay taxes. They have the money. They're not going break down your door and make you give more.
But this very logic is why we already pay stupid amounts of taxes.

And I did read the article. Thanks for playing though.
Reply
post #27 of 96
12/5/03 at 1:18pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Guttenberg Fan Club
We pay taxes. They have the money. They're not going break down your door and make you give more.
Plus, wouldn't it be the fast food corporations footing the bill for informing people about what they're selling? Does the government subsidize the nutritional info panel on your boxes of cereal and oreos?

I'm really asking. I suspect it's "no," but I'm willing to be proved wrong.
Reply
post #28 of 96
12/5/03 at 1:21pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott Standridge
Plus, wouldn't it be the fast food corporations footing the bill for informing people about what they're selling? Does the government subsidize the nutritional info panel on your boxes of cereal and oreos?

I'm really asking. I suspect it's "no," but I'm willing to be proved wrong.

Of course it would be the fast food corps footing the bill. However, they would NOT pull out the "McMoney Printer".

They would raise prices, which effect everyone.

Again, it goes back to the power of the market, and the self regulation of public demand.
Reply
post #29 of 96
12/5/03 at 1:26pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Guttenberg Fan Club
But I'm glad I was right.
Hey, if that's what you need to tell yourself to get through the day, who am I to stand in your way?
Reply
post #30 of 96
12/5/03 at 1:29pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan Whitehead
Do you have proof for this sweeping statement?
If the problem is that kids are eating too much fast food, I imagine that the 5-14 year old crowd are not stealing their parents cars to go to the local drive thru, no?

So who's making the decicion to go eat junk, the kids or the parents?
Reply
post #31 of 96
12/5/03 at 1:33pm
When I vote, which is frequently, I vote for people and issues that best represent my beliefs, needs and desires on the role government from the local to federal level will best use the resources of time and money. I believe seat belts should be mandatory, I believe that private corporations need to be held to task by government, I believe and want resources to be spent compassionatly with the realization that there are many people in our country who are inept, incapable and just plain stupid. Although I agree wholeheartedly with statements regarding the massive and difficult responsibility of parents I ask what do we do with children whose parents don't accept this responsibility? Private charities, churches and the like are options and as an individual I support these with my time and money. However, as a member of society I also look to the government as the central pool of resource into which we all contribute, to look compassionatly toward these people as well. This is why I vote for people who will support this view. On the same token I am not excited to support lazy, selfish, victim personalities who are more than willing to exploit well intentioned programs. For crying out loud nobody wants that. I've been a liability adjuster/investigator for 10 years and believe me I deal with people like this every day (but most of the people I deal with are honest and hardworking people who I may disagree with on some issues). It is everyones responsibility to pull themselves up. It is also everyones responsibilty not to kick someone else down.
Reply
post #32 of 96
12/5/03 at 1:34pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Dale 'Grifter' Wicker
And I did read the article. Thanks for playing though.
You read the essay? So you're already aware that your quote isn't actually in it, correct?
Reply
post #33 of 96
12/5/03 at 1:44pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan Whitehead
tsunami of advertising that - yes - has turned fatty, greasy junk into a way of life for thousands of kids.
This is like saying that Richard Ramirez killed all those people because he heard an AC/DC album.

Any parent that doesn't know that giving McNuggets and Sunny Delight to their kids should be hung or shouldn't have kids in the first place.

While Lieberman is at it, he should put a warning label on jet liners noting that flying in them increases the possibilities of death or can lead to death.
Reply
post #34 of 96
12/5/03 at 1:46pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Dale 'Grifter' Wicker
Of course it would be the fast food corps footing the bill. However, they would NOT pull out the "McMoney Printer".

They would raise prices, which effect everyone.

Again, it goes back to the power of the market, and the self regulation of public demand.
But, if they raised prices, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO BUY IT! IT'S YOUR CHOICE!



I'm just yankin' yer chain. Though personally I wouldn't mind forcing them to tell folks what the nutritional values of their burgers were. Maybe if it's too embarassing for the company to list, they should try to make it less embarassing, i.e., more nutritionally sound?
Reply
post #35 of 96
12/5/03 at 1:48pm
Again, parents should do these things but they don't. So, this would actually help children but you want to say fuck it because their parents should know better anyways.

And good point Standstridge. Making companies be truthful about the food they sell doesn't cost us shit.
Reply
post #36 of 96
12/5/03 at 1:52pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Dale 'Grifter' Wicker
Of course it would be the fast food corps footing the bill. However, they would NOT pull out the "McMoney Printer".

They would raise prices, which effect everyone.

Again, it goes back to the power of the market, and the self regulation of public demand.
Just because prices go up, self-regulation doesn't change. People will choose whether or not they want to buy a big mac that costs .01 more than it did yesterday.

McDonald's isn't going to raise the prices, anyways. An effort like this is only going to bring them less business. People find out they're eating poop, they'll slow down consumption. Before prices go up, they're losing customers. Knowing that they'll lose more by raising prices, they realize that to save money they'll just have to bite the bullet on this one.
Reply
post #37 of 96
12/5/03 at 1:55pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott Standridge
Though personally I wouldn't mind forcing them to tell folks what the nutritional values of their burgers were. Maybe if it's too embarassing for the company to list, they should try to make it less embarassing, i.e., more nutritionally sound?
I don't know about you, but the last time I went to McDs, there where brochures in the counter, that contained the nutritional value of their menu.
Reply
post #38 of 96
12/5/03 at 1:56pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
The government shouldn't be allowed to stop adults from doing these things if they want to, but nor should a responsible government look at the rising health issues related to these products and not do anything about it, especially when the marketing of the product is aimed squarely at kids, and sells them poison dressed up as a fun lifestyle choice.
"Poison dressed up as a fun lifestyle choice?"

God forbid anyone in this country ever be allowed to think for themselves or experience a moment of joy! This is feel good, busy body government legislation in the making and it won't do a fucking thing to curb obesity in this country. But it will make a bunch of fucking do-gooders feel better about themselves until they realize they haven't cured cancer and decide there are more things out there they must protect us from. What's next? Too much sugar? Too much caffeine? Better go after Coke and Pepsi for marketing to our children with their carbonated poison!

"Mommy, buy me a Big Mac for dinner."

"No, son. Eat your vegetables."

See, how hard was that? But that's not what parents are doing so now the government must step in and help raise us. Video games have warning labels on them but do the Joe Lieberman's of the world still bitch and moan and threaten more legislation to control the content? Yes! They put warning labels on cigarette packs and put a chokehold on their advertising but do the tobacco companies still get hit with lawsuits and legislation constantly? Yes! Shall I continue? You get the point. It doesn't end. Once these balls get rolling there's no end to it because it ends up becoming a group of people wanting to completely eradicate that which they are going after. They want media violence completely gone. They want the tobacco companies out of business. And now they've eyed the fast food industry. But hey, its all about making the world a better place for you and your children right and how could anyone possibly argue against that?

The fact that some of you actually thinks this is a good thing absolutely horrifies me. Go rent DEMOLITION MAN again. Take a good look at the future being parodied in that movie. Believe it or not, we seem to be heading in that direction. The world needs less fucking do-gooders and more people willing to mind their own damn business.
Reply
post #39 of 96
12/5/03 at 1:59pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
People find out they're eating poop, they'll slow down consumption.
Yeah, right. Let me paraphrase Denis Leary regarding cigs, "You put a skull and crossbones on the side of the box or introduce a brand called Tumors and people would still smoke."
Reply
post #40 of 96
12/5/03 at 1:59pm
Yes, these awful balls that get rolling that try to curb childhood obesity and smoking. Evil bastards.

How about the rising health care costs as a result of obesity. Ya'll are obsessed about money, shouldn't that be a concern?
Reply
post #41 of 96
12/5/03 at 2:00pm
Quote:
Originally posted by foywonder
Yeah, right. Let me paraphrase Denis Leary regarding cigs, "You put a skull and crossbones on the side of the box or introduce a brand called Tumors and people would still smoke."
Less people would smoke. Less people do smoke than did fifty years ago. Thanks education.
Reply
post #42 of 96
12/5/03 at 2:07pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Guttenberg Fan Club
You read the essay? So you're already aware that your quote isn't actually in it, correct?
Funny, I see it in Paragraph 31:

Quote:
If one went simply by these instances, one might assume that high intelligence and bad military judgement always go together. However, it is not so simple as that. The English intelligentsia, on the whole, were more defeatist than the mass of the people—and some of them went on being defeatist at a time when the war was quite plainly won—partly because they were better able to visualise the dreary years of warfare that lay ahead. Their morale was worse because their imaginations were stronger. The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it , and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory. But there was more to it than that. There was also the disaffection of large numbers of intellectuals, which made it difficult for them not to side with any country hostile to Britain. And deepest of all, there was admiration—though only in a very few cases conscious admiration—for the power, energy, and cruelty of the Nazi régime. It would be a useful though tedious labour to go through the left-wing press and enumerate all the hostile references to Nazism during the years 1935-45. One would find, I have little doubt, that they reached their high-water mark in 1937-8 and 1944-5, and dropped off noticeably in the years 1939-42—that is, during the period when Germany seemed to be winning. One would find, also, the same people advocating a compromise peace in 1940 and approving the dismemberment of Germany in 1945. And if one studied the reactions of the English intelligentsia towards the U.S.S.R. , there, too, one would find genuinely progressive impulses mixed up with admiration for power and cruelty. It would be grossly unfair to suggest that power worship is the only motive for russophile feeling, but it is one motive, and among intellectuals it is probably the strongest one.
Reply
post #43 of 96
12/5/03 at 2:08pm
Holy shit.

I was talking about your sig, Grifter. I was from the beginning. You just brought that random one out of nowhere.
Reply
post #44 of 96
12/5/03 at 2:11pm
All I gotta say is that we shouldn't be forced to wear seatbelts.
Reply
post #45 of 96
12/5/03 at 2:16pm
What about the evil and racist rice industry feeding all that rice to Hispanic minorities to keep them obese? Worse yet, there are countries who push this stuff on our kids.

Maybe a couple of Cruise missiles on their rice fields will send the message and protect our children.
Reply
post #46 of 96
12/5/03 at 2:17pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Guttenberg Fan Club
Holy shit.

I was talking about your sig, Grifter. I was from the beginning. You just brought that random one out of nowhere.
In that case I'll grant you this:

Quote:
George Orwell is universally credited as having said that we "sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us." There is some debate over whether Orwell actually made this remark, but it has been repeated again and again because of its obvious truth, regardless of its origin.
Reply
post #47 of 96
12/5/03 at 2:18pm
Quote:
Originally posted by CapitanAmerica
What about the evil and racist rice industry feeding all that rice to Hispanic minorities to keep them obese? Worse yet, there are countries who push this stuff on our kids.

Maybe a couple of Cruise missiles on their rice fields will send the message and protect our children.
Like all those fat asian kids?

Stop the carb-hating.
Reply
post #48 of 96
12/5/03 at 2:21pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Guttenberg Fan Club
Like all those fat asian kids?

Stop the carb-hating.
I can tell you've never eating a Puerto Rican meal with arroz (almost all meals) if you are comparing it to the typical Asian diet.
Reply
post #49 of 96
12/5/03 at 2:25pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Yes, these awful balls that get rolling that try to curb childhood obesity and smoking. Evil bastards.
Sorry, I come from the non-partisan personal freedom fan club. I'm guessing you come from the left-wing "It Takes A Village" mindset? Things like this sound good in theory. In theory. I'm just sick of the people on the right and the left sticking their noses into everything and then telling us its all for the children so they can appeal to the soccer moms and the Oprah viewers for the next election.

Quote:
How about the rising health care costs as a result of obesity. Ya'll are obsessed about money, shouldn't that be a concern?
I can think of a large number of things my taxes pay for other than the health care of others that I'd rather not pay for but still have to. Welcome to America.

Quote:
Less people would smoke. Less people do smoke than did fifty years ago. Thanks education.
There's hardly a lack of customers so apparently some people have decided for themselves whether or not they want to smoke despite all the education and PSAs. Despite that drop in the number of smokers, there's still no shortage of organizations and what not targeting the tobacco industry. Why? Because they want to do away with them entirely. Again, look around you. Its happening in other places too. That is the ball that has rolled out of control. If you can't change the public's mind then we'll attack the source. That's a mentality that there is far too much of in this country today and yet some people can't understand why there's so much hostility especially when the topic turns to politics.

If parents kept giving their six year olds the keys to the car I suspect you'd be amongst the people wanting to take the car industry to take. And Fisher Price for manufacturing those faux driving simulators we all played with as toddlers.
Reply
post #50 of 96
12/5/03 at 2:27pm
Quote:
Originally posted by CapitanAmerica
I can tell you've never eating a Puerto Rican meal with arroz (almost all meals) if you are comparing it to the typical Asian diet.
I'm comparing rice to rice. Eating rice doesn't make you fat. Adding fat to your rice makes you fat.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Lieberman out to save the children yet again!