Obama's Food Police in Staggering Crackdown on Market to Kids
by Audrey Hudson
06/21/2011
Tony the Tiger, some NASCAR drivers and cookie-selling Girl Scouts will be out of a job unless grocery manufacturers agree to reinvent a vast array of their products to satisfy the Obama administration’s food police.
Either retool the recipes to contain certain levels of sugar, sodium and fats, or no more advertising and marketing to tots and teenagers, say several federal regulatory agencies.
The same goes for restaurants.
It’s not just the usual suspected foods that are being targeted, such a thin mint cookies sold by scouts or M&Ms and Snickers, which sponsor cars in the Sprint Cup, but pretty much everything on a restaurant menu.
Although the intent of the guidelines is to combat childhood obesity, foods that are low in calories, fat, and some considered healthy foods, are also targets, including hot breakfast cereals such as oatmeal, pretzels, popcorn, nuts, yogurt, wheat bread, bagels, diet drinks, fruit juice, tea, bottled water, milk and sherbet.
Food industries are in an uproar over the proposal written by the Federal Trade Commission, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
“The most disturbing aspect of this interagency working group is, after it imposes multibillions of dollars in restrictions on the food industry, there is no evidence of any impact on the scourge of childhood obesity,” said Dan Jaffe, executive vice president of the Association of National Advertisers.
The “Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children, Preliminary Proposed Nutrition Principles to Guide Industry Self-Regulation Efforts” says it is voluntary, but industry officials say the intent is clear: Do it, or else.
“When regulators strongly suggest a course of action, it’s treated as a rule, not a suggestion,” said Scott Faber, vice president of federal affairs for the Grocery Manufacturers Association. “Industry tends to heed these suggestions from our regulators, and this administration has made it clear they are willing to regulate if we don’t implement their proposal.”
It’s not just the food industry that will be impacted. Hundreds of television shows that depend on the advertising revenue, such as the Nickelodeon Channel, ESPN, and programs including "American Idol" will be affected, critics of the proposal say—at a cost of $5.8 trillion in marketing expenditures that support up to 20 million American jobs.
If the food is not reformulated, no more ads or promotions on TV, radio, in print, on websites, as well as other digital advertising such as e-mail and text messaging, packaging, and point-of-purchase displays and other in-store marketing tools; product placement in movies, videos, video games, contests, sweepstakes, character licensing and toy branding; sponsorship of events including sport teams and individual athletes; and, philanthropic activity tied to branding opportunities.
That includes softball teams that are sponsored by food companies and school reading programs sponsored by restaurants.
“The Interagency working group recommends that the food industry, through voluntary self-regulatory efforts, make significant improvements in the nutritional quality of foods marketed to children and adolescents ages 2 to 17 years,” the proposal says.
“By the year 2016, all food products within the categories most heavily marketed directly to children should meet two basic nutrition principles. Such foods should be formulated to … make a meaningful contribution to a healthful diet and minimize the content of nutrients that could have a negative impact on health and weight.”
The foods most heavily marketed directly to children and adolescents fall into 10 categories: “breakfast cereals, snack foods, candy, dairy products, baked goods, carbonated beverages, fruit juice and non-carbonated beverages, prepared foods and meals, frozen and chilled desserts, and restaurant foods.”
Beth Johnson, a dietician for Food Directions in Maryland, said many of the foods targeted in this proposal are the same foods approved by the federal government for the WIC nutrition program for women, infants and children.
“This doesn’t make any sense whatsoever,” Johnson said. “It’s not going to do anything to help with obesity. These are decisions I want to make for my kids. These should not be government decisions.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audrey Hudson, an award-winning investigative journalist, is a Congressional Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS. A native of Kentucky, Mrs. Hudson has worked inside the Beltway for nearly two decades -- on Capitol Hill as a Senate and House spokeswoman, and most recently at The Washington Times covering Congress, Homeland Security, and the Supreme Court.
Well, apparently many people can't or won't watch what they eat, so if you can ensure that whatever they throw into their maws (and the maws of their children) is much healthier then that is a good thing.
It would be excellent if ready meals and so on were not so jammed with fats, salts and sugars and there were regulations in place to ensure that each "portion" was nutritionally balanced.
SilverMK2 wrote:Well, apparently many people can't or won't watch what they eat, so if you can ensure that whatever they throw into their maws (and the maws of their children) is much healthier then that is a good thing.
It would be excellent if ready meals and so on were not so jammed with fats, salts and sugars and there were regulations in place to ensure that each "portion" was nutritionally balanced.
So you're ok with government literally telling you what you can and can't eat now? Remember, this is the same team that brought you subsidized tobacco, subsidized cheese, school lunches, and the Zombie safety zone known as the DMV.
SilverMK2 wrote:Well, apparently many people can't or won't watch what they eat, so if you can ensure that whatever they throw into their maws (and the maws of their children) is much healthier then that is a good thing.
If people don't want to watch what they eat then they shouldn't be forced to eat healthy food.
What business is it of the government (or more specifically, other citizens) whether I eat healthy or unhealthy food?
Frazzled wrote:So you're ok with government literally telling you what you can and can't eat now?
In the same way that I am happy for them to make sure that companies don't put drugs, broken glass and bits of humans in my food? Sure.
Food for consumption by humans is already regulated heavily to ensure that only certain grades of food are used, that certain cleanliness standards are upheld, that packaging and lables are done in a certain way, etc.
I am more than happy for the government to ensure that food I buy will not be so heavily saturated with fat, salt, sugar etc, and is closer to what my body actually needs. As I said - ready meals often contain far more salt, fat and sugar than is required or is healthy. The UK already has regulations saying that all foodstuffs needs to have information on GDA's and how much of your GDA the food product provides per serving, etc. I think I remember seeing something about a traffic light system (red for bad, yellow for OK and green for good) as well, but I've not heard about that one for a while.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:What business is it of the government (or more specifically, other citizens) whether I eat healthy or unhealthy food?
Ultimately you elect the government to look out for your interests. And as I mentioned, what you eat and how it is prepared is already heavily regulated to ensure you are not being fed things you should not be fed, such as infected meat, rotten produce, glass, nails, etc...
This whole "big government better not tell me what to do!" attitude some of you Americanski's have is pretty stupid when you are already "mollycoddled" by the government in a million different ways in your day to day life.
This is quite amusing, it certainly is the job of 'big government' to regulate the food supply.
Otherwise you end up with companies putting profit before children's health. That is obviously wrong.
I know it is the American way but you just can't leave private companies to have a total free rein. They will act in the interests of profit, which is rarely (never?) the same as being in the interest of the populace.
Use of trans-fats (hydrogenated vegetable oils) is one prime example of profit before health.
SilverMK2 wrote:Well, apparently many people can't or won't watch what they eat, so if you can ensure that whatever they throw into their maws (and the maws of their children) is much healthier then that is a good thing.
If people don't want to watch what they eat then they shouldn't be forced to eat healthy food.
What business is it of the government (or more specifically, other citizens) whether I eat healthy or unhealthy food?
Surely the rationale for this is that the state has a substantial interest in the continued existence of its citizens as productive contributors to society?
SilverMK2 wrote:Well, apparently many people can't or won't watch what they eat, so if you can ensure that whatever they throw into their maws (and the maws of their children) is much healthier then that is a good thing.
If people don't want to watch what they eat then they shouldn't be forced to eat healthy food.
What business is it of the government (or more specifically, other citizens) whether I eat healthy or unhealthy food?
Surely the rationale for this is that the state has a substantial interest in the continued existence of its citizens as productive contributors to society?
Could be. But then, where do you draw the line? Can the state mandate an exercise routine? Monitor citizens 24/7 through some sort of two-way television to ensure that they're eating and exercising?
Should they have a facility where citizens are taught to not only act correctly but to think correctly?
Frazzled wrote:How's that ecoli breakout working for you?
That was in main land Europe not the UK
Details details...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lighterthief wrote:This is quite amusing, it certainly is the job of 'big government' to regulate the food supply.
Otherwise you end up with companies putting profit before children's health. That is obviously wrong.
I know it is the American way but you just can't leave private companies to have a total free rein. They will act in the interests of profit, which is rarely (never?) the same as being in the interest of the populace.
Use of trans-fats (hydrogenated vegetable oils) is one prime example of profit before health.
America! Stop being so FAT
There is a difference between regulating e coli and mandating the diet of the citizenry. Its a level of government intrusion King George would have freaked out about.
You know, I ate GIANT bowls of cereal for breakfast, like, big enough to be 1/4th the box when I was a kid. And we're not talking Fiber One here, we're talking Lucky Charms, Frosted Flakes, Coco-Puffs. I didn't get fat until I discovered good beer.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lighterthief wrote:This is quite amusing, it certainly is the job of 'big government' to regulate the food supply.
Otherwise you end up with companies putting profit before children's health. That is obviously wrong.
I know it is the American way but you just can't leave private companies to have a total free rein. They will act in the interests of profit, which is rarely (never?) the same as being in the interest of the populace.
Use of trans-fats (hydrogenated vegetable oils) is one prime example of profit before health.
Great, but if they actually TRULY believed in that, and weren't just providing us with the illusion of trying to do something about it, then they'd be cutting the high fructose corn syrup from ever other god damn thing out there as well as the vegetable oils. Seriously, there's something wrong when you have it in everything. I'm surprised they don't add it to the water.
What the woman said is right though, this DOESN'T make any sense. What would make sense is to announce that you've dropped the sugar tariffs and that the corn lobbyists can piss up a rope.
Sometimes I think you people are all fething crazy.
I mean, seriously. Major corporations have got you literally eating out of the palms of their hands. Food producers spend billions targeting young kids with propaganda in order to convince them that they want these insanely unhealthy foods. The government tries to mitigate this by ensuring that the foods they sell maintain a bare minimum level of healthiness, and there are people who will get up in arms, decrying 'big brother'-style government, defending the multi-million dollar food giants.
Do you think these people give a gak about you, or something? They just want your money, and they will do anything to get it.
Hmm, you think the government getting involved in the food you eat is odd in a country where so many people need a mirror on a stick to see their toes?
Stand up for your democratic rights by saying no to healthy food, good universal healthcare and the control of guns...but at the same time allow corporations to run the schools, prisons, hospitals and buy the ear of every politician in Washington DC!
Albatross wrote:Do you think these people give a gak about you, or something? They just want your money, and they will do anything to get it.
They can do anything they want to get at my money. But there's one very important and salient fact that you're missing: I don't have to give it to them.
General Mills can spend all the advertising dollars they want trying to get me to buy Frosted Flakes. They can put up a billboard across the street from my house with a big fething Tony the Tiger telling me how great Frosted Flakes are. They can call me in the middle of the night to remind me that they're a great product.
But I still don't have to give them a dime.
The real threat isn't corporations who can try to persuade you to act in a certain way, it's government that can compel you (by force) to act in a certain way. The fact that people actually support the use of force against others for not eating right or selling the right stuff is more proof that people really want a dictatorship, not a free democracy.
biccat wrote:They can do anything they want to get at my money. But there's one very important and salient fact that you're missing: I don't have to give it to them.
What about in a market where every pretty much ever food company stuffs thier products full of crap? Where avoiding foods which contain it means you need to go to extreme lengths, or huge expense? A market where those who are most likely to buy rubbish food and therefore be the most at risk from crap in foods are those least able, informed or inclined about seeking out "better" alternatives?
Strawberry jam used to contain wooden "pips" in the UK because cheap jam makers used (off the top of my head) rhubarb and tonnes of sugar to make the "strawberry" jam and thought they could make it closer to actual strawberry jam by adding in wooden pips (which was actually a fairly large industry ).
Thankfully the practice ended, but the point remains that people were quite literally being fed splinters of wood, produce which was completely different from what it was supposed to be and sugar. Because this was standard practice in the industry, you could not escape from it.
It tastes like a weed, which is what it freaking is. Corn, or maize IS genetically modified. Just done the old fashioned way through selective breeding agriculture by OH's (Original Homeboys) back in the day.
biccat wrote:They can do anything they want to get at my money. But there's one very important and salient fact that you're missing: I don't have to give it to them.
What about in a market where every pretty much ever food company stuffs thier products full of crap?
Which could be possible, but it's not. If every company stuffs their products full of crap, then you should buy food that isn't full of crap. This will increase demand for non-crap food.
SilverMK2 wrote:Where avoiding foods which contain it means you need to go to extreme lengths, or huge expense?
Again, could be possible, but it's not. There is a strong demand for healthy food and plenty of suppliers make it available. You might have to buy iceburg lettuce and chicken instead of arugula and filet mignon, but it's not impossible to eat healthy if you make an effort to do so.
SilverMK2 wrote:A market where those who are most likely to buy rubbish food and therefore be the most at risk from crap in foods are those least able, informed or inclined about seeking out "better" alternatives?
If they're not inclined to seek out "better" alternatives or willing to inform themselves of healthful alternatives, that's not my problem. But there is plenety of information on eating healthy available (for free even!) to those who will make the effort to seek it out.
As for ability, I'm not sure what you mean. If you're talking about finances, I don't think there's a general obligation to support people on the public dime. But even if there is, healthy food is not more expensive than "unhealthy" food. You can survive quite well on beans, rice and water and pay significantly less than eating out at McDonalds.
SilverMK2 wrote:Strawberry jam used to contain wooden "pips" in the UK because cheap jam makers used (off the top of my head) rhubarb and tonnes of sugar to make the "strawberry" jam and thought they could make it closer to actual strawberry jam by adding in wooden pips (which was actually a fairly large industry ).
Thankfully the practice ended, but the point remains that people were quite literally being fed splinters of wood, produce which was completely different from what it was supposed to be and sugar. Because this was standard practice in the industry, you could not escape from it.
You could, presumably, still purchase strawberries to make your own jam. In fact, if there really was a demand for real strawberry jam, you could probably make your own jam, slap a wrapper on the jar, and sell it to your friends and neighbors. Sure someone else could undercut you by selling rhubarb-sugar-wood jam, but if people wanted real strawberries, you could deliver it.
Also, labelling rhubarb-sugar-wood jam as strawberry is fraud, and should be prohibited.
They forgot to mention why the govt is doing this. Insurance industry special interest money. Personally, I think the republicans would have done it as well, they love that big business money as much as the dems.
agnosto wrote:They forgot to mention why the govt is doing this. Insurance industry special interest money.
Sorry to ask, but could you explain how severe restrictions on the food industry is something that fits the agenda of "Insurance industry special interest money"?
agnosto wrote:They forgot to mention why the govt is doing this. Insurance industry special interest money.
Sorry to ask, but could you explain how severe restrictions on the food industry is something that fits the agenda of "Insurance industry special interest money"?
Insurance companies lobbying so that they have to pay less claims due to health related matters.
biccat wrote:Which could be possible, but it's not. If every company stuffs their products full of crap, then you should buy food that isn't full of crap. This will increase demand for non-crap food.
Though as I pointed out, when the vast majority of companies and the vast majority of food is stuffed full of the stuff, the vast majority of people will continue buying it for lack of options, lack of availability, lack of funds, etc, etc.
And even with some people "switching brands" to "healthier" options, there are still not enough of them to make a difference. Just as there are many people who want to see various TV programs back on the air, however, there are not enough of them for companies to pay attention to and bring back cancelled shows.
Again, could be possible, but it's not. There is a strong demand for healthy food and plenty of suppliers make it available. You might have to buy iceburg lettuce and chicken instead of arugula and filet mignon, but it's not impossible to eat healthy if you make an effort to do so.
When it costs more than twice as much to buy the same meal when buying fresh (not even special, organic, mega healthy, etc) ingredients compared to buying some mass produced, fat filled, salty, sugar stuffed ready meal (or even "stir in" sauces, "ready-to-cook" style meal components) something is wrong. Mass production scales obviously factor in, but when a couple of chicken breasts are significantly more than a microwave chicken curry with rice, naan bread, etc...
If they're not inclined to seek out "better" alternatives or willing to inform themselves of healthful alternatives, that's not my problem. But there is plenety of information on eating healthy available (for free even!) to those who will make the effort to seek it out.
How about we stop public education, scolarships and so on, so that only those who make the effort to pay their own way and make the effort to better themselves get any schooling?
As for ability, I'm not sure what you mean. If you're talking about finances, I don't think there's a general obligation to support people on the public dime. But even if there is, healthy food is not more expensive than "unhealthy" food.
I'm not suggesting giving people food stamps here, I am just pointing out that it is often significantly cheaper to buy crap filled ready meals than the ingredients for the same meal freshly prepared. There is also the issue that often the stores catering towards the poorer individuals will have even worse quality food (in terms of having meals stuffed with even more crap, as well as generally offering more unhealthy options than higher end eupermarkets).
By legislating on the contents of meals, foods, etc, you are essentially ensuring that all food (no matter the "quality") will at least be relatively healthy (compared to the same foods that are sold and marketed now).
You can survive quite well on beans, rice and water and pay significantly less than eating out at McDonalds.
Sure, but having been to university and having lived on pasta for a number of years, it is neither healthy or fun.
You could, presumably, still purchase strawberries to make your own jam. In fact, if there really was a demand for real strawberry jam, you could probably make your own jam, slap a wrapper on the jar, and sell it to your friends and neighbors. Sure someone else could undercut you by selling rhubarb-sugar-wood jam, but if people wanted real strawberries, you could deliver it.
Sure, lowest income workers in the (early C20th/C19th?) could afford to grow strawberries, press them, make jam, etc, etc
I could go out tomorrow witht he intention of creating a healthy food company that produced ready meals with less salt, fat and sugar in them. Wouldn't get very far because I don't have the funds, knowledge or indeed much else beyond an idea
Also, labelling rhubarb-sugar-wood jam as strawberry is fraud, and should be prohibited.
Wait a minute! Damn the government! Who said they could control what we can and cannot put on labels?!?!
agnosto wrote:They forgot to mention why the govt is doing this. Insurance industry special interest money.
Sorry to ask, but could you explain how severe restrictions on the food industry is something that fits the agenda of "Insurance industry special interest money"?
Insurance companies lobbying so that they have to pay less claims due to health related matters.
Seems like a long game for such a vicious industry to adopt.
I thought their main strategy to avoid paying out was simply to find some BS in the patient's past history and refuse to pay on that basis.
SilverMK2 wrote:Though as I pointed out, when the vast majority of companies and the vast majority of food is stuffed full of the stuff, the vast majority of people will continue buying it for lack of options, lack of availability, lack of funds, etc, etc.
And even with some people "switching brands" to "healthier" options, there are still not enough of them to make a difference. Just as there are many people who want to see various TV programs back on the air, however, there are not enough of them for companies to pay attention to and bring back cancelled shows.
TV is different because of the high production costs and low distribution costs. The production of a TV show may cost $1 million, but sending it to 1 million TVs is not much more expensive than sending it to 10 TVs.
In contrast, production and distribution of food are roughly proportional to the value generated. The material cost (per serving) of food is roughly proportional to the number of products produced, shipped and sold.
SilverMK2 wrote:When it costs more than twice as much to buy the same meal when buying fresh (not even special, organic, mega healthy, etc) ingredients compared to buying some mass produced, fat filled, salty, sugar stuffed ready meal (or even "stir in" sauces, "ready-to-cook" style meal components) something is wrong. Mass production scales obviously factor in, but when a couple of chicken breasts are significantly more than a microwave chicken curry with rice, naan bread, etc...
That's because a microwave chicken curry with rice and naan bread doesn't include a couple of chicken breasts. It probably includes half a chicken breast, at best. If you bought the ingredients separately and prepared them yourself, you would probably save money.
SilverMK2 wrote:How about we stop public education, scolarships and so on, so that only those who make the effort to pay their own way and make the effort to better themselves get any schooling?
A man can dream...
SilverMK2 wrote:I'm not suggesting giving people food stamps here, I am just pointing out that it is often significantly cheaper to buy crap filled ready meals than the ingredients for the same meal freshly prepared. There is also the issue that often the stores catering towards the poorer individuals will have even worse quality food (in terms of having meals stuffed with even more crap, as well as generally offering more unhealthy options than higher end eupermarkets).
By legislating on the contents of meals, foods, etc, you are essentially ensuring that all food (no matter the "quality") will at least be relatively healthy (compared to the same foods that are sold and marketed now).
You are also limiting food variety. Plus, there's the tyranny issue.
SilverMK2 wrote:
You can survive quite well on beans, rice and water and pay significantly less than eating out at McDonalds.
Sure, but having been to university and having lived on pasta for a number of years, it is neither healthy or fun.
Not healthy? Humans survived for centuries on essentially those two ingredients alone. Sure there was the occasional protein (available by eggs at $2/dozen), but those two ingredients alone will allow you to live a full life.
Now, if you want fun...well, that's a luxury good. Even if you accept that society has to provide necessities, you don't think that it should provide for "fun," do you?
SilverMK2 wrote:Sure, lowest income workers in the (early C20th/C19th?) could afford to grow strawberries, press them, make jam, etc, etc
Lowest income workers? No, probably not, at least, not for long. If there really was a high demand for strawberry jam they wouldn't be low income workers.
The costs of planting, growing, pressing and cooking strawberries to make jam are surprisingly cheap. The biggest difficulty is the time investment.
SilverMK2 wrote:I could go out tomorrow witht he intention of creating a healthy food company that produced ready meals with less salt, fat and sugar in them. Wouldn't get very far because I don't have the funds, knowledge or indeed much else beyond an idea
Your problem isn't the lack of knowledge, funds, or "much else," it's the lack of a drive to take the risk to create the healthy food company. Nothing wrong with that, a lot of people have good ideas that they either don't think will provide a valuable return on investment or they aren't willing to take the risk.
SilverMK2 wrote:Wait a minute! Damn the government! Who said they could control what we can and cannot put on labels?!?!
Now you're just being silly. There are legitimate objects of government (providing relief for injury or fraud) and illegitimate objects (controlling private actions).
agnosto wrote:They forgot to mention why the govt is doing this. Insurance industry special interest money.
Sorry to ask, but could you explain how severe restrictions on the food industry is something that fits the agenda of "Insurance industry special interest money"?
Insurance companies lobbying so that they have to pay less claims due to health related matters.
Seems like a long game for such a vicious industry to adopt.
I thought their main strategy to avoid paying out was simply to find some BS in the patient's past history and refuse to pay on that basis.
New health care law is doing away with that and preventing insurance companies from denying claims based on preexisting conditions. So if they want to pay less out, they're going to have to make people healthier....whether they like it or not.
agnosto wrote:They forgot to mention why the govt is doing this. Insurance industry special interest money.
Sorry to ask, but could you explain how severe restrictions on the food industry is something that fits the agenda of "Insurance industry special interest money"?
Insurance companies lobbying so that they have to pay less claims due to health related matters.
Seems like a long game for such a vicious industry to adopt.
I thought their main strategy to avoid paying out was simply to find some BS in the patient's past history and refuse to pay on that basis.
I didn't say I agreed. Just expanding the theory. I just put it down to nany state do gooderism. In the Obama administration, if its good enough for San Francisco, its good enough for the nation.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Of course, many who said mandates for government health care would soon be followed by govenment mandates for food. Looks lilke they were right, much more quickily than anticipated. But its ok. The same people who brought us government efficiency know whats best for us.
Frazzled wrote:I didn't say I agreed. Just expanding the theory. I just put it down to nany state do gooderism. In the Obama administration, if its good enough for San Francisco, its good enough for the nation.
Yeah, you don't need to look far. There're a plethora of reasons for extra babying; one of the biggest being that people in this country like to look to the govt to take care of them instead of working things out for themselves like our parents, grandparents, etc..
Can't think of the word "plethora" without thinking about this movie.
Frazzled wrote:I didn't say I agreed. Just expanding the theory. I just put it down to nany state do gooderism. In the Obama administration, if its good enough for San Francisco, its good enough for the nation.
I think you'd look great rollerblading along in a day-glo vest and short-shorts listening to a walkman. Wait... that was LA in the 80's...
Ah well, you would still look great!
I will reply to biccat's post this evening (if I remember and no one else does so ).
Frazzled wrote:I didn't say I agreed. Just expanding the theory. I just put it down to nany state do gooderism. In the Obama administration, if its good enough for San Francisco, its good enough for the nation.
I think you'd look great rollerblading along in a day-glo vest and short-shorts listening to a walkman. Wait... that was LA in the 80's...
Excellent. The DCM is mounting up for a counterinvasion of GW headquarters. I just found my uniform. Shock and Awe here I come!
agnosto wrote:Yeah, you don't need to look far. There're a plethora of reasons for extra babying; one of the biggest being that people in this country like to look to the govt to take care of them instead of working things out for themselves like our parents, grandparents, etc..
You realize the source for those stories of rugged individualism and can do attitude are being told you by your parents and grand parents. When was the last time they told you a story that started "Well I was a total cock up and did nothing very well"?
You can find people from that time period that would also argue that things would have been better if there had been more regulation and intervention such as this. It isn't as if there are new political ideas being talked about that weren't around before the great cereal wars of 2013. Ignore that last part. In short, the past was no where near that simple or uncomplicated. Politics was politics 100 years ago just as much as it is today. They just didn;t have the internet but what they did have was a lower life expectancy and more false teeth.
Do you feel that supply of medicine/pharmaceuticals should be strictly regulated? If the answer is yes then why should food be treated any differently?
agnosto wrote:Yeah, you don't need to look far. There're a plethora of reasons for extra babying; one of the biggest being that people in this country like to look to the govt to take care of them instead of working things out for themselves like our parents, grandparents, etc..
You realize the source for those stories of rugged individualism and can do attitude are being told you by your parents and grand parents. When was the last time they told you a story that started "Well I was a total cock up and did nothing very well"?
You can find people from that time period that would also argue that things would have been better if there had been more regulation and intervention such as this. It isn't as if there are new political ideas being talked about that weren't around before the great cereal wars of 2013. Ignore that last part. In short, the past was no where near that simple or uncomplicated. Politics was politics 100 years ago just as much as it is today. They just didn;t have the internet but what they did have was a lower life expectancy and more false teeth.
Back in the days when a "chicken in every pot" was literal. Much like everything, I take it all with a grain of salt but balance that with hearing the things my grandmother went through that I can't even imagine making it through. Riding in a covered wagon across a river? Surviving the dust bowl? No way, I complain about the hail damage on my house, they had to literally dig themselves out of theirs. They were called the "Greatest Generation" for a reason.
I used to work for social services and I really don't see my former clients bucking up and going out to scrabble in the dirt to try and feed their families. Too many people expect the govt to provide for their needs these days and then the few of us that actually pay taxes (and not get it all refunded due to credits and so on) complain. I just think it's too easy to blame the govt for the nanny-state that we're plummeting towards when in fact it's the people that deserve the blame.
lighterthief wrote:I have a question to all the anti-regulators...
Do you feel that supply of medicine/pharmaceuticals should be strictly regulated? If the answer is yes then why should food be treated any differently?
No.
And a question to the pro-regulators:
If you think that food should be strictly regulated, should exercise be strictly regulated? If not, why not?
biccat wrote:If you think that food should be strictly regulated, should exercise be strictly regulated? If not, why not?
I quite like the Japanese "worker health" plans/programs where companies pay for gym memberships, or have daily exercise routines for staff.
However, there is a difference between forcing people to exercise, and ensuring what they eat is as healthy as realistically possible. It is entirely feasible to replace the vast amount of unhealthy foods with healther equivalents without substantially changing the "food". For example sugar being replaced with stuff that is harder to break down (the name escapes me but it is essentially energy neutral for the body to process), adding less salt (probably the easiest thing to change and the least necessary addition), using different types of fat (or cutting out fat additives), etc.
It is kind of the same as ensuring that cars have crumple zones, or impact bars of a certain strength, or meet certain emmissions levels, etc. Doesn't really change anything in your day to day, but is a lot safer.
If the citizenry will not regulate themselves effectively, then, for their own good and more to the point, the good of society's future generations, actions should be taken by the state to ensure the good of the nation.
SilverMK2 wrote:However, there is a difference between forcing people to exercise, and ensuring what they eat is as healthy as realistically possible.
How is there a difference? And you haven't really answered the question.
SilverMK2 wrote:It is kind of the same as ensuring that cars have crumple zones, or impact bars of a certain strength, or meet certain emmissions levels, etc. Doesn't really change anything in your day to day, but is a lot safer.
It doesn't change anything in my day-to-day? Are you sure? Increasing regulation increases the price of goods and serves as a barrier to entry for new companies.
So my day-to-day life is affected because my car is more expensive.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:If the citizenry will not regulate themselves effectively, then, for their own good and more to the point, the good of society's future generations, actions should be taken by the state to ensure the good of the nation.
Who is going to regulate the citizenry effectively?
MeanGreenStompa wrote:So, grow up or we'll start parenting you.
Stronger state = stronger nation.
See, this is what I was saying about people preferring tyranny to freedom. Modern disagreement seems to be about who the tyrant should be.
lighterthief wrote:I have a question to all the anti-regulators...
Do you feel that supply of medicine/pharmaceuticals should be strictly regulated? If the answer is yes then why should food be treated any differently?
No.
And a question to the pro-regulators:
If you think that food should be strictly regulated, should exercise be strictly regulated? If not, why not?
Don't worry the antiobesity campaign will be made mandatory next year.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:If the citizenry will not regulate themselves effectively, then, for their own good and more to the point, the good of society's future generations, actions should be taken by the state to ensure the good of the nation.
So, grow up or we'll start parenting you.
Stronger state = stronger nation.
Sorry the US Constitution says its my body. Leave me the hell alone.
Saying that medicine should be left unregulated is one of the most ludicrous statements I have ever read. I guess we shouldn't regulate the banks either?
I mean really? Really? Jesus.
I believe that goverment has a duty to provide for sports- facilities , playing fields etc etc so that the populace has the oppertunity to engage in exercise activities. This is another example of putting health before profit. In a sense I do feel it should be regulated so that these facilities exist. In Britain we have a problem with playing feilds being sold off for housing development.
I obviously don't believe that you should or could force people to exercise like in 1984.
Regulating the food industry is not forcing people to eat healthily, you would still have the freedom to go get a big block of lard and eat it down. However it would certainly improve the overall health of the nation, reduce health care costs and tackle obesity. America does have an obesity problem.
The important point is that profit should not determine food policy for a civilised country.
Saying that medicine should be left unregulated is one of the most ludicrous statements I have ever read. I guess we shouldn't regulate the banks either?
I mean really? Really? Jesus.
Really. The free market is a better regulator for providing goods and services that people want than a government agency. It's not subject to graft, political favoritism or corruption. Companies that don't provide a good product or service go out of business.
lighterthief wrote:I believe that goverment has a duty to provide for sports- facilities , playing fields etc etc so that the populace has the oppertunity to engage in exercise activities. This is another example of putting health before profit.
Who pays for the sports facilities? Do you value them more than they cost, or more than the incremental cost to you? If so, why don't you go out and solicit donations from like-minded folks to pay for a sports facility?
If you don't value them as more than the incremental cost to you, who do you propose makes up the difference? If each share costs more than you are willing to pay, who has to pay for the loss? Why should those people have to take up the loss?
lighterthief wrote:In a sense I do feel it should be regulated so that these facilities exist. In Britain we have a problem with playing feilds being sold off for housing development.
So where should those people live?
lighterthief wrote:I obviously don't believe that you should or could force people to exercise like in 1984.
But why not. You think that the government can force a company to provide specific food. They can force people to pay for products they don't want. Why not force them to exercise?
lighterthief wrote:Regulating the food industry is not forcing people to eat healthily, you would still have the freedom to go get a big block of lard and eat it down. However it would certainly improve the overall health of the nation, reduce health care costs and tackle obesity. America does have an obesity problem.
The important point is that profit should not determine food policy for a civilised country.
I disagree. Profit means that you're providing a good to people that they value more than they are willing to pay for it. Profit is a good thing. If you are providing something at a loss, you're eventually going to lose to a company that can sell at a profit.
Saying that medicine should be left unregulated is one of the most ludicrous statements I have ever read. I guess we shouldn't regulate the banks either?
I mean really? Really? Jesus.
I believe that goverment has a duty to provide for sports- facilities , playing fields etc etc so that the populace has the oppertunity to engage in exercise activities. This is another example of putting health before profit. In a sense I do feel it should be regulated so that these facilities exist. In Britain we have a problem with playing feilds being sold off for housing development.
I obviously don't believe that you should or could force people to exercise like in 1984.
Regulating the food industry is not forcing people to eat healthily, you would still have the freedom to go get a big block of lard and eat it down. However it would certainly improve the overall health of the nation, reduce health care costs and tackle obesity. America does have an obesity problem.
The important point is that profit should not determine food policy for a civilised country.
How can you eat a big block of lard if lard is illegal?
What about barbeque?
What about Mexican food?
What about pizza?
What about popcorn?
What about sausage?
Whats about hotdogs (but I repeat myself)
What about whole milk?
What about steak?
What about potatoes?
Frazzled wrote:
How can you eat a big block of lard if lard is illegal?
What about barbeque?
What about Mexican food?
What about pizza?
What about popcorn?
What about sausage?
Whats about hotdogs (but I repeat myself) What about whole milk?
What about steak?
What about potatoes?
We're going to have to talk if you think hotdogs and sausage are the same thing. ick.
Frazzled wrote:
How can you eat a big block of lard if lard is illegal?
What about barbeque?
What about Mexican food?
What about pizza?
What about popcorn?
What about sausage?
Whats about hotdogs (but I repeat myself) What about whole milk?
What about steak?
What about potatoes?
They are actually. Now a good frankfurter indeed tastes like mild sausage.
We're going to have to talk if you think hotdogs and sausage are the same thing. ick.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:If the citizenry will not regulate themselves effectively, then, for their own good and more to the point, the good of society's future generations, actions should be taken by the state to ensure the good of the nation.
So by this logic, Big Brother should be paying down the amassed debt they have accumulated. Y'know, for the good of society's future generations and the good of the nation.
SilverMK2 wrote:Well, apparently many people can't or won't watch what they eat, so if you can ensure that whatever they throw into their maws (and the maws of their children) is much healthier then that is a good thing.
If people don't want to watch what they eat then they shouldn't be forced to eat healthy food.
What business is it of the government (or more specifically, other citizens) whether I eat healthy or unhealthy food?
See, I'd like to see this over here!
The NHS pays for big dirty fatties health treatments, so therefore. Matty has to pay for some guys stomach to be stapled, even though Matty didnt force him to eat cakes all night!
We should take a leaf out of Obama's book, and you guys who have private healthcare, should let them eat what the hell they want!
As a child, I was fat. It wasn't so much that I ate the wrong things, I just ate too much of it and exercised too little. Yes, I ate candies and lucky charms and the like too every once in a while, but not because of the pretty character on the box, it was because THE <CENSORED> TASTED GOOD.
As an adult, I am getting fat again because, well....it's "easier" to go get fast food when i'm not at home than it is to go all the way home, cook something that's actually decent for me, and eating it before rushing back out the door. Oh, and beer. Mmm.....Beer. (Which again, I don't go for because of the advertising. It tastes good and gets me drunk. If it didn't taste good and get me drunk, it wouldn't matter if they put a naked woman on the label, they would not get my money.) It's not a question of "Can not"...it would certainly be a lot cheaper. Even in CA and AK it's cheaper to eat stuff you prepare yourself, good or not.
In both of these cases, it is MY fault. I knew good and well what a "Healthy" meal consisted of, and I ate them frequently. Too frequently. But hey, it's easier for people now to kick and scream and shout "IT'S NOT MY FAULT! HELP ME!" than it is to own up to things and fix it. So people scream and kick like infants, and the government does what it thinks it should: Get more overbearing.
If you find yourself a fat american, and you are yelling about how those evil food companies MADE you fat, I want to see some video of someone being forcefed big macs until the fatness occurred. Because otherwise it's like a drunk driver blaming Jack Daniels for his car getting wrapped around a tree. Learn some restraint and meet me on the track.
Just because Lucky Charms are delicious doesn't mean kids should be eating them every morning for their "healthy breakfast".
I mean, unless we want more kids to have diabetes.
Plenty of parents are just too lazy or uninformed to care, I am terrified at times at the grocery store when I see what some of these parents are feeding their children.
It is their choice, but unless the kids are looking into what is healthy for them (which they won't) they need someone to make the decision for them. As an adult, you should obviously be in charge of what you should be eating to stay healthy, but its not like that is of much concern to a lot of 'Mericans.
daedalus-templarius wrote:Plenty of parents are just too lazy or uninformed to care, I am terrified at times at the grocery store when I see what some of these parents are feeding their children.
If you think the issue is as simple as all parents being lazy you haven't looked enough into the subject. There is a great deal of socio-economic factors at play when it comes to food options, not to mention politics.
Albatross wrote:Sometimes I think you people are all fething crazy.
I mean, seriously. Major corporations have got you literally eating out of the palms of their hands. Food producers spend billions targeting young kids with propaganda in order to convince them that they want these insanely unhealthy foods. The government tries to mitigate this by ensuring that the foods they sell maintain a bare minimum level of healthiness, and there are people who will get up in arms, decrying 'big brother'-style government, defending the multi-million dollar food giants.
Do you think these people give a gak about you, or something? They just want your money, and they will do anything to get it.
Albatross wrote:Sometimes I think you people are all fething crazy.
I mean, seriously. Major corporations have got you literally eating out of the palms of their hands. Food producers spend billions targeting young kids with propaganda in order to convince them that they want these insanely unhealthy foods. The government tries to mitigate this by ensuring that the foods they sell maintain a bare minimum level of healthiness, and there are people who will get up in arms, decrying 'big brother'-style government, defending the multi-million dollar food giants.
Do you think these people give a gak about you, or something? They just want your money, and they will do anything to get it.
You people are fething crazy.
This, exactly. Thank you for summing it up.
Companies can't force me to eat it. Big Mamma can.
Trying to see where the Founding Fathers had this in mind.
daedalus-templarius wrote:Plenty of parents are just too lazy or uninformed to care, I am terrified at times at the grocery store when I see what some of these parents are feeding their children.
If you think the issue is as simple as all parents being lazy you haven't looked enough into the subject. There is a great deal of socio-economic factors at play when it comes to food options, not to mention politics.
I'm not saying that's the only thing, but it is a part of the problem.
Another problem is that most healthy food options are more expensive, and garbage is cheap. A tiny box of like, Kashi Whole Wheat vs a giant box of Lucky Charms is pretty silly.
Frazzled wrote:
Companies can't force me to eat it. Big Mamma can.
Trying to see where the Founding Fathers had this in mind.
The founding fathers likely had their wives or slaves making them all of their meals, and we didn't have Chocolate Frosted Sugar Balls for breakfast back then.
daedalus-templarius wrote:Plenty of parents are just too lazy or uninformed to care, I am terrified at times at the grocery store when I see what some of these parents are feeding their children.
If you think the issue is as simple as all parents being lazy you haven't looked enough into the subject. There is a great deal of socio-economic factors at play when it comes to food options, not to mention politics.
I'm not saying that's the only thing, but it is a part of the problem.
Another problem is that most healthy food options are more expensive, and garbage is cheap. A tiny box of like, Kashi Whole Wheat vs a giant box of Lucky Charms is pretty silly.
Frazzled wrote:
Companies can't force me to eat it. Big Mamma can.
Trying to see where the Founding Fathers had this in mind.
The founding fathers likely had their wives or slaves making them all of their meals, and we didn't have Chocolate Frosted Sugar Balls for breakfast back then.
Not sure where you're seing this. We have 3 month of supplies at the Houston house for hurricane season (actualy one month but I figure on guest families). WE have enough rice and dried beans to kill a mule, and that was cheaper than dirt.
The simple fact of the matter is if you want Big Brother deciding what's good for you then you are giving up your basic freedom to choose.
A lot of people get freedom confused with lack of responsibility. Being free doesn't mean you get to do anything you want and then not suffer the consequences of your choices.
Sounds like some people want a Nanny more than they want to be free. No thanks.
While I agree with you that rice and dried beans are very cheap, that is not necessarily what I am referring to.
I should probably buy some in the event of disaster myself, however I doubt a family would want to eat that for breakfast, lunch, and dinner for very many days.
daedalus-templarius wrote:While I agree with you that rice and dried beans are very cheap, that is not necessarily what I am referring to.
I should probably buy some in the event of disaster myself, however I doubt a family would want to eat that for breakfast, lunch, and dinner for very many days.
It would be healthier. Under your ideal the family will be eating that, because its good for them. Aunt Samantha knows best...or else.
I don't think the government is any more or less evil than the Big Food Corporations. Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to tuck into this huge bowl of Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs so I can get diabeetus for the government to pay for in the future.
daedalus-templarius wrote:While I agree with you that rice and dried beans are very cheap, that is not necessarily what I am referring to.
I should probably buy some in the event of disaster myself, however I doubt a family would want to eat that for breakfast, lunch, and dinner for very many days.
It would be healthier. Under your ideal the family will be eating that, because its good for them. Aunt Samantha knows best...or else.
Not what I said.
Would I prefer most food wasn't massively processed and filled with garbage/preservatives/ingredients that you can't understand whilst reading the box? Yes.
I try not to eat things that have ingredients I don't understand on them; that's obviously not for everyone, but something like that might be a good start.
Lucky Charms
Whole Grain Oats (includes the Oat Bran)Marshmallow Bits (Sugar, Modified Corn Starch, Corn Syrup, Dextrose, Gelatin, Calcium Carbonate, Artificial Flavor, Yellow 5 & 6, Red 40, Blue 1, Methylcellulose, Sodium Lauryl Sulfate)Sugar, Corn Syrup, Corn Starch, Salt, Calcium Carbonate, Color Added, Trisodium Phosphate, Zinc and Iron (Mineral Nutrients)Vitamin C (Sodium Ascorbate)A B Vitamin (Niacinamide)Artificial Flavor, Vitamin B6 (Pyridoxine Hydrochloride)Vitamin B2 (Riboflavin)Vitamin B1 (Thiamin Mononitrate)Vitamin A (Palmitate)A B Vitamin (Folic Acid)Vitamin B12, Vitamin D, Wheat Starch, Vitamin E (Mixed Tocopherols) Added to Preserve Freshness.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:If the citizenry will not regulate themselves effectively, then, for their own good and more to the point, the good of society's future generations, actions should be taken by the state to ensure the good of the nation.
Who is going to regulate the citizenry effectively?
MeanGreenStompa wrote:So, grow up or we'll start parenting you.
Stronger state = stronger nation.
See, this is what I was saying about people preferring tyranny to freedom. Modern disagreement seems to be about who the tyrant should be.
I hear a lot of people in the US complaining about 'big gov'munt' and complaining about paying taxes.
Here's the thing, you either have an effective government, well funded, or you stop living in a first world nation. Thousands of tiny community based governance models across this continent sized nation will result in it's fracturing and continued decline.
The United States will only remain a power whilst it is United. It can only defend your individualism if it is allowed to be powerful.
daedalus-templarius wrote:While I agree with you that rice and dried beans are very cheap, that is not necessarily what I am referring to.
I should probably buy some in the event of disaster myself, however I doubt a family would want to eat that for breakfast, lunch, and dinner for very many days.
It would be healthier. Under your ideal the family will be eating that, because its good for them. Aunt Samantha knows best...or else.
Not what I said.
Would I prefer most food wasn't massively processed and filled with garbage/preservatives/ingredients that you can't understand whilst reading the box? Yes.
I try not to eat things that have ingredients I don't understand on them; that's obviously not for everyone, but something like that might be a good start.
Lucky Charms
Whole Grain Oats (includes the Oat Bran)Marshmallow Bits (Sugar, Modified Corn Starch, Corn Syrup, Dextrose, Gelatin, Calcium Carbonate, Artificial Flavor, Yellow 5 & 6, Red 40, Blue 1, Methylcellulose, Sodium Lauryl Sulfate)Sugar, Corn Syrup, Corn Starch, Salt, Calcium Carbonate, Color Added, Trisodium Phosphate, Zinc and Iron (Mineral Nutrients)Vitamin C (Sodium Ascorbate)A B Vitamin (Niacinamide)Artificial Flavor, Vitamin B6 (Pyridoxine Hydrochloride)Vitamin B2 (Riboflavin)Vitamin B1 (Thiamin Mononitrate)Vitamin A (Palmitate)A B Vitamin (Folic Acid)Vitamin B12, Vitamin D, Wheat Starch, Vitamin E (Mixed Tocopherols) Added to Preserve Freshness.
Bleh.
And you have the option of not eating it. Under Pappy Obama you don't have the option. You'll get told what options you can have.
Stalin would be proud.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Here's the thing, you either have an effective government, well funded, or you stop living in a first world nation. Thousands of tiny community based governance models across this continent sized nation will result in it's fracturing and continued decline.
The United States will only remain a power whilst it is United. It can only defend your individualism if it is allowed to be powerful.
Nonsense. We've gotten along with a bloated, incompetent government for 200 years and stride the world like a Colossus. Germany shifted to lower government spending and its economy is doing well. meanwhile Greece is in the crapper. Show me a lot of government and I'll show you crappy government.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
daedalus-templarius wrote:I don't think they are going to mandate a diet of rice and beans, Frazz.
Also, I would prefer children not be eating that stuff either; mine wouldn't obviously, but I don't want other kids gettin' the diabeetus either.
How do you know?
Or more correctly how do you know what diet herr Direcktor will have instore for us, once the lobbyists have fun? Once you give up your freedom, you give it up forever.
Yea, arguing with you is basically just like arguing with my dad. We never agree on anything, and its just a lot of wasted time.
Frazzled wrote:
How do you know?
Or more correctly how do you know what diet herr Direcktor will have instore for us, once the lobbyists have fun? Once you give up your freedom, you give it up forever.
A totally reasonable assumption. Everyone is out to get you and take away your freedom.
Nonsense. We've gotten along with a bloated, incompetent government for 200 years and stride the world like a Colossus. Germany shifted to lower government spending and its economy is doing well. meanwhile Greece is in the crapper. Show me a lot of government and I'll show you crappy government.
Nothing to do with the rest of the world being devastated after 2 world wars and our infrastructure was strengthened? I'll admit, this did make me laugh a bit.
Frazzled wrote:
And you have the option of not eating it. Under Pappy Obama you don't have the option. You'll get told what options you can have.
Stalin would be proud.
Should we abolish the laws on child abuse then?
Because someone feeding their child gak nonstop is abuse. It should be the parent's choice on how heavily they hit their children, given their freedom to parent, shouldn't it?
Consider this.
Whilst extreme, this is occurring on a lesser scale throughout the nation. The kids are getting fatter and their long term health is being directly affected.
Should parents be allowed to buy cigarettes for their children? Alcohol?
Whilst the Darwinian in me is cruelly smiling about the stupid killing their own off, I don't think we can shirk our responsibility to our society's children.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Here's the thing, you either have an effective government, well funded, or you stop living in a first world nation. Thousands of tiny community based governance models across this continent sized nation will result in it's fracturing and continued decline.
The United States will only remain a power whilst it is United. It can only defend your individualism if it is allowed to be powerful.
Nonsense. We've gotten along with a bloated, incompetent government for 200 years and stride the world like a Colossus. Germany shifted to lower government spending and its economy is doing well. meanwhile Greece is in the crapper. Show me a lot of government and I'll show you crappy government.
So, you've just said a big government has run the nation for 200 years and that's seen your nation become a super power and you actually believe that it was despite your form of government, not because or partially because of it?
nectarprime wrote:People who are so paranoid about "big government" make me laugh.
People who are paranoid about "big corporations" make me laugh.
Perhaps we have something in common.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:So, you've just said a big government has run the nation for 200 years and that's seen your nation become a super power and you actually believe that it was despite your form of government, not because or partially because of it?
I think he meant "without". The massive government bloat is pretty recent to the last 15-20 years.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:The United States will only remain a power whilst it is United. It can only defend your individualism if it is allowed to be powerful.
We were warned about this:
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." - Thomas Jefferson
I'm also reminded of another nation that rose to greatness:
It is the absolute right of the state to supervise the formation of public opinion. -Joseph Goebbels
daedalus-templarius wrote:Yea, arguing with you is basically just like arguing with my dad. We never agree on anything, and its just a lot of wasted time.
Excellent. Its only when you're older will you realize just how right your dad was.
nectarprime wrote:People who are so paranoid about "big government" make me laugh.
People who are paranoid about "big corporations" make me laugh.
So you think Walmart is run by a bunch of good guys who care about their employees, right?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
daedalus-templarius wrote:Yea, arguing with you is basically just like arguing with my dad. We never agree on anything, and its just a lot of wasted time.
Excellent. Its only when you're older will you realize just how right your dad was.
Actually I just realized he was old and out of touch :/
daedalus-templarius wrote:Yea, arguing with you is basically just like arguing with my dad. We never agree on anything, and its just a lot of wasted time.
Excellent. Its only when you're older will you realize just how right your dad was.
No, I'm almost as old as those guys in your video. I don't think I'll ever realize how right he is on his massive paranoia about everything. Its ok to be massively paranoid about the gubment stealing everything, but those corporations... they are certainly looking out for your best interests.
Actually I just realized he was old and out of touch :/
nectarprime wrote:People who are so paranoid about "big government" make me laugh.
Thats funny, because people who think the government is "here to help," make me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Here's the thing, you either have an effective government, well funded, or you stop living in a first world nation. Thousands of tiny community based governance models across this continent sized nation will result in it's fracturing and continued decline.
The United States will only remain a power whilst it is United. It can only defend your individualism if it is allowed to be powerful.
Nonsense. We've gotten along with a bloated, incompetent government for 200 years and stride the world like a Colossus. Germany shifted to lower government spending and its economy is doing well. meanwhile Greece is in the crapper. Show me a lot of government and I'll show you crappy government.
So, you've just said a big government has run the nation for 200 years and that's seen your nation become a super power and you actually believe that it was despite your form of government, not because or partially because of it?
Frazzled wrote:
And you have the option of not eating it. Under Pappy Obama you don't have the option. You'll get told what options you can have.
Stalin would be proud.
C'mon, you know darn well that this would have happened under Republican rule as well. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't already in the works under G.W. Just like the healthcare law all the conservatives are so worked up over incorporated most of the things they, themselves tried to push through back in the Clinton days.
A politician is a politician, all the branding does is give the nut-jobs on both sides a target for their ire and plausible deniability by both parties.
Dem: Don't look at me it was his fault.
Rep: Don't look at me it was his fault.
Big Business: Don't look at me, they're the ones that make the laws. [While stuffing money in both party's pockets].
We, as Americans are directly responsible for any shenanigans that our elected officials push on us. If more apathetic, barely literate wal-mart shoppers would get off of their collective arses and vote, we might have more government accountability and transparency. The problem is that we don't hold our elected officials to their word once they're elected.
Frazzled wrote:
And you have the option of not eating it. Under Pappy Obama you don't have the option. You'll get told what options you can have.
Stalin would be proud.
C'mon, you know darn well that this would have happened under Republican rule as well. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't already in the works under G.W. Just like the healthcare law all the conservatives are so worked up over incorporated most of the things they, themselves tried to push through back in the Clinton days.
A politician is a politician, all the branding does is give the nut-jobs on both sides a target for their ire and plausible deniability by both parties.
Dem: Don't look at me it was his fault.
Rep: Don't look at me it was his fault.
Big Business: Don't look at me, they're the ones that make the laws. [While stuffing money in both party's pockets].
We, as Americans are directly responsible for any shenanigans that our elected officials push on us. If more apathetic, barely literate wal-mart shoppers would get off of their collective arses and vote, we might have more government accountability and transparency. The problem is that we don't hold our elected officials to their word once they're elected.
But it didn't. It occurred under Barack "I know whats good for you" Obama. Whether it could have under a Repbulican administration is irrelevant. Its all about government trying to gain more power.
Fortunately for me, the best interest of the corporation happens to be providing the best products at the best price to increase their earnings.
Fortunately for me, the best interest of the food corporations happens to be processing their food with enough preservatives, add-ins, and extra garbage so it can withstand a nuclear attack and stay on a shelf as long as possible to be bought at as best price to increase their earnings; who cares about nutritional value.
Its unfortunate that serving a healthy product does not necessarily tie into maximizing profit.
TrollPie wrote:Everytime I see someone mention "the guv'ment takin' way mah free-dum", one of the kittens in my garden dies. Please think of the kittens.
biccat wrote:Fortunately for me, the best interest of the corporation happens to be providing the best products at the best price to increase their earnings.
Fortunately for me, the best interest of the food corporations happens to be processing their food with enough preservatives, add-ins, and extra garbage so it can withstand a nuclear attack and stay on a shelf as long as possible to be bought at as best price to increase their earnings; who cares about nutritional value.
No it's not. Their interest is in maximizing earnings, which (GW being the major exception here) is done by selling more stuff at a higher margin. They don't have an interest in "processing their foods with ... preservatives, add-ins, and extra garbage," they simply provide a good at a price customers demand.
If customers didn't want that product, the company would either change or go out of business.
I seem to recall General Mills putting a "made with whole grains" label on all of their boxes recently, including Lucky Charms. Do you think they did this out of the goodness of their hearts, or do you think that it was because customers were more likely to buy "whole grain" cereal than uh..."half grain" cereal (whatever).
Frazzled wrote:But it didn't. It occurred under Barack "I know whats good for you" Obama. Whether it could have under a Repbulican administration is irrelevant. Its all about government trying to gain more power.
So, you actually believe that one set of politicians is better than the other. They all have their party-line talk and they all do the same things when they think noone is looking.
*cough* ABSCAM *cough* and here's a nice article:
http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org/report
Note that they're all dirty, Dems and Reps alike.
Now, with a straight face, tell me that one party cares more for you and what you think than the other.
TrollPie wrote:Everytime I see someone mention "the guv'ment takin' way mah free-dum", one of the kittens in my garden dies. Please think of the kittens.
Billions of wiener dogs are suddenly wagging their tails. I've been told to remind everyone that KATZ R EVL!
TrollPie wrote:Everytime I see someone mention "the guv'ment takin' way mah free-dum", one of the kittens in my garden dies. Please think of the kittens.
biccat wrote:
No it's not. Their interest is in maximizing earnings, which (GW being the major exception here) is done by selling more stuff at a higher margin. They don't have an interest in "processing their foods with ... preservatives, add-ins, and extra garbage," they simply provide a good at a price customers demand.
If customers didn't want that product, the company would either change or go out of business.
I seem to recall General Mills putting a "made with whole grains" label on all of their boxes recently, including Lucky Charms. Do you think they did this out of the goodness of their hearts, or do you think that it was because customers were more likely to buy "whole grain" cereal than uh..."half grain" cereal (whatever).
Hopefully, as more consumers become aware of what is actually healthy, said corporations WILL actually change what they put into the food to make it more attractive to consumers.
I am certain they added "made with whole grains" to appeal to... people who are uninformed and will pick up a box based solely on the fact it might say "made with whole grains", so you are absolutely correct. Man, what a train of thought some mom would be having, thinking whats a healthy cereal I can buy for my kid, picking up the Lucky Charms box, and saying to herself 'oh, well this has whole grains, it must be good.'
Frazzled wrote:But it didn't. It occurred under Barack "I know whats good for you" Obama. Whether it could have under a Repbulican administration is irrelevant. Its all about government trying to gain more power.
So, you actually believe that one set of politicians is better than the other. They all have their party-line talk and they all do the same things when they think noone is looking.
*cough* ABSCAM *cough* and here's a nice article:
http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org/report
Note that they're all dirty, Dems and Reps alike.
Now, with a straight face, tell me that one party cares more for you and what you think than the other.
I'll restate the most important part: Its all about government trying to gain more power.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Here's the thing, you either have an effective government, well funded, or you stop living in a first world nation. Thousands of tiny community based governance models across this continent sized nation will result in it's fracturing and continued decline.
The United States will only remain a power whilst it is United. It can only defend your individualism if it is allowed to be powerful.
Nonsense. We've gotten along with a bloated, incompetent government for 200 years and stride the world like a Colossus. Germany shifted to lower government spending and its economy is doing well. meanwhile Greece is in the crapper. Show me a lot of government and I'll show you crappy government.
China. That is, if one is childish enough to equate 'good government' with world power.
Companies can't force me to eat it. Big Mamma can.
Trying to see where the Founding Fathers had this in mind.
I honestly find it difficult to believe that you are a grown adult sometimes....
How is this anything like the government directly deciding what you can and can't eat? People will still be able to eat their precious junk 'food' - in fact these proposals pretty much bank on it. People will still make crappy decisions, people will still be free to be crappy parents shovelling salt and sugar-laden garbage into their childrens faces as a way to alleviate the boredom brought on by rarely seeing parents who are out working 60-hour weeks for a fraction per-hour of what someone anywhere else in the developed world would earn doing a similar job. Your 'freedom' is intact. It's just that this 'freedom' will have less of a negative impact upon the people targeted by the aggressive marketing of food corporations, and less impact upon the US economy - fat people cost money, and you're ALL about saving that, right? Right.
All this is, is YOUR elected representatives telling large, wealthy, powerful entities that if they want to aggressively market their 'food' to children and young people, if they want their logos on school textbooks, their snack machines in schools, or even to be beamed onto the flatscreen babysitter, they need to get their act together and consider the health of their victims *ahem* consumers. Don't wanna do that? Fine, lose your right to propagandise to American children.
Hell, no-one's telling you that you can't add extra sugar and salt to your food, or even to your children's. That's on you, but 'pester power' is real, and is what motivates parents to by this crap for their children - that food companies should be compelled to lessen the harm that their products do is a good thing, given that they start brainwashing kids at an early age.
Of course. You've never heard of a man with a kitten garden before?
Frazzled wrote:
TrollPie wrote:Everytime I see someone mention "the guv'ment takin' way mah free-dum", one of the kittens in my garden dies. Please think of the kittens.
Billions of wiener dogs are suddenly wagging their tails. I've been told to remind everyone that KATZ R EVL!
What, these little bastards?
Yes, they are evil, and yes they are bastards, and yes your flattery will get you everywhere.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Here's the thing, you either have an effective government, well funded, or you stop living in a first world nation. Thousands of tiny community based governance models across this continent sized nation will result in it's fracturing and continued decline.
The United States will only remain a power whilst it is United. It can only defend your individualism if it is allowed to be powerful.
Nonsense. We've gotten along with a bloated, incompetent government for 200 years and stride the world like a Colossus. Germany shifted to lower government spending and its economy is doing well. meanwhile Greece is in the crapper. Show me a lot of government and I'll show you crappy government.
China. That is, if one is childish enough to equate 'good government' with world power.
You just said China is good government? Good to see you admire mass killers. Now I know where we stand.
Companies can't force me to eat it. Big Mamma can.
Trying to see where the Founding Fathers had this in mind.
I honestly find it difficult to believe that you are a grown adult sometimes....
How is this anything like the government directly deciding what you can and can't eat?
Its not that hard. Its simple math. You should try it.
If the government eliminates your choices its telling you what you can and can't eat.
daedalus-templarius wrote:Telling them to put less gak into the food is not them telling you that you are not allowed to eat it.
Corporations crying about not being able to market to children, unbelievable.
Or restaurants, or anything, to anyone. Which means they will change or die. Which means Mamma Obama will now decide what everyone gets to eat.
next up, federally mandated exercise programs.
daedalus-templarius wrote:Telling them to put less gak into the food is not them telling you that you are not allowed to eat it.
Corporations crying about not being able to market to children, unbelievable.
Or restaurants, or anything, to anyone. Which means they will change or die. Which means Mamma Obama will now decide what everyone gets to eat.
next up, federally mandated exercise programs.
Yep, need to get rid of those fatties.
I can see it now, a bunch of men and women, sweatin' to the oldies, and you smash through the door in a wiener dog suit, brandish a hunk of pancake batter & chocolate chip covered sausage roll above your head triumphantly, and shrilly howl "FREEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDDOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!", and eat it in one bite, only to grab another from the 10 you have stowed on your belt.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Here's the thing, you either have an effective government, well funded, or you stop living in a first world nation. Thousands of tiny community based governance models across this continent sized nation will result in it's fracturing and continued decline.
The United States will only remain a power whilst it is United. It can only defend your individualism if it is allowed to be powerful.
Nonsense. We've gotten along with a bloated, incompetent government for 200 years and stride the world like a Colossus. Germany shifted to lower government spending and its economy is doing well. meanwhile Greece is in the crapper. Show me a lot of government and I'll show you crappy government.
China. That is, if one is childish enough to equate 'good government' with world power.
You just said China is good government? Good to see you admire mass killers. Now I know where we stand.
Manchild, the implication of my statement was that if 'striding the world like a colossus' was the measure of good government, then China has good government - in fact, by those standards China will have better government than you guys within a decade or two...
Those are your standards, not mine.
Its not that hard. Its simple math. You should try it.
If the government eliminates your choices its telling you what you can and can't eat.
Telling a company what it can sell, in return for maintaining favourable circumstances in which it can trade is not the same thing. Governments do it all the time. Go and buy an RPG from your local store.
Frazzled wrote:Or restaurants, or anything, to anyone. Which means they will change or die. Which means Mamma Obama will now decide what everyone gets to eat.
next up, federally mandated exercise programs.
Does that mean they'll do away with IHOP. I swear I gain a pound everytime I drive past that stinking place and haven't eaten there in years. I'll be first in line to nuke it.
True story, they built one 20 feet away from the gym that I go to. Now that's evil.
nectarprime wrote:
I would vote for it. Not even joking.
Oh we're quite aware you're not joking. Thats what we're afraid of.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
agnosto wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Or restaurants, or anything, to anyone. Which means they will change or die. Which means Mamma Obama will now decide what everyone gets to eat.
next up, federally mandated exercise programs.
Does that mean they'll do away with IHOP. I swear I gain a pound everytime I drive past that stinking place and haven't eaten there in years. I'll be first in line to nuke it.
True story, they built one 20 feet away from the gym that I go to. Now that's evil.
nectarprime wrote:
I would vote for it. Not even joking.
Oh we're quite aware you're not joking. Thats what we're afraid of.
And I'm afraid of our country turning into a nation of overweight, ignorant, paranoid slobs. I guess you seem to be in favor of that. You watch Fox news don't you?
nectarprime wrote:
I would vote for it. Not even joking.
Oh we're quite aware you're not joking. Thats what we're afraid of.
And I'm afraid of our country turning into a nation of overweight, ignorant, paranoid slobs. I guess you seem to be in favor of that. You watch Fox news don't you?
I just want the right to make my own decisions, and not bow to some slobbering mouth breathing bureaucrat.
Take it this way, what if the government decides that, after consultation with the meat processing industry, lard is, in fact incredibly healthy, and mandates that all meats must be cooked in it? Is government the great savior then?
Frazzled wrote:Take it this way, what if the government decides that, after consultation with the meat processing industry, lard is, in fact incredibly healthy, and mandates that all meats must be cooked in it? Is government the great savior then?
What if the government decides that, after consultation with some nutcase, trepanning is in fact the best way to cure all disease and mandates that everyone has holes drilled into their heads every day (also helps facilitate insertion of all dem govment microchips!)?
I think this transcends strawman arguments.
Congratulations, from now on this shall be known as a wickerman argument
Frazzled wrote:Take it this way, what if the government decides that, after consultation with the meat processing industry, lard is, in fact incredibly healthy, and mandates that all meats must be cooked in it? Is government the great savior then?
What if the government decides that, after consultation with some nutcase, trepanning is in fact the best way to cure all disease and mandates that everyone has holes drilled into their heads every day (also helps facilitate insertion of all dem govment microchips!)?
I think this transcends strawman arguments.
Congratulations, from now on this shall be known as a wickerman argument
I literally laughed out loud, too funny.
I think it is good to make large multinational companies adhere to standards when targeting minors with products. My brother in law owned a store and has a candy bar box from the 30's or 40's that stated it was a healthy energy food. Checks and balances reduces this predatory behavior that only seeks to maximize profits while preying on impressionable youths or undereducated parents(undereducated on topics of diet and health.) There was a store selling "organic firewood" by my house. I was shocked to see it cost nearly 2x as much as other firewood. I was even more shocked that it actually sold some. By putting a popular catchphrase or name on a product that implies it is superior when it is not the companies are only thinking of lining their wallets, not improving the health of its consumers. But hey if you want to rid yourself of free radicals for a higher price or think that lucky charms is a healthy breakfast go ahead. There is plenty of history that shows companies fail to regulate themselves in the interest of consumers, Dow Chemical and just about any cigarette company jumps to mind.
How about we stop with the you dont agree with me so you must be dumber than i am arguments?
Personally i dont like this idea because it's being shown as a "suggestion" if they came out and said hey we are going to regulate you, I still wouldnt like it but would have less objection to it.
Frazzled wrote:
Good thing the Democrats protect personal freedom. When do the mandatory exercise programs start in front of the family government viewscreen?
Wait, whose personal freedom? The personal freedom of corporations to target the advertising for any particular type of food at children?
Again, it looks like Frazzled didn't read his own article.
biccat wrote:
If people don't want to watch what they eat then they shouldn't be forced to eat healthy food.
What business is it of the government (or more specifically, other citizens) whether I eat healthy or unhealthy food?
Wait who is forcing anyone to eat anything? This regulation only forces companies to hold to certain recipe standards if they want to market to kids. Its no different than trying to force insurance companies to strip abortion coverage out of standard health insurance.
biccat wrote:
Which could be possible, but it's not. If every company stuffs their products full of crap, then you should buy food that isn't full of crap. This will increase demand for non-crap food.
Your first sentence doesn't make sense. You cannot claim that something could be possible, and that it can't be possible.
If every company stuffs their food full of crap, then it would be impossible to buy food that was not full of crap. I agree that not all companies sell food that is full of "crap" (where crap is things like preservatives, sugar additives, artificial sweetener, pesticides etc.), but the widely available foods that are not full of "crap" are luxury items. So, it isn't as simple as saying "non-crap food is not available" but it also isn't as simple as "buy more non-crap food", matters of economics come into play for a variety of reasons.
Anyway, speaking in general, this thread has basically been dueling strawmen from the beginning
The Green Git wrote:
We were warned about this:
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." - Thomas Jefferson
That's an obnoxiously stupid quote: one of TJ's worst. If it is true, then even the revolution involved progress toward the end of liberty. It also posits that, because the natural progress of affairs includes human action, that there's nothing we can do to stop the phenomenon he suggests.
The Green Git wrote:
I'm also reminded of another nation that rose to greatness:
It is the absolute right of the state to supervise the formation of public opinion. -Joseph Goebbels
What does regulating what corporations can advertise to kids have to do with regulating public opinion? And, even if there is a connection, all states "supervise" the formation of public opinion. That's what rhetoric is, hell, its what you're using right now.
Are you under the impression that naming things "The War on Terror" of "The War on Drugs" are meant to be accurate, rather than colorful for the sake of attracting support?
Restricting advertising is a good thing. Just because something provides jobs doesn't mean that it's bad to see it go away or change (otherwise, bring on the prostitution if jobs are a moral ideal). The corporations are the predators here in the first place. I'm not a massive fan of regulation, but I'm less a fan of evil (objectively so) corporations. I don't think this plan is necessary if people would be smart enough to not poison themselves in the first place.
We have a government proposal to regulate food that is advertised to children. If it goes ahead companies can choose to continue making their products as they are, but market them to other demographics, or they can make their food healthier. This is a fairly dull step forward, in all respects. Despite how utterly boring this is, scores of people who love to be outraged have began sounding off about how bad is for government to tell you what you can and can't eat, pretending there's anything in the story that stops any company from selling any food they want to.
I'm beginning to get what really drives American politics. There is a large group of people who really don't have any interest in government or society, they just like being outraged, and pretending they live in a world where they are in some important ideological battle against big brother. Any story, no matter how tedious or run of the mill, that can possibly be used to sound off about big brother will be.
This thread is ridiculous, and all the people who have happily thrown reason out the window in order to be vaguely outraged about stuff should feel bad for having acted in such a silly way.
In other news, according to the industry group that sponsored the article Fraz linked to, food advertising to children represents about 50% of the US GDP. Who knew?
Frazzled wrote:It’s not just the food industry that will be impacted. Hundreds of television shows that depend on the advertising revenue, such as the Nickelodeon Channel, ESPN, and programs including "American Idol" will be affected, critics of the proposal say—at a cost of $5.8 trillion in marketing expenditures that support up to 20 million American jobs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:Really. The free market is a better regulator for providing goods and services that people want than a government agency. It's not subject to graft, political favoritism or corruption.
A real person actually said this. I mean, wow.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:And you have the option of not eating it. Under Pappy Obama you don't have the option. You'll get told what options you can have.
Stalin would be proud.
Except that's absolute fething nonsense that you've just made up for the sake of playing the fun game of being outraged and complaining about big brother.
The proposed regulation says a companies will have to improve the nutritional standards of their food or stop advertising them to children. That's all. So stop with the silliness.
sebster wrote:Despite how utterly boring this is, scores of people who love to be outraged have began sounding off about how bad is for government to tell you what you can and can't eat, pretending there's anything in the story that stops any company from selling any food they want to.
Not to mention that the government already regulates how food can be advertised via the standardization of quality labels regarding products like beef, pork, chicken. eggs, and produce.
sebster wrote:
biccat wrote:Really. The free market is a better regulator for providing goods and services that people want than a government agency. It's not subject to graft, political favoritism or corruption.
A real person actually said this. I mean, wow.
Yeah, I saw that too, but wasn't really sure how to respond other than shock, followed by the thought "moving on."
I mean, I'm willing to consider the argument that the free market is a better regulator for providing goods and services that people want, even though I don't consider it to be a universal truth. But the idea that it isn't subject to graft, political favoritism, or corruption? That's nonsense.
dogma wrote:Not to mention that the government already regulates how food can be advertised via the standardization of quality labels regarding products like beef, pork, chicken. eggs, and produce.
I'm telling you, the only thing that can explain the carry-on in this thread is that people have decided to ignore the actual, and utterly boring story, for a fantasy about them rallying against big government oppression.
The desire to be outraged is apparently greater than the desire to be sensible.
biccat wrote:Yeah, I saw that too, but wasn't really sure how to respond other than shock, followed by the thought "moving on."
I mean, I'm willing to consider the argument that the free market is a better regulator for providing goods and services that people want, even though I don't consider it to be a universal truth. But the idea that it isn't subject to graft, political favoritism, or corruption? That's nonsense.
Everytime I think about a way to respond, I realise there's another level of ridiculousness. I mean, we could start with the idea that no economic theory ever talks of this thing called the free market*. To add to the silliness, he's actually put government and the market in direct competition, as though one could exist without the other. And then on top of all that, he's given this free market the magical ability to deny basic human nature.
Three levels of ridiculousness. It's the turducken of stupid.
*They talk of perfect competition, a state that is only possible in rare situations, and then almost always as a result of government regulation. It's very different to the mishmash of political silliness you see attached to this very vague idea of a free market.
biccat wrote:They can do anything they want to get at my money. But there's one very important and salient fact that you're missing: I don't have to give it to them.
What about in a market where every pretty much ever food company stuffs thier products full of crap? Where avoiding foods which contain it means you need to go to extreme lengths, or huge expense? A market where those who are most likely to buy rubbish food and therefore be the most at risk from crap in foods are those least able, informed or inclined about seeking out "better" alternatives?
Over-generalizations are great and super accurate for making statements.
biccat wrote:They can do anything they want to get at my money. But there's one very important and salient fact that you're missing: I don't have to give it to them.
What about in a market where every pretty much ever food company stuffs thier products full of crap? Where avoiding foods which contain it means you need to go to extreme lengths, or huge expense? A market where those who are most likely to buy rubbish food and therefore be the most at risk from crap in foods are those least able, informed or inclined about seeking out "better" alternatives?
Over-generalizations are great and super accurate for making statements.
Frazzled wrote:Take it this way, what if the government decides that, after consultation with the meat processing industry, lard is, in fact incredibly healthy, and mandates that all meats must be cooked in it? Is government the great savior then?
What if the government decides that, after consultation with some nutcase, trepanning is in fact the best way to cure all disease and mandates that everyone has holes drilled into their heads every day (also helps facilitate insertion of all dem govment microchips!)?
I think this transcends strawman arguments.
Congratulations, from now on this shall be known as a wickerman argument
Not quite. Ignorance of history seems to be your forte.
The government at various times has treated dissent as a mental illness (USSR, Cuba), criminal offense replete with involuntary organ donation (China), or genetic defect (Nazi Germany). The government has, in the past also thought it perfectly acceptible to deny Syphilis and other treatements to see what the long term effects would be on people, and tested aeroliozed small pox dropped via the air to test the impact on a city population (both USA).
Remember, just because the government tilts your way this year doesn't mean the government won't tilt against you next year. How's your government then?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
voryn15 wrote:How about we stop with the you dont agree with me so you must be dumber than i am arguments?
Personally i dont like this idea because it's being shown as a "suggestion" if they came out and said hey we are going to regulate you, I still wouldnt like it but would have less objection to it.
When the US government makes a suggestion, industries comply lest it become mandatory. this is time honored tradition.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:Barack "Hussein" Obama is putting flouride in your drinking water to sterilize your testicles.
Frazzled wrote:
Not quite. Ignorance of history seems to be your forte.
The government at various times has treated dissent as a mental illness (USSR, Cuba), criminal offense replete with involuntary organ donation (China), or genetic defect (Nazi Germany). The government has, in the past also thought it perfectly acceptible to deny Syphilis and other treatements to see what the long term effects would be on people, and tested aeroliozed small pox dropped via the air to test the impact on a city population (both USA).
Yes, this is very similar. It's almost exactly the same. The literally hardly any difference at all between those things and the situation described in the OP. It's all so much clearer now - you should hate and fear your government because today it's less salt in potato chips, tomorrow the gas chamber.
You're a revolutionary genius. Do you take financial donations, or would you rather just feth my sister?
Frazzled wrote: Not quite. Ignorance of history seems to be your forte. The government at various times has treated dissent as a mental illness (USSR, Cuba), criminal offense replete with involuntary organ donation (China), or genetic defect (Nazi Germany). The government has, in the past also thought it perfectly acceptible to deny Syphilis and other treatements to see what the long term effects would be on people, and tested aeroliozed small pox dropped via the air to test the impact on a city population (both USA).
Remember, just because the government tilts your way this year doesn't mean the government won't tilt against you next year. How's your government then?
The free market at various times has let people burn to death(triangle fire) dismember small children(child labor) fed us rat meat and allowed people to fall into the grinders(see the jungle) sold us snake oil etc. etc.
Remember, just because the free market tilts your way this year doesn't mean the free market won't tilt against you next year. How's your free market then?
biccat wrote:Really. The free market is a better regulator for providing goods and services that people want than a government agency. It's not subject to graft, political favoritism or corruption.
A real person actually said this. I mean, wow.
Yeah, I saw that too, but wasn't really sure how to respond other than shock, followed by the thought "moving on."
I like how both of you read the quote and refused to refute it, despite your obviously looming intellects.
The government is a poor regulator compared to a free market. Seriously.
dogma wrote:I mean, I'm willing to consider the argument that the free market is a better regulator for providing goods and services that people want, even though I don't consider it to be a universal truth. But the idea that it isn't subject to graft, political favoritism, or corruption? That's nonsense.
It's not nonsense, because absent incentives to engage in those activities, they don't occur. It's the government that creates incentives to lie and cheat the public, not free markets.
But I'm not even sure why I'm responding to you, since your post is actually devoid of substantive content. As usual.
biccat wrote:Really. The free market is a better regulator for providing goods and services that people want than a government agency. It's not subject to graft, political favoritism or corruption.
A real person actually said this. I mean, wow.
Yeah, I saw that too, but wasn't really sure how to respond other than shock, followed by the thought "moving on."
I like how both of you read the quote and refused to refute it, despite your obviously looming intellects.
The government is a poor regulator compared to a free market. Seriously.
dogma wrote:I mean, I'm willing to consider the argument that the free market is a better regulator for providing goods and services that people want, even though I don't consider it to be a universal truth. But the idea that it isn't subject to graft, political favoritism, or corruption? That's nonsense.
It's not nonsense, because absent incentives to engage in those activities, they don't occur. It's the government that creates incentives to lie and cheat the public, not free markets.
But I'm not even sure why I'm responding to you, since your post is actually devoid of substantive content. As usual.
You are a lawyer correct, if so then surely you must have studied all those multibillion dollar cases against drug companies when a product causes irreparable harm. How exactly does the free market prevent a lethal drug from entering the market, hell how does it prevent a placebo from entering the market. Your argument is bs and you know, there are thing that governments are good for and things they are not good for, regulating the drug market is one of those good things.
The free market regulates itself? This is almost as ludicrous a statement as saying we should not regulate the medicine market.
I have some snake oil for sale, it will cure all your ills.
If you just allow money and profit to be your guiding light you are left with a world where everyone is screwing each other (we arn't far from this anyway). You are basically consigning a portion of the populace to destitution. But as long as it isn't you eh biccat?
What a horrible future if the only things that are viewed worthwhile are those which are profitable. What a soulless existence.
I think the best point was made earlier, you guys are fething crazy.
..well... what an amazing and unexpected turn this thread has taken.
I'm sure we're all shocked. Shocked and awed.
And perhaps vindicated.
Still worry not denizens of the OT board ! Rest assured that another similar thread will be along, much, much sooner than any of us can believe. Then we can, once again, rest assured as the diabolical plans of the 3rd Reich are revealed in all their glory, as Hitler's long held dream of a Black Muslim forcing the general population of America to not get hideously obese and die comes to fruition.
Future generations shall look back and weep at our folly and the perfidy and baseness of our lives, nay, our very souls.
Buy my soda!" said the Moose Diarrhea Salesman. And we did. We all did. But when we got it home and opened up the package, it was not what they said it was. And rather than chucking it all and searching for something better, we're content with looking for another Moose Diarrhea Salesman.
-ing Conservative. You used the wrong noun there. 
\