Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

generalgrog wrote:So to the people complaining about this law. If the states will just sit there and do nothing about this issue, (and assuming that this law is indeed unconstitutional) what would be the constitutional way of getting this accomplished?

Gentle encouragement?

That didn't work to well during the civil rights era? The southern states thought they were perfectly within their rights to deny equal rights to blacks.

GG

I'd foam at the mouth but I don't want to suspend myself again. Edit wait I thought you were the Beck supporter. How can you be a Beck supporter and make such a statement?

People who like Glen Beck don't understand their own opinions. It makes perfect sense when you look at it.

Thats a trolling statement. You give situational awareness to that.

It was not until I stopped all that that I put on the weight. Well after school. If your active you can eat sugar in large quanities and not put on massive weight.

Significant sugar intake during puberty and early childhood development is being linked to several mental ailments, and has been directly linked (along with sleep deprivation) to depression and a few other social maladies. Dietary issues have always been known to be linked to mental wellbeing though. Proper exercize and lifestyle can overcome it, keep in mind though, the declining amount of exercise modern youths receive is also a major issue with the childhood obesity epidemic.

Is the government doing nothing, better than doing something simply because it could questionably be overstepping bounds? Is it worth the inaction for the symptom to continue simply to make government functionality prettier in liu of a questionably relevant document thats already being skirted in much bigger and more damaging ways?

generalgrog wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

generalgrog wrote:Frazz just PM me if you want, I'm genuinely interested in your opinion here.

By the way, I've voted for,
Bush-92,
Dole-96,
Bush-00,
Bush-04,
Mccain-08.

My voting record is hardly liberal.

GG

Why do you think people care about your voting record?

Well because Frazz appeared to be getting upset about my points, and he said something about not being able to vote.

GG

Yes that was my bad and I rtracted it as it was uncalled for. Here's a hint people. If you say something stupid-edit it.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

generalgrog wrote:So to the people complaining about this law. If the states will just sit there and do nothing about this issue, (and assuming that this law is indeed unconstitutional) what would be the constitutional way of getting this accomplished?

Gentle encouragement?

That didn't work to well during the civil rights era? The southern states thought they were perfectly within their rights to deny equal rights to blacks.

GG

I'd foam at the mouth but I don't want to suspend myself again. Edit wait I thought you were the Beck supporter. How can you be a Beck supporter and make such a statement?

People who like Glen Beck don't understand their own opinions. It makes perfect sense when you look at it.

Thats a trolling statement. You give situational awareness to that.

I don't think I understand what that means.

dreadlord wrote:
Not people, Frazzled. There's a difference.

People


Frazzled

Frazzled wrote:

dreadlord wrote:
Not people, Frazzled. There's a difference.

People


Frazzled

ShumaGorath wrote:

It was not until I stopped all that that I put on the weight. Well after school. If your active you can eat sugar in large quanities and not put on massive weight.

Significant sugar intake during puberty and early childhood development is being linked to several mental ailments, and has been directly linked (along with sleep deprivation) to depression and a few other social maladies. Dietary issues have always been known to be linked to mental wellbeing though. Proper exercize and lifestyle can overcome it, keep in mind though, the declining amount of exercise modern youths receive is also a major issue with the childhood obesity epidemic.

Is the government doing nothing, better than doing something simply because it could questionably be overstepping bounds? Is it worth the inaction for the symptom to continue simply to make government functionality prettier in liu of a questionably relevant document thats already being skirted in much bigger and more damaging ways?

So instead of blaming the schools lets blame World of Warcraft.. and oo ya LAZY PEOPLE!!!!!!!! In high school I did crew, I wrestled, I was in theater the band, weight lifting I did a ton and stayed busy and oo ya I smoked!!! Sugar did little to deter my persona, also we teach our kids to work out and be physically fit but was shown that inpuberty if you do work out a lot it can stunt growth and cause other physical ailments....(see what I did their ) . The vending machiens are not to blame and it is not the Gov'ts job to regulate this. A lot of our problems comes from all the toxins we ingest from other foods, and not paying attention to what we eat. Be more proactive in school and less lazy and you won't be fat.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

generalgrog wrote:So to the people complaining about this law. If the states will just sit there and do nothing about this issue, (and assuming that this law is indeed unconstitutional) what would be the constitutional way of getting this accomplished?

Gentle encouragement?

That didn't work to well during the civil rights era? The southern states thought they were perfectly within their rights to deny equal rights to blacks.

GG

I'd foam at the mouth but I don't want to suspend myself again. Edit wait I thought you were the Beck supporter. How can you be a Beck supporter and make such a statement?

People who like Glen Beck don't understand their own opinions. It makes perfect sense when you look at it.

Thats a trolling statement. You give situational awareness to that.

I don't think I understand what that means.

It means you're trolling. Watch your ass.

ShumaGorath wrote: we wouldn't be in a war in Iraq, and social security wouldn't exist.

The Iraq war was voted on so it's not unconstitutional, and I have no problem getting rid of SS.

Also just because the government does one thing wrong does not give it permission to do more things wrong.

generalgrog wrote:Frazz just PM me if you want, I'm genuinely interested in your opinion here.

By the way, I've voted for,
Bush-92,
Dole-96,
Bush-00,
Bush-04,
Mccain-08.

My voting record is hardly liberal.

GG

Its my understanding Beck's Schtick is limited government (actually that government is out to get you). I blieve you're espousing government-and federal if OP is correct-control down to the smallest detail and equating that with the US Civil Rights movement. thats a Jump the shark moment (Wee I get two internet cookies for that analogy). Please reconcile this for moi por favor.

Frazzled wrote:

dreadlord wrote:
Not people, Frazzled. There's a difference.

People


Frazzled

Hey! what do you know..I have a T-shirt with Frazz on it..pretty sweet.
And speaking of sweets,I'm a bit confused as to where Glenn Beck or various "political leanings" have anything to do with the topic.

Empchild wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

It was not until I stopped all that that I put on the weight. Well after school. If your active you can eat sugar in large quanities and not put on massive weight.

Significant sugar intake during puberty and early childhood development is being linked to several mental ailments, and has been directly linked (along with sleep deprivation) to depression and a few other social maladies. Dietary issues have always been known to be linked to mental wellbeing though. Proper exercize and lifestyle can overcome it, keep in mind though, the declining amount of exercise modern youths receive is also a major issue with the childhood obesity epidemic.

Is the government doing nothing, better than doing something simply because it could questionably be overstepping bounds? Is it worth the inaction for the symptom to continue simply to make government functionality prettier in liu of a questionably relevant document thats already being skirted in much bigger and more damaging ways?

So instead of blaming the schools lets blame World of Warcraft.. and oo ya LAZY PEOPLE!!!!!!!! In high school I did crew, I wrestled, I was in theater the band, weight lifting I did a ton and stayed busy and oo ya I smoked!!! Sugar did little to deter my persona, also we teach our kids to work out and be physically fit but was shown that inpuberty if you do work out a lot it can stunt growth and cause other physical ailments....(see what I did their ) . The vending machiens are not to blame and it is not the Gov'ts job to regulate this. A lot of our problems comes from all the toxins we ingest from other foods, and not paying attention to what we eat. Be more proactive in school and less lazy and you won't be fat.

As soon as every child in America starts being you, you're personal anecdotes about how everything is ok will begin to be relevant. As it is, this is an issue, states seem ill prepared and unwilling to fix it, parents see ill prepared and unwilling to fix it, and it's the governments job to do what it's citizens can't when it is necessary.

Frazzled wrote:Its my understanding Beck's Schtick is limited government (actually that government is out to get you). I blieve you're espousing government-and federal if OP is correct-control down to the smallest detail and equating that with the US Civil Rights movement. thats a Jump the shark moment (Wee I get two internet cookies for that analogy). Please reconcile this for moi por favor.

I used to listen to Beck on the radio all the time, before he went off the deep end. I only occasionally watch his show. Like once a month....max.

Anyway... I just don't see making a good faith effort to improve the health of school kids, that attend government financed schools as "control down to the smallest detail". I just think you're over reacting a bit. It's not like they are making the kids eat soylent green on mondays and soylent yellow on tuesdays.

The civil rights comment was using that issue as an analogy, for the federal govt taking charge, when the states weren't.

GG

ShumaGorath wrote:

As soon as every child in America starts being you, you're personal anecdotes about how everything is ok will begin to be relevant. As it is, this is an issue, states seem ill prepared and unwilling to fix it, parents see ill prepared and unwilling to fix it, and it's the governments job to do what it's citizens can't when it is necessary.

Are you really trying to head down that road on this one? No were did I say HEY YOU ARE ALL LIKE ME.. nope I said place the blame were it belongs and fix it. It is not the Gov'ts job especially in this recession to regulate what we eat. The gov't is not your nanny they are a controling body placed their for larger decission such as global economics. If parents won't fix it then thats their choice. Last I looked children are for the better part property until the age of 18 yep I said it property. The parent is responcible to guide and raise them how they see fit, and now adays if a kid breaks the law a parent can be held accountable for it with them so why not do so for this too.

Bad analogy I wouldn't go there. proportionality is akin to godwin's law.

Again I have to bifurcate. Fed stating this-no way.
Local or state saying this-yea WTF are there vending machines there in the first place? I had to crap everyone else should have to eat crap too. You want a drink bring it.

Empchild wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

As soon as every child in America starts being you, you're personal anecdotes about how everything is ok will begin to be relevant. As it is, this is an issue, states seem ill prepared and unwilling to fix it, parents see ill prepared and unwilling to fix it, and it's the governments job to do what it's citizens can't when it is necessary.

Are you really trying to head down that road on this one? No were did I say HEY YOU ARE ALL LIKE ME.. nope I said place the blame were it belongs and fix it. It is not the Gov'ts job especially in this recession to regulate what we eat. The gov't is not your nanny they are a controling body placed their for larger decission such as global economics. If parents won't fix it then thats their choice. Last I looked children are for the better part property until the age of 18 yep I said it property. The parent is responcible to guide and raise them how they see fit, and now adays if a kid breaks the law a parent can be held accountable for it with them so why not do so for this too.

+1 for parental responsiblity.

I see nothing benificial in allowing Gvt,to make even more decisions for the public.

jbunny wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote: we wouldn't be in a war in Iraq, and social security wouldn't exist.

The Iraq war was voted on so it's not unconstitutional, and I have no problem getting rid of SS.

Also just because the government does one thing wrong does not give it permission to do more things wrong.

You're right, I meant to say Afghanistan. My bad, slip of the tongue there. It's funny how the better regarded war is the less legal one.

ShumaGorath wrote:

jbunny wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote: we wouldn't be in a war in Iraq, and social security wouldn't exist.

The Iraq war was voted on so it's not unconstitutional, and I have no problem getting rid of SS.

Also just because the government does one thing wrong does not give it permission to do more things wrong.

You're right, I meant to say Afghanistan. My bad, slip of the tongue there. It's funny how the better regarded war is the less legal one.

sighs....should I reply to this...should I ummm ya. WAR IS NEITHER LEGAL NOR ILLEGAL when it comes down to it. All our conflicts fall under the "War on Terrorism" ergo they are deemed "legal" to many whether you like it or not. Also who cares as soldiers are dieing and all we can say is LEGALALITY COME ON>>>>> now back to subject please!!

Frazzled wrote:

dreadlord wrote:
Not people, Frazzled. There's a difference.

People


Frazzled

That made me laugh out loud Frazz, and despite the many lols that get thrown around that doesnt happen very often. Thanks mate.

The honor, is to serve.
What you don't like my school swim team pic? We always won (because if we didn't we'd just eat the other team).

WAR IS NEITHER LEGAL NOR ILLEGAL when it comes down to it.

Actually, the U.S. has a legal framework for the declaration of war. By our own laws there is both such a thing as a legal and illegal war.

All our conflicts fall under the "War on Terrorism" ergo they are deemed "legal" to many whether you like it or not.

No, just the war in afghanistan, and strikes within pakistan. Most other forms of militaristic intervention we are involved in are classified as multinational police operations (such as the war on drugs) or standard wars (Iraq). Whether I like it or not has no bearing, all that matters is the reality.

Also who cares as soldiers are dieing and all we can say is LEGALALITY COME ON

I don't remember bringing that up, do you? And here I thought this thread was all about unconstitutional abuses of power.

now back to subject please!!

Thats entirely up to you.

Sorry im lost again where were we?

Are sweets banned from illegal War schools in Iraq wasnt it?

Its amusing how the government wants to ban candy, yet gladly allows the sale of cigarettes and alcohol. Worried about fat kids? Why not worry about the millions of people who die a year from alcohol & tobacco related illnesses.

mattyrm wrote:Sorry im lost again where were we?

Are sweets banned from illegal War schools in Iraq wasnt it?

shuma and another ran the thread of in a new direction. Not suprised but is the nature of the beast.

The War on Sugar.

Or something.

What I do know, and no offence intended here, come the next election I'm going to ask Mr. GG who he's going to vote for and then put money on the other guy to win. Statistically I'll be quids in.

Its amusing how the government wants to ban candy, yet gladly allows the sale of cigarettes and alcohol. Worried about fat kids? Why not worry about the millions of people who die a year from alcohol & tobacco related illnesses.

Alcohol and Tobacco aren't sold in schools, and they aren't banning the sale of candy. The comparison is pretty irrelevant.

Empchild wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Sorry im lost again where were we?

Are sweets banned from illegal War schools in Iraq wasnt it?

shuma and another ran the thread of in a new direction. Not suprised but is the nature of the beast.

I drew a parallel to much bigger, and better accepted breaches in the constitution in a thread where we were talking about the methodology of breaches in the constitution. You're the one that decided to hit caps lock and turn it into an argument.

reds8n wrote:The War on Sugar.

Or something.

What I do know, and no offence intended here, come the next election I'm going to ask Mr. GG who he's going to vote for and then put money on the other guy to win. Statistically I'll be quids in.

Actuall he is 3-2 over the past 5 elections, hardly even money on either side.

InfernalMajesty wrote:Its amusing how the government wants to ban candy, yet gladly allows the sale of cigarettes and alcohol. Worried about fat kids? Why not worry about the millions of people who die a year from alcohol & tobacco related illnesses.

I agree and disagree with you here. The big difference being adults vs. children. If an adult of (legally) sound mind wants to do something that doesn't harm anyone but themselves... sure, go ahead, why not? Now we can argue about alcohol and drunk driving but when it comes down to it, drunk driving is illegal but drinking is not. Children on the other hand... well I think it was said earlier in this thread that they have little to no self control. When a child eats junk food there is no thought or consideration given to health. Some kids probably don't even know it's bad for them. We have warnings on cigarettes to inform adults that they are bad for their health. We don't have warnings on candy to inform children it's bad for their health.

Bureaucracy: Let's just assume everyone is stupid just to cover all our asses.

dreadlord wrote:

InfernalMajesty wrote:Its amusing how the government wants to ban candy, yet gladly allows the sale of cigarettes and alcohol. Worried about fat kids? Why not worry about the millions of people who die a year from alcohol & tobacco related illnesses.

I agree and disagree with you here. The big difference being adults vs. children. If an adult of (legally) sound mind wants to do something that doesn't harm anyone but themselves... sure, go ahead, why not? Now we can argue about alcohol and drunk driving but when it comes down to it, drunk driving is illegal but drinking is not. Children on the other hand... well I think it was said earlier in this thread that they have little to no self control. When a child eats junk food there is no thought or consideration given to health. Some kids probably don't even know it's bad for them. We have warnings on cigarettes to inform adults that they are bad for their health. We don't have warnings on candy to inform children it's bad for their health.

Bureaucracy: Let's just assume everyone is stupid just to cover all our asses.

So why not just put warnings on it and do as we do with cigarettes and not allow media braodcasting of candy.

Empchild wrote:

dreadlord wrote:

InfernalMajesty wrote:Its amusing how the government wants to ban candy, yet gladly allows the sale of cigarettes and alcohol. Worried about fat kids? Why not worry about the millions of people who die a year from alcohol & tobacco related illnesses.

I agree and disagree with you here. The big difference being adults vs. children. If an adult of (legally) sound mind wants to do something that doesn't harm anyone but themselves... sure, go ahead, why not? Now we can argue about alcohol and drunk driving but when it comes down to it, drunk driving is illegal but drinking is not. Children on the other hand... well I think it was said earlier in this thread that they have little to no self control. When a child eats junk food there is no thought or consideration given to health. Some kids probably don't even know it's bad for them. We have warnings on cigarettes to inform adults that they are bad for their health. We don't have warnings on candy to inform children it's bad for their health.

Bureaucracy: Let's just assume everyone is stupid just to cover all our asses.

So why not just put warnings on it and do as we do with cigarettes and not allow media braodcasting of candy.

Not sure. Maybe no one thinks children will bother to read warnings on candy? Hell, adults rarely read warnings on cigarettes and alcohol. I'm not saying it's the answer to the problem... just that it is an interesting correlation.