ToadBrother Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 It is state intrusion. The real question is if it is unwarranted or excessive. Since when is the First Lady part of the State? Quote
Shady Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 Yeah, just like anti-drug or cigarette messages worked fine on their own without any sort of legislative teeth behind them, right? If you're comparing cigarettes to food, then there really isn't any point of continuing the conversation. You're the typical nanny-state busybody that feels the need to get involved with people's everyday lives. But what's worse, is that you feel the need to get big brother involved as well. I say keep the government out of our bedrooms, and our kitchens. Or, as long as I'm not breaking the law, is the notion of liberty and freedom a thing of the past? Quote
Jack Weber Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) I would agree... but he gets to vote here. Yeah...But so do alot of kooks... With his public self absorption on full display with his self appointed "Poster of the Year" awards,I'm hoping he votes for himself... Sorry..Most Outstanding Poster Award... . Essentially nullifying himself... Edited February 24, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Shady Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 Since when is the First Lady part of the State? When they get involved in promoting legislation. Like the recently passed $4.5 billion dollar Child Nutrition act. Conveniently names, because who could be against child nutrition? Won't somebody think of the children! Quote
Shakeyhands Posted February 24, 2011 Author Report Posted February 24, 2011 If you're comparing cigarettes to food, then there really isn't any point of continuing the conversation. You're the typical nanny-state busybody that feels the need to get involved with people's everyday lives. But what's worse, is that you feel the need to get big brother involved as well. I say keep the government out of our bedrooms, and our kitchens. Or, as long as I'm not breaking the law, is the notion of liberty and freedom a thing of the past? Shady, there really isn't too much difference in the smokes vs food, both contain things that taken in excess can kill you. The Star ( I know, I know..) recently did a series called "The Dish". I challenge you to look at the amounts of fat, salt etc.. that you wouldn't have known that you were consuming. Part of M.O's goal is to have restaurants have to reveal this. It would making healthy eating choices a hell of a lot easier. Take a look. Chicken Wings Spicy Salami worse than Big Mac Movie Popcorn has fat of 12 burgers Jeebus, if I knew this sort of thing, I wouldn't look like this!!!!!!!!! There is nothing evil, wrong, or nefarious in anything she is promoting. Hell, if the CPC made this a platform plank I'd even consider voting for them! Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Jack Weber Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 Shady, there really isn't too much difference in the smokes vs food, both contain things that taken in excess can kill you. The Star ( I know, I know..) recently did a series called "The Dish". I challenge you to look at the amounts of fat, salt etc.. that you wouldn't have known that you were consuming. Part of M.O's goal is to have restaurants have to reveal this. It would making healthy eating choices a hell of a lot easier. Take a look. Chicken Wings Spicy Salami worse than Big Mac Movie Popcorn has fat of 12 burgers Jeebus, if I knew this sort of thing, I wouldn't look like this!!!!!!!!! There is nothing evil, wrong, or nefarious in anything she is promoting. Hell, if the CPC made this a platform plank I'd even consider voting for them! Stop being a Socialist/Communist/Leftist... It's all about "The Freedom"!!!!! Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Black Dog Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 If you're comparing cigarettes to food, then there really isn't any point of continuing the conversation. I'm comparing the food industry with the cigarette industry, but I'll be the first to admit that comparison might be a bit unfair...to Big Tobbaco. You're the typical nanny-state busybody that feels the need to get involved with people's everyday lives. Yeah, because a Big Mac is a basic human right. But what's worse, is that you feel the need to get big brother involved as well. I say keep the government out of our bedrooms, and our kitchens. But get them in our uteruses, right? Or, as long as I'm not breaking the law, is the notion of liberty and freedom a thing of the past? I'll ask again since your selective quoting device redacted the bulk of my previous post: what specific measures is Obama promoting do you have an issue with and why? Quote
Shady Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 Yeah, because a Big Mac is a basic human right. We're not talking about human rights. We're talking about rights granted under the US constitution. You know, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I'm still trying to figure out where the first lady gets her authority to tell private businesses what they can and cannot serve. But get them in our uteruses, right? No, not really. I'll ask again since your selective quoting device redacted the bulk of my previous post: what specific measures is Obama promoting do you have an issue with and why? I have issue with her intrusion in people's private businesses. Her insistence on telling restaurants what and how they should serve their customers, and why type of products they should offer. It's fine to promote the knowledge and information of healthy food via public service announcements and speaking engagements. But her micromanaging and intrusion into people's private lives is in my opinion, out of bounds. Of course, she doesn't mind ordering and eating ribs and burgers for herself. Apparently she just wants everyone else not to. Quote
Shakeyhands Posted February 24, 2011 Author Report Posted February 24, 2011 We're not talking about human rights. We're talking about rights granted under the US constitution. You know, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I'm still trying to figure out where the first lady gets her authority to tell private businesses what they can and cannot serve. No, not really. I have issue with her intrusion in people's private businesses. Her insistence on telling restaurants what and how they should serve their customers, and why type of products they should offer. It's fine to promote the knowledge and information of healthy food via public service announcements and speaking engagements. But her micromanaging and intrusion into people's private lives is in my opinion, out of bounds. Of course, she doesn't mind ordering and eating ribs and burgers for herself. Apparently she just wants everyone else not to. She's talking about no such thing. Look at it this way... She wants people to have the FREEDOM of knowing what they are putting in their bodies. Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Jack Weber Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) She's talking about no such thing. Look at it this way... She wants people to have the FREEDOM of knowing what they are putting in their bodies. Monsanto and ADM just called.. They said,"We'll decide what goes in your bodies!!! Let the free market reign!!!!! Edited February 24, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
GWiz Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 I would agree... but he gets to vote here. VOTE? What vote? Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Shakeyhands Posted February 24, 2011 Author Report Posted February 24, 2011 Monsanto and ADM just called.. They said,"We'll decide what goes in your bodies!!! Let the free market reign!!!!! My bad... and Michelles. Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
BubberMiley Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) I have issue with her intrusion in people's private businesses. Her insistence on telling restaurants what and how they should serve their customers, and why type of products they should offer. It's fine to promote the knowledge and information of healthy food via public service announcements and speaking engagements. But her micromanaging and intrusion into people's private lives is in my opinion, out of bounds. That's not specific. How was she using the state to force restaurants to do anything? In reality, they had a photo-op where she could get her message out that people should eat healthy. The business people got a chance to meet with the first lady and get their picture taken and get free publicity and act like they care about the health of America's children. And FoxNews and the Republicans got a chance to demonstrate how truly insane and out of touch with reality they are. Win-win-win. Edited February 25, 2011 by BubberMiley Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Black Dog Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 We're not talking about human rights. We're talking about rights granted under the US constitution. You know, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I'm still trying to figure out where the first lady gets her authority to tell private businesses what they can and cannot serve. And I'm trying to figure out where she's doing such a thing. No, not really. Pretty sure you not only oppose abortion rights, but you are also against gay marriage. Seems your love of freedom only goes so far. I have issue with her intrusion in people's private businesses. Her insistence on telling restaurants what and how they should serve their customers, and why type of products they should offer. It's fine to promote the knowledge and information of healthy food via public service announcements and speaking engagements. But her micromanaging and intrusion into people's private lives is in my opinion, out of bounds. Of course, she doesn't mind ordering and eating ribs and burgers for herself. Apparently she just wants everyone else not to. You're dodging the question: specifically, which initiative do you have a problem with? It shouldn't be a tough question to answer, yet you seem incapable of doing so. I'll even help by giving you a summary from your own links: A team of advisers to Mrs. Obama has been holding private talks over the past year with the National Restaurant Association, a trade group, in a bid to get restaurants to adopt her goals of smaller portions and children’s meals that include healthy offerings like carrots, apple slices and milk instead of French fries and soda, according to White House and industry officials.... Her team has worked with beverage makers to design soda cans with calorie counts ... she encouraged lawmakers to require restaurants to print nutrition information on menus ... Noting that research has shown that children consume more saturated fat and less fiber and calcium when they eat out, she challenged restaurant owners to change their menus, recipes and marketing practices to “give parents the confidence to know that they can go into any restaurant in this country and choose a genuinely healthy meal for their kids.” Seems to me the focus is on giving consumers more information about the products they eat and providing better, healthier options for kids (who can't really make their own decisions about this stuff anyway). There's absolutely nothing there about limiting choice, banning certain foods and mandating others. It's pretty obvious you 're blinded by partisanship on this one. Quote
Shady Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 She's talking about no such thing. Look at it this way... She wants people to have the FREEDOM of knowing what they are putting in their bodies. That's not all she's doing. If that was it, I wouldn't have a problem. But wanting to "meet" with private businesses in order to change their menu and portion sizes isn't about freedom of information. And I'm trying to figure out where she's doing such a thing. I'll repost. Since apparently nobody reads links anymore. A team of advisers to Mrs. Obama has been holding private talks over the past year with the National Restaurant Association, a trade group, in a bid to get restaurants to adopt her goals of smaller portions and children’s meals that include healthy offerings like carrots, apple slices and milk instead of French fries and soda, according to White House and industry officials. The discussions are preliminary, and participants say they are nowhere near an agreement like the one Mrs. Obama announced recently with Wal-Mart to lower prices on fruits and vegetables and to reduce the amount of fat, sugar and salt in its foods. But they reveal how assertively she is working to prod the industry to sign on to her agenda. ... Mrs. Obama and her team are also quietly pressing the levers of industry and government. ... She challenged restaurant owners to change their menus, recipes and marketing practices. Let's see. Team of advisors, closed door private meetings in order to prod an industry to sign on to her agenda. And challenging restaurants to not only change their menus, but also their recipes! That all has nothing to do with giving people more information about the foods they eat. Or does that also include butting her nose into the kitchens and recipes of restaurants and diners, and quietly pressing the levers of industry and government too? You guys are all apologists for smiley-faced fascism. Quote
BubberMiley Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 (edited) You guys are all apologists for smiley-faced fascism. Or, alternately, you're an apologist for crazy right-wing hatred. But I guess if you put "meet" in quotation marks, it does look much more sinister. Edited February 25, 2011 by BubberMiley Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
scouterjim Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 I can hardly believe these Republicans. Why must the discourse always seem to be dragged to this sort of level. I don't think there is any question that obeisity is a huge and growing issue in the US (North America actually) and this is the sort of response we get from the right? Political points at any cost? Comments from the rights health posterboy Is fat boy afraid that he won't get his daily six Big Macs? Quote I have captured the rare duct taped platypus.
Shady Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 Or, alternately, you're an apologist for crazy right-wing hatred. Nobody has said anything remotely close to hatred. But I guess if you put "meet" in quotation marks, it does look much more sinister. No, not sinister. But when the wife of the President of the United States asks to meet with you, it's not as though you can really say no. Unless of course you're willing to face a public relations nightmare. Quote
Shady Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 Nobody has said anything remotely close to hatred. Actually, I may have to take that back. Some pretty nasty stuff has been directed toward Rush Limbaugh and some other conservatives. Much nastier than anything directed toward Michelle Obama. Quote
BubberMiley Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 Nobody has said anything remotely close to hatred. Right. Calling her a fascist was your way of spreading the love. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Shady Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 Right. Calling her a fascist was your way of spreading the love. I did no such thing. Apparently you're not familiar with George Carlin. Aside from that, you called me an apologist for hatred. Which hatred in this thread am I an apologist for? Quote
BubberMiley Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 Which hatred in this thread am I an apologist for? Clearly, your own. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Jack Weber Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 (edited) I did no such thing. Apparently you're not familiar with George Carlin. Aside from that, you called me an apologist for hatred. Which hatred in this thread am I an apologist for? Do we want to go there with the NAACP thread hanging around with you being a cheerleader/apologist for the race baiting Andrew Breitbart??? Seriously??? Do you want to go there??? And I know George Carlin,Professor... And you ain't no George Carlin... Edited February 25, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Shady Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 Clearly, your own. Yes, of course. That's what you meant! Quote
Shady Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 Do we want to go there with the NAACP thread hanging around with you being a cheerleader/apologist for the race baiting Andrew Breitbart??? Seriously??? Do you want to go there??? And I know George Carlin,Professor... And you ain't no George Carlin... He called me an apologist for hatred related to this thread. Apparently I was apologizing for myself! Bubbles never ceases to entertain! Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.