Bloomberg Has Tough Words for Romney and Obama

[ElNono]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/nyregion/tough-criticism-of-candidates-by-bloomberg.html

Good read, IMO.

[dbestpro]

It seems kind of two faced to limit the size of a person's soda and then say Obama has no right to judge.

[ElNono]

It seems kind of two faced to limit the size of a person's soda and then say Obama has no right to judge.

Not sure how you equate those, tbh... you can have your diabetes binge drinking as many sodas as you want, just in medium sized cups...

[DMC]

About the same as limiting magazine capacities, because we all know that spree shooters are stopped most often when they go to change magazines.

[ElNono]

About the same as limiting magazine capacities, because we all know that spree shooters are stopped most often when they go to change magazines.

The idea is to make it inconvenient, more than anything. If it ends up working as a deterrent for a subset of cases, then it's a plus. This certainly attempts to attack a real problem in New York (and in America in general) which ends up costing almost 5,000 lives a year in New York alone and also a good chunk of dough to the state in the long run too. It's become such a severe case in New York, that over half the population is either obese or overweight. It might end up not working, but I give Bloomberg props for being creative about it and trying to address it instead of looking the other way. He was also the guy that made chain restaurants include calorie information on their menus, and that eventually caught on nationwide.

[Jacob1983]

Can't someone just buy multiple 16 oz drinks individually and bring a huge cup to a restaurant and pour all the 16 oz drinks into the huge cup?

[ElNono]

Can't someone just buy multiple 16 oz drinks individually and bring a huge cup to a restaurant and pour all the 16 oz drinks into the huge cup?

sure

[mavs>spurs]

If there is anyone in politics to hate more than either Romney or Obama, it's fucking Bloomberg. That anti-american slimeball has been calling for more and more gun bans for years, and he's criticizing both candidates for not doing something that nobody in this country wants. The right to own firearms is sacred and fundamental to being an american. Hey bloomberg wake up you fuckhead, the reason that guns aren't going anywhere is because nobody wants them to. We all see how well that is working out for NY which has one of the highest violent crime rates in the nation, keep your slimeball ideas contained to your own little shithole over which you govern. And could somebody please explain to me how gay marriage is such a huge issue? There are bigger fish to fry than 3% of the population who identify as LGBT stamping their feet and crying that they want to be recognized in a religious ceremony. We have the national debt, the wars, all this middle east bullshit, and global competitiveness to worry about and this asshole is crying that neither guy is dedicating their campaigns to something that only affects a tiny minority, and in a much lesser way than the other issues? I'll be glad when this guy is out of politics for good, that fucking idiot.

[mavs>spurs]

lol soda and gun bans, that fucking nazi

[Edward]

lol soda bans indeed

[DMC]

The idea is to make it inconvenient, more than anything. If it ends up working as a deterrent for a subset of cases, then it's a plus. This certainly attempts to attack a real problem in New York (and in America in general) which ends up costing almost 5,000 lives a year in New York alone and also a good chunk of dough to the state in the long run too. It's become such a severe case in New York, that over half the population is either obese or overweight. It might end up not working, but I give Bloomberg props for being creative about it and trying to address it instead of looking the other way. He was also the guy that made chain restaurants include calorie information on their menus, and that eventually caught on nationwide.
What it does it play nanny for grown ass Americans. We don't need legislation from the government to babysit us. Let the fat fuckers croak, nature will balance out. If insurance companies want to charge them more or even deny coverage because they refuse to lose weight, that's fine, but fuck the government telling Americans how much soft drink we can have at once.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

^Exactly let darwinism run its course. Make all drugs legal and let the fattasses and drug addicts kill themselves.

[ElNono]

If there is anyone in politics to hate more than either Romney or Obama, it's fucking Bloomberg. That anti-american slimeball has been calling for more and more gun bans for years, and he's criticizing both candidates for not doing something that nobody in this country wants. The right to own firearms is sacred and fundamental to being an american. Hey bloomberg wake up you fuckhead, the reason that guns aren't going anywhere is because nobody wants them to.

He doesn't want to ban all guns, just assault weapons. You know, like Mitt while he was governor.


What it does it play nanny for grown ass Americans. We don't need legislation from the government to babysit us. Let the fat fuckers croak, nature will balance out. If insurance companies want to charge them more or even deny coverage because they refuse to lose weight, that's fine, but fuck the government telling Americans how much soft drink we can have at once.

But the problem is that realistically it doesn't "balance out". They don't croak quick enough. And over time, you keep having more and more cases. On top of that, by the time the health issues are severe enough, they're already likely in some form of government assistance, be it Medicare or Medicaid. And we end up spending a good chunk for them not to croak.... at any rate, I don't particularly see it as playing nanny, since this kind of ban won't affect the guy that wants to drink 3 gallons of soda anyways.

[DMC]

He doesn't want to ban all guns, just assault weapons. You know, like Mitt while he was governor.



But the problem is that realistically it doesn't "balance out". They don't croak quick enough. And over time, you keep having more and more cases. On top of that, by the time the health issues are severe enough, they're already likely in some form of government assistance, be it Medicare or Medicaid. And we end up spending a good chunk for them not to croak.... at any rate, I don't particularly see it as playing nanny, since this kind of ban won't affect the guy that wants to drink 3 gallons of soda anyways.
You cannot legislate common fucking sense nor will to survive. If anything, legislate what WE, the TAXPAYERS, will not fund, like healthcare for drug dependency not related to medical use, for medical problems brought on by long histories of smoking, obesity and drug abuse. Just as auto insurance goes through the roof if you get a DUI or something along those lines, medical insurance should as well. Those on total taxpayer (not government,they are broke) dependency should be left to their own families to either convince them to lose weight/quit smoking or just watch them die. We aren't pigs in a pen requiring that the farmer ration our intake else we might not know when to stop. We should always have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and if that leads to our demise so be it. We have the right to die.

Small things like this collect and soon we will be showing our medical papers in order to get food, or checking in at the state line so we can cross after our insurance and reciprocity papers have been confirmed. No thanks.

It is playing nanny. The fact there's a work around does not detract from that. I used to tell my son, when he was small, that he could reorder if he was still hungry but to only order a small amount originally. He never was hungry afterward but he sure wanted to order large at the start. That's nanny state. I was looking out for him because I knew better than he did yet I still guaranteed he could eat as much as he wanted. If you came to my home and I said you can have a beer, but only 12 ounces at time even though there were 16 ounce bottles, you might think it's weird and definitely would think I am being controlling just a bit. Don't give away small freedoms.

[ElNono]

You cannot legislate common fucking sense nor will to survive. If anything, legislate what WE, the TAXPAYERS, will not fund, like healthcare for drug dependency not related to medical use, for medical problems brought on by long histories of smoking, obesity and drug abuse. Just as auto insurance goes through the roof if you get a DUI or something along those lines, medical insurance should as well. Those on total taxpayer (not government,they are broke) dependency should be left to their own families to either convince them to lose weight/quit smoking or just watch them die. We aren't pigs in a pen requiring that the farmer ration our intake else we might not know when to stop. We should always have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and if that leads to our demise so be it. We have the right to die.

That's a rant I can agree with. But, again, realistically in the country we're living in, it doesn't happen and won't happen. The candidate that says "we're not covering insulin treatments anymore, you made bad choices, deal with it" is the candidate that won't win an election. The sampling of different generations simply shows adults don't really care about excesses and they will demand to be treated of whatever ails them. I can agree that should end, but it won't. So since it won't, what can you do to at least curb the excesses? I mean, this is a matter of pragmatism. We're here, this isn't going away, how do you deal with it?


Small things like this collect and soon we will be showing our medical papers in order to get food, or checking in at the state line so we can cross after our insurance and reciprocity papers have been confirmed. No thanks.
It is playing nanny. The fact there's a work around does not detract from that. I used to tell my son, when he was small, that he could reorder if he was still hungry but to only order a small amount originally. He never was hungry afterward but he sure wanted to order large at the start. That's nanny state. I was looking out for him because I knew better than he did yet I still guaranteed he could eat as much as he wanted. If you came to my home and I said you can have a beer, but only 12 ounces at time even though there were 16 ounce bottles, you might think it's weird and definitely would think I am being controlling just a bit. Don't give away small freedoms.

You're a responsible parent, and that's great. If everybody would be, the problem would probably not exist. I understand what you mean by giving away freedoms, and I personally agree with that. Perhaps a different solution would be putting the onus on education.

[boutons_deux]

The big drink ban is obviously a bad idea technically, but symbolically, as a message, it could cause some people to consider cutting back.

Soft drink companies are no better than cigarette companies. They both sell pathogenic shit.

[Jacob1983]

So the soda ban has loop holes? Interesting.

[boutons_deux]

Bloomberg: Vote Brown or Warren could ‘bring socialism back, or the USSR’New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is warning that a win for Massachusetts Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren could effectively mean the return of the Soviet Union.

Bloomberg offered the following thoughts on Warren: “You can question, in my mind, whether she’s God’s gift to regulation, close the banks and get rid of corporate profits, and we’d all bring socialism back, or the USSR.”

Bloomberg’s argument against Warren echoed ads (http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2011/11/elizabeth_warren_ad_from_karl_rove_s_crossroads_gp s_pac_how_political_attack_ads_against_men_and_wom en_differ.html) purchased by Crossroad GPS, a super PAC founded by Karl Rove, which has attacked the Democratic candidate over her attempts to regulate Wall Street.

Last year, a tea party supporter lost his cool (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/03/tea-party-supporter-to-elizabeth-warren-youre-a-socialist-whore/) at a Warren campaign event and began shouting at her for being a “socialist whore.”

Raw Story (http://s.tt/1qHd8) (http://s.tt/1qHd8)

[rascal]

If there is anyone in politics to hate more than either Romney or Obama, it's fucking Bloomberg. That anti-american slimeball has been calling for more and more gun bans for years, and he's criticizing both candidates for not doing something that nobody in this country wants. The right to own firearms is sacred and fundamental to being an american. Hey bloomberg wake up you fuckhead, the reason that guns aren't going anywhere is because nobody wants them to. We all see how well that is working out for NY which has one of the highest violent crime rates in the nation, keep your slimeball ideas contained to your own little shithole over which you govern. And could somebody please explain to me how gay marriage is such a huge issue? There are bigger fish to fry than 3% of the population who identify as LGBT stamping their feet and crying that they want to be recognized in a religious ceremony. We have the national debt, the wars, all this middle east bullshit, and global competitiveness to worry about and this asshole is crying that neither guy is dedicating their campaigns to something that only affects a tiny minority, and in a much lesser way than the other issues? I'll be glad when this guy is out of politics for good, that fucking idiot.



Most gun crimes in NY are from guns purchased in lenient gun law states.

[boutons_deux]

Fast and Furious also sells in NYC to anybody :lol

[DMC]

That's a rant I can agree with. But, again, realistically in the country we're living in, it doesn't happen and won't happen. The candidate that says "we're not covering insulin treatments anymore, you made bad choices, deal with it" is the candidate that won't win an election. The sampling of different generations simply shows adults don't really care about excesses and they will demand to be treated of whatever ails them. I can agree that should end, but it won't. So since it won't, what can you do to at least curb the excesses? I mean, this is a matter of pragmatism. We're here, this isn't going away, how do you deal with it?

You take a hard line stance against those who do it. That's done at the private sector level, not the federal level. The feds can say doctors and hospitals are allowed to refuse treatment to patients who do not follow doctor's orders.

What you don't do is restrict freedoms for everyone so that you don't upset the offenders. If you want to fix the problem and not just give the appearance of fixing it, you address the offenders, not the means to offend. Most of this legislation will never go away once it's passed into law. Unlike bars who serve too much alcohol and someone dies on the road, obesity only hurts the obese, physically. Sure it hurts everyone financially but only because we choose to finance it. You say "that's how the system works" but you want a pragmatic solution. The pragmatic solution isn't to apply a placebo, but to target the user. I've honestly never heard of a more misguided piece of legislation than one to limit the size of a softdrink that can be served because some people are gluttons. Either label soft drinks as controlled substances or let it go.


You're a responsible parent, and that's great. If everybody would be, the problem would probably not exist. I understand what you mean by giving away freedoms, and I personally agree with that. Perhaps a different solution would be putting the onus on education.
Put the onus where it belongs, on the offender. Stop looking for a system to accept responsibility for people who don't give a shit.

[DMC]

The big drink ban is obviously a bad idea technically, but symbolically, as a message, it could cause some people to consider cutting back.

Soft drink companies are no better than cigarette companies. They both sell pathogenic shit.

You're out of your fucking mind. Food will make you fat if you over-consume. Why do we have a nation full of people who point fingers at corporations instead of at the individual who buys and uses a product to extreme? I suppose screwdriver manufacturers are just as bad because some people might stick one in their eye. When did we become such domesticated pussies? The term "liberal" used to be about rights, but now it's more about ducking personal responsibility. Some of you are begging for government oversight into your lives.

Also, if that mirror in your home doesn't send a clear enough message that you're too fucking fat, or if the fact you cannot wear the same pants you wore last month because you gained too much weight, or if you cannot sit down and tie your shoes because you cannot reach your feet because your belly won't let you, what is a soda volume restriction going to do? Seriously? Are you totally fucking retarded?

[boutons_deux]

"Why do we have a nation full of people who point fingers at corporations instead of at the individual who buys and uses a product to extreme"

why? corporate highly-researched, scientific advertising of dead, synthetic, pathogenic packaged food to ignorant, trusting fucks who are susceptible to such advertising.

"If a corporation sells it, it must be ok!"

Corporations NEED people to overeat their shit. Those Ts of pounds of American fat mean $10Bs of corporate profits yearly.

People are mostly cows, eating whatever garbage corporations put in their feed bags.

[DarrinS]

"Ever Bipartisan, Bloomberg Jabs Both Candidates" :lol


QdbUwlM4bK4

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The idea is to make it inconvenient, more than anything. If it ends up working as a deterrent for a subset of cases, then it's a plus. This certainly attempts to attack a real problem in New York (and in America in general) which ends up costing almost 5,000 lives a year in New York alone and also a good chunk of dough to the state in the long run too. It's become such a severe case in New York, that over half the population is either obese or overweight. It might end up not working, but I give Bloomberg props for being creative about it and trying to address it instead of looking the other way. He was also the guy that made chain restaurants include calorie information on their menus, and that eventually caught on nationwide.

A ban is not creative.

[ElNono]

You take a hard line stance against those who do it. That's done at the private sector level, not the federal level. The feds can say doctors and hospitals are allowed to refuse treatment to patients who do not follow doctor's orders.

That's not happening. As a matter of fact, since StRonnie, the private sector (at least hospitals) cannot refuse treatment to patients.

So let's start from there. Hospitals/doctors have to treat patients no matter what and that's not going away. How do you deal with the excesses?


What you don't do is restrict freedoms for everyone so that you don't upset the offenders. If you want to fix the problem and not just give the appearance of fixing it, you address the offenders, not the means to offend.

...

Put the onus where it belongs, on the offender. Stop looking for a system to accept responsibility for people who don't give a shit.

Okay, under the current system (which isn't changing), how do you put the onus on the offenders?

[ElNono]

A ban is not creative.

But it isn't an outright ban. You're not banned from buying sodas, period. You're simply limited in the choices you have under certain circumstances (ie: it doesn't apply to purchases you make in a supermarket).

[boutons_deux]

"how do you put the onus on the offenders?"

with hard core medicare for all public option, you set up a national health testing system where healthy people get a discount when their health profile is "healthy", and has to be hard numbers. iow, rather than penalizing unhealthy people with higher premiums (a malus), one rewards people (a bonus) with lower premiums. The "burden" is on the people to keep the health profile (their health) in good shape. I don't think any new science is necessary. As always, the problem is detecting people who cheat and people who have genetic, unmodifiably bad health profiles.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

But it isn't an outright ban. You're not banned from buying sodas, period. You're simply limited in the choices you have under certain circumstances (ie: it doesn't apply to purchases you make in a supermarket).

I know what it is. A partial ban is not creative either. Personally, i think it's an affront to personal liberty. If i want to get fat and die then so be it. I choose not to but personal liberty is important to me.

[mavs>spurs]

Most gun crimes in NY are from guns purchased in lenient gun law states.

and then they take them to NY where they're the big kid on the block and can bully their defenseless neighbors around them. the cities with gun bans like NY and Chicago all have ridiculously high crime rates..even more than your average gun friendly big cities. there have been huge discussions and studies on this subject since long before you ever joined the party, and it's been conclusively proven that guns make people safer. Gary Kleck and John Lott put together 2 of the biggest and most comprehensive if you want to take a look at their work..it pretty much put the gun control debates to bed years ago.

Great Britain also banned guns some years back and it was the same result. Their violent crime rates have climbed ever since and their violent crime per capita dwarfs that of gun friendly US. A lot of knife muggings and stuff there.

[ElNono]

I know what it is. A partial ban is not creative either. Personally, i think it's an affront to personal liberty. If i want to get fat and die then so be it. I choose not to but personal liberty is important to me.

The problem is seemingly that people want to get fat and not die. And so the problem stops being strictly a personal problem. And we're not even talking a minority here.

[DMC]

"Why do we have a nation full of people who point fingers at corporations instead of at the individual who buys and uses a product to extreme"

why? corporate highly-researched, scientific advertising of dead, synthetic, pathogenic packaged food to ignorant, trusting fucks who are susceptible to such advertising.

"If a corporation sells it, it must be ok!"

Corporations NEED people to overeat their shit. Those Ts of pounds of American fat mean $10Bs of corporate profits yearly.

People are mostly cows, eating whatever garbage corporations put in their feed bags.





Do you honestly believe that people don't realize they are getting fat?

[DMC]

That's not happening. As a matter of fact, since StRonnie, the private sector (at least hospitals) cannot refuse treatment to patients.

So let's start from there. Hospitals/doctors have to treat patients no matter what and that's not going away. How do you deal with the excesses?



Okay, under the current system (which isn't changing), how do you put the onus on the offenders?

You're having your cake and eating it too. You cannot pose change then say "with the current system". You're limiting the answers to the initial suggestion. What you are really asking is "which is easier to change?"

Sure it's easier to take away our rights, but it doesn't address the problem, which is that we have adopted a bullshit stance that says "everyone deserves healthcare". Everyone certainly does not. When you live like everyone does, you already lost.

[Koolaid_Man]

Do you honestly believe that people don't realize they are getting fat?


^ So...now what are you gonna do to help yourself....:lol

[boutons_deux]

Do you honestly believe that people don't realize they are getting fat?

they realize it, but they don't care, really, not enough to learn how to feed themselves.

then there is huge scam of the weight-loss, exercise equipment industries.

[ElNono]

You're having your cake and eating it too. You cannot pose change then say "with the current system". You're limiting the answers to the initial suggestion. What you are really asking is "which is easier to change?"

I disagree. It's simply a different challenge with the cards you're dealt with. You're basically telling me the only solution is to re-shuffle the deck, but realistically that's not possible. I'm not even saying the soda ban is the right idea, just an attempt to deal with the issue within the system instead of just folding and keep on getting the shitty hand.


Sure it's easier to take away our rights, but it doesn't address the problem, which is that we have adopted a bullshit stance that says "everyone deserves healthcare". Everyone certainly does not. When you live like everyone does, you already lost.

Disagree here too. It isn't whether "everyone deserves healthcare" or not. A lot of these people don't really have serious health problems until they're 60+... by that time, the damage is already done. The question is how do you address the problem way before then.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The problem is seemingly that people want to get fat and not die. And so the problem stops being strictly a personal problem. And we're not even talking a minority here.

If the majority wants to be fat then so be it. What do you think of the countries drug policy?

[DMC]

I disagree. It's simply a different challenge with the cards you're dealt with. You're basically telling me the only solution is to re-shuffle the deck, but realistically that's not possible. I'm not even saying the soda ban is the right idea, just an attempt to deal with the issue within the system instead of just folding and keep on getting the shitty hand.



Disagree here too. It isn't whether "everyone deserves healthcare" or not. A lot of these people don't really have serious health problems until they're 60+... by that time, the damage is already done. The question is how do you address the problem way before then.

The first thing you do is decide what you really are prepared to do and what you expect from it. If you are prepared to only enact placebo legislation that's not too overtly restrictive, you can do that but all you're going to get from it is annoying a few people. You're pissing on a forest fire thinking maybe someone will realize your intent and everyone will begin to participate. If you're pragmatic, you realize you're just pissing on a fire. You realize that your soda restrictions are just the beginning of an off ramp for our freedoms. You will have to erode the rights one by one until you damn near totally control the lives of humans before you can have any control over your health care costs when they get older.

Or you can look at it from a different perspective; let them die before they reach that age. Stop bumping them along with high cost procedures and treatments when they've fucked up their lives already. I am not talking about someone with an obscure cancer that can be esoterically traced to some food coloring from things they ate 40 years ago. I am talking about emphysema from 40 years of 3 packs a day, or from heart problems because their cholesterol is 350 and instead of proper diet and exercise, they elect the confirmation bias of "well, the research is inconclusive" or "I feel ok, why take these pills or why eat that shitty salad when I really want that 18 ounce steak and a pint of ice cream?"

Our lives have a limited amount of useage available. We can speed that up or slow it down at a cost, and that cost is either felt by the individual if the form of sacrifices and exertions that they don't want to make, or it's felt by a collective of society in the form of taxes that put a greater amount of medical resources toward saving/improving one person than that one person otherwise deserves. If they are trying and cannot get there, if they have genetic issues, if they have conditions that are not their fault most of the time (born diabetic, for example), that's different. If they are born healthy and by age 50 they are 300lbs and need more medical care than their fair share, they do without. I realize anyone' suggesting that we abandon people who've abandoned themselves might one day regret it, but if we know that will happen, we are more apt to not get there.

You cannot simply change a few things like how much soda can be put in a cup at a fast food restaurant and actually change anything, but what you would have done is satisfied the feeling that you need to do something, that's why it's called a placebo.

[DMC]

they realize it, but they don't care, really, not enough to learn how to feed themselves.

Then how is that a corporate issue? Why don't you hold people personally accountable? It seems like a liberal tenet that there's always someone else to blame for the effects of what we decide to do.



then there is huge scam of the weight-loss, exercise equipment industries.
Weight loss would be pointless if you weren't overweight. You're just looking for an easier to see, harder to effect target.

[ElNono]

If the majority wants to be fat then so be it. What do you think of the countries drug policy?

I agree with decriminalizing personal consumption. I would still leave certain penalties for cases like driving under the influence, where they could hurt other people, but if they want to fuck themselves at home, then that's their problem.

[ElNono]

The first thing you do is decide what you really are prepared to do and what you expect from it. If you are prepared to only enact placebo legislation that's not too overtly restrictive, you can do that but all you're going to get from it is annoying a few people. You're pissing on a forest fire thinking maybe someone will realize your intent and everyone will begin to participate. If you're pragmatic, you realize you're just pissing on a fire. You realize that your soda restrictions are just the beginning of an off ramp for our freedoms. You will have to erode the rights one by one until you damn near totally control the lives of humans before you can have any control over your health care costs when they get older.

Sometimes it isn't what you're "prepared to do", IMO. It's what you do within the limits you have. And I think this is the situation we're finding ourselves in right now. I agree to an extent that perhaps this soda baloney is just that, baloney. But then the question remains, is it worse than doing nothing? I respect your opinion that it is. I just simply think we're going to have to address this at one point or another, and we're going to have to do it much earlier than when people are 50+. Simply because them dying isn't stopping a brand new generation from following the same path.


Or you can look at it from a different perspective; let them die before they reach that age. Stop bumping them along with high cost procedures and treatments when they've fucked up their lives already. I am not talking about someone with an obscure cancer that can be esoterically traced to some food coloring from things they ate 40 years ago. I am talking about emphysema from 40 years of 3 packs a day, or from heart problems because their cholesterol is 350 and instead of proper diet and exercise, they elect the confirmation bias of "well, the research is inconclusive" or "I feel ok, why take these pills or why eat that shitty salad when I really want that 18 ounce steak and a pint of ice cream?"

Well, that sounds more like something that would need to be addressed within the education realm.


Our lives have a limited amount of useage available. We can speed that up or slow it down at a cost, and that cost is either felt by the individual if the form of sacrifices and exertions that they don't want to make, or it's felt by a collective of society in the form of taxes that put a greater amount of medical resources toward saving/improving one person than that one person otherwise deserves. If they are trying and cannot get there, if they have genetic issues, if they have conditions that are not their fault most of the time (born diabetic, for example), that's different. If they are born healthy and by age 50 they are 300lbs and need more medical care than their fair share, they do without. I realize anyone' suggesting that we abandon people who've abandoned themselves might one day regret it, but if we know that will happen, we are more apt to not get there.

I just don't think this does anything to address the issue. I mean, right now people of any age that are morbidly obese won't receive kidney or pancreas transplants. A lot of them simply cannot survive surgery as it is. Has it been an effective deterrent? Not really. I understand you're a rational person, that by taking care of yourself early, you can prolong your life. But seemingly a lot of these people are not, and so the question becomes how do you knock some common sense into generation after generation that apparently either don't get the message or don't want to.


You cannot simply change a few things like how much soda can be put in a cup at a fast food restaurant and actually change anything, but what you would have done is satisfied the feeling that you need to do something, that's why it's called a placebo.

Well, in all honesty, I think this is one of those situations where "don't knock it till you tried it". If anything, this is a State policy, which IMO is the place where you test this kind of policies. I think it would've been much worse if this was a federal policy.

[ALVAREZ6]

I just don't think this does anything to address the issue. I mean, right now people of any age that are morbidly obese won't receive kidney or pancreas transplants. A lot of them simply cannot survive surgery as it is. Has it been an effective deterrent? Not really. I understand you're a rational person, that by taking care of yourself early, you can prolong your life. But seemingly a lot of these people are not, and so the question becomes how do you knock some common sense into generation after generation that apparently either don't get the message or don't want to.

Who gives a shit, people who are morbidly obese (unless they have small control over their conditions) deserve what they have coming to them if they never change for themselves. Drinking slightly less soda or eating McDonalds 3 times instead of 5 per week isn't going to cut it. I'd bet most people only give half or quarter-assed efforts in actually improving their lives while expecting decent results. Bottom line is it's not the government's job to protect an individual itself. If your family is a family of fat fucks and that's all you've ever known and you've never done much to change that into your adolescent and adult years, boo hoo.

I also respect the side you take on this issue...the attitude of "well fuck it might as well try something else because there's not much of an opportunity cost". I think it's all a waste of time in the end. If you think about it there's a huge amount of things that are detrimental to an individual, and I don't think the government aught to use society's resources/taxes to protect one from oneself. A more high-taxing, big federal gov country can probably work much better under a smaller, more homogeneous country. However, the US is extremely big population wise and extremely diverse in every single way. Big federal government focusing on these issues will inevitably be inefficient and unfair.

Political decisions can't change a culture of a country, the culture generally has to change first with politics working retroactively. A lot of health issues that we have in the US are probably largely due to years of living in excess. In the past couple of decades the US economy has lead the world, large middle and upper middle classes, and ton of people used to having relatively large incomes compared to relatively small expenses and living in excess. People aren't used to limiting themselves, living in moderation. Whether it's food, housing, whatever.

[ElNono]

Who gives a shit, people who are morbidly obese (unless they have small control over their conditions) deserve what they have coming to them if they never change for themselves. Drinking slightly less soda or eating McDonalds 3 times instead of 5 per week isn't going to cut it. I'd bet most people only give half or quarter-assed efforts in actually improving their lives while expecting decent results. Bottom line is it's not the government's job to protect an individual itself. If your family is a family of fat fucks and that's all you've ever known and you've never done much to change that into your adolescent and adult years, boo hoo.

Nobody is saying they don't deserve what's coming to them, that's a moot point. The problem is that they don't get what they deserve largely before they're 50+, which then becomes our problem since we're footing the bill, plus well after they raised another generation that's fairly careless about taking care of their bodies (which is the actual problem).


Political decisions can't change a culture of a country, the culture generally has to change first with politics working retroactively. A lot of health issues that we have in the US are probably largely due to years of living in excess. In the past couple of decades the US economy has lead the world, large middle and upper middle classes, and ton of people used to having relatively large incomes compared to relatively small expenses and living in excess. People aren't used to limiting themselves, living in moderation. Whether it's food, housing, whatever.

And this is the conundrum, IMO. The cultural change has to come. The question is how (or better yet, why) is it going to come. And whether there should be a system of incentives or deterrents to help it along.

[ElNono]

BTW, I don't necessarily agree that policy can't change culture. The cigarette industry is perhaps a good example where nazi-like policies made an important dent. Obviously, it's not exactly apples-to-apples, but I think as a general example it applies.

[ALVAREZ6]

Nobody is saying they don't deserve what's coming to them, that's a moot point. The problem is that they don't get what they deserve largely before they're 50+, which then becomes our problem since we're footing the bill, plus well after they raised another generation that's fairly careless about taking care of their bodies (which is the actual problem).
I agree, but should we then also ban all fast food and ban mothers feeding their children daily 5 fatty-course dinners? Or should we force fast food joints to limit how much food and how often an obese person can buy their food? Same for alcohol? Cigarettes? My point is there are so many things that are really bad for you that are consumed by way too many people with way too high frequency, and large sodas probably account for less than half a percent of the problem. To realistically solve these problems, we would need to become pretty socialist. Which obviously can never work in a country like the US.

Why even begin to focus time and money on these issues that will take us nowhere?

I get your attitude on the subject but don't see it amounting to anything.

I think with any of these health issues (obesity, fast food, drugs), the best thing is a strong focus on education, done properly, and at the right ages. More focus on true education rather than "don't do drugs because...well because they're bad!" Probably every kid in the US has been told to not do drugs, and most probably don't fully understand the long term effects enough to a point where for many people it's too late. I'm just picking drugs as an example but I think our education should aim to become more straightforward, hit kids and young adults with the science behind these things and if done in the right way would probably work better.

One thing to me has become clear over the years: just saying "NO!" and attempting to limit access...does not limit access, and does not prevent people from doing whatever it is you are trying to avoid them doing.

[ElNono]

I agree, but should we then also ban all fast food and ban mothers feeding their children daily 5 fatty-course dinners? Or should we force fast food joints to limit how much food and how often an obese person can buy their food? Same for alcohol? Cigarettes? My point is there are so many things that are really bad for you that are consumed by way too many people with way too high frequency, and large sodas probably account for less than half a percent of the problem. To realistically solve these problems, we would need to become pretty socialist. Which obviously can never work in a country like the US.

Well, I think this particular "ban" is fairly mild anyway you look at it. It's not enforceable at home, and there's really no limit in how much you can purchase. I see it more addresses towards what the pricing structure is for the most part, where a 10 oz drink is $1, a 16 oz drink is $1.20 and you can "super size it" to 32 oz for another 5c ($1.25). I suspect a lot of people just pick the 32 oz because they think they're getting a good deal for "just 5c" (not empirical, tbh, so don't ask. But I trust fast food places know what they're doing with their pricing).


Why even begin to focus time and money on these issues that will take us nowhere?

Well, this is another attitude I don't agree with. Look, if it doesn't work and does nothing, there will be backslash and it will just go away. IMO, the state is the perfect place to try this. Like Massachusetts was the right place to try out Barry/Mitt care.


I think with any of these health issues (obesity, fast food, drugs), the best thing is a strong focus on education, done properly, and at the right ages. More focus on true education rather than "don't do drugs because...well because they're bad!" Probably every kid in the US has been told to not do drugs, and most probably don't fully understand the long term effects enough to a point where for many people it's too late. I'm just picking drugs as an example but I think our education should aim to become more straightforward, hit kids and young adults with the science behind these things and if done in the right way would probably work better.

One thing to me has become clear over the years: just saying "NO!" and attempting to limit access...does not limit access, and does not prevent people from doing whatever it is you are trying to avoid them doing.

I agree about the education aspect.

[Jacob1983]

What's the cost comparison of eating healthy and eating fast food? That could be a good indicator on why so people are fat in America. And another thing that ignorant possibly bigoted people don't realize is that sometimes being fat is in your genes. People that have the fatness in their genes already have two strikes against them because they're already fat and it's in their genes which means losing weight and maintaining a healthy weight will be difficult. Honestly, I would fully support gene modification if there was a guarantee that the fatness gene could be removed from babies and that no physical, emotional, mental, and other health problems would happen.

[ElNono]

I think that's actually part of the current problem, tbh. The expectation that the magic pill/exotic diet/gastric surgery/new gene therapy are going to be there and are going to fix the problem. Fact is, it rarely works unless you're set to address the problem.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

:lmao gaycob has no sympathy whatsoever for gay people who are born with a predisposed attraction to the same sex yet has tons of sympathy for fatasses who eat unhealthy? No one is born morbidly obese, and there aren't "fat genes" that make it impossible to be skinn. Some people have slower metabolisms, just like some people have less mental capacity and weaker analytical skills they need to make up for with a strong work ethic.

[Jacob1983]

Nice try but no. I may not be the spokesperson or a cheerleader for gay rights but it's not common sense that they have a strike against them. I mean it sucks if you are gay and live in America because a lot of people will give you shit for it.

For fatness, most people would agree with me on the gene modification process to rid the world of the fatness gene. No one wants their kid to be fat because let's be honest, being fat is viewed as being less. If you are fat in America, society views you as less.

[Jeff Van Gundy]

:lmao gaycob has no sympathy whatsoever for gay people who are born with a predisposed attraction to the same sex yet has tons of sympathy for fatasses who eat unhealthy? No one is born morbidly obese, and there aren't "fat genes" that make it impossible to be skinn. Some people have slower metabolisms, just like some people have less mental capacity and weaker analytical skills they need to make up for with a strong work ethic.
:lol gaycob is an idiot, these are the things we know

[baseline bum]

Does anyone else find it hilarious that Bloomberg is bitching about Obama raising the top income tax rate from 35% to 39% (an 11.4% increase on total tax paid on earned income over $388,000) but that he was great with raising property taxes by 18.5%?

[ElNono]

Does anyone else find it hilarious that Bloomberg is bitching about Obama raising the top income tax rate from 35% to 39% (an 11.4% increase on total tax paid on earned income over $388,000) but that he was great with raising property taxes by 18.5%?

It actually goes beyond that... check these quotes from him:

BLOOMBERG: ... Short-term we have to make sure we have a tax code that is understandable, and that everybody agrees is fair. And one that we can live with in terms of how we collect and how we make sure that everybody pays their fair share.

another:

'Those people take advantage of the protection our police department provides, of the safety our fire department provides, they throw out trash that our sanitation picks up, and when you say it's not fair, it's not fair to get a service and not pay your fair share of it.'

From here (http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2012/10/from-back-of-limo-his-nibs-again-tells.html)

[baseline bum]

BLOOMBERG: ... Short-term we have to make sure we have a tax code that is understandable, and that everybody agrees is fair. And one that we can live with in terms of how we collect and how we make sure that everybody pays their fair share.


So in other words maintaining or expanding the Bush tax cuts for the top bracket, and more taxes for everyone else? Sounds like fatfuck Christie tbh.

[ElNono]

So in other words maintaining or expanding the Bush tax cuts for the top bracket, and more taxes for everyone else? Sounds like fatfuck Christie tbh.

The main difference being that Bloomberg is socially liberal, obviously. Christie is a strict party line guy.

[boutons_deux]

Then how is that a corporate issue? Why don't you hold people personally accountable? It seems like a liberal tenet that there's always someone else to blame for the effects of what we decide to do.

Weight loss would be pointless if you weren't overweight. You're just looking for an easier to see, harder to effect target.

People swim in an environment created totally by corporations and their saturation marketing, their "need creation". People think the way corporations want them to live is how to live, consume, consume, consume our shit non-stop, it's the only way to live, they implicitly trust corporations (if they are even not aware of how corporations control their lives), aren't naturally defensive, aren't naturally circumspect, don't think critically, aren't automatically subversive, all of which is what it takes to be healthy and be your own person, rather than be a dumb-down robot being sold shit.

Corporations running schools and universities for profit and indoctrination of placid, compliant, gullible, "sellable" consumers is just an extension of the corporate nightmare.

"Weight loss would be pointless if you weren't overweight" astonishing insight, thanks.

[DMC]

Ok I think people should give me their money non stop. Does that mean I create an environment where you begin to believe that? People do what they want to do, and that's always been more slanted to what's bad for them than what's good for them. The tenets of a free society is that we have the right to err and be held responsible, individually, for that.

[boutons_deux]

Ok I think people should give me their money non stop. Does that mean I create an environment where you begin to believe that? People do what they want to do, and that's always been more slanted to what's bad for them than what's good for them. The tenets of a free society is that we have the right to err and be held responsible, individually, for that.

Explain why people have become so irresponsible about their eating in the past 35 years during the explosion of overweight and obesity, but were responsible before that?

What changed? The 100Ms of people's self-control? or corporate marketing and crap, dead, synthetic food production.

As always with right wingers, Human-Americans are guilty, while Corporate-Americans are always faultless and operate in good faith.

[ALVAREZ6]

Nice try but no. I may not be the spokesperson or a cheerleader for gay rights but it's not common sense that they have a strike against them. I mean it sucks if you are gay and live in America because a lot of people will give you shit for it.

For fatness, most people would agree with me on the gene modification process to rid the world of the fatness gene. No one wants their kid to be fat because let's be honest, being fat is viewed as being less. If you are fat in America, society views you as less.
Well, depending on how you look at it. On the other hand, being a fat ass is also extremely common here vs other civilized nations around the world, it's implicitly more accepted and not as negatively viewed upon imo. Obviously more families here are OK with it because there's way more fat people. I'd say my immediately family who are all from a country where there aren't really that many fat people look down upon being obese more than your average US citizen.

[ALVAREZ6]

Explain why people have become so irresponsible about their eating in the past 35 years during the explosion of overweight and obesity, but were responsible before that?

What changed? The 100Ms of people's self-control? or corporate marketing and crap, dead, synthetic food production.

As always with right wingers, Human-Americans are guilty, while Corporate-Americans are always faultless and operate in good faith.
It's an interesting question and likely many factors.

I'd say economic growth, being relatively wealthy, living in excess, the growth of the fast food industry all at play. Then, the shift in economy to more service sectors and less manufacturing, manual labor, etc is another factor. Maybe even the rapid life style in parts of the country and less vaca/average work time compared to some European counterparts is another factor. Increasing demand for convenience. Some of these factors probably affect the same trends in other countries too as the world in general has gotten fatter over the years.

Now I just thought of more aspects of our culture that can have an affect. I'm not sure how big typical meal sizes at restaurants were 30-50 years ago, but I'm willing to bet they weren't as big as they are now. If you're served a big portion and you're eating out and naturally want the best bang for your buck and the meal tastes very good, it's hard to stop eating. I certainly don't, but I exercise and am young/have fast metabolism. Then you there's other aspects that probably have a small effect on average, but add to my previous post about it being widely accepted to be fat in the US. A lot of sports events encourage eating your face off, stuffing your stomach with fatty foods and beer for hours. And these are huge sports (namely baseball and football) that a lot of people attend, regularly. We have shows like Man vs. Food where tons of people (in person and on TV) cheer while an obese man attempts to put 7lbs of food in his stomache. And they go to restaurants across the country were the general pop tries it. There's probably some more examples like these in US culture, but I don't think they're big in other civilized countries.

Almost everywhere you look eating unhealthily is encouraged.

Keep editing as I think of more: football(american) is played but tons of young kids and adults in the US, and for about half of the players on the field, being large is needed and encouraged. Most high school lineman are flat out fat asses, and if you think the number of kids on a team, the number of teams, definitely a factor. The more popular sports around most of world heavily discourage being overweight. Even a contact sport like rugby, it's an endurance game.

[Agloco]

You cannot legislate common fucking sense nor will to survive. If anything, legislate what WE, the TAXPAYERS, will not fund, like healthcare for drug dependency not related to medical use, for medical problems brought on by long histories of smoking, obesity and drug abuse. Just as auto insurance goes through the roof if you get a DUI or something along those lines, medical insurance should as well. Those on total taxpayer (not government,they are broke) dependency should be left to their own families to either convince them to lose weight/quit smoking or just watch them die. We aren't pigs in a pen requiring that the farmer ration our intake else we might not know when to stop. We should always have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and if that leads to our demise so be it. We have the right to die.

Small things like this collect and soon we will be showing our medical papers in order to get food, or checking in at the state line so we can cross after our insurance and reciprocity papers have been confirmed. No thanks.

It is playing nanny. The fact there's a work around does not detract from that. I used to tell my son, when he was small, that he could reorder if he was still hungry but to only order a small amount originally. He never was hungry afterward but he sure wanted to order large at the start. That's nanny state. I was looking out for him because I knew better than he did yet I still guaranteed he could eat as much as he wanted. If you came to my home and I said you can have a beer, but only 12 ounces at time even though there were 16 ounce bottles, you might think it's weird and definitely would think I am being controlling just a bit. Don't give away small freedoms.


You take a hard line stance against those who do it. That's done at the private sector level, not the federal level. The feds can say doctors and hospitals are allowed to refuse treatment to patients who do not follow doctor's orders.

What you don't do is restrict freedoms for everyone so that you don't upset the offenders. If you want to fix the problem and not just give the appearance of fixing it, you address the offenders, not the means to offend. Most of this legislation will never go away once it's passed into law. Unlike bars who serve too much alcohol and someone dies on the road, obesity only hurts the obese, physically. Sure it hurts everyone financially but only because we choose to finance it. You say "that's how the system works" but you want a pragmatic solution. The pragmatic solution isn't to apply a placebo, but to target the user. I've honestly never heard of a more misguided piece of legislation than one to limit the size of a softdrink that can be served because some people are gluttons. Either label soft drinks as controlled substances or let it go.

Put the onus where it belongs, on the offender. Stop looking for a system to accept responsibility for people who don't give a shit.


You're out of your fucking mind. Food will make you fat if you over-consume. Why do we have a nation full of people who point fingers at corporations instead of at the individual who buys and uses a product to extreme? I suppose screwdriver manufacturers are just as bad because some people might stick one in their eye. When did we become such domesticated pussies? The term "liberal" used to be about rights, but now it's more about ducking personal responsibility. Some of you are begging for government oversight into your lives.

Also, if that mirror in your home doesn't send a clear enough message that you're too fucking fat, or if the fact you cannot wear the same pants you wore last month because you gained too much weight, or if you cannot sit down and tie your shoes because you cannot reach your feet because your belly won't let you, what is a soda volume restriction going to do? Seriously? Are you totally fucking retarded?

HAM mode tbh :toast

tw429JGL5zo

[ALVAREZ6]

With a massive, very diverse (racially, economically, culturally) country, I think smaller federal govs and gov trying to protect individual from its own decisions is not efficient. I'm just wired to think in terms of efficiency. The more the gov gets involved in these matters, the more resources we use inefficiently. I think the majority of our population ought to start thinking this way because we're going to continue to contribute to our massive debt.

[ElNono]

Ok I think people should give me their money non stop. Does that mean I create an environment where you begin to believe that?

Well, are you a landlord? :wakeup

:lol

[boutons_deux]

"gov trying to protect individual from its own decisions is not efficient"

Who's going to protect Human-Americans from Corporate-Americans?

[boutons_deux]

It's an interesting question and likely many factors.

I'd say economic growth, being relatively wealthy, living in excess, the growth of the fast food industry all at play. Then, the shift in economy to more service sectors and less manufacturing, manual labor, etc is another factor. Maybe even the rapid life style in parts of the country and less vaca/average work time compared to some European counterparts is another factor. Increasing demand for convenience. Some of these factors probably affect the same trends in other countries too as the world in general has gotten fatter over the years.

Now I just thought of more aspects of our culture that can have an affect. I'm not sure how big typical meal sizes at restaurants were 30-50 years ago, but I'm willing to bet they weren't as big as they are now. If you're served a big portion and you're eating out and naturally want the best bang for your buck and the meal tastes very good, it's hard to stop eating. I certainly don't, but I exercise and am young/have fast metabolism. Then you there's other aspects that probably have a small effect on average, but add to my previous post about it being widely accepted to be fat in the US. A lot of sports events encourage eating your face off, stuffing your stomach with fatty foods and beer for hours. And these are huge sports (namely baseball and football) that a lot of people attend, regularly. We have shows like Man vs. Food where tons of people (in person and on TV) cheer while an obese man attempts to put 7lbs of food in his stomache. And they go to restaurants across the country were the general pop tries it. There's probably some more examples like these in US culture, but I don't think they're big in other civilized countries.

Almost everywhere you look eating unhealthily is encouraged.

Keep editing as I think of more: football(american) is played but tons of young kids and adults in the US, and for about half of the players on the field, being large is needed and encouraged. Most high school lineman are flat out fat asses, and if you think the number of kids on a team, the number of teams, definitely a factor. The more popular sports around most of world heavily discourage being overweight. Even a contact sport like rugby, it's an endurance game.

While people certainly don't get enough exercise, that's not really a problem for weight control if they are consuming a break-even level of (nutritious) calories. The fundamental problem is eating and its quality and quantity. Food is the basis of health, and the basis of disease.

Exercise is also a very ineffective way to lose excess weight AND keep it off long term.

The cost of food in industrial restaurants isn't a dominant cost, so they serve huge portions so people leave with feeling of satiety. Portion control is the key to calorie control, assuming the portions are of quality.

There is also the proven "contagion" of overweight, where acquaintances, not even nearby acquaintances, influence how much excess weight one carries.

[DMC]

"gov trying to protect individual from its own decisions is not efficient"

Who's going to protect Human-Americans from Corporate-Americans?




Corporate-Americans are the same as Human-Americans (caps yours). They are the same people. Most of us work for corporations. The corporations we work for offer goods or services and their marketing departments look for loopholes in the human psyche to exploit. The days of fur trading for repeating rifles after a 3 month trek across big river and many moons are over. This is the world we live in, take responsibility or punch out.

[mavs>spurs]

Corporate-Americans are the same as Human-Americans (caps yours). They are the same people. Most of us work for corporations. The corporations we work for offer goods or services and their marketing departments look for loopholes in the human psyche to exploit. The days of fur trading for repeating rifles after a 3 month trek across big river and many moons are over. This is the world we live in, take responsibility or punch out.

:lmao told

[DMC]

Explain why people have become so irresponsible about their eating in the past 35 years during the explosion of overweight and obesity, but were responsible before that?

They weren't ever responsible. The rise of organized crime, alcoholism, wife beating, molestations, over indulgence in everything available. I don't know what world you are reading about but it wasn't this one if you think people took personal responsibility.

However, what little accountability people once were forced to take for their own actions was removed by people who never had to work for a living, never knew it was possible to starve to death, never killed or grew their own food or built their own home or even raised their own kids. Oh but they felt liberated so they were quick to tell others how they should live, how they should act, and when these people became politicians and lawyers or both, they enacted legislation to appease their constituents. That legislation made milk fed prey out of the general public, having them upturn their visages to the law makers to do the work they didn't want to do in their personal lives, like take personal responsibility for their own actions. Psychologists (people who weren't accepted into tougher programs) blurred the lines of personal accountability and genetic/social disposition. Now we by and large honestly feel that every wrong should be fixed by legislation, not by accountability. We want the easier fix, fuck rights and freedoms. We are fat lazy motherfuckers because no one is chasing us through the woods trying to kill us, and because we can adequately live our lives regardless of being unable to put our feet together because of liberal democrat social programs that are geared to keep a crop of tax money dependent lazy fat fuckers.


What changed? The 100Ms of people's self-control? or corporate marketing and crap, dead, synthetic food production.

As always with right wingers, Human-Americans are guilty, while Corporate-Americans are always faultless and operate in good faith.
People like you who believe everything they see or read as long as it allows them to stay in bed and never do anything but run their cock sleeves. Inactive activists are the new thing. Blog about it you faggot.

[HI-FI]

People like you who believe everything they see or read as long as it allows them to stay in bed and never do anything but run their cock sleeves. Inactive activists are the new thing. Blog about it you faggot.
:rollin

someone needs to end this matchup, DMC has gone bout it bout it.

[boutons_deux]

They weren't ever responsible. The rise of organized crime, alcoholism, wife beating, molestations, over indulgence in everything available. I don't know what world you are reading about but it wasn't this one if you think people took personal responsibility.

However, what little accountability people once were forced to take for their own actions was removed by people who never had to work for a living, never knew it was possible to starve to death, never killed or grew their own food or built their own home or even raised their own kids. Oh but they felt liberated so they were quick to tell others how they should live, how they should act, and when these people became politicians and lawyers or both, they enacted legislation to appease their constituents. That legislation made milk fed prey out of the general public, having them upturn their visages to the law makers to do the work they didn't want to do in their personal lives, like take personal responsibility for their own actions. Psychologists (people who weren't accepted into tougher programs) blurred the lines of personal accountability and genetic/social disposition. Now we by and large honestly feel that every wrong should be fixed by legislation, not by accountability. We want the easier fix, fuck rights and freedoms. We are fat lazy motherfuckers because no one is chasing us through the woods trying to kill us, and because we can adequately live our lives regardless of being unable to put our feet together because of liberal democrat social programs that are geared to keep a crop of tax money dependent lazy fat fuckers.

People like you who believe everything they see or read as long as it allows them to stay in bed and never do anything but run their cock sleeves. Inactive activists are the new thing. Blog about it you faggot.

Some decades ago, before the corps fucked up the food, land, air, the USA wasn't obsessed with being/losing fat, and exercising, simply because 2/3 weren't fat or obese, at all age levels. There wasn't any huge issue with "personal irresponsibility" or moral laxity that caused overweight/obesity. People just lived and ate, and maintained a healthful weight. Sometimes around the 1980, something changed, or a long, slow change in food and eating became evident as people piled on the pounds.

btw, you seem to think your red-team, red state bubbas, Repugs are lean and mean, self-disciplined, moral example of good health. :lol

"We are fat lazy motherfuckers because no one is chasing us through the woods trying to kill us"

And chasing us through the woods stopped in ... 1980? :lol

Your analysis and "reasoning" of the fat epidemic is a erroneous, wrong-headed, silly as your politics.

"People like you who believe everything they see or read as long as it allows them to stay in bed"

and you're a lean and mean athlete who reads nothing but produces a never-ending stream of original perceptions and dircect contact with primary sources? :lol

You regurgitate the right-wing fantasies, ideologies in lock-step with the VRWC propaganda/myth machine.

And of course, corporations, super wealthy and powerful, that shape USA culture and values are completely innocent of any wrong doing.