Reply With Quote
No we weren't. We were talking about diabetes, and stuff that makes you fat, which is why *I* brought up high fructose corn syrup.
Don't tell me what I was discussing before you even got here.
lmao at the 'pro-lifers' in this thread
No we weren't. We were talking about diabetes, and stuff that makes you fat, which is why *I* brought up high fructose corn syrup.
Don't tell me what I was discussing before you even got here.
I never said it was a reason. I said you'll still going to have some people you can't collect on, and we'll be in the hook for.
At some point you have to just stop covering people for making stupid decisions or else it's just a neverending cycle of stupidity. You're empowering people to be stupid if your going to be there to cover their ass.
Especially in this economy where companies are all out for profit at the employee expense. Now it takes two jobs to support a family because many salaries are down and companies no longer pay a liveable wage like they did 50 years ago.
You can make an excellent fruit salad with that statement.
Covering people? I doubt the tea party stops at that point. They aren't satisfied until sexual encounters are planned by a panel.
I think it's fantastic that some of the conservatives posting here actually admitted that not all sugar is the same. You know, product manufacturers will never say this. They'll never say how the overwhelming amount of corn and soybean (Omega 6) is detrimental either.
Fantastic, about 5 years ago that would never happen.
That scientific stuff is contagious, by the time retirement rolls in for some of you I expect some full out militant liberals. If not, you're gonna die anyway.
tbh, if the determination is already made that a good percentage of people are simply stupid, then regulate the market for stupid decisions. You don't HAVE to attack it from the coverage angle. The banning on trans-fat is an example.
Then again, you'll have the usual idiotshow the government tells you what you can or can't eat.
i don't believe people are stupid, but lazy and irresponsible. i don't know why the government has to be involved in this. they shouldn't have to act for us or on our behalf. the people of this country need to stand up to these food companies and have the change the way they're making food via social pressure. people don't protest.tbh, if the determination is already made that a good percentage of people are simply stupid, then regulate the market for stupid decisions. You don't HAVE to attack it from the coverage angle. The banning on trans-fat is an example.
Then again, you'll have the usual idiots
I do believe people are stupid, that's why I'm a big fan of anyone who smokes getting lung cancer and dying. Anyone in this day and age who still smokes cigarettes regularly knowing the health affects is a ed idiot who shouldn't have kids because he/she would be polluting the gene pool. I just wish cigarettes would kill anyone who smokes them quick enough for them not to have kids.
Right here is where the lying starts...
So, here's what really happened...
Congressman Paul answered Blitzer’s question “No.” By my count, three people yelled “Yeah” in response to Blitzer’s question, should “society” let the young man die.
Paul’s answer was actually good: he said that when he was practicing medicine, the churches took care of indigent patients, and “we never turned anyone away.” That got another round of applause. “Society,” in other words, includes much more than the government.
So what really happened is that the “Tea Party” crowd cheered two things: 1) the proposition that people are en led to take risks and the government should not be counted on to solve all problems, and 2) churches and other private groups should pay medical bills when an improvident individual can’t. This was transmuted by Yahoo into “Debate crowd cheers letting uninsured die.”
This is the sort of ignorant prejudice against which conservatives struggle every day.
Last edited by Yonivore; 09-14-2011 at 11:51 PM. Reason: I just wanted to say I ripped off everything, from the video down, from a conservative blog. Sue me.
When it's life on the line, being lazy and irresponsible = stupid. Plus even if you were to say that you don't give a about those people, it ends up costing all of us money, so I don't see why the government wouldn't step up.
Obviously, I'm not suggesting something as severe as tying up tubes, like the resident Nazi, but banning stuff that everyone knows it's ing unhealthy. Take smokes for an example.
i'm not completely against the idea of what your saying. we both want the same result, but it sicken me that people don't care enough to do much at all about it by taking it into their own hands and boycott and/or protest the problem, or just eat McDonalds in moderation.
the list can go on and on. you going to ban alcohol too?
this thread le is good
Apparently they don't. 1 in 3 Americans is considered obese as of 2008, and it's only been trending up.
I don't know about outright banning. I think certain things are easier to deal with that way when you know there's no 'positives' from it.
IMO, we can't just keep on ignoring it.
I don't think you can ban cigarettes. To my understanding, you can't ban something the body naturally produces. I could be talking out of my ass but I believe I learned that years ago. <shrugs>
The body naturally produces cigarettes?
That body is a gold mine!
Ha. Sorry. I left out "on account of the nicotine" Oops.
a lot of things are sold that have no positives to them. again, i don't completely disagree with you. i wish people were more like me and took preventative measure about their eating habits. it's not hard.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
