An example of saving lives - liberal vs. right-wing, and the Colonel

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Craig234
And Craig doesn't disappoint, helping to prove my point that the ideological right is just unable to tell the difference between the reasoanble use of the government for the good of society, and some fantasy of widespread oppression; that their loyalty to ideology leaves them paralyzed at actually solving societal problems.

And...

Craig helping out, with his position which would kill many people for no reason but ideology

editted to reflect your views on the entire Wire-tapping issue... and the interrogation issue... and.... and...

Sometimes I get so confused... are you for or against Big Brother? which is it?

fun!

 

[Arkaign]

I agree Craig, regarding your view of a pure Libertarian ideology negatively affecting the U.S. economy as a whole.

I am very close to Libertarian principles when it comes to freedom of choice and civil liberties.

I have opposing views on how business, military, and overall economic matters should be managed, however. It's painfully obvious by looking at history that the larger business and industry get, the poorer the average citizen gets, without an enforced protective system of standards in place.

It is also painfully obvious that many priorities are illogically rearranged on the political playing field because of the gradient special interest influence that comes with such a corrupt system that smiles at bribes (PAC money, etc). Also painfully obvious is the ever-present dangers of self-sustaining bureaucracies that exist not to solve the problems they were created for, but purely to expand their own power, income, and reason for existence.

The war on drugs is a painful example of this. Spending billions chasing and incarcerating non-violent drug offenders, inevitably causes less potential emphasis to be focused on all other crime, including violent and sexual offenders. BUT, let's not forget, that by branding more things illegal, they give themselves reasons to expand the whole bureaucracy, to excuse higher budgets and expanded powers.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Craig234

My policies result in far fewer people being killed than your fantasy-based ideology, without the extreme 'nanny state' that exists only in your little cult.

LOL, everybody dies. "Your" policies haven't changed that fact.

Here's the motivation behind "your" policies: People are too stupid to be entrusted with their health.....unless of course it feels good.....then do it!

Case in point: Liberals are not out to ban caffeine or whiskey.

Really? Why not then? What makes trans fatty acids more of a social ill than alcohol? I don't want to hear about anything enjoyed in moderation being harmless--because that also applies to trans fatty acids.

This outta be interesting.

 

[palehorse]

The irony of seeing the left support this law in NY is almost overwhelming.

Let's see, what else is potentially dangerous to one's own health that we can ban next?

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So you believe that we should allow this poison to be added to our foods so the Industry can make more of a profit? I mean it's only used because it's profitable, not because it tastes better.

What I am saying is that people should be allowed to eat what foods they want to eat. Let the public know about the dangers of these fats and then let the people decide what to eat.

Another point those of us on the right have been trying to make in this thread, and everyone else seems to ignore is the point that everyone complains when they hear about the wiretapping and tracking of funds through the banks and claims what a threat to our freedom and way of life those programs are. Yet when the government decids to regulate something as simple as what you can and can't eat you all applaud them for doing such a great deed.

Everything Bush had done since 9-11 has not affected the way I lead my life one bit. But something as simple as the NYC regulation will change what millions of people can or cannot eat.

So wait a minute. Are you saying you're for the bush violations of liberties but not the food banning violation of liberties? That means you're for violating liberties but only certain liberties?

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
The irony of seeing the left support this law in NY is almost overwhelming.

Let's see, what else is potentially dangerous to one's own health that we can ban next?

I agree, and with it the inverse and equally duplicitous attack on this law by the right (generally).

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So you believe that we should allow this poison to be added to our foods so the Industry can make more of a profit? I mean it's only used because it's profitable, not because it tastes better.

What I am saying is that people should be allowed to eat what foods they want to eat. Let the public know about the dangers of these fats and then let the people decide what to eat.

Another point those of us on the right have been trying to make in this thread, and everyone else seems to ignore is the point that everyone complains when they hear about the wiretapping and tracking of funds through the banks and claims what a threat to our freedom and way of life those programs are. Yet when the government decids to regulate something as simple as what you can and can't eat you all applaud them for doing such a great deed.

Everything Bush had done since 9-11 has not affected the way I lead my life one bit. But something as simple as the NYC regulation will change what millions of people can or cannot eat.

So wait a minute. Are you saying you're for the bush violations of liberties but not the food banning violation of liberties? That means you're for violating liberties but only certain liberties?

The same could also be said of those who oppose the wiretapping and water-boarding, yet support the ban on trans fats (*cough*Craig*cough*).

then again, if you're like me, I don't consider the wiretapping and other issues as infringing upon our liberties any.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

The same could also be said of those who oppose the wiretapping and water-boarding, yet support the ban on trans fats (*cough*Craig*cough*).

then again, if you're like me, I don't consider the wiretapping and other issues as infringing upon our liberties any.[/quote]

I kind of see where you're going on this. There *IS* an awful lot of partisanship here, as everywhere, that gets in the way of logic. This exemplifies itself with bald-faced hypocrisy at worst, and in general just shows people to be sheep to politics without much principle.

 

[Zorba]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
I do not believe in government regulation to protect individuals from themselves.

QFT. In a case such as this, wherein the only victim of the trans fats is the individual consuming them, there is no justification whatsoever for government interest, let alone regulation and law! If the eating of trans fats somehow endangered others, then we could talk. (example: second-hand smoke, alcohol, and other drugs that endanger others). but, if the worst possible effect on the rest of society is havign to smell bad gas, then get the hell out of my eating habits please!

thankyou very much.

So you believe in assisted suicide, eh? Because the only person affected is the person that chooses to take the drugs.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Craig234
My policies result in far fewer people being killed than your fantasy-based ideology, without the extreme 'nanny state' that exists only in your little cult.

It's none of the goverments business if people wanna "kill" themselves by not following some PC freakin diet.

Originally posted by: Craig234

I include libertarians in the right-wing group I mentioned. No 'spin' there.

Buhahahah :laugh: You classify Libertarians as a "right wing" group?

Originally posted by: Craig234

Liberals are not out to ban caffeine or whiskey. You, too, prove the point that the right resorts to these fantasy, phony extreme versions of liberals as your main arguments.

Whiskey has already been banned before in this country. Smoking basically is too. You're seem so very proud that some cooking oil is banned (at least in NYC), yet I'm the one with the fantasy because I think you guys will ban other stuff too?

Originally posted by: Craig234

In fact, libertarians are especially bad about the fallacy that there's this fantasyland they think would exist without government -

Sounds to me like you're confusing Anarchist & Libertarians.

Originally posted by: Craig234

Look at the times the US has most implemented the libertarian ideology, such as in the gilded age - in 1900, I understand the average *inflation adjusted* average income for Americans was $10,000 - i.e.l, abject poverty while the robber barons thrived; the only way out of that hole was for the government to force the private sector to let the people organize, and force the private sector to stop shooting them for trying. Libertarianism is one of those utterly bankrupt and dangerous cults that looks nice on the surface.

Oh, yeah we need a Socialist Nanny State to protect us from all those bad "Robber Barrons". Umm....who's gonna protect us from the government? Ya know, the one that declares eminent domain so it (the government) can pick up some additional revenue (R/E taxes). Governments are just as amoral and self-interested as robber barrons.

But, the government creates NO GNP, products or services (unless handing out OPM is a "service). Do you know how much it CONSUMES?

Originally posted by: Craig234
The real libertarian platform is a menace to "Nanny State Socialism", based on its adherents' fallacious understanding of a vacuum of government power.

Fixed for you

Originally posted by: Craig234

Hint: ask a serf in most socities in mankind's history about how much the absence of elected government power meant he got the power instead.

????? I'm not sure what to make of this sentance, other than you seem to be trying to (erroneously) equate the absence of elected government with Libertarianism.

Originally posted by: Craig234

How many societies in human history resembe the fantasyland libertarians describe? None they want to take credit for.

I'm not sure what you have in mind when you refer to a "libertarian fantasyland". Above, seems you demonstrate some confusion about what libertarianism is. However, your ideal Nanny State reminds me an awful lot of "Mother Russia" and the USSR.


Fern

 

[Starbuck1975]

I definitely applaud the government for doing this. If KFC put "TransFat" next to their meals when I order, then your argument would hold water and I would be able to decide what to order based on that. As it stands now, there is no way for consumer to know at the point of sale. As such, consumer needs to be protected with regulation, because there is no market mechanism for the consumer to protect himself since the consumer is not given the information to make market based decision.

The ignorant consumer argument doesn't work.

There are no warning labels on alcoholic beverages warning individuals not to operate a motor vehicle while impaired, but people still do it.

There are warnings on cigarette packs, yet people still choose to smoke.

Most fast food establishments now post nutritional information posters in proximity to the cash register such that people can review said information prior to ordering.


The government cannot get into the business of regulating personal behavior. KFC offers a product that is delicious but also not particularly healthy if eaten in excess.

There are numerous products on the market that are detrimental to one's health...yet many of those products, in moderation, will probably not have an adverse effect on your health.

Similarly, there are some substances that remain illegal, yet the threat they pose to society is more because they are illegal...I really dont see a significant distinction between say alcohol and marijuana.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Similarly, there are some substances that remain illegal, yet the threat they pose to society is more because they are illegal...I really dont see a significant distinction between say alcohol and marijuana.

Yikes, besides the fact that Alcohol is involved in tens of thousands of deaths annually, due to drunk driving and disease, and that death and disease attributed to marijuana is nearly nonexistent?

I don't like weed, it's not my game, I like to drink. Even so, on a purely logical sense, it makes much more sense to have alcohol outlawed vs. marijuana. Personally, I object to outlawing either.

 

[sandorski]

No one is telling anyone what they can eat. What is being done is a change in how Foods are prepared. KFC and others will still offer the same Food, they'll just be using a different Oil to fry and/or add in to their Food.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Zorba

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
I do not believe in government regulation to protect individuals from themselves.

QFT. In a case such as this, wherein the only victim of the trans fats is the individual consuming them, there is no justification whatsoever for government interest, let alone regulation and law! If the eating of trans fats somehow endangered others, then we could talk. (example: second-hand smoke, alcohol, and other drugs that endanger others). but, if the worst possible effect on the rest of society is havign to smell bad gas, then get the hell out of my eating habits please!

thankyou very much.

So you believe in assisted suicide, eh? Because the only person affected is the person that chooses to take the drugs.

uhh, doesnt that involve more than one person? being "assisted" and all? umm, ya. nice try though.

 

[Thump553]

Wow-the P&N regulars are tightly wound today. Near continuous off-point bickering in this thread and three locked threads on the first page as evidence.

My Rx-go to a nice Halloween party tonight or at least over-indulge in candy (one night only dispensation granted). Relax a bit.

 

[marincounty]

As far as I know, the use of trans-fats such as hydrogenated vegetable oil was encouraged in years past by the federal govt, in order to reduce the use of saturated fats.
Recent research has determined that trans fats are unhealthy at any level of consumption.Has the federal govt done anything to reverse the use of trans fats now that they know they are bad for us?
Actually the FDA issued rules about trans fat labeling, which is now forcing many snack manufacturers to remove the trans fat or list it on the label.
Many manufacturers started including trans fats in their processed foods about 20 years ago to prolong their products' shelf life, but public health experts warn that these kinds of fats clog arteries and cause obesity.

http://www.umm.edu/features/transfats.html
"Numerous studies have found that trans fats raise our risk of heart disease," said Cynthia Payne, a registered dietitian at the University of Maryland Medical Center. "They can also contribute to an increase in total cholesterol levels and a drop in the healthy HDL cholesterol. These man-made fats are much worse for you than any other natural fat, even the saturated fats found in butter and beef."
Why Have Trans Fatty Acids been Put in So Many Food Products?

No human body has any need for these man-made fats. Food manufacturers started putting them in products because they allow for a longer shelf life. Crackers, for example, can stay on the shelf and stay crispy for years in part because of the hydrogenated fats in them.

Are Trans Fats Bad for Kids?

Trans fats increase the risk for heart disease. Therefore, children who start at age 3 or 4 eating a steady diet of fast food, pop tarts, commercially prepared fish sticks, stick margarine, cake, candy, cookies and microwave popcorn can be expected to get heart disease earlier than kids who are eating foods without trans fats.

While a person may not get heart disease until they are in their 40s, some of our research here at the University of Maryland has shown that kids as young as 8, 9 and 10 already have the high cholesterol and blood fats that clog arteries. By starting healthy eating habits early, parents can help their children avoid heart attacks and stroke.

http://www.bantransfats.com/

Who is BanTransFats.com?

We are the organization that sued Kraft in 2003 to eliminate trans fat in Oreos.

Result: Kraft eliminated trans fat from Oreos and reduced or eliminated it in about 650 other products. Click here and here for information.

The Oreo lawsuit had a huge "domino" effect. The publicity that the lawsuit received created public awareness about the trans fat issue and triggered an avalanche of events including the FDA labeling rule.


We are the organization that sued McDonald's in 2003 for misleading its customers into believing that it had switched to a lower trans fat cooking oil.

Result: As a result of the litigation, McDonald's agreed to inform its customers that it had not changed to the lower trans fat cooking oil by placing prominent notices in all of its restaurants nationwide and in the media. It also agreed to pay $7 million to the American Heart Association for a trans fat program. Click here for information.

To sum it up for you:
Trans fats are bad for you in any amount.
The only reason it is used is for the longer shelf life of products, ie convenience.
Removing trans fat from your fried food won't adversely the taste.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Thump553
My Rx-go to a nice Halloween party tonight or at least over-indulge in candy (one night only dispensation granted). Relax a bit.

Well I would but apparently my County passed a law outlawing the use of sugar in the manufacturing of candy, so I'll be eating plain apples tonight...

 

[kage69]

Really? Why not then? What makes trans fatty acids more of a social ill than alcohol?

Social perception. Surely a few tablespoons of modified lard can't equal the destructive power of a bottle of high-test whiskey! This is just a bag of cookies!!! Keep in mind that advertising towards children is an art-form difficult to combat as well.

Trans Fats are only there to increase shelf life, and unfortunetly they were seen as such a 'cost saver' they came to be used in almost every kind of food item that was pre-packaged, be it sweet, savory, or salty. Foods that we allow adolescents to indulge in freely, even serving the items in lunch halls and vending machines.

Remember that once you ingest trans fats, the damage is pretty much done on the spot but limited to consumer. There goes your social part I guess. This isn't analogous to the type of social threat posed by the standard boozer who once gets loaded on whiskey picks fights and could endanger others worse via DUI.
The reason booze is a social evil is the same reason we don't have beer vending machines and air-port mini-bars set up in public schools. Partial Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil in excess does not induce impaired judgement, just a burlesque figure and a multitude of health risks, many of which start at an early age.


I'm stunned so many hard right-wingers are against this, what with their 'culture of life' thing and all. Millions of kids will live healthier, longer lives without these ingredients in widespread use. You'd think those always so concerned with 'saving children' would be rejoicing at this prospect. But like Craig has already expounded upon, the hard righter is a curious sort...

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: kage69

Really? Why not then? What makes trans fatty acids more of a social ill than alcohol?

Social perception. Surely a few tablespoons of modified lard can't equal the destructive power of a bottle of high-test whiskey! This is just a bag of cookies!!! Keep in mind that advertising towards children is an art-form difficult to combat as well.

Trans Fats are only there to increase shelf life, and unfortunetly they were seen as such a 'cost saver' they came to be used in almost every kind of food item that was pre-packaged, be it sweet, savory, or salty. Foods that we allow adolescents to indulge in freely, even serving the items in lunch halls and vending machines.

Remember that once you ingest trans fats, the damage is pretty much done on the spot but limited to consumer. There goes your social part I guess. This isn't analogous to the type of social threat posed by the standard boozer who once gets loaded on whiskey picks fights and could endanger others worse via DUI.
The reason booze is a social evil is the same reason we don't have beer vending machines and air-port mini-bars set up in public schools. Partial Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil in excess does not induce impaired judgement, just a burlesque figure and a multitude of health risks, many of which start at an early age.


I'm stunned so many hard right-wingers are against this, what with their 'culture of life' thing and all. Millions of kids will live healthier, longer lives without these ingredients in widespread use. You'd think those always so concerned with 'saving children' would be rejoicing at this prospect. But like Craig has already expounded upon, the hard righter is a curious sort...

At the end of the day, just as with gay marriage and a multitude of other fringe issues, I really don't care what happens in the end with this law. I will adjust my life accordingly, or not.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: kage69

Really? Why not then? What makes trans fatty acids more of a social ill than alcohol?

Social perception. Surely a few tablespoons of modified lard can't equal the destructive power of a bottle of high-test whiskey! This is just a bag of cookies!!! Keep in mind that advertising towards children is an art-form difficult to combat as well.

Trans Fats are only there to increase shelf life, and unfortunetly they were seen as such a 'cost saver' they came to be used in almost every kind of food item that was pre-packaged, be it sweet, savory, or salty. Foods that we allow adolescents to indulge in freely, even serving the items in lunch halls and vending machines.

Remember that once you ingest trans fats, the damage is pretty much done on the spot but limited to consumer. There goes your social part I guess. This isn't analogous to the type of social threat posed by the standard boozer who once gets loaded on whiskey picks fights and could endanger others worse via DUI.
The reason booze is a social evil is the same reason we don't have beer vending machines and air-port mini-bars set up in public schools. Partial Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil in excess does not induce impaired judgement, just a burlesque figure and a multitude of health risks, many of which start at an early age.


I'm stunned so many hard right-wingers are against this, what with their 'culture of life' thing and all. Millions of kids will live healthier, longer lives without these ingredients in widespread use. You'd think those always so concerned with 'saving children' would be rejoicing at this prospect. But like Craig has already expounded upon, the hard righter is a curious sort...

At the end of the day, just as with gay marriage and a multitude of other fringe issues, I really don't care what happens in the end with this law. I will adjust my life accordingly, or not.

You won't notice a thing.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Banned Member with a new ISP

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
LOL :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::roll:

Frankly I think it's good to do away with posionous additives even if it takes government regulations.

Yes you are so right. And next they should get rid of sugary foods because it leads to obesity. And let's regulate Soda since that also causes obesity, and diabetes.
Any food with high levels of fat should also be illegal.
Organic spinach needs to be outlawed as well, two people dead from eating it two too many.
Basicly, any food that can be considred unhealthy should be outlawed. We should ban all these unhealthy foods from being served in public restaraunts in the name of public health.

So you believe that we should allow this poison to be added to our foods so the Industry can make more of a profit? I mean it's only used because it's profitable, not because it tastes better.

Isn't it fascinating how the simple truth you present sails past these folk in their ideological fervor. My suspicion is that they were harassed as children by their Mothers and have psychological problems with the feminine. They get all up tight about a Feminized Nanny State. Real boys don't nurture and care for people. They grow up to be pricks and authoritarian males. "Nobody tells me what to do."

 

[piasabird]

What does a political idealogy have to do with cooking fried chicken?

It is the only the left wingers that are trying to tell people what they can and can not eat???

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: piasabird
What does a political idealogy have to do with cooking fried chicken?

It is the only the left wingers that are trying to tell people what they can and can not eat???

Eat anything you want. This won't affect your choice at all.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: piasabird
What does a political idealogy have to do with cooking fried chicken?

It is the only the left wingers that are trying to tell people what they can and can not eat???

Is it only the right wingers who are ok with putting poison in our children's food?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: piasabird
What does a political idealogy have to do with cooking fried chicken?

It is the only the left wingers that are trying to tell people what they can and can not eat???

Eat anything you want. This won't affect your choice at all.

Were he not ideologically blind he might have noticed that. He can eat sh!t, he just can't serve it.