Palin defends the fatties

[MrX8503]

It is also a front to give validation to the laws passed by those in her own party.

Whatever you need to make yourself believe to make it right in your mind.

 

[Amused]

Like not being able to sale Alcohol on Sundays?

Look up blue laws:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law

Yep. Who ever said I agreed with blue laws either?

But blue laws are fading away. Slowly dissappearing one by one.

Laws legislating the morality of the left, however, are growing in number.

 

[CallMeJoe]

...You are confusing "education" with "mandate", that or you are blatantly trying to tie the two together and pass it off as one in the same to validate "big government" when that is not what's happening...

You're wasting your time.

Amused knows that Michelle Obama and the Evil Democrats are out to steal his Twinkies and Ho-Hos, and no amount of your Liberal lies will convince him otherwise.

 

[Amused]

You're wasting your time.

Amused knows that Michelle Obama and the Evil Democrats are out to steal his Twinkies and Ho-Hos, and no amount of your Liberal lies will convince him otherwise.

This is getting really boring, so I'll just rip my argument from someone else. You can address his points.


Michelle Obama and the Food Police

Tonight Bill O’Reilly argues with me about Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move!” campaign, which is meant to “solve the problem of childhood obesity in a generation.”

He likes her campaign. I don’t.

If the first lady wants to spend her time and money to persuade us to eat better, fine. But I fear that she wants to spend our time and our money. In her latest speech, she talks about helping grocery stores “locate in underserved areas…getting healthier food into schools…helping our kids become more active, not just in school but at home.”

Sounds like big government to me.

For what it’s worth, here is some of the research we dug up to prepare my Michelle Obama discussion:

In his article “Egg on their Faces,” Steve Malanga points out that “Government dietary advice often proves disastrous.”

Starting in the 1970s… the American Heart Association advised people to reduce drastically their consumption of eggs as part of a goal to limit total cholesterol intake to 300 milligrams a day (a single egg can have 250 milligrams). The recommendation, seconded by government and other public-health groups, prompted a sharp drop in the consumption of eggs, a food that nutritionists praise as low in calories and high in nutrients. In 2000, the AHA revised its restrictions on eggs to one a day (from a onetime low of three a week)… To what purpose? A 2004 article in The Journal of Nutrition that looked at worldwide studies of egg consumption noted that the current restrictions on eating eggs are “unwarranted for the majority of people and are not supported by scientific data.”​

Furthermore:

As a recent review of the latest research in Scientific American pointed out, ever since the first set of federal guidelines appeared in 1980, Americans heard that they had to reduce their intake of saturated fat by cutting back on meat and dairy products and replacing them with carbohydrates. Americans dutifully complied. Since then, obesity has increased sharply, and the progress that the country has made against heart disease has largely come from medical breakthroughs like statin drugs, which lower cholesterol, and more effective medications to control blood pressure.​

Malanga also notes that new FDA guidelines recommend a maximum of 1500 milligrams of salt daily (down from 2300). One hypertension expert observed that the government’s salt war is a giant uncontrolled experiment with the public’s health.

Here are a few more reasons why government shouldn’t tell us what to eat:

We’re living longer than ever! 80 yrs today vs. 57 yrs 80 yrs ago

A CDC study found that more people die every year from being underweight than overweight! And that moderately overweight people live longer than those at normal weight.

Government was once excited about BMI index. (body-mass index) Gov Mike Huckabee had all Arkansas kids tested! But BMI is a lousy measure of health. According to BMI: Tom Cruise and Arnold Schwarzenegger are obese; GWBush and George Clooney are “overweight”

Calorie counts on menu boards don’t work: people STILL don’t take in fewer calories! A study at McDonald’s , Burger King, Wendy’s, and Kentucky Fried Chicken found that people ordered MORE calories after the labeling law went into effect.

What’s junk food? Chicago’s new candy tax defines sweets that contain flour as “food” – w/o flour as “candy.” (Hershey bar? Candy. But Kit Kats, Twix, Twizzlers –are “food”) O.j. and apple juice? More calories than Coke! (97 v 120/cup)

"Protect the children?" Children are the responsibility of their parents. When the state assumes the role of parent, it makes children of all of us.

It’s a good sign that America has food nannies – means were so rich that these are the things we’re worried about!

The food police haven’t jailed anyone yet, but who knows 20 years down the road? MeMe Roth suggests annual obesity screenings at school; serving soft drinks to only those over 18; child abuse laws for parents with obese kids; taxes on soda and sweetened drinks.​

If the government is allowed to dictate our diet, what's next? Do they start deciding who we'll marry, where we'll work?

Thomas Jefferson said "A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have."

Food is none of the government’s business. Their job is to protect us from foreign enemies. If they spent less time on this nonsense, maybe they’d have noticed that the 9/11 hijackers had overstayed their visas and were taking flying lessons.

Read more: http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/09/14/michelle-obama-and-the-food-police/#ixzz16d8BVBCk

 

[MrX8503]

This is getting really boring, so I'll just rip my argument from someone else. You can address his points.


Michelle Obama and the Food Police

Tonight Bill O’Reilly argues with me about Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move!” campaign, which is meant to “solve the problem of childhood obesity in a generation.”

He likes her campaign. I don’t.

If the first lady wants to spend her time and money to persuade us to eat better, fine. But I fear that she wants to spend our time and our money. In her latest speech, she talks about helping grocery stores “locate in underserved areas…getting healthier food into schools…helping our kids become more active, not just in school but at home.”

Sounds like big government to me.

For what it’s worth, here is some of the research we dug up to prepare my Michelle Obama discussion:

In his article “Egg on their Faces,” Steve Malanga points out that “Government dietary advice often proves disastrous.”

Starting in the 1970s… the American Heart Association advised people to reduce drastically their consumption of eggs as part of a goal to limit total cholesterol intake to 300 milligrams a day (a single egg can have 250 milligrams). The recommendation, seconded by government and other public-health groups, prompted a sharp drop in the consumption of eggs, a food that nutritionists praise as low in calories and high in nutrients. In 2000, the AHA revised its restrictions on eggs to one a day (from a onetime low of three a week)… To what purpose? A 2004 article in The Journal of Nutrition that looked at worldwide studies of egg consumption noted that the current restrictions on eating eggs are “unwarranted for the majority of people and are not supported by scientific data.”​

Furthermore:

As a recent review of the latest research in Scientific American pointed out, ever since the first set of federal guidelines appeared in 1980, Americans heard that they had to reduce their intake of saturated fat by cutting back on meat and dairy products and replacing them with carbohydrates. Americans dutifully complied. Since then, obesity has increased sharply, and the progress that the country has made against heart disease has largely come from medical breakthroughs like statin drugs, which lower cholesterol, and more effective medications to control blood pressure.​

Malanga also notes that new FDA guidelines recommend a maximum of 1500 milligrams of salt daily (down from 2300). One hypertension expert observed that the government’s salt war is a giant uncontrolled experiment with the public’s health.

Here are a few more reasons why government shouldn’t tell us what to eat:

We’re living longer than ever! 80 yrs today vs. 57 yrs 80 yrs ago

A CDC study found that more people die every year from being underweight than overweight! And that moderately overweight people live longer than those at normal weight.

Government was once excited about BMI index. (body-mass index) Gov Mike Huckabee had all Arkansas kids tested! But BMI is a lousy measure of health. According to BMI: Tom Cruise and Arnold Schwarzenegger are obese; GWBush and George Clooney are “overweight”

Calorie counts on menu boards don’t work: people STILL don’t take in fewer calories! A study at McDonald’s , Burger King, Wendy’s, and Kentucky Fried Chicken found that people ordered MORE calories after the labeling law went into effect.

What’s junk food? Chicago’s new candy tax defines sweets that contain flour as “food” – w/o flour as “candy.” (Hershey bar? Candy. But Kit Kats, Twix, Twizzlers –are “food&#8221 O.j. and apple juice? More calories than Coke! (97 v 120/cup)

"Protect the children?" Children are the responsibility of their parents. When the state assumes the role of parent, it makes children of all of us.

It’s a good sign that America has food nannies – means were so rich that these are the things we’re worried about!

The food police haven’t jailed anyone yet, but who knows 20 years down the road? MeMe Roth suggests annual obesity screenings at school; serving soft drinks to only those over 18; child abuse laws for parents with obese kids; taxes on soda and sweetened drinks.​

If the government is allowed to dictate our diet, what's next? Do they start deciding who we'll marry, where we'll work?

Thomas Jefferson said "A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have."

Food is none of the government’s business. Their job is to protect us from foreign enemies. If they spent less time on this nonsense, maybe they’d have noticed that the 9/11 hijackers had overstayed their visas and were taking flying lessons.

Read more: http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/09/14/michelle-obama-and-the-food-police/#ixzz16d8BVBCk

How does this prove that the Let's Move initiative has food mandates? Again it doesn't.

Protecting us from foreign enemies is one aspect of the government's job among many. Our government has spent trillions in protecting our country so don't you worry about that. I can also guarantee you that the number of people who died from health related issues is several hundred times greater than the deaths of Americans from terriost attacks.

I could further break apart that article, but I wouldnt want to waste my time and it really doesn't prove anything. Ontop of that, it has nothing to do with this thread other than trying to tie in "big government" which has no relation. The argument is really only there to cause disagreements, not solutions.

Back on point, the intiative is educational, not a mandate. Quite frankly everyone needs this food awareness, not just kids.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

What do you mean the government sponsored soup kitchen doesn't serve fillet mignon? Damn communists won't let me eat what I want!!11

The awesome irony of right-wingers viciously defending one of the most socialist practices on the planet: socialized lunch.

 

[zsdersw]

1. "Education" leads people to support past, current, or future government mandates.

2. Obesity is one of the *many* problems that cannot effectively be battled by laws, regulations, and other government action.

3. Surrendering the ability to choose for yourself.. by supporting laws/regulations that make the choice for you.. is most often how liberty is lost to the collective will of the majority.

4. Rational arguments can be made to support almost any law or regulation. What's rational does not necessarily equal what's good, though.

5. We're all frogs in a big pot of water on a huge stove... and the flame is set low enough that we won't notice it or can rationalize away any concern about it.

 

[MrX8503]

1. "Education" leads people to support past, current, or future government mandates.

2. Obesity is one of the *many* problems that cannot effectively be battled by laws, regulations, and other government action.

3. Surrendering the ability to choose for yourself.. by supporting laws/regulations that make the choice for you.. is most often how liberty is lost to the collective will of the majority.

4. Rational arguments can be made to support almost any law or regulation. What's rational does not necessarily equal what's good, though.

5. We're all frogs in a big pot of water on a huge stove... and the flame is set low enough that we won't notice it or can rationalize away any concern about it.

So we should also stop "Education" about abstinence as well because it may lead to mandates of requiring all women to be on birth control?

Correlation does not imply causation. Education Awareness may correlate to mandates, but it is not the direct cause of mandates. Many problems can't be solved by the government, but many problems have been solved by the government.

From what I can see, the Let's Move initiative still allows you to go through the drive through at McDonalds.

 

[zsdersw]

So we should also stop "Education" about abstinence as well because it may lead to mandates of requiring all women to be on birth control?

It's possible.

Correlation does not imply causation. Education Awareness may correlate to mandates, but it is not the direct cause of mandates.

It makes mandates reasonable.

but many problems have been solved by the government.

Like what?

From what I can see, the Let's Move initiative still allows you to go through the drive through at McDonalds.

For now, but it could very easily be the basis for future laws, bans, and regulations.

 

[MrX8503]

It's possible.



It makes mandates reasonable.



Like what?



For now, but it could very easily be the basis for future laws, bans, and regulations.

*facepalm*

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

1. "Education" leads people to support past, current, or future government mandates.

Evidence?

2. Obesity is one of the *many* problems that cannot effectively be battled by laws, regulations, and other government action.

Evidence?

4. Rational arguments can be made to support almost any law or regulation. What's rational does not necessarily equal what's good, though.

5. We're all frogs in a big pot of water on a huge stove... and the flame is set low enough that we won't notice it or can rationalize away any concern about it.

 

[zsdersw]

Evidence?

Trans-fats were shown to be worse for you than even saturated fat. Education on this subject resulted in numerous locales banning trans-fats.

Evidence?

Obesity is, largely, a matter of personal choices. Government cannot legislate eating and exercise habits.

Non-sequiturs.

 

[zsdersw]

*facepalm*

Exactly my initial reaction to your reply that I quoted earlier.

 

[dainthomas]

It is also a front to give validation to the laws passed by those in her own party.

Nobody here should be surprised that when Sarah Palin disagrees with Dwight Eisenhower on an issue, you take her side.

 

[Amused]

Trans-fats were shown to be worse for you than even saturated fat. Education on this subject resulted in numerous locales banning trans-fats.

Not only that, but the move to trans fats was prompted by an education campaign against saturated fats in the 70s. That's right, the very same food police who are trying to control what we eat now, are responsible for trans fats being introduced in so many foods in the first place. They were billed as a "healthy" alternative to saturated fats and pushed onto food producers.

So not only are the food police intrusive, they can't fucking shoot straight. Most of the campaigns they have offered up has ended up being counter productive.

 

[Amused]

Nobody here should be surprised that when Sarah Palin disagrees with Dwight Eisenhower on an issue, you take her side.

Wow. Did your ass hurt when you pulled that one out of it?

 

[dainthomas]

Wow. Did your ass hurt when you pulled that one out of it?

http://www.fitness.gov/50thanniversary/toolkit-firstfiftyyears.htm

Finally, on June 18-19, 1956, the President’s Conference on the Fitness of American Youth was held at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md. At the president’s direction, Nixon presided as conference chairman. Attending were 140 participants, including Kraus and Prudden; national, state, and local government leaders; educators; people representing the fields of health, medicine, and sport; youth and civic organizations; and media.

The broad range of recommendations generated during the conference included the following:

• The public must be made aware of the problem of establishing and maintaining fitness;
• Fitness must be popularized and promoted among youth;
• Research on fitness is needed to decide what kind and how much;
• Out of school programs should include agencies already working in the field (e.g. Boy and Girl Scouts, YMCA, etc.);
• Funds for any programs and initiatives should come from private industry, foundations, community chests; a greater share of tax revenues should be allocated to community recreation;
• Schools should have more time, equipment, and per*sonnel for physical education and should focus increased attention on children who are not athleti*cally gifted, rather than on “stars;”
• The standards and prestige of the physical education profession must be raised;
• Community recreational facilities should be increased and better use made of existing facilities;
• All children must have periodic medical examinations;
• Better leadership is needed for physical activity at home, in the school, and in the community, and adults should be role models for physical fitness.
• Girls should have equal opportunities for physical fitness.

“I believe you and I share the feeling that more and better coordinated attention should be given to this most precious asset – our youth – within the Federal government. By this I do not mean that we should have an over-riding Federal program. The fitness of our young people is essentially a home and local community problem; … your deliberations also reveal a need for arousing in the American people a new awareness of the importance of physical and recreational activity ... ”

President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Letter to Participants,
President’s Conference on the Fitness of American Youth​

Since Sarah Palin obviously disagrees with the President's Council on Physical fitness, and you agree with her, I'd like to know which of Eisenhower's points you disagree with?

 

[Amused]

http://www.fitness.gov/50thanniversary/toolkit-firstfiftyyears.htm

Since Sarah Palin obviously disagrees with the President's Council on Physical fitness, and you agree with her, I'd like to know which of Eisenhower's points you disagree with?

The difference is, Eisenhower's party wasn't running around the country passing laws, limits, bans and taxes on foods in an attempt to force eating habits.

It also focused on private organizations.

Eisenhower's plan was all about voluntary education. And while the front of Obama's plan may appear to be so, her party is running around trying to turn it into a mandate. Were her party not trying to turn any of this into a mandate, I would have no problem with it. But we all know where these things lead when the party of "we take your liberty for your own good" gets their hands on it.

Maybe with time the stretch marks on your ass will heal.

 

[dainthomas]

The difference is, Eisenhower's party wasn't running around the country passing laws, limits, bans and taxes on foods in an attempt to force eating habits.

It also focused on private organizations.

Eisenhower's plan was all about voluntary education. And while the front of Obama's plan may appear to be so, her party is running around trying to turn it into a mandate. Were her party not trying to turn any of this into a mandate, I would have no problem with it. But we all know where these things lead when the party of "we take your liberty for your own good" gets their hands on it.

So your ENTIRE argument isn't that the Let's Move initiative is bad (it's goals appear to be identical to Eisenhower's initial goals), it's that other people with D's next to their name have passed crazy laws, so she obviously secretly wants the same thing.

Just like how all Republicans think the same I suppose.

Let's see if you can exercise some maturity and admit once, JUST ONCE, that Michelle Obama might be right about something, and Sarah Palin might be wrong.

We'll see.

 

[Amused]

So your ENTIRE argument isn't that the Let's Move initiative is bad (it's goals appear to be identical to Eisenhower's initial goals), it's that other people with D's next to their name have passed crazy laws, so she obviously secretly wants the same thing.

Just like how all Republicans think the same I suppose.

Let's see if you can exercise some maturity and admit once, JUST ONCE, that Michelle Obama might be right about something, and Sarah Palin might be wrong.

We'll see.

The dem party is a party of meddlers. SO sorry. As much as I disagree with Palin on so many things, one thing I agree with her on is that I'm tired of the social behavioral control meddling by the left.

Finally, from her website:

This problem can’t be solved just by passing laws in Washington. It’s going to take all of us—governors, mayors, doctors, nurses, businesses, non-profits, educators, parents—to tackle the challenge once and for all, so Let’s Move to end the epidemic of childhood obesity together.

More on her goals:

If voluntary efforts to limit the marketing of less healthy foods and beverages to children do not yield substantial results, the FCC could consider revisiting and modernizing rules on commercial time during children’s programming

Analyze the effect of state and local sales taxes on less healthy, energy-dense foods

It means she, and this program, ARE setting out to pass laws, limits, bans and taxes in an effort to meet her goals.

Sorry, but no. Her program is NOT the same as Eisenhower's Not in the least. Her program is that of the party of social behvioral laws, limits, bans and taxes.

 

[ayabe]

The dem party is a party of meddlers. SO sorry. As much as I disagree with Palin on so many things, one thing I agree with her on is that I'm tired of the social behavioral control meddling by the left.

Finally, from her website:



More on her goals:





It means she, and this program, ARE setting out to pass laws, limits, bans and taxes in an effort to meet her goals.

Sorry, but no. Her program is NOT the same as Eisenhower's Not in the least. Her program is that of the party of social behvioral laws, limits, bans and taxes.

If you actually knew anything about this you would know that the fatty pushers are not complying with their end of the bargain - to which they voluntarily agreed - to promote healthy alternatives. Sure they are on the menu but they are not being pushed in the manner agreed to by the parties involved.

So more will be done. Self-policing is almost always a failure.

 

[Amused]

If you actually knew anything about this you would know that the fatty pushers are not complying with their end of the bargain - to which they voluntarily agreed - to promote healthy alternatives. Sure they are on the menu but they are not being pushed in the manner agreed to by the parties involved.

So more will be done. Self-policing is almost always a failure.

You people are scary, you know that?

To combat obesity you're going to come to the very same end result that gave us the war on drugs.

You cannot legislate morality. That USED to be a liberal saying. But now all they seem to do is attempt to legislate their own brand of it.

And all you will end up with is the same result you got with Prohibition, the bans on prostitution and the War on drugs. The very real realization that you cannot legislate away vice, be it sex, drugs, or gluttony.

So what do we end up with? A whole lot fewer rights and freedoms, and nothing accomplished. Just like we did with the WOD and prohibition.

Congrats. You've pissed your freedom away for nothing.

 

[zsdersw]

The laziness and apathy among the general population for taking care of their own health is the same laziness and apathy that will permit government officials to make all sorts of crazy laws/regulations.

 

[dainthomas]

You people are scary, you know that?

To combat obesity you're going to come to the very same end result that gave us the war on drugs.

From your own link, no one is proposing laws to ban anything. Merely regulate them. And even THAT would only be considered if Michelle Obama's campaign to get people to be more active (which I still can't believe you're against) doesn't work.

If the FCC wants to regulate the advertising of Fried Chunky Cookie Pop Cereal during Backyardigans, that's fine with me. And it wouldn't infringe on your ability to BUY Fried Chunky Cookie Pop Cereal. You can feed it to your kids or yourself three times a day if you want.

Anyway, back on topic, you still haven't outlined which aspect of Let's Move you oppose. I'll even provide the link so you can provide specifics on which parts are the most tyrannical.

http://www.letsmove.gov/

 

[MrX8503]

Exactly my initial reaction to your reply that I quoted earlier.

By your logic...lets cancel awareness/education/research for

Cancer
Obesity
Sex
Alcohol
Drugs
Heart Disease
etc.

Because that "education" may create mandates in controlling our lives stripping us of our freedoms.

Like I said before, the correlation of education is not the causation of bans/laws. Any bans/laws created is not the fault of the education awareness programs itself. As far as I'm concerned the programs are perfectly legal and does not require people to do things against their will.

If you feel so strongly about the "Lets Move" initiative, please link me to an article where Michelle Obama is proposing a mandate.

Just as the people who are foolish enough to think that this means that Palin is supporting fatties, you're just as foolish to defend her statements that this is big government. I suggest you defend a Republican who knows what they're talking about.

With that said I continue to have my palm on my face.