All Forums | Politics

Fast Forward to November 7th

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 6162
Posts: 133
 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2006
Posts: 15433
Posted: #76
Quote Originally Posted by mattbrot:



Be Easy -- Of course there are MANY MANY things as bad or worse than soda. And yes you are correct that there is a huge irony when schools replace sodas in vending machines with powerade etc... And yes there are many many things that the government can and should fix if they want to take this "healthier society stance".

But does all of that mean that this small measure is not a step in the right direction?




i see no benefit in replacing one evil with another

Conservative, n: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others.

like i said, i believe that good information trumps bullshit policy clouded with bad information. So long as the government perpetuates all the bad science and the bad information that goes along with it, a tax on soda serves no benefit to society, imo
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2005
Posts: 6840
Posted: #77
Quote Originally Posted by be easy:



i see no benefit in replacing one evil with another

Conservative, n: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others.

like i said, i believe that good information trumps bullshit policy clouded with bad information. So long as the government perpetuates all the bad science and the bad information that goes along with it, a tax on soda serves no benefit to society, imo


Only speaking to the soda issue here  -- They are not replacing one bad with another. They are not saying you have to buy 16 ounces of soda AND 16 ounces of gatorade. They are simply saying you can only buy at most 16 ounces of soda at a time. 
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2009
Posts: 7053
Posted: #78
WTF?  Club

Rush will always have his audience and make his cray And he LOVES his country too  Your statement is absolutely foolish

Fox News is generally fair and balanced but leans to the right Pretty smart business decision considering their competition's ratings Free market economies reward risk takers whom provide what consumers want

Yes they both benefit from BOH's relection but some realize the greater cost is the TOTAL meltdown of the SOCIETY AND REPUBLIC

That is the main reason why I hate responding to you tools who don't realize the repercussions of your decisions Especially to someone who has 2 daughters who will be paying off all this debt to eternity, that is, if the good ole USA will still be around should BOH  get relected.
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #79
take a look at a box of fruit loops, which probably has a disgusting amount of sugar and god knows what else in it.  the ftc, i think, regulates advertising.  at the top of the box, it should have a skull and crossbones but it says it's a good source of fiber and whole grains. 

no, it's not a good source of fiber.  broccoli is a good source of fiber.  and i won't get into the whole grains issue. 

the government could give a fuck about people's health.  there is a lot of subsidized corn farmers who need a place for their corn.  why not turn into into syrup, put it in everything and get the government to tell people there's a health benefit. 
 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2006
Posts: 15433
Posted: #80
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:

take a look at a box of fruit loops, which probably has a disgusting amount of sugar and god knows what else in it.  the ftc, i think, regulates advertising.  at the top of the box, it should have a skull and crossbones but it says it's a good source of fiber and whole grains. 

no, it's not a good source of fiber.  broccoli is a good source of fiber.  and i won't get into the whole grains issue. 

the government could give a fuck about people's health.  there is a lot of subsidized corn farmers who need a place for their corn.  why not turn into into syrup, put it in everything and get the government to tell people there's a health benefit. 


the government benefits from this as well, as it is 'an opiate to the masses' to keep them addicted on the cheap/dirty fuel (carbohydrates/sugars) which also negatively affects the mind, as well as the body, making people dumber and less likely to question thy master
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Jun, 2007
Posts: 10910
Posted: #81
Quote Originally Posted by mattbrot:



It is ironic I admit. As ironic as republicans wanting less government and then not allowing abortions. 

I can do it also - the irony goes both ways.


except i am not cheering for, nor supporting any republican

what are you doing?

trying to fight ignorance with ignorance?


 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Jun, 2007
Posts: 10910
Posted: #82
Quote Originally Posted by mattbrot:



Now back to this issue. You are correct in that it is not a ban. It is no different than a tax. You can still get the same volume of soda you just have to pay more for it.

Once again no different that a tax on smokes, booze etc... Do you have an issue with tax on smoke or that they even regulate who can smoke? If you really think about it the soda thing is not much different. 

It is no different than trying to reduce that amount of saturated fats that restaurants can use, trying to regulate the food that schools serve the children for lunch, no different than trying to regulate the options available in vending machines at schools etc... There are many examples.

I will not go through all the numbers but I can provide them if you want but briefly -
- Approximately 1/3 of children in the US are overweight and/or obese (triple that of 3 decades ago).
- And it is estimated that over 50% of people in the US will be obese by 2030 (this number is a little higher depending on where you read).
- By 2030 it is estimated that the total healthcare costs associated attributable to obesity could be from 860 - 960 billion. Approximately 17% of US health expenses.

This does not even take into account the other diseases that obesity is a well known precursor for.

So if it is a small measure to try to have a healthier society than what is the issue?


it does nothing but pad the coffers and rob liberty

treatment of a disease by way of symptoms is futile

you are on a very slippery slope



 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Jun, 2007
Posts: 10910
Posted: #83
Quote Originally Posted by mattbrot:



And Rooster this is a significant stretch to say the least.  No one is saying to ban these things and it is not even possible. The soda "tax" is simply to making a small stride to aid in fighting against obesity.

There is a huge difference between the two.




it will not aid the fight

that is the hypocrisy
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Jun, 2006
Posts: 13129
Posted: #84
It won't stop at soda my friends.
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2006
Posts: 14715
Posted: #85
Taxing things to limit their use is not the way a free society should solve their problems. The Cass Sunstein "nudge" doctrine in just scientific and economic tyranny.  Just as it would be if they passed a $5 dollar a bullet tax on ammo.  A clever way to subvert and undermine liberty is still just as bad as a frontal assault on liberty.

The cigarette tax does nothing but disproportionately rob the poor  of their disposable income so that they can not buy their children nutritious food.

There,  an example of how the left's love of taxation is making obese children. 

 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2006
Posts: 14715
Posted: #86
It truly is unbelievable that there are A-holes sitting at home thinking of ways to economically punish people during the worst financial situation since the great depression, knowing full well that almost all of the taxes that are proposed are a direct assault on the working poor. 




 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2005
Posts: 6840
Posted: #87
Quote Originally Posted by rooster010:



it does nothing but pad the coffers and rob liberty

treatment of a disease by way of symptoms is futile

you are on a very slippery slope




I think that we are not following eachother. This effort is not a way of treating a disease by way of symptoms. It is a way of treating a disease by trying to reduce reduce the chance that symptoms manifest. Is this what you meant? I really am not sure. 

Are you are saying that you do not treat a disease by trying to prevent a symptom? If so than that is flat out wrong. 

Now if you want to have the conversation that it goes well beyond drinking soda and is related to cultural and upbringings (an also unfortunately genetics) than I agree but either way you still minimize the symptoms. That may be educating the parents about the impact of a sedentary lifestyle, the importance of a good diet, the impact of TV and video game time etc.. but either way it is still trying to prevent the symptoms.

Is regulating soda a bad thing? Maybe as nobody wants to be told what to do. But my point is that the underlying intent is not all that bad.

Like I said earlier -- of course there are many other contributors however, just cause you can not control all of them does not mean you can not try to to take small steps.

 
 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2008
Posts: 15687
Posted: #88
It's a bullshit law.....
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2005
Posts: 6840
Posted: #89
Quote Originally Posted by rooster010:



it will not aid the fight

that is the hypocrisy

I disagree. It might help, it might not but it deffinetely is not going to hurt. So What is the harm? Is that a reason to not try at all? 

That type of logic can be applied to just about anything.


 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2005
Posts: 6840
Posted: #90
Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:

Taxing things to limit their use is not the way a free society should solve their problems. The Cass Sunstein "nudge" doctrine in just scientific and economic tyranny.  Just as it would be if they passed a $5 dollar a bullet tax on ammo.  A clever way to subvert and undermine liberty is still just as bad as a frontal assault on liberty.

The cigarette tax does nothing but disproportionately rob the poor  of their disposable income so that they can not buy their children nutritious food.

There,  an example of how the left's love of taxation is making obese children. 


This is a good point. And spoken like a true democrat . It is the same reason why the 9-9-9 theory of taxation was a regressive tax and why tax based on consumption (what you spend) is also a regressive tax. 

And yes the cigarette tax does effect the poor more than others but what is the alternative?  
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Jun, 2007
Posts: 10910
Posted: #91
Quote Originally Posted by mattbrot:


I think that we are not following eachother. This effort is not a way of treating a disease by way of symptoms. It is a way of treating a disease by trying to reduce reduce the chance that symptoms manifest. Is this what you meant? I really am not sure. 

Are you are saying that you do not treat a disease by trying to prevent a symptom? If so than that is flat out wrong. 

Now if you want to have the conversation that it goes well beyond drinking soda and is related to cultural and upbringings (an also unfortunately genetics) than I agree but either way you still minimize the symptoms. That may be educating the parents about the impact of a sedentary lifestyle, the importance of a good diet, the impact of TV and video game time etc.. but either way it is still trying to prevent the symptoms.

Is regulating soda a bad thing? Maybe as nobody wants to be told what to do. But my point is that the underlying intent is not all that bad.

Like I said earlier -- of course there are many other contributors however, just cause you can not control all of them does not mean you can not try to to take small steps.

 


child obesity is the disease

drinking soda is a symptom

your laws and regulations, no matter how well intended, will not make a dent

prohibition does not work

has history not taught you anything?

you must agree with the on-line gambling bans, i mean, they're in place to protect people, right?






 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2008
Posts: 15687
Posted: #92

I don't agree with rooster much,,,,

 

 

But when I do......it's magical.....

 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Jun, 2007
Posts: 10910
Posted: #93
Quote Originally Posted by jay10:

It's a bullshit law.....


a voice of reason

the only laws being made these days are to take money out of one pocket and put it in another

no matter the politician
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Jun, 2007
Posts: 10910
Posted: #94
Quote Originally Posted by jay10:

I don't agree with rooster much,,,,

 

 

But when I do......it's magical.....



you are generous to a fault

much love
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Jun, 2007
Posts: 10910
Posted: #95
Quote Originally Posted by mattbrot:


I think that we are not following eachother. This effort is not a way of treating a disease by way of symptoms. It is a way of treating a disease by trying to reduce reduce the chance that symptoms manifest. Is this what you meant? I really am not sure. 

Are you are saying that you do not treat a disease by trying to prevent a symptom? If so than that is flat out wrong. 

Now if you want to have the conversation that it goes well beyond drinking soda and is related to cultural and upbringings (an also unfortunately genetics) than I agree but either way you still minimize the symptoms. That may be educating the parents about the impact of a sedentary lifestyle, the importance of a good diet, the impact of TV and video game time etc.. but either way it is still trying to prevent the symptoms.

Is regulating soda a bad thing? Maybe as nobody wants to be told what to do. But my point is that the underlying intent is not all that bad.

Like I said earlier -- of course there are many other contributors however, just cause you can not control all of them does not mean you can not try to to take small steps.

 


agree some, and its obvious im no doctor

i just dont agree with punishing the responsible in an effort to control anybody





 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2008
Posts: 15687
Posted: #96

My mom used to drink a 12 pack of Tab per week...She died of cancer at 55.

 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Jun, 2007
Posts: 10910
Posted: #97
Quote Originally Posted by jay10:

My mom used to drink a 12 pack of Tab per week...She died of cancer at 55.



my dad died of a failed kidney, dialysis twice a week for years

i need no law to avoid the soda's
 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2008
Posts: 15687
Posted: #98
Of course, she smoked a pack of Kool Filter Kings, as well........
 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2008
Posts: 15687
Posted: #99
pack a day, it should read..
 
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2007
Posts: 6143
Posted: #100
Exhibit A that the governments of the country DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE CITIZENRY is allowing the sale of cigarettes.

500,000 dead per year - every year that this goes on. But they tax it and it's a good money maker, so go on public keep killing yourself but but we really C-A-R-E about you.
All Forums | Politics
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Sports Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gaming
Sports Betting
US Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Ultimate Race
Office Pools
The Covers community has
618,670
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 25 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
Site Map Help Privacy Terms of Service youtube logo facebook logo twitter logo instagram logo linkedin logo google news logo
Covers is verified safe by: Evalon Logo GPWA Logo GDPR Logo GeoTrust Logo Evalon Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2024 CS Media Limited All Rights Reserved.

If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.