- This topic has 305 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 6 months ago by briansd1.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 9, 2010 at 12:29 AM #549297May 9, 2010 at 6:16 AM #548338meadandaleParticipant
[quote=briansd1][quote=scaredycat]bad food is way more dangerous than drugs. as long as we’re gonna nanny the people ond rugs, we might as well nanny em on crap food.[/quote]
Yes. Or legalize drugs and let the buyers beware.[/quote]
On the one hand you advocate RELAXING the government control of things (pot) and promoting personal responsibility/accountability and on the other hand you think that it is perfectly allowable for the government to control what you are allowed to eat–in this case sugar for your own good.
Make up your freaking mind.
I’ve noticed time and time again this entire lack of consistency in your world view.
May 9, 2010 at 6:16 AM #548449meadandaleParticipant[quote=briansd1][quote=scaredycat]bad food is way more dangerous than drugs. as long as we’re gonna nanny the people ond rugs, we might as well nanny em on crap food.[/quote]
Yes. Or legalize drugs and let the buyers beware.[/quote]
On the one hand you advocate RELAXING the government control of things (pot) and promoting personal responsibility/accountability and on the other hand you think that it is perfectly allowable for the government to control what you are allowed to eat–in this case sugar for your own good.
Make up your freaking mind.
I’ve noticed time and time again this entire lack of consistency in your world view.
May 9, 2010 at 6:16 AM #548931meadandaleParticipant[quote=briansd1][quote=scaredycat]bad food is way more dangerous than drugs. as long as we’re gonna nanny the people ond rugs, we might as well nanny em on crap food.[/quote]
Yes. Or legalize drugs and let the buyers beware.[/quote]
On the one hand you advocate RELAXING the government control of things (pot) and promoting personal responsibility/accountability and on the other hand you think that it is perfectly allowable for the government to control what you are allowed to eat–in this case sugar for your own good.
Make up your freaking mind.
I’ve noticed time and time again this entire lack of consistency in your world view.
May 9, 2010 at 6:16 AM #549030meadandaleParticipant[quote=briansd1][quote=scaredycat]bad food is way more dangerous than drugs. as long as we’re gonna nanny the people ond rugs, we might as well nanny em on crap food.[/quote]
Yes. Or legalize drugs and let the buyers beware.[/quote]
On the one hand you advocate RELAXING the government control of things (pot) and promoting personal responsibility/accountability and on the other hand you think that it is perfectly allowable for the government to control what you are allowed to eat–in this case sugar for your own good.
Make up your freaking mind.
I’ve noticed time and time again this entire lack of consistency in your world view.
May 9, 2010 at 6:16 AM #549306meadandaleParticipant[quote=briansd1][quote=scaredycat]bad food is way more dangerous than drugs. as long as we’re gonna nanny the people ond rugs, we might as well nanny em on crap food.[/quote]
Yes. Or legalize drugs and let the buyers beware.[/quote]
On the one hand you advocate RELAXING the government control of things (pot) and promoting personal responsibility/accountability and on the other hand you think that it is perfectly allowable for the government to control what you are allowed to eat–in this case sugar for your own good.
Make up your freaking mind.
I’ve noticed time and time again this entire lack of consistency in your world view.
May 9, 2010 at 7:37 AM #548343anParticipant[quote=briansd1][quote=AN]
You mean liberal should be condemning irresponsible eating behavior because they love to tell others what to do. [/quote]I’d rather schools taught children not to eat junk food than schools forcing kids to learn about (un)intelligent design.
[quote=AN] Just don’t make me pay to prolong your life.[/quote]
Like we all paid to prolong Terri Schivo’s life?[/quote]
I rather schools teach children math, English, art, science, etc.May 9, 2010 at 7:37 AM #548454anParticipant[quote=briansd1][quote=AN]
You mean liberal should be condemning irresponsible eating behavior because they love to tell others what to do. [/quote]I’d rather schools taught children not to eat junk food than schools forcing kids to learn about (un)intelligent design.
[quote=AN] Just don’t make me pay to prolong your life.[/quote]
Like we all paid to prolong Terri Schivo’s life?[/quote]
I rather schools teach children math, English, art, science, etc.May 9, 2010 at 7:37 AM #548936anParticipant[quote=briansd1][quote=AN]
You mean liberal should be condemning irresponsible eating behavior because they love to tell others what to do. [/quote]I’d rather schools taught children not to eat junk food than schools forcing kids to learn about (un)intelligent design.
[quote=AN] Just don’t make me pay to prolong your life.[/quote]
Like we all paid to prolong Terri Schivo’s life?[/quote]
I rather schools teach children math, English, art, science, etc.May 9, 2010 at 7:37 AM #549035anParticipant[quote=briansd1][quote=AN]
You mean liberal should be condemning irresponsible eating behavior because they love to tell others what to do. [/quote]I’d rather schools taught children not to eat junk food than schools forcing kids to learn about (un)intelligent design.
[quote=AN] Just don’t make me pay to prolong your life.[/quote]
Like we all paid to prolong Terri Schivo’s life?[/quote]
I rather schools teach children math, English, art, science, etc.May 9, 2010 at 7:37 AM #549311anParticipant[quote=briansd1][quote=AN]
You mean liberal should be condemning irresponsible eating behavior because they love to tell others what to do. [/quote]I’d rather schools taught children not to eat junk food than schools forcing kids to learn about (un)intelligent design.
[quote=AN] Just don’t make me pay to prolong your life.[/quote]
Like we all paid to prolong Terri Schivo’s life?[/quote]
I rather schools teach children math, English, art, science, etc.May 9, 2010 at 8:10 AM #548353CoronitaParticipant[quote=briansd1]I can see that girl turn into a 200-pound woman. 20 years from now, she’ll be on Oprah (or whoever at that time) telling us about her food ordeal.
I was at Costco today I couldn’t believe number of fat people out there.
Conservatives should be condemning irresponsible eating behavior because we are all paying dearly for it.[/quote]
Dude, it was one piece of candy. What makes you think she’ll turn into 200 pounds. Why not while we’re at it ban Halloween, or put a candy fat tax on it? I still don’t get how you can claim to be a liberal and yet think it’s ok for government to reach into people’s lives.
BTW: obesity knows no parties. Some of the most obese people are Democrat slobs.
1)Michael Moore
2)Clinton is always seen pigging out at a public place
3)Al Gore’s balloon episode.May 9, 2010 at 8:10 AM #548464CoronitaParticipant[quote=briansd1]I can see that girl turn into a 200-pound woman. 20 years from now, she’ll be on Oprah (or whoever at that time) telling us about her food ordeal.
I was at Costco today I couldn’t believe number of fat people out there.
Conservatives should be condemning irresponsible eating behavior because we are all paying dearly for it.[/quote]
Dude, it was one piece of candy. What makes you think she’ll turn into 200 pounds. Why not while we’re at it ban Halloween, or put a candy fat tax on it? I still don’t get how you can claim to be a liberal and yet think it’s ok for government to reach into people’s lives.
BTW: obesity knows no parties. Some of the most obese people are Democrat slobs.
1)Michael Moore
2)Clinton is always seen pigging out at a public place
3)Al Gore’s balloon episode.May 9, 2010 at 8:10 AM #548946CoronitaParticipant[quote=briansd1]I can see that girl turn into a 200-pound woman. 20 years from now, she’ll be on Oprah (or whoever at that time) telling us about her food ordeal.
I was at Costco today I couldn’t believe number of fat people out there.
Conservatives should be condemning irresponsible eating behavior because we are all paying dearly for it.[/quote]
Dude, it was one piece of candy. What makes you think she’ll turn into 200 pounds. Why not while we’re at it ban Halloween, or put a candy fat tax on it? I still don’t get how you can claim to be a liberal and yet think it’s ok for government to reach into people’s lives.
BTW: obesity knows no parties. Some of the most obese people are Democrat slobs.
1)Michael Moore
2)Clinton is always seen pigging out at a public place
3)Al Gore’s balloon episode.May 9, 2010 at 8:10 AM #549045CoronitaParticipant[quote=briansd1]I can see that girl turn into a 200-pound woman. 20 years from now, she’ll be on Oprah (or whoever at that time) telling us about her food ordeal.
I was at Costco today I couldn’t believe number of fat people out there.
Conservatives should be condemning irresponsible eating behavior because we are all paying dearly for it.[/quote]
Dude, it was one piece of candy. What makes you think she’ll turn into 200 pounds. Why not while we’re at it ban Halloween, or put a candy fat tax on it? I still don’t get how you can claim to be a liberal and yet think it’s ok for government to reach into people’s lives.
BTW: obesity knows no parties. Some of the most obese people are Democrat slobs.
1)Michael Moore
2)Clinton is always seen pigging out at a public place
3)Al Gore’s balloon episode. -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.