so far democrats have banned these things in just the past year

-smoking in doors
-four loco caffinated drinks (more to come)
-happy meals
-trans fat
-bad school lunches
-meat in some places
What will be next?
vote freedom in 2012

12/7/2010 6:13:50 PM

Quote :

"-smoking in doors"

I've missed you Hoops. Come around more often.

12/7/2010 7:12:33 PM

how do you smoke in a door?

12/7/2010 7:14:32 PM

I could actually be convinced on the "bad school lunches".

...

As long as it's with a "public option" and not an "individual mandate"

12/7/2010 7:21:36 PM

Quote :

"-bad school lunches -meat in some places"

if you've banned meat, I don't trust your opinion on what constitutes a "bad school lunch"

i'm not completely against trying to influence people's behavior through legislation. the failure comes when you don't have a fucking clue what the science says and you end up creating public health disasters

see:the last three decades of US nutritional guidelines

12/7/2010 7:32:32 PM

mambagrl?

12/7/2010 7:39:23 PM

freedom isn't free.

^ mambagrl is not this stupid.

[Edited on December 7, 2010 at 7:41 PM. Reason : ]

12/7/2010 7:41:00 PM

^ Are you sure?

12/7/2010 7:48:53 PM

HOOPS MALONE!

12/8/2010 2:00:38 AM

smoking in doors might be illegal now, but smoking doors is still legal. roll up a door and smoke it, brother!

12/8/2010 2:52:57 AM

The purpose of government is to save us from our selves.

[Edited on December 8, 2010 at 2:54 AM. Reason : ourselves]

[Edited on December 8, 2010 at 2:54 AM. Reason : ours elves]

12/8/2010 2:54:07 AM

I concur with the OP

12/8/2010 4:47:54 AM

Thinking for yourself and being responsible for yourself absolutely banned

12/8/2010 9:49:15 AM

free speech, free trade, and privacy (but really these are banned by both parties)

12/8/2010 9:54:43 AM

Except for bad school lunch, I did all of those things recently.

You lie.

12/8/2010 11:00:57 AM

you have a right to speech limited to things that wont hurt those in power.
you have a right to trade limited to things that those in power get a kick back on.
you have no right to privacy beyond the thoughts in your head (which they would take if they could)

12/8/2010 11:08:08 AM

Quote :

"I concur with the OP"

12/13/2010 11:49:10 AM

OMFG what a communist

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/13/child.nutrition/index.html

Obama signs child nutrition bill

Quote :

"Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama signed a sweeping overhaul of child nutrition standards Monday, enacting a law meant to encourage better eating habits in part by giving the federal government more authority to set standards for food sold in vending machines and elsewhere on school grounds. Among other things, the $4.5 billion measure provides more money to poor areas to subsidize free meals and requires schools to abide by health guidelines drafted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. To help offset the higher cost of including more fruits and vegetables, the bill increases the reimbursement rate for school lunches."

12/13/2010 5:41:40 PM

Quote :

"Among other things, the $4.5 billion measure provides more money to poor areas to subsidize free meals and requires schools to abide by health guidelines drafted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. To help offset the higher cost of including more fruits and vegetables, the bill increases the reimbursement rate for school lunches.""

Yay now 60% instead of 49% of Mecklenburg county's students can receive free lunch .

Sure some people legitimately need help but is it that fucking expensive to afford a bolgna sandwich, handful of chips from a bulk bag, and put in an apple?????

The fact even with my salary as an engineer, if I had 5 children they would qualify for "reduced" lunch. Bullshit in my opinion. If I had that many children then I should have considered my financial state beforehand.

12/13/2010 5:57:56 PM

and therefore punish the children for their parent's mistakes?

12/13/2010 11:54:29 PM

What mistake? These families are clearly middle-class, they should have no trouble feeding themselves, and yet we are rewarding their parents with even more disposable income.

That said, society often punishes children for their parents actions. Right now, the nation is full of children forced to survive with one or both of their parents in prison for non-violent drug offenses.

12/14/2010 9:23:30 AM

The mistake that HUR suggested:

Quote :

"the problem is that this agreement is not so simple, because i contend that every living person is entitled to life and you are saying it can be taken away. "

Quote :

"What mistake? These families are clearly middle-class, they should have no trouble feeding themselves, and yet we are rewarding their parents with even more disposable income. "

They should have and yet they don't? Obviously someone is doing something wrong here. HUR suggested the problem was having too many kids. You're suggesting that the parents aren't fiscally sound. Either way it's a problem that the children have absolutely no control over.

Quote :

"That said, society often punishes children for their parents actions. Right now, the nation is full of children forced to survive with one or both of their parents in prison for non-violent drug offenses."

And therefore not feeding children with stupid parents is the right thing to do?

12/14/2010 9:28:19 AM

This is why a license should be required to have children.

12/14/2010 9:29:04 AM

Quote :

"This is why a license should be required to have children. "

this.

12/14/2010 11:43:38 AM

^^^ If the parents cannot care for their children, then you should call child services and society will take their children away.

But, like HUR said, those that need food stamps already had them. The people being discussed here are not in any financial difficulty. They are decidedly middle class and their children will eat fine with or without food-stamps.

12/14/2010 12:43:05 PM

Quote :

"This is why a license should be required to have children."

Forget licensing, it seems to me the better solution is to requires that anyone who goes on welfare should be required to be sterilized. This breaks the "cycle of poverty" by preventing the poor from reproducing, then if they later get off of welfare and want a child, they can adopt, and further help end the cycle of poverty. Yes I'm mostly serious, and no, it's not nearly as barbaric of an idea as it seems at first glance.

12/14/2010 1:00:42 PM

Quote :

"EUGENICS... not nearly as barbaric of an idea as it seems at first glance"

^I posted nearly the same idea:
message_topic.aspx?topic=582847

It was mainly just a thought experiment. Health would be tied more tightly to genes than financial position. Anyway, I now think it's a stupid idea.

I'm serious about licensing though.

[Edited on December 14, 2010 at 1:15 PM. Reason : asdfasdfsad]

12/14/2010 1:12:10 PM

Quote :

"^^^ If the parents cannot care for their children, then you should call child services and society will take their children away. "

Again a punishment for the children. Where are you getting your information on who will actually benefit for this increase and whether they should be considered-middle class? HUR pulled some number out his ass and you're taking it as gospel.

It makes sense to me that if we are A)helping poor people feed their children and B)the price of eating healthfully is increasing then we should compensate the level of aid to help the children eat healthfully.

12/14/2010 2:03:12 PM

I am operating entirely based upon one sentence: people that were too rich to obtain food stamps in 2009 are now allowed to obtain food stamps given identical income. Well, if Obama thought they were too rich to need help in 2009, who am I to argue?

12/14/2010 5:22:18 PM

b/c they want to tell you how to live, work, etc. b/c they know best for you.

frankly i don't think any politician knows what's best for me.

12/16/2010 4:34:24 PM