Why there is NO HOPE for the USA.. "Common Sense" is gone!

So I should be taxed for eating foods that I need to maintain my weight, if those same foods make sedentary people obese?
Obesity is simple mathematics. Take in more calories than you burn and you will gain weight.
My lunch today consists of a tuna (packed in oil) sandwich on buttered pumpernickel with LOTS of mayo, a 16oz glass of half and half and a pint of Ben and Jerry's.
I'm 5'9" and weigh 136 pounds, exactly what I weighed when I graduated high school in 1967.

I ate a big fat Chipotle burrito for lunch. I'll be doing P90X in exactly 2 hours. I've had that same burrito every week for months and have lost 10 pounds since I started doing P90X a month ago.

This is what happens when we have a population that approves of gov't regulating everything. Whether it be regulating our economy, what we eat, what we drink, what we learn, what we smoke, what we watch on tv, what we read, etc, it's pure madness.
 
Education does not have to contain a fine for noncompliance. I for one, would be dead today if I had been wearing a seat belt in a crash I was in in '68.
 
So let our government indoctrinate them to be good little social sheeple? The irony

Funny, I went all the way through public schools and a state university, and was never "indoctrinated" into anything. Do I want schools to teach actual history? Yes, even though it is not kind to the republican ideology - history is history, folks. It happened or it didn't, as much as you guys would like to whitewash what you don't like. Do I want my kids to learn that community is important? Do I want them to understand their role in civil society? Yes, I do. Do I want them to learn math and real science? Yes - and no, "intelligent design is not science - that needs to stay in sunday school. Do I want my kids taught by Pepsi Co. that "corn sugar" is good for you and that "corporatism" is beneficial to our country? Not on your life.

What "government indocrination" are you speaking of exactly? I keep hearing you nimrods spout off about this, but it just seems like another nebulous right wing talky point.
 
Last edited:
Who get's to decide what is healthy and unhealthy? I followed the FDA approved Food Pyramid and GAINED weight!

I cut out all FDA Approved Wheat, Corn and Dairy along with Sugar and all processed and fried foods and lost 40 lbs!

The food industy lobby helps to create that pyramid. The sugar lobby paid for the total grams acceptable in our diet. No should eat even 1/2 of that amount of sugar every day.
 
Last edited:
So I should be taxed for eating foods that I need to maintain my weight, if those same foods make sedentary people obese?
Obesity is simple mathematics. Take in more calories than you burn and you will gain weight.
My lunch today consists of a tuna (packed in oil) sandwich on buttered pumpernickel with LOTS of mayo, a 16oz glass of half and half and a pint of Ben and Jerry's.
I'm 5'9" and weigh 136 pounds, exactly what I weighed when I graduated high school in 1967.

I ate a big fat Chipotle burrito for lunch. I'll be doing P90X in exactly 2 hours. I've had that same burrito every week for months and have lost 10 pounds since I started doing P90X a month ago.

This is what happens when we have a population that approves of gov't regulating everything. Whether it be regulating our economy, what we eat, what we drink, what we learn, what we smoke, what we watch on tv, what we read, etc, it's pure madness.

I don't have an exercise regimen. In fact I used to say, the only exercise I get is backing up my Harley.
The truth is, I am not sedentary. I cut, haul and split fire wood, I clear brush from my property. I'm constantly building access roads, decks, raised garden plots, bridges, maintaining vehicles and tractors. chainsaws etc.
Yeah I sit in front of a computer a lot, especially in the hottest part of the day, but I get outside and work my butt off.
 
Just like you can't blindly assume fatalities have gone down solely because of a law being passed.
No, but you can draw one HELL of a tight correlation between the years these laws were passed and the increase in seatbelt usage.

You could chalk it up to dumb luck, but such "dumb luck" repeated itself in every state except NH.

Do you think more people in 2012 know about the importance of wearing a seatbelt than did in 1962?

Yes! A law is about the most effective education campaign on the planet.

Do you think people would know more today even if no laws had been passed?
Yes! But based on the steep increase in usage that happened in each state at the time the law was passed and based on the fact that a state without any such law has the lowest usage while states with a primary law have the highest rates of usage, I'd say the law played an important role.
 
No, but you can draw one HELL of a tight correlation between the years these laws were passed and the increase in seatbelt usage.

You could chalk it up to dumb luck, but such "dumb luck" repeated itself in every state except NH.

Do you think more people in 2012 know about the importance of wearing a seatbelt than did in 1962?

Yes! A law is about the most effective education campaign on the planet.

Do you think people would know more today even if no laws had been passed?
Yes! But based on the steep increase in usage that happened in each state at the time the law was passed and based on the fact that a state without any such law has the lowest usage while states with a primary law have the highest rates of usage, I'd say the law played an important role.

I'll need links, not saying you're wrong but i'd need to see it.

And I couldn't disagree more that law passing is the best form of education. That sounds like something Stalin would say.
 
Do you think more people in 2012 know about the importance of wearing a seatbelt than did in 1962?

Yes! A law is about the most effective education campaign on the planet.

Do you think people would know more today even if no laws had been passed?
Yes! But based on the steep increase in usage that happened in each state at the time the law was passed and based on the fact that a state without any such law has the lowest usage while states with a primary law have the highest rates of usage, I'd say the law played an important role.

I'll need links, not saying you're wrong but i'd need to see it.

And I couldn't disagree more that law passing is the best form of education. That sounds like something Stalin would say.

NH is the only state in the union that does not require adults to wear seatbelts:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811493.pdf

and I didn't say it was the best education campaign. I said it was the most effective.
 
Yes! A law is about the most effective education campaign on the planet.

Yes! But based on the steep increase in usage that happened in each state at the time the law was passed and based on the fact that a state without any such law has the lowest usage while states with a primary law have the highest rates of usage, I'd say the law played an important role.

I'll need links, not saying you're wrong but i'd need to see it.

And I couldn't disagree more that law passing is the best form of education. That sounds like something Stalin would say.

NH is the only state in the union that does not require adults to wear seatbelts:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811493.pdf

and I didn't say it was the best education campaign. I said it was the most effective.

Wisconsin was first state to pass seat belt legislation and they have a 69% usage rate, one of the lower numbers.

Sorry, that link did nothing to make me think big brother is the reason more people wear seat belts.
 
Last edited:
I'll need links, not saying you're wrong but i'd need to see it.

And I couldn't disagree more that law passing is the best form of education. That sounds like something Stalin would say.

NH is the only state in the union that does not require adults to wear seatbelts:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811493.pdf

and I didn't say it was the best education campaign. I said it was the most effective.

Wisconsin was first state to pass seat belt legislation and they have a 69% usage rate, one of the lower numbers.

Sorry, that link did nothing to make me think big brother is the reason more people wear seat belts.
Wisconsin is 79.2.

NH is the lowest in the nation, and every state's rate went up after they passed the law. It's pretty simple economics: If make something more expensive, people do it less. Driving without a seatbelt is free in NH. It's almost free in states with secondary laws. It's expensive in states with primary laws.
 
NH is the only state in the union that does not require adults to wear seatbelts:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811493.pdf

and I didn't say it was the best education campaign. I said it was the most effective.

Wisconsin was first state to pass seat belt legislation and they have a 69% usage rate, one of the lower numbers.

Sorry, that link did nothing to make me think big brother is the reason more people wear seat belts.
Wisconsin is 79.2.

NH is the lowest in the nation, and every state's rate went up after they passed the law. It's pretty simple economics: If make something more expensive, people do it less. Driving without a seatbelt is free in NH. It's almost free in states with secondary laws. It's expensive in states with primary laws.

My apologies I read the chart wrong.

You may or may not be right, common sense could be the reason use went up, big brother could be, it's impossible to put down the reason. If there was a law against wearing seat belts, I'd still wear mine.

I'm still more of a liberties guy, if someone wants to drive without a seat belt so be it. The purpose of gov't forcing people to wear seatbelts isn't bc they give a damn about people's safety, it's because the insurance companies who own our politicians bought them off and told them to do it and they want a new revenue stream to steal another $100 or so from citizens. My dad got a seatbelt ticket when after he was pulled over he took it off in order to get to his wallet, I'm sure that's not a rare occurrence either.
 
Again... many of you are missing the point!
It isn't the LAW that cut down on people being killed because they were wearing a seat belt!
It was a law of PHYSICS that a body in motion tends to stay in motion.. hence a belt doesn't allow motion!

MY point has been that if in GRADE school MORE emphasis on common sense i.e. wearing a seat belt keeps you from flying around in a wrecked car.. THAT's common sense! NOT because some legislation!
Or you don't TEXT and drive because YOU can't physically react quick enough!

What is so wrong with TEACHING DAILY with as MUCH constant barrage of advertising educators etc. that we have with "global warming" the common sense to
a) wearing seat belts.
B) don't text and drive
C) don't point a gun at your head (this is in response to a Fl. teenager who "thought" the gun was unloaded!!!)
ALL plain good common LAWS of physics .. can't text and drive cause you can't react..always check a gun!...
All common sense that A LAW would NOT prevent but common sense beaten pounded into the kids from pre-school again with just as much evangelism as "global warming"!
 
This is what is wrong with the majority of Americans if THIS represents the LACK of common sense!

"I'd pay 20 percent. It's worth it,” one woman said. "I would eat a lot more healthy just to save more money.”

INDIANAPOLIS -- Health experts have been trying to combat obesity in America for years and have recently suggested a new way to solve the growing problem.
A new study suggests that imposing a fat tax on unhealthy food and drinks could help slim down expanding waistlines.
According to reports, more than 60 percent of Americans are overweight. Under the tax, a $4 cheeseburger would cost an extra 80 cents, RTV6's Stacia Matthews reported.

Report: 'Fat Tax' Could Curb Nation's Obesity Problem - Staying Healthy News Story - WRTV Indianapolis

Idiots who BECAUSE they would be TAXED higher for FAT foods would EAT more healthy?
NOT because it is "common sense" but because it is the LAW!

This is the same lack of common sense evidenced when I heard an idiot radio personality say she would NOT text and drive if THERE WAS A LAW!!


THERE ARE LAWS PEOPLE... Common SENSE LAWS!!!

What a distressing example of our EDUCATIONAL system that DOESN'T TEACH common sense!
Common sense that DUH YOU don't text while driving... YOU don't everyday eat a double cheeseburger!
Common SENSE is missing folks and there is NO HOPE!!!

The tax will not stop people from eating junk. The astronomical taxes on cigarettes hasn't made everyone quit. Studies even show that most smokers are poor, so looks like they are spending welfare money on the expensive smokes. I think people will just pay the tax.

Common sense isn't so common anymore. Just wanting to lose weight for their health hasn't motivated them, but an .80 tax on cheeseburgers will do the trick? Now I've heard everything. It won't happen though. More tax money will be collected and people will stay fat. And that is what government is hoping because it means raking more money in.
 
Last edited:
do you support privatizing public education

Hell effing no. You want corporations indoctrinating your kids to be good, dumb little consumers (gotta go after that brand allegiance, early you sheep) MORE than they already are?

You don't realize that's what's already happening? Maybe you just don't understand what is being 'consumed.'
 
It's pretty simple economics: If make something more expensive, people do it less. Driving without a seatbelt is free in NH. It's almost free in states with secondary laws. It's expensive in states with primary laws.

Invalid analogy. Seatbelts have no practical downside. But, eating is one of life's greatest pleasures, as well as an absolute necessity.

You can't tax people into not over-eating. And, if you try you'll cause a lot of hardship.
 
This is what is wrong with the majority of Americans if THIS represents the LACK of common sense!

"I'd pay 20 percent. It's worth it,” one woman said. "I would eat a lot more healthy just to save more money.”

Human beings certainly are strange, aren't they? :lol:

A person won't eat healthy because the effects of eating stuff that is bad for you is not immediately apparent. Once you have a heart attack, THEN you might change your ways. Might. Depends how hard the bad food habit has set in.

But raise the price, and the effect of eating bad food is felt immediately, see?

We are a very short-sighted society.

Now about the seat belt thing: bad food and seat belts differ in very significant ways. You are comparing apples and oranges, if you will pardon the pun.

A seat belt is a seat belt. But what is "unhealthy" food? Who gets to decide? And you and I both know that lobbyists will drop big coin to get their particular food off the Unhealthy list.

Ford can't put a length of yarn on the seat and call it a seat belt. But McDonald's will get Congress to create a carve-out that says eating bacon double cheeseburgers makes a body strong and gets you better cable reception.

And when it comes to "sin taxes", a cigarette is a cigarette, and an alcoholic beverage is an alcoholic beverage. But the "unhealthy food" slope is a very slippery one vulnerable to all kinds of manipulation.

So I would compare "unhealthy food" to tax breaks and credits before I would compare it to seat belts. :lol:
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top