Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

As already acknowledged, they suck. So what's your point?

---

You posted about the Cowboys in a Pre-election recap thread - what was the point of that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

You posted about the Cowboys in a Pre-election recap thread - what was the point of that?

---

It was a response to an inside joke. And the point of yours?

Also an inside joke, plus it's funny!

When the USDA isn't taking taters away from kid's diets, they're pushing cheese on us.

Ain't the USA a hell hole, eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Ain't the USA a hell hole, eh?

---

Because of cheese? Dude. :rolleyes:

I like my Velveta... doesn't matter what a California politician says...

Hello again, Steve:

What do you think the government does with the milk it buys for the sole purpose of keeping milk prices HIGH? They make cheese. What do they DO with all that cheese?? But, that's not the subject of my question to you. I suppose you'll object to the premise of my question, but I'll live with your objection...

What I want to know is this. Although you complain about the "nanny state" banning stuff for our own good, it HAS been established that you believe the "nanny state" SHOULD ban SOME stuff for our own good. I just want to know WHERE you draw the line?

Yes, that changes the conversation from a complaint about government, to the moral decisions we make... That's, frankly, what this is about... You huff and puff about my bringing attention to it. You say, "oh, drugs, OF COURSE the "oh, drugs, OF COURSE the " should ban them... But, we're talking about happy meals here." Maybe you can justify that by saying the department that bans drugs ISN'T the " should ban them... But, we're talking about happy meals here.". It's the cops... To which, I wrinkle up my nose and wonder what you've been smoking...

excon

PS> Do you favor price supports that help dairy farmers, but hurt consumers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

You huff and puff about my bringing attention to it. You say, "oh, drugs, OF COURSE the "nanny state" should ban them... But, we're talking about happy meals here." Maybe you can justify that by saying the department that bans drugs ISN'T the "nanny state". It's the cops... To which, I wrinkle up my nose and wonder what you've been smoking...

---

Dude, when you answer your questions for me there's not a whole to say is there?

Quote:

---

PS> Do you favor price supports that help dairy farmers, but hurt consumers?

---

Hell no ! That is an easy earmark to get rid of .


The funny thing about the happy meals is that if there is a reason they are unhealthy ,is because the government allows the harmful ingredients in the final product to be used . Why blame Micky D's for selling harmful products when they are cooking up ingredients that are lawful ? It's the crap that should not be used in food manufacturing that is the biggest problem in manufactured foods .

In that I think the government has a legitimate role . It would take too long for me to get into great details . But let's talk about salt since that is what gets nanny staters like Bloomy's panties in a knot.
Inherently there is absolutely nothing wrong with sodium from salt. The real problem is the salt(primarily sodium chloride ) that gets marketted . Processed table salt is junk that gets bleached and has addatives that are indeed harmful . Unprocessed sea salt is ugly and not as white . But it contains many useful minerals (calcium, magnesium, potassium and 90 other trace and micro-nutrients)and should be part of the average diet. Mined from underground salt deposits,table salt is heat blasted, chemically treated, heavily processed to eliminate trace minerals and contains additives to prevent clumping. Table salt has added iodine which occures naturally in sea salt.

High fructose corn syrup should not be a food ingredient and the primary reason it is is to satisfy a subsidized agricultural constituency.

So I see that what excon says is correct: you are FOR regulation for the stuff that you want regulated. Isn't that the nanny-statism that you so deplore?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The funny thing about the happy meals is that if there is a reason they are unhealthy ,is because the government allows the harmful ingredients in the final product to be used . Why blame Micky D's for selling harmful products when they are cooking up ingredients that are lawful ? It's the crap that should not be used in food manufacturing that is the biggest problem in manufactured foods .

---

Hello again, tom:

I think you're on to something... Maybe the nanny state could ban whatever ingredients you're talking about above, instead of toys and happy meals...

But, it's STILL the nanny state involving itself in our buying decisions. I don't see much difference in government banning stuff that McDonalds can't buy, or banning the happy meals that those ingredients produce.

The question is, do you support government intervention into our buying decisions. It seems clear to me that you do.

excon

Yes I do and I have been consistent on this point . The problem however is not the food but the lawful ingredients used in the foods . I am in favor of the government deciding a food ingredient ,drug ,chemical is unsafe for human consumption and taking measures to ban or restrict it's usage .
Does that make me a nanny-stater ? No . I think that is a traditional legitimate role of government.

I think San Francisco would be hard pressed to find a legitimate scientific link between happy meals and childhood obesity .There is no basis at all for the ban execept to be punitive to McDonalds. I hope they take the city to court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

So I see that what excon says is correct: you are FOR regulation for the stuff that you want regulated. Isn't that the nanny-statism that you so deplore?

---

Again, if you guys are going to answer for me then just talk among yourselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Does that make me a nanny-stater ? No . I think that is a traditional legitimate role of government.

---

Hello again, tom:

One man's nanny state, is another man's government doing its job.

Me? I'm what you wished you were. I don't believe the government has ANY role in my buying or selling decisions... Let the free market rule.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Let the free market rule.
excon

---

That's much worse than government regulation In my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Me? I'm what you wished you were. I don't believe the government has ANY role in my buying or selling decisions... Let the free market rule.

---

Except for health care. How about assault weapons?

Good ,then I'll use massive amt's of growth hormones on the diseased beef I raise and you'll gladly purchase it from me .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Except for health care. How about assault weapons?

---

Hello again, Steve:

Nahhh... I don't want 'em to regulate my insurance company OR my gun store. I want to be able to BUY whatever the market offers. Should I be able to buy a bazooka? Uhhh, YES! I actually BELIEVE in the Constitution.

excon

How about regulating where convicted sex offenders are able to live, hang out or work? Or what doctors are allowed to practice... same with lawyers. Or who can drive schoolbuses or other means of public transportation.