# The overlords have spoken



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Lovers of freedom, raise fists, extend middle fingers.:heh:

Lovers of government, pour out that Pepsi!! :nono:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/health/nut...-added-sugars/ar-AAgunhL?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp

You will all be happy to know that eating lean meat is "OK" and you might not have to cut down on some things that taste good.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

What do you object to in the article? I'm assuming you are a "lover of freedom". 

From the link: "And the main message hasn't changed much over the years: Eat your fruits and vegetables. Whole grains and seafood, too. And keep sugar, fats and salt in moderation."

As a whole it's not a bad suggestion, is it?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Their protein recommendations for young men and boys, I wonder about. Young men and boys IMO need more protein as they are building muscle. 

I also feel that one diet does not fit all, these are guidelines, if I had medical problems that I considered diet related I would check with a nutritionist.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

As long as it's just a guideline, I'll just laugh at them for believing they've accomplished something, and not freak out about my freedoms until some idiot like Bloomberg tries to actually ban something that is clearly a life choice.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Shoot, I have been giving the government recommendations for what I should eat the finger all along! Seriously, did anybody actually change their diet based on these?


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Sugar is big business and big money so in actual fact it is corporations and manufacturers who are already controlling your sugar intake. They are sneaking it in in ever larger quantities because the more sweet we have the more we require more sweetness. 

The average American is eating 60 times more sugar today as they were in 1970 - most of it in added to food as hi-fructose corn syrup. Is it any wonder that the nation is obese and diabetic?

I see absolutely nothing wrong with passing on information and advice about food and nutrition. Most people are still clueless. These are guidelines - definition:
guideÂ·line
&#712;&#609;&#299;d&#716;l&#299;n/
noun
a general rule, principle, or piece of advice.
synonyms: recommendation, instruction, direction, suggestion, advice; regulation, rule, principle, guiding principle; standard, criterion, measure, gauge, yardstick, benchmark, touchstone; procedure, parameter

Personally I love my freedom and have no intention of letting myself become the slave of sugar or chained to an insulin injection, dialysis machine or heart medication. Fruits, veggies, whole grains, lean meat, lean dairy. Less salt, saturated fat, added sugar, soda, desserts and candy. Nothing wrong with these guidelines.

If you look at crowd photographs of the 1960s and 1970s you will see that there are nearly no overweight people. Today more than 60% would be overweight or obese. People could take control of their own nutrition but they don't and corporations don't care about your health. Reducing added salt and sugar ends up having to be legislated. Just as it was with tobacco.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

MO_cows said:


> Shoot, I have been giving the government recommendations for what I should eat the finger all along! Seriously, did anybody actually change their diet based on these?


I have been lower carb/higher protein, very little convenience food for a couple years, but there are some that should listen to the guidelines. They are really quite sensible for the average fast food/convenience food eating crowd. 

That said, they'll never get me to quit coffee, chocolate (dark, and the good kind) and butter.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> What do you object to in the article? I'm assuming you are a "lover of freedom".
> 
> From the link: "And the main message hasn't changed much over the years: Eat your fruits and vegetables. Whole grains and seafood, too. And keep sugar, fats and salt in moderation."
> 
> As a whole it's not a bad suggestion, is it?


 I object to the entire Nanny State mentality. Governments, in general, start out with "suggestions" then "guidelines". usually it eventually morphs into requirements and laws.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

emdeengee said:


> Sugar is big business and big money so in actual fact it is corporations and manufacturers who are already controlling your sugar intake. They are sneaking it in in ever larger quantities because the more sweet we have the more we require more sweetness.
> 
> The average American is eating 60 times more sugar today as they were in 1970 - most of it in added to food as hi-fructose corn syrup. Is it any wonder that the nation is obese and diabetic?
> 
> ...


And that is where it is headed. It always starts like that. "These are only suggestions" Then, "We are only regulating the evil corporations, you know, to protect you rubes." Then it goes to "For your own good, we are going to remove yet another choice from your daily life."

Oh, and BTW. The sugar industry is one of the most heavily subsidized industries in the nation. Wouldn't it be better to stop that instead of nit picking what we eat?


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

I remember the 60s and 70s and it was older women who tended to be plump the most often, the grandmas, with older men getting paunchy. And there were some "chubby kids" back then too, with the "husky" size clothes readily available in the stores. But yes, most teenagers and young adults were slim. 

But a lot more has changed besides the invention of high fructose corn syrup. In the 60s and 70s, kids were sent outside to play. We roamed far and wide and got lots of fresh air and exercise. Today people let their kids be couch potatoes and are too scared to let them out of their sight. Back then a person of sound body would have been embarrassed to drive their car a mere block or three, they would walk. Not today! And portion sizes have gotten bigger and bigger at restaurants and people copy that at home. We consume waaaaay more calories than most people did in the 60s and 70s, plus we are a lot less physically active.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

I eat salt like a side dish, but, at my yearly physical, my sodium levels are below normal. They tell me to eat more salt. I don't fancy the idea of having to get a special license from the government to get more than my allowed allotment of salt.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

MO_cows said:


> I remember the 60s and 70s and it was older women who tended to be plump the most often, the grandmas, with older men getting paunchy. And there were some "chubby kids" back then too, with the "husky" size clothes readily available in the stores. But yes, most teenagers and young adults were slim.
> 
> But a lot more has changed besides the invention of high fructose corn syrup. In the 60s and 70s, kids were sent outside to play. We roamed far and wide and got lots of fresh air and exercise. Today people let their kids be couch potatoes and are too scared to let them out of their sight. Back then a person of sound body would have been embarrassed to drive their car a mere block or three, they would walk. Not today! And portion sizes have gotten bigger and bigger at restaurants and people copy that at home. We consume waaaaay more calories than most people did in the 60s and 70s, plus we are a lot less physically active.


Thus more sensible diet guidelines are a good thing for many people, yes?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Thus more sensible diet guidelines are a good thing for many people, yes?


 
It is not the government's role or responsibility to tell us what/how much to eat.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> It is not the government's role or responsibility to tell us what/how much to eat.


They are guidelines to eating a more healthy diet, they are not mandatory. 

Do you think the majority of Americans are healthy and at a good weight?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> They are guidelines to eating a more healthy diet, they are not mandatory.
> 
> Do you think the majority of Americans are healthy and at a good weight?


 
Not yet, perhaps. But, still, irrelevant. My tax money goes to pay for "research" and PR used to push these "guidelines" on us. It is not the role of the Federal government to spend my tax money in that way. 

The shape of the American population is irrelevant to the issue.


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

if the government wants to give some recommendations they should recommend to the system suckers they are already feeding with our money. When they reform WELFARE then I might listen to their rhetoric.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Not yet, perhaps. But, still, irrelevant. My tax money goes to pay for "research" and PR used to push these "guidelines" on us. It is not the role of the Federal government to spend my tax money in that way.
> 
> The shape of the American population is irrelevant to the issue.


And they may never be mandatory, correct? 

Why is the shape, or lack there of, irrelevant? The guidelines are for healthy eating which many Americans do not do, and should.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

[No message]


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

M5farm said:


> if the government wants to give some recommendations they should recommend to the system suckers they are already feeding with our money. When they reform WELFARE then I might listen to their rhetoric.


 
As long as the illegal practice of stealing from some to give to others is still practiced by the Federal Government, I would be all for the recipients of those stolen funds to be forced to abide by these silly guidelines. 

Of course the best course of action would be for the government to stop stealing and leave us alone.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

M5farm said:


> if the government wants to give some recommendations they should recommend to the system suckers they are already feeding with our money. When they reform WELFARE then I might listen to their rhetoric.


This is an example of irrelevant to the topic at hand, and inflammatory rhetoric.


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

the reason they have to make the guidelines is because the vast majority of the unhealthy eaters are on WELFARE . It very relevant in our times.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> And they may never be mandatory, correct?
> 
> Why is the shape, or lack there of, irrelevant? The guidelines are for healthy eating which many Americans do not do, and should.


 Prior to 2010 one might have said that purchasing health insurance may never be mandatory, correct? You can't trust government to stop trying to gain power any more than you can trust termites not to eat the wood in your house. 

The reason it is irrelevant is that the it is not the governments place to comment or be involved in the situation.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Prior to 2010 one might have said that purchasing health insurance may never be mandatory, correct? You can't trust government to stop trying to gain power any more than you can trust termites not to eat the wood in your house.
> 
> The reason it is irrelevant is that the it is not the governments place to comment or be involved in the situation.


Universal heath care means that there will be mandatory diets? C'mon. You know that one does not equal the other.

The guidelines are suggestions that should be heeded by many Americans. Do some people watching next time you're near a crowd.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Universal heath care means that there will be mandatory diets? C'mon. You know that one does not equal the other.
> 
> The guidelines are suggestions that should be heeded by many Americans. Do some people watching next time you're near a crowd.


 The ACA is not universal health care, it is universal health insurance. The ACA gives precedent. The government can force you to buy a product no matter if you want to or not. ( a product where they largely dictate the terms of service) What is to stop them from forcing their will on us via our diet? What is to stop them from telling us that we must shop at government approved shopping centers and buy specific amounts of various products? 

I was convinced that the ACA would NEVER stand up to constitutional scrutiny. Well, I hadn't considered a corrupt SCOTUS and how much damage they could do. I put nothing past them and never say never.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

It has always been the responsibility of all governments everywhere to issue guidelines regarding the safety and well being of their citizens. That's what governments are for. That's why it's called government. 



> Released every five years, the guidelines are intended to help Americans prevent disease and obesity.


Some people appreciate and follow guidelines, some people don't. If people don't like the guidelines they can ignore them. Nobody is twisting anyone's arm to follow guidelines.


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> Universal heath care means that there will be mandatory diets? C'mon. You know that one does not equal the other.
> 
> The guidelines are suggestions that should be heeded by many Americans. Do some people watching next time you're near a crowd.



Should I be able to give personal recommendations to people on this board??????


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> The ACA is not universal health care, it is universal health insurance. The ACA gives precedent. The government can force you to buy a product no matter if you want to or not. ( a product where they largely dictate the terms of service) What is to stop them from forcing their will on us via our diet? What is to stop them from telling us that we must shop at government approved shopping centers and buy specific amounts of various products?
> 
> I was convinced that the ACA would NEVER stand up to constitutional scrutiny. Well, I hadn't considered a corrupt SCOTUS and how much damage they could do. I put nothing past them and never say never.


OK. How does universal health insurance translate into mandatory diets for Americans? It doesn't. Period.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Fennick said:


> It has always been the responsibility of all governments everywhere to issue guidelines regarding the safety and well being of their citizens. That's what governments are for. That's why it's called government.
> 
> 
> 
> Some people appreciate and follow guidelines, some people don't. If people don't like the guidelines they can ignore them. Nobody is twisting anyone's arm to follow guidelines.


 Our government is supposed to be different. The Federal Government is not authorized, by the Constitution, to pay for or put forth such guidelines.

Of course this is a rather small thing in a huge list of items that the Federal government does, that it is not supposed to do.


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

Fennick said:


> It has always been the responsibility of all governments everywhere to issue guidelines regarding the safety and well being of their citizens. That's what governments are for. That's why it's called government.
> 
> 
> 
> Some people appreciate and follow guidelines, some people don't. If people don't like the guidelines they can ignore them. Nobody is twisting anyone's arm to follow guidelines.


can you show me where this law of recommendation is at in the constitution??


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Nope.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> OK. How does universal health insurance translate into mandatory diets for Americans? It doesn't. Period.


 
I just told you. If they are allowed to get away with being able to force us to purchase an item (insurance), they can force us to buy anything. Some do-gooder wants to help out the electric car industry, get a bill passed forcing everyone to buy one. Some other Dictator wannabe wants to make the population fit and trim to his/her liking? Get a bill passed forcing people to shop where they say and buy what they say. The ACA opens that door.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Not worth it.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> Not yet, perhaps. But, still, irrelevant. My tax money goes to pay for "research" and PR used to push these "guidelines" on us. It is not the role of the Federal government to spend my tax money in that way.
> 
> The shape of the American population is irrelevant to the issue.



I disagree it's one of the few legitimate rolls government has.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

M5farm said:


> the reason they have to make the guidelines is because the vast majority of the unhealthy eaters are on WELFARE . It very relevant in our times.


It is not likely it is welfare recipients who are filling up the parking lots at all those restaurants.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

M5farm said:


> can you show me where this law of recommendation is at in the constitution??


No. Even if I could I wouldn't because I couldn't care less. 

If idiots want to poison themselves to death in pig-headed protest because the government says they shouldn't then I wish they would do the nation a favour and get it over and done with as quickly as possible to get themselves out of the national gene pool. 

I think this topic is one of the stupidest, most snot-nosed infantile complaints I've ever seen posted on this board.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Fennick said:


> It has always been the responsibility of all governments everywhere to issue guidelines regarding the safety and well being of their citizens. That's what governments are for. That's why it's called government.
> 
> 
> 
> Some people appreciate and follow guidelines, some people don't. If people don't like the guidelines they can ignore them. Nobody is twisting anyone's arm to follow guidelines.


School menus are based on these guidelines, so when they get it wrong the kids suffer the most. Like for years they said margarine was preferable to butter because of saturated fat. Saturated fat was the enemy. Then figured out, oops, trans fat is even worse. At one time, the "grains" section of the old food pyramid was the biggest block, and they were cramming excess carbs into the kids. For awhile coffee was bad, now it's good again. Eggs were bad, then they figured out cholesterol you ingest isn't directly related to the levels in your blood. Instead of just sticking to a common sense general guideline, they seem to follow all the fads and change the recommendations based on incomplete research. That's why I hold them in such low regard, they've been wrong more often than right. 

I'm on the Julia Child plan - eat butter, drink wine, still live up into the 90's and pass away peacefully in your sleep!


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Fennick said:


> No. Even if I could I wouldn't because I couldn't care less.
> 
> If idiots want to poison themselves to death in pig-headed protest because the government says they shouldn't then I wish they would do the nation a favour and get it over and done with as quickly as possible to get themselves out of the national gene pool.
> 
> I think this topic is one of the stupidest, most snot-nosed infantile complaints I've ever seen posted on this board.


 
Then pour out your Pepsi boss. 

I don't need nor desire government to tell me what is good and not good for me. I don't need government to hold my hand and tell me they will take care of me. 

I am in excellent physical shape. All of my numbers are in the healthy range. I don't smoke or use tobacco in any way. I seldom drink. I eat salt like a side dish and meat at every meal. My sodium is low. MY LDL is low. 

To allow the government to use our tax money to produce silly guides for stupid people is a waste of money. If you are too blind and stupid to put down the cola when you are a 400lb tub of goo, you are likely too stupid to follow these silly guidelines anyway, so, why bother and why spend the money? 

It is like telling people not to scratch their crotch with a loaded pistol. If they are too stupid not to do it, in the first place, your warning isn't going to do any good and wouldn't it be better just to let them have at it?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> I disagree it's one of the few legitimate rolls government has.


 Not the Feds they are not authorized. States, perhaps, but, not the Feds.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Fennick said:


> No. Even if I could I wouldn't because I couldn't care less.
> 
> If idiots want to poison themselves to death in pig-headed protest because the government says they shouldn't then I wish they would do the nation a favour and get it over and done with as quickly as possible to get themselves out of the national gene pool.
> 
> I think *this topic is one of the stupidest, most snot-nosed infantile complaints I've ever seen posted* on this board.


And yet you couldn't help yourself from participating!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Fennick said:


> No. Even if I could I wouldn't because I couldn't care less.
> 
> If idiots want to poison themselves to death in pig-headed protest because the government says they shouldn't then I wish they would do the nation a favour and get it over and done with as quickly as possible to get themselves out of the national gene pool.
> 
> I think this topic is one of the stupidest, most snot-nosed infantile complaints I've ever seen posted on this board.


:bow:


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

MO_cows said:


> And yet you couldn't help yourself from participating!



Some had said similar things about the uproar over a 2% tax back in the 1760's
:heh:


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

MO_cows said:


> And yet you couldn't help yourself from participating!


Yup. Silly me couldn't resist from stopping to watch the train crash.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

MO_cows said:


> School menus are based on these guidelines, so when they get it wrong the kids suffer the most. .....


Re: school menus, are the meals that are served all sensible sized portions or are they super-sized to cater to gluttony? Are the meals restricted to the number of servings allowed per student or can the students return for as many refills as they want?


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

If you end up with a nanny state it is because too many people act like immature children or are satisfied with being uneducated adults. 

It is funny how people will accept a nanny state when it comes to tobacco or water quality but not when it comes to their food. Why not? It is the same thing. Something is proven to be harmful to people and animals and the environment so the government- local, regional, state, federal - makes changes or sets guidelines to make things less harmful. The reason they end up doing this is because no business can police itself impartially and people would rather do what pleases them then take responsible action even if it ends up hurting themselves. Personally I don't care if you want to harm yourself but I do care when your actions affect me and my family. And of course irresponsible behaviour always has a cost - such as paying for medical expenses for completely preventable illnesses

When you live in a society you make adjustments and compromises and accept the will and direction of other people as well as guide lines, laws and regulations. Just as others accept things they do not support. You know - for the greater good. If you don't think you do so then why don't you drive through red lights and stop signs?


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

emdeengee said:


> If you end up with a nanny state it is because too many people act like immature children or are satisfied with being uneducated adults.
> 
> It is funny how people will accept a nanny state when it comes to tobacco or water quality but not when it comes to their food. Why not? It is the same thing. Something is proven to be harmful to people and animals and the environment so the government- local, regional, state, federal - makes changes or sets guidelines to make things less harmful. The reason they end up doing this is because no business can police itself impartially and people would rather do what pleases them then take responsible action even if it ends up hurting themselves. Personally I don't care if you want to harm yourself but I do care when your actions affect me and my family. And of course irresponsible behaviour always has a cost - such as paying for medical expenses for completely preventable illnesses
> 
> When you live in a society you make adjustments and compromises and accept the will and direction of other people as well as guide lines, laws and regulations. Just as others accept things they do not support. You know - for the greater good. If you don't think you do so then why don't you drive through red lights and stop signs?


I think one thing feeds the other. The more you nanny people, the more they will NEED to be nannied, the less self reliance and personal responsibility they will be able to develop. 

As a matter of fact, I do drive thru one stop sign just about every day. I can see before I get to it what's coming, if it's nothing...I don't even slow down. But on the other hand, I do look both ways at a RR crossing whether the signal is going off or not. Because it is up to ME to best look out for my own safety.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

And it will be up to me and others to pay to have you body scraped off the pavement (or for your trial for vehicular homicide) when you or someone else who is just "looking out for their own safety" runs another stop sign and misjudges the distance. Ditto for sugar and other food abusers and those who do not educate themselves about proper nutrition. Someone else will be paying. So if sign runners and sugar addicts can't be responsible then I guess they end up being nannied.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Fennick said:


> Re: school menus, are the meals that are served all sensible sized portions or are they super-sized to cater to gluttony? Are the meals restricted to the number of servings allowed per student or can the students return for as many refills as they want?


The last school lunch I had was grandparent's day 3, 4 years ago. The portions were good, I thought, and kids or grandparents could get another helping "while supplies lasted". It was also real, cooked food, not a "heat and eat" offering like chicken nuggets or pizza. Although those were on the menu from time to time, they just made sure it was a better lunch for grandparent day.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

I am thinking these are the same people that not long ago said disregard the egg thing..that the cholesterol buildup is unique to each individual...go back aways...get up on the farm..out to do morning chores..then breakfast of sausage..ham..bacon..eggs..biscuits and gravy..fresh whole milk from the cow...real butter..every single morning...then dinner and supper were the same "dietary guidelines"...then you croaked about 90 from old age and were never sick...that's how I eat...fresh milk from the dairy...real cream...nothing like a cream pasta dish with shrimp and garlic...eggs..cheese...butter...have not been to a doctor in over 20 years...I feed my dogs all the milk eggs and cheese they want too...eat natural that's all...


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

emdeengee said:


> And it will be up to me and others to pay to have you body scraped off the pavement (or for your trial for vehicular homicide) when you or someone else who is just "looking out for their own safety" runs another stop sign and misjudges the distance. Ditto for sugar and other food abusers and those who do not educate themselves about proper nutrition. Someone else will be paying. So if sign runners and sugar addicts can't be responsible then I guess they end up being nannied.


No you won't be paying a dime for me because I pay for my own car insurance, health insurance and life insurance, but thanks anyway! 

Maybe you should read up on Prohibition and see how well the ultimate government act of nannying turned out.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

You are not the only tax payer paying for emergency services, the justice system, highway repair etc so others would pay to clean up your mess.

I have read about prohibition and it was a failed experiment. But there are a lot of laws in place that were not in existence back then which are helping to negate some of the horrific harm done by alcohol. And more medical research into addiction as well - much of which is government (tax payer) funded - so nannying does continue and much of it is very successful at making changes for good.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> The ACA is not universal health care, it is universal health insurance. The ACA gives precedent. The government can force you to buy a product no matter if you want to or not. ( a product where they largely dictate the terms of service) *What is to stop *them from forcing their will on us via our diet? *What is to stop* them from telling us that we must shop at government approved shopping centers and buy specific amounts of various products?
> 
> I was convinced that the ACA would NEVER stand up to constitutional scrutiny. Well, I hadn't considered a corrupt SCOTUS and how much damage they could do. I put nothing past them and never say never.


Why always resort to fantasy scenarios?


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

emdeengee said:


> You are not the only tax payer paying for emergency services, the justice system, highway repair etc so others would pay to clean up your mess.
> 
> I have read about prohibition and it was a failed experiment. But there are a lot of laws in place that were not in existence back then which are helping to negate some of the horrific harm done by alcohol. And more medical research into addiction as well - much of which is government (tax payer) funded - so nannying does continue and much of it is very successful at making changes for good.


Addiction does not exists..that is about a personal choice...you can make a decision about sticking the bottle of booze in your mouth...or a needle in your arm...no claiming your addicted to anything...just say no.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> Not the *Feds they are not authorized*. States, perhaps, but, not the Feds.


That's your answer to every topic
Let's skip to the slavery reference and go get pizza


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

MO_cows said:


> School menus are based on these guidelines, so when they get it wrong the kids suffer the most. Like for years they said margarine was preferable to butter because of saturated fat. Saturated fat was the enemy. Then figured out, oops, trans fat is even worse. At one time, the "grains" section of the old food pyramid was the biggest block, and they were cramming excess carbs into the kids. For awhile coffee was bad, now it's good again. Eggs were bad, then they figured out cholesterol you ingest isn't directly related to the levels in your blood. Instead of just sticking to a common sense general guideline, they seem to follow all the fads and change the recommendations based on incomplete research. That's why I hold them in such low regard, they've been wrong more often than right.


More than school menus ... if your child is in any type of child care and brings his own lunch, the child care provider must verify that you sent the right food, the right combination of proteins, carbs & fruits/vegetables. If you don't, they must take your child's meal away and replace it with an approved meal. Remember the story of a 4 year old who brought a ham & turkey sandwich and a banana for lunch? It was deemed unhealthy and she was given chicken nuggets. 

Parents cannot send what they want for their kids' lunches in schools. What is the next step? Are they going to start sending food police to every household with kids to inspect the lunch before it's served?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

FarmerKat said:


> More than school menus ... if your child is in any type of child care and brings his own lunch, the child care provider must verify that you sent the right food, the right combination of proteins, carbs & fruits/vegetables. If you don't, they must take your child's meal away and replace it with an approved meal. Remember the story of a 4 year old who brought a ham & turkey sandwich and a banana for lunch? It was deemed unhealthy and she was given chicken nuggets.
> 
> Parents cannot send what they want for their kids' lunches in schools. What is the next step? Are they going to start sending food police to every household with kids to inspect the lunch before it's served?


Is this something in just your area? My granddaughter attends all day preK and takes her lunch most of the time, there are no rules about what she can bring at all.


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> Is this something in just your area? My granddaughter attends all day preK and takes her lunch most of the time, there are no rules about what she can bring at all.


It's possible that it varies by state. The specific case on the news was in North Carolina. My kids have never been to school/childcare in TN so I don't know what they do here but in Florida, their preschool checked lunches. If they did not like the lunch, they would replace it and send you a bill. I also had a friend who was licensed for small childcare (she could care for children from 2 families) at her home and she was expected to inspect food that parents sent (and this was also checked during inspections by the state).


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

emdeengee said:


> You are not the only tax payer paying for emergency services, the justice system, highway repair etc so others would pay to clean up your mess.
> 
> I have read about prohibition and it was a failed experiment. But there are a lot of laws in place that were not in existence back then which are helping to negate some of the horrific harm done by alcohol. And more medical research into addiction as well - much of which is government (tax payer) funded - so nannying does continue and much of it is very successful at making changes for good.


Emergency services around here are volunteer. My family, neighbors and acquaintances are the first responders who would come "scrape me up". Justice system? I haven't been doing my fair share there I guess. Haven't had a ticket in over 20 years. (knock, knock) Highway repair? I don't drive a Sherman tank, I don't think my car could tear up a road. But I pay plenty of property taxes, fuel taxes so I am "ante'd up". 

Why would government funded research be considered "nannying"? Maybe you don't quite grasp the concept. Nannying is treating competent adults like children. I believe some good things have come out of government funded research, but they have also paid for plenty of silly stuff with no practical value. I am blocked from google at the moment, but check out a few "Coburn Reports" if you are truly interested.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

FarmerKat said:


> More than school menus ... if your child is in any type of child care and brings his own lunch, the child care provider must verify that you sent the right food, the right combination of proteins, carbs & fruits/vegetables. If you don't, they must take your child's meal away and replace it with an approved meal. Remember the story of a 4 year old who brought a ham & turkey sandwich and a banana for lunch? It was deemed unhealthy and she was given chicken nuggets.
> 
> Parents cannot send what they want for their kids' lunches in schools. What is the next step? Are they going to start sending food police to every household with kids to inspect the lunch before it's served?


I have heard of that but they don't have "lunch police" at our school. Not yet anyway!


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

emdeengee said:


> And it will be up to me and others to pay to have you body scraped off the pavement (or for your trial for vehicular homicide) when you or someone else who is just "looking out for their own safety" runs another stop sign and misjudges the distance. Ditto for sugar and other food abusers and those who do not educate themselves about proper nutrition. Someone else will be paying. So if sign runners and sugar addicts can't be responsible then I guess they end up being nannied.


 You do realize there is a very big difference between protecting people from other people and protecting them from themselves, right?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's your answer to every topic
> Let's skip to the slavery reference and go get pizza


 
That IS the answer to most things that the Federal Government does. What most people don't realize, or, don't care to realize it that the Federal government is supposed to be very small domestically. They are not supposed to be involved in our food past the interstate commerce portion of food trade. They are not supposed to be involved in healthcare. They are not supposed to be involved in welfare, they are not supposed to be involved in gun regulation...etc., etc., etc.. 

Sure, food guidelines are small potatoes, pardon the pun, but, they are a symptom of a vast and growing problem. The Federal government has grossly overstepped its bounds in just about every area of domestic policy. The truly sad part is that most don't realize/care that they do this. I see it as a slow march towards a form of soft totalitarianism. (if we are lucky, it will be soft).


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> I just told you. If they are allowed to get away with being able to force us to purchase an item (insurance), they can force us to buy anything. Some do-gooder wants to help out the electric car industry, get a bill passed forcing everyone to buy one. Some other Dictator wannabe wants to make the population fit and trim to his/her liking? Get a bill passed forcing people to shop where they say and buy what they say. The ACA opens that door.


I'm curious. How would the government enforce a diet law? Door to door searches for illegal food? Just outlaw the sale? What about people that grow and sell on the black market? Or just grow for their own use? Wait, this was already tried and it failed miserably...

Or it could be the government just publishes guidelines as a suggestion for the average fast food and out of a box eating American.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why always resort to fantasy scenarios?


 
Prior to the advent of the ACA my scenarios may have been "fantasy", but, the ACA has given rise to the possibility of such things actually happening. Prior to Obama, I would have called the idea of being forced to buy health insurance, a fantasy scenario. It is not a huge jump from forcing one to buy one product, to forcing them to buy others, you know, for their own good.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why always resort to fantasy scenarios?



Because talking about things that might happen helps educate others. 

Besides it's what we do here.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> Prior to the advent of the ACA my scenarios may have been "fantasy", but, the ACA has given rise to the possibility of such things actually happening. Prior to Obama, I would have called the idea of being forced to buy health insurance, a fantasy scenario. It is not a huge jump from forcing one to buy one product, to forcing them to buy others, you know, for their own good.


Yes, it is a huge jump


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Because talking about things that might happen helps educate others.
> 
> Besides it's what we do here.


There's a big difference in "things that might happen" and many of the "what if" scenarios some love to dream up.

I prefer to stick to verifiable facts


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm curious. How would the government enforce a diet law? Door to door searches for illegal food? Just outlaw the sale? What about people that grow and sell on the black market? Or just grow for their own use? Wait, this was already tried and it failed miserably...
> 
> Or it could be the government just publishes guidelines as a suggestion for the average fast food and out of the box eating American.


 
Mostly like they enforce the health insurance law, through penalties, oh, excuse me, taxes. How do they regulate tobacco? I can see industry crushing law suits for different food producing industries. I can see them placing "Sin taxes" on what they consider "bad foods" (the fact is that some of this type of thing is already happening on a local level in some areas. And there was some push for these types of taxes on things like soda on a national basis.)

The laws working is irrelevant. The silly "War on Drugs" tells us that. But as most Americans are law abiding most will bend to the will of our betters in DC and eat what they tell us. 



> "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent...The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."


 -- Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis​


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, it is a huge jump


Why? The regulation of what we eat/drink has already started. What is to stop them from trying to stop us from eating certain things, to forcing us to, at least, purchase things on their approved list? 

If we wait on it to actually happen, we will have waited too late.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's a big difference in "things that might happen" and many of the "what if" scenarios some love to dream up.
> 
> I prefer to stick to verifiable facts


Exactly. Everything turning into a doomsayer fantasy scenario is becoming ridiculous.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Exactly. Everything turning into a doomsayer fantasy scenario is becoming ridiculous.


 It is not like it is some strange idea out of left field. There IS precedent for the Federal government forcing her citizens to purchase products that they desire them to purchase. Is that not true?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Mostly like they enforce the health insurance law, through penalties, oh, excuse me, taxes. How do they regulate tobacco? I can see industry crushing law suits for different food producing industries. I can see them placing "Sin taxes" on what they consider "bad foods" (the fact is that some of this type of thing is already happening on a local level in some areas. And there was some push for these types of taxes on things like soda on a national basis.)
> 
> The laws working is irrelevant. The silly "War on Drugs" tells us that. *But as most Americans are law abiding most will bend to the will of our betters in DC and eat what they tell us.*


Or it could be that they are just using the guidelines to eat a more healthy diet because they make sense for the majority of Americans... 

I just don't subscribe to the "government is bad and it will make us into Stepford citizens" in every possible scenario. Can the government overreach? Of course. Does it always overreach? No. Will it overreach in the future? No one can possibly know.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> It is not like it is some strange idea out of left field. There IS precedent for the Federal government forcing her citizens to purchase products that they desire them to purchase. Is that not true?


Perhaps for you, but certainly not in all situations. I just don't see it as reality in mine.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Or it could be that they are just using the guidelines to eat a more healthy diet because they make sense for the majority of Americans...
> 
> I just don't subscribe to the "government is bad and it will make us into Stepford citizens" in every possible scenario. Can the government overreach? Of course. Does it always overreach? No. Will it overreach in the future? No one can possibly know.


 The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Taking that, the question of if the government will overreach is answered. Of course they have, are, will. Does it always overreach, no. It does often.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Perhaps for you, but certainly not in all situations. I just don't see it as reality in mine.


So, you are not required by law to purchase health insurance?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> So, you are not required by law to purchase health insurance?


What does that have to do with dietary guidelines that the government puts out every 5 years?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> What does that have to do with dietary guidelines that the government puts out every 5 years?


We were discussing the possibility of the government trying to force us into their version of what is a good diet. I said that, through the ACA, they have precedent to enact laws that would force us to purchase food stuff on their approved list. 

Much like the feared gun confiscation, this type of thing wouldn't happen all at once. There are/would be steps involved. We already have rumblings of a national "sin tax" on sugary drinks. How big of a step is it from there to required purchase of approved food stuffs? Rather big, but, not so big from there to suing meat producers because the government believes that fat is going to kill us all, or, outlawing cream pies, or, some such foolishness. 20 or 30 years down the road, if we don't nip this crap, who knows what new requirements will be thrust upon us?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> We were discussing the possibility of the government trying to force us into their version of what is a good diet. I said that, through the ACA, they have precedent to enact laws that would force us to purchase food stuff on their approved list.
> 
> Much like the feared gun confiscation, this type of thing wouldn't happen all at once. There are/would be steps involved. We already have rumblings of a national "sin tax" on sugary drinks. How big of a step is it from there to required purchase of approved food stuffs? Rather big, but, not so big from there to suing meat producers because the government believes that fat is going to kill us all, or, outlawing cream pies, or, some such foolishness. 20 or 30 years down the road, if we don't nip this crap, who knows what new requirements will be thrust upon us?


Sigh. Everyone knows that since something may have been done once it will _always_ be done again, right? Unless you have a crystal ball (if you do can you tell us the PowerBall numbers?) you can't say that with any type of certainty. Right? 

Sometimes guidelines are just guidelines.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Sigh. Everyone knows that since something may have been done once it will _always_ be done again, right? Unless you have a crystal ball (if you do can you tell us the PowerBall numbers?) you can't say that with any type of certainty. Right?
> 
> Sometimes guidelines are just guidelines.


 I can't tell you, with absolute certainty, that the sun will rise tomorrow. I believe it will judging from past experience, but, there are no guarantees. 

History shows us that liberty is lost incrementally. We have guidelines, guidelines become legislation, legislation becomes law. 

Look at the gun control controversy. Until the 1930's there wasn't federal restrictions on firearms. One could purchase a fully automatic weapon through the mail. No background checks, no training. (Also, there were few to no mass shootings.) Then there was federal law, those laws have been slowly encroaching on our 2nd amendment rights for decades. Do you really believe that it will ever stop until we are disarmed? It may take decades or centuries, but, gun grabbers will not stop until they have what they want. 

The same with the likes of people like Bloomberg and others. They will always be there, slowly marching to control people. Be it the food we eat, the cars we drive, the guns we own, or, whatever they believe is bad for us and should be removed from our field of choices.


----------



## scooter (Mar 31, 2008)

Farmerga said:


> I can't tell you, with absolute certainty, that the sun will rise tomorrow. I believe it will judging from past experience, but, there are no guarantees.
> 
> History shows us that liberty is lost incrementally. We have guidelines, guidelines become legislation, legislation becomes law.
> 
> ...


 I'm afraid you are preaching to a crowd of minions, they have their blinders on and can't see what already has been happening here in our country.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

On the GOOD side the article said " people should figure out what type of healthy eating style works for them"

On the BAD side it recommends that teen boys eat less meat. Which is weird since a rapidly growing teen needs food that will stay with him, and they also want them to eat less fat, and too many carbs are both not healthy and as fuel it is very quickly used up.

All I can say I that thank God growing kids are not fed by the government. 

When the government in Great Britain tried to outlaw high calorie foods at school, some kids Mothers were bringing the kids meat pies and handing them through the fence. While I personally eat a high vegetable diet, when my son was growing he was thin and I made sure he got enough meat and calories in his meals!


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

scooter said:


> I'm afraid you are preaching to a crowd of minions, they have their blinders on and can't see what already has been happening here in our country.


 
Oh, I know. Many are blind to the threat, or, complicit with it.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> Sigh. Everyone knows that since something may have been done once it will _always_ be done again, right? Unless you have a crystal ball (if you do can you tell us the PowerBall numbers?) you can't say that with any type of certainty. Right?
> 
> Sometimes guidelines are just guidelines.


Maybe I could get the powerball numbers in a PM? I don't mind sharing but it would be downright socialist if everyone won.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Terri said:


> On the GOOD side the article said " people should figure out what type of healthy eating style works for them"
> 
> On the BAD side it recommends that teen boys eat less meat. Which is weird since a rapidly growing teen needs food that will stay with him, and they also want them to eat less fat, and too many carbs are both not healthy and as fuel it is very quickly used up.
> 
> All I can say I that thank God growing kids are not fed by the government


Pretty much what I said a few pages back, kinda hard to take some of the other recommendations seriously.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Terri said:


> On the GOOD side the article said " people should figure out what type of healthy eating style works for them"
> 
> On the BAD side it recommends that teen boys eat less meat. Which is weird since a rapidly growing teen needs food that will stay with him, and they also want them to eat less fat, and too many carbs are both not healthy and as fuel it is very quickly used up.
> 
> All I can say I that thank God growing kids are not fed by the government


 It is simply the one-size-fits-all mentality of the Federal government. They don't (can't) leave room for variability, be it between individuals, towns, states, or, regions. That is a major reason why the Federal government was supposed to be small and non-intrusive in our day to day lives.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

scooter said:


> I'm afraid you are preaching to a crowd of *minions*, *they have their blinders on* and can't see what already has been happening here in our country.


Name calling isn't nice. :nono:


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Or it could be that they are just using the guidelines to eat a more healthy diet because they make sense for the majority of Americans...
> 
> I just don't subscribe to the "government is bad and it will make us into Stepford citizens" in every possible scenario. Can the government overreach? Of course. Does it always overreach? No. *Will it overreach in the future? No one can possibly know*.


You should know better than that. Look at how much the fed govt has grown in the last 20, 30 years. Look at how many more parts of our lives they have infiltrated. Would you have ever dreamed 15 years ago the IRS would be involved in your health care?? We have let the fed govt get bloated and out of control. If we don't draw some lines now and stop the progression, we will be swallowed up by the "slowly but steadily creeping" monster. That is the direction we are headed. 

Because of some spitting matches going on with the RealID act, I might have to get a passport to leave my state via an airplane soon. How "1984" is that???? Needing a passport to go from Kansas City to Denver????


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

MO_cows said:


> You should know better than that. Look at how much the fed govt has grown in the last 20, 30 years. Look at how many more parts of our lives they have infiltrated. Would you have ever dreamed 15 years ago the IRS would be involved in your health care?? We have let the fed govt get bloated and out of control. If we don't draw some lines now and stop the progression, we will be swallowed up by the "slowly but steadily creeping" monster. That is the direction we are headed.
> 
> Because of some spitting matches going on with the RealID act, I might have to get a passport to leave my state via an airplane soon. How "1984" is that???? Needing a passport to go from Kansas City to Denver????


Can you PM me the Powerball numbers? Thanks.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Can you PM me the Powerball numbers? Thanks.


Yer on yer own for that! We got the powerball Wednesday but no other numbers, what a letdown.

Seriously, do you not see the direction of government control we are headed into, or do you just not care?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

MO_cows said:


> Yer on yer own for that! We got the powerball Wednesday but no other numbers, what a letdown.
> 
> Seriously, do you not see the direction of government control we are headed into, or do you just not care?


Of course the government can overreach, I believe I've said that multiple times. It's just not a given.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Of course the government can overreach, I believe I've said that multiple times. It's just not a given.


Well there's the fork in the road. I see that everything they have gotten involved in, there is overreach. It's just a matter of whether it's sooner or later.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

elevenpoint said:


> Addiction does not exists..that is about a personal choice...you can make a decision about sticking the bottle of booze in your mouth...or a needle in your arm...no claiming your addicted to anything...just say no.


Unfortunately you suffer from Nancy syndrome and apparently you have no understanding of the PHYSICAL aspects of addiction. If you have ever been involved in someone's withdrawal you would know that addiction does exist and it can be life threatening to stop without proper medical care. Addiction is a medical issue.

Yes, it is a decision to take a drink or drug and unfortunately it usually starts with the very young who also have no idea of what it means when your BODY becomes addicted.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

emdeengee said:


> Unfortunately you suffer from Nancy syndrome and apparently you have no understanding of the PHYSICAL aspects of addiction. If you have ever been involved in someone's withdrawal you would know that addiction does exist and it can be life threatening to stop without proper medical care. Addiction is a medical issue.
> 
> Yes, it is a decision to take a drink or drug and unfortunately it usually starts with the very young who also have no idea of what it means when your BODY becomes addicted.


Good post. Withdrawal is absolutely a physical response to the body's addiction to something.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

MO_cows said:


> Emergency services around here are volunteer. My family, neighbors and acquaintances are the first responders who would come "scrape me up". Justice system? I haven't been doing my fair share there I guess. Haven't had a ticket in over 20 years. (knock, knock) Highway repair? I don't drive a Sherman tank, I don't think my car could tear up a road. But I pay plenty of property taxes, fuel taxes so I am "ante'd up".
> 
> Why would government funded research be considered "nannying"? Maybe you don't quite grasp the concept. Nannying is treating competent adults like children. I believe some good things have come out of government funded research, but they have also paid for plenty of silly stuff with no practical value. I am blocked from google at the moment, but check out a few "Coburn Reports" if you are truly interested.


Well, this is the problem with the attitude. You think of yourself as a responsible law breaker but what about those who are not responsible? You may be able to run a stop sign because you have long vistas but many stop signs have limited view and yet idiots run them all the time because they don't care who they endanger - even themselves. So there are "encouragements" to get them to think about the harm they are doing. Which is the same goal with food guidelines. 

As for volunteers. Many of our services are also run or supplemented by volunteers whose equipment is paid for by taxes but that is not what concerns me. A volunteer is just as likely to be traumatized by a sign runner killing or being killed as someone paid. My volunteer neighbour is still not over the runner who killed himself and his toddler and critically injured the driver he hit. 

Government research (especially in food research) is nannying and the "competent" adults they are nannying are the leaders and developers in the food industry who cannot be trusted to look our for anything other than the bottom line - certainly not do the right thing for public health. 

Many research projects may be or seem to be pointless at the time but often a use for this information - disproving or proving a hypothesis or discovering something new - can and will be used later and lead to other important discoveries. Saccharin is an example. Could not be marketed until it was needed in WW2 to subsidize lost sugar imports and later, because it really is an unpleasant and unsafe product (more research!) led to the discovery of natural no calorie plant substitutes.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Because the government is in the business of health care it should the power to limit your actions in order to keep cost down.

Think about it, if you are paying for my lunch shouldn't you have the power to tell me I can't order lobster and a magnum of Dom Perignon?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

watcher said:


> Because the government is in the business of health care it should the power to limit your actions in order to keep cost down.
> 
> Think about it, if you are paying for my lunch shouldn't you have the power to tell me I can't order lobster and a magnum of Dom Perignon?


 That is the excuse used for obscene taxes on tobacco. It is all done to save taxpayer money. But, no, the Feds will NEVER do that sort of things with your bacon cheeseburger. That is totally impossible and nothing, from history, should lead you to believe that it is anything other than the fantasy musings of anti-government zealots. :nono:


----------



## 1948CaseVAI (May 12, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> What do you object to in the article? I'm assuming you are a "lover of freedom".
> 
> From the link: "And the main message hasn't changed much over the years: Eat your fruits and vegetables. Whole grains and seafood, too. And keep sugar, fats and salt in moderation."
> 
> As a whole it's not a bad suggestion, is it?


I know you didn't ask me, but when it comes to government I simply cannot contain myself. I strongly object to the government even having and expressing an opinion of what people eat! That is not the purpose of government. I don't care if their suggestions are good or bad, the fact that they even have an opinion is an affront to me!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

1948CaseVAI said:


> I know you didn't ask me, but when it comes to government I simply cannot contain myself. I strongly object to the government even having and expressing an opinion of what people eat! That is not the purpose of government. I don't care if their suggestions are good or bad, the fact that they even have an opinion is an affront to me!


Aren't opinions great?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> *It is not like it is some strange idea out of left field.* There IS precedent for the Federal government forcing her citizens to purchase products that they desire them to purchase. Is that not true?


It's *exactly* like that
If I were as afraid of the Govt as you, I'd move to a different country


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

emdeengee said:


> Well, this is the problem with the attitude. You think of yourself as a responsible law breaker but what about those who are not responsible? You may be able to run a stop sign because you have long vistas but many stop signs have limited view and yet idiots run them all the time because they don't care who they endanger - even themselves. So there are "encouragements" to get them to think about the harm they are doing. Which is the same goal with food guidelines.
> 
> As for volunteers. Many of our services are also run or supplemented by volunteers whose equipment is paid for by taxes but that is not what concerns me. A volunteer is just as likely to be traumatized by a sign runner killing or being killed as someone paid. My volunteer neighbour is still not over the runner who killed himself and his toddler and critically injured the driver he hit.
> 
> ...


Yes I am a responsible adult who happens to break a few minor laws in the course of life. You have to pass a vision test, a written test and a driving test to get a drivers license. What else you gonna do to keep idiots off the road??? I read somewhere in automotive history that as soon as there were two cars in one town, there would be a collision. Humans are just that flawed I guess. 

Yes the first responders do have to witness some grisly stuff. DS has extricated people who were very bad off, had to put them on the chopper. So far he hasn't had to deal with dead or mangled children, thank heaven, but he has worked on people that he knows. And he handles it well, he is emotionally strong and well grounded. His dad is a real rock and DS seems to be, too. But if he seemed to need support or counseling we would do our very best to get him to take it. 

Thanks to the govt, we at least have labels on "over-processed" food to tell us what crap it really is, but of course you have to actually read them to get that knowledge. No, that isn't nannying, that is within the proper role of government, IMHO.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

emdeengee said:


> . Saccharin is an example. Could not be marketed until it was needed in WW2 to subsidize lost sugar imports and later, because it really is an unpleasant and unsafe product (more research!) led to the discovery of natural no calorie plant substitutes.


 And thank god www still can buy Saccharin on the store shelves and Saccharin, is a main ingredient in many artificial sweeteners.
This over feeding mice to MAKE them break out into some disease is now being looked at as pure fantasy and is now not counted as a way to test a product on a human being.
The government knows best as to what iOS good for people. Big LIE there as always. The EPA, BLM IRS and those others should take a LONG walk off a Short plank and disappear from American lives along with that other useless entity the aclu. ALL should go and POUND SAND in some FAR Away country.~!


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Farmerga said:


> It is not the government's role or responsibility to tell us what/how much to eat.


Have you ever heard of the USDA? They should have a role and responsibility, since they're one of the biggest reasons, Americans are fat and unhealthy.

Corn Lobby, Beef Lobby. Sugar lobby. Dairy lobby.



> Is pizza with tomato sauce a vegetable? Apparently yes, according to Congress, which on Monday blocked legislation that would have made school lunches healthier.
> 
> 
> In their final version of a spending bill that includes planning for the $11 billion National School Lunch Program, House and Senate committee members blocked or delayed major proposals from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that aimed to toughen nutritional standards for studentsâ subsidized meals.





> Given that a third of American children are overweight or obese, and that they get roughly 40% of their daily calories during school lunch, nutrition experts have long advocated for an overhaul of the federally subsidized meals dished out to 31 million students each year.
> 
> 
> *Not surprisingly, frozen pizza makers and potato growers pushed back on the USDA proposals.* Schools also complained that the changes would have cost too much money, and some politicians and school administrators said the government shouldnât be in the business of telling school districts that they canât serve specific foods.


http://healthland.time.com/2011/11/16/healthier-school-lunches-no-thank-you-says-congress/



> The reports shows that from 1995 to 2010, $16.9 billion in federal subsidies went to companies and organizations in the business of producing and distributing corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup, corn starch and soy oils.


http://www.acton.org/pub/commentary/2012/12/05/government-subsidies-not-so-sweet-health


If you think the Government should stay out of people's health and nutrition, how about they get completely _out_?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

I'd LMAO if this were not so sad and outrageous, how we are being _hoodwinked_, by Uncle Sam.



> One new recommendation is that added sugar should be 10 percent of daily calories. That's about 200 calories a day, or about the amount in one 16-ounce sugary drink. The recommendation is part of a larger push to help consumers isolate added sugars from naturally occurring ones like those in fruit and milk. Added sugars generally add empty calories to the diet.


How about some reality?




> *A group called Citizens for Health *recently began a campaign to encourage consumers to reduce high-fructose corn syrup in their diets, filing a petition with the Food and Drug Administration demanding stricter labeling on food items containing the sweetener.
> 
> 
> *Yet the petition did not disclose that the organization, which bills itself as the âvoice of the natural-health consumer,â received the bulk of its money at the time from sugar companies,* which view corn syrup as a threat to their profits. Since 2011, the organization has received at least $500,000 from the industry.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...23da00-90dd-11e3-b46a-5a3d0d2130da_story.html


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's *exactly* like that
> If I were as afraid of the Govt as you, I'd move to a different country


Not afraid. Annoyed and disgusted perhaps, but, not afraid. How many things has the Federal government tried to regulate out of existence? Alcohol, "illegal" drugs, tobacco, etc.. But, for some reason, the thought of them trying to regulate what foods we can and cannot eat is crazy. There has already been talk of a "soda" tax on sugary drinks and rumblings of taxes on fatty foods.

And you really believe that, because of the ACA and the fact that the Federal Government has taken the authority to force citizens to buy a product, from a private company, just for the privilege of being alive, that they wouldn't/couldn't translate that into pretty much anything they please?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

plowjockey said:


> Have you ever heard of the USDA? They should have a role and responsibility, since they're one of the biggest reasons, Americans are fat and unhealthy.
> 
> Corn Lobby, Beef Lobby. Sugar lobby. Dairy lobby.
> 
> ...


 
Sounds wonderful to me. The Federal government is involved in a lot of things that it shouldn't be. Your posts is a glimpse as to why.


----------

