English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I don't know about you, but I'm not for goverenment intrusion on my right to eat something with high saturated fats.

Personally, I'm not a junk food eater.

Every once in a while though I spoil and eat something with high fat and grease, etc.

What's your opinion on this issue?

Do you want the government intruding on your right to eat some kind of foods with hydrogenated oils at a restaurant?

I think it's the responsibility of the person to control what he or she eats.

We don't need big Brother to help run our lives.

This is also another example of socialism. (Which is very bad for America)

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

2007-10-12 11:42:17 · 32 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

32 answers

If I wanna eat Oreo Cookies and Chocolate Malts then that's what I'm going to eat. Government or no government. The purpose of government is the defense of the nation from enemies both foreign and domestic. It is not food police.
I Cr 13;8a

2007-10-12 14:58:35 · answer #1 · answered by ? 7 · 0 0

Dude...they already do. Look at subsidies. Corn, for example. The gov't says 'grow more corn...we'll pay you for it' and the of course they do. Then...the so called 'food' industry makes something like a Twinkie. If you look at calories, a Twinkie costs less than a carrot. When the poor do NOT have real choices about food because the cheapest food is the worst food for you, the gov't has made that choice for you. The poor in the US do NOT have a choice to eat healthy, good quality food because of the subsidies. Cows are fed corn....the corn makes them sick because they cannot digest corn, they are ruminas...so...they get pumped full of antibiotics to keep the cow from getting sick....who wins? The consumer or the pharmaceuticals who make antibiotics? If the subsidies were stopped and people had REAL choices I would agree with you, but that is NOT the case today with our food industry. Once we can pay the price that food actually costs, I will agree with you. It used to be the poor were skinny and the rich were fat...no more thanks to the gov't and the subsidies they provide. It's a huge racket.

2007-10-12 12:15:11 · answer #2 · answered by prekinpdx 7 · 1 0

What you anticipate of mothers and dads at the instant is impossible, era. the international outdoors the abode has been became to a adversarial loose hearth zone for any and each form of mass verbal substitute. and you concern that some easy floor regulations for broadcast standards related to classified ads is erroneous? issues went undesirable the day Ronald Reagan gutted the regulations the FCC had on the books, maximum advantageous to this new wild west coach we call entertainment. Deregulation isn't the answer. undemanding sense regulation of classified ads is what can stop the consistent erosion of parental rights to alter what's entering their properties over broadcast television.

2016-10-22 04:53:53 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Telling people what they can or cannot eat is not necessarily a socialist concept. Even in the days of Stalin, the Comintern never determined any body's diet.

Comrades were always free to run on down to the supermarket and pull anything off the shelves that their little hearts desired. Nikita Khrushchev, and my college professors, said as much.

I expect the same freedom in Re-Education camp. We will eat what is generously provided, and it will make us happy and thrive. John Kerry said as much, and he knows, since he's obviously a member of the Vanguards, so what he says is right.
See ya there!

2007-10-12 15:06:40 · answer #4 · answered by Boomer Wisdom 7 · 0 0

But the government doesn't tell you what to eat. Why even take it to that level ? Did the Big Mac police come take away your burger ? Foods that have high saturated fats are the cause for many illnesses so instead of taking away the food itself why not get rid of the things that makes food bad for you ? Of course it's up to you to eat what you want be we need some regulation's to make sure food suppliers are doing the right thing.
What now ? Your a commie if you want healthier food ?

2007-10-12 12:08:50 · answer #5 · answered by cjgt2 6 · 1 1

The democrats are more likely to approach the problem by giving tax breaks to food manufacturers who use healthy ingredients or exercise goals and less junk food in schools. At least, that is the type of things they used to do. I'm not sure how they do things anymore. It's like they are trying to imitate the president in usurping unprecedented powers over the people. I am hoping this trend will change very soon.

2007-10-12 12:06:38 · answer #6 · answered by BekindtoAnimals22 7 · 2 1

Micheal Moore and Rosie O'Donnell may need some govt intervention. These beacons of anti American liberalism need to be protected from their selves. I'm surprised that liberals have not called for an intervention to save these two.
Really there should be deep fried Twinkies and deep fried cheese served at the DNC lunchroom so we may someday be free from the redistribution of wealth.

2007-10-12 18:04:51 · answer #7 · answered by Charles S 4 · 0 0

Well, that's just a bit over the top!! After all, if the Government is paying for your health insurance you don't have a say...after all................they have control over your life. And they are footing the bill and they will by darn tell you what to eat, when to eat, how much you can eat and then when you are done how much you can ...well. There was an old song that went something like this "I owe my soul to the company store" and brother this is the Company Store...called Big Government, craddle to the grave.....it is nothing more than another foot in the door to good old socialism as you state!!!!

ENJOY THE NEW WORLD ORDER....DEM STYLE!

Fun hugh....wait til daddy government takes the t-bird away.

2007-10-12 11:58:40 · answer #8 · answered by kickinupfunf 6 · 2 4

The government has been doing this for decades. You've been eating bioengineered and chemically engineered food, all passed by the FDA with the sole criteria that the company engineering the food has made the prerequisite campaign donations.

2007-10-12 11:53:50 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4 1

The government isn't providing any kind of Health Care for it's people so it shouldn't be able to tell me to NOT do something unhealthy...

They have already shown that they don't give a $#!t about my health...

If you don't like fatty foods then don't eat them and don't let your kids eat them...

If you don't like cigarettes then don't smoke and don't let your kids smoke...

Don't believe in eating meat? Then don't eat meat and don't let your kids... No, wait... Kids need meat... Then YOU shouldn’t eat meat...

It isn't your business, personally or governmentally, if I want to eat fatty duck liver...

I, personally, LOVE to have a nice plate of Pate with extra collagen spread on a thin slice of garlic toast...

I only get to have it about once a year but that isn't the point... YOU can't stop me from having the treat I love.

That may mortally offend your inner child because you have watched the P.E.T.A. videos and have no ability to think for yourselves but still... It isn't your business to tell ME what is right or wrong. MY CULTUREAL HERATAGE says that it is ok and that it is delicious and there is no way I will let you take it away from me...

And the only reason that ANYTHING gets banned is due purely for a Political Reason...

You may THINK they are doing it to "Help" but it is just another layer of control that those in power want to hold over you...

Just look at Marijuana... (Hooked – Illegal Drugs And How They Got That Way. On the history channel or their website: http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detail&episodeId=221469)

Do you think it was banned because people get high?

Do you think it was banned because it unhealthy for you?

You are wrong….

It was banned due to anti Mexican feelings and the propaganda used to get the white majority to vote it out was pictures of both Latino’s and Black’s “Hi and Insane” running around rapping white women and looting…

They didn’t do it to “Help”… They did it because they thought that Minorities were easier to control without it so it was banned.

P.E.T.A. wants Pate and anything made from Fatty Duck Liver banned so that they get their foot in the door to start banning other types of food… They want it for THEIR own good, not yours, and not even the ducks!

It is all a power struggle in the guise of public health.

The “Do-Good-ers” want to turn food into the next “Drug”.

They explain it right in the description of the Hooked DVD Description:
http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=70805
“HOOKED explores the world of illegal drugs, meeting with pharmacologists and scientists to learn exactly what effect they have on us and exploring the social and legislative changes that have transformed (and, some would argue, created) the drug culture of the 20th century. Outspoken advocates on both sides of the "war on drugs" illuminate this polarizing issue, and fascinating accounts and artifacts illustrate the role of drugs throughout history.”
Ho-Ho’s and Duck Liver are just the first… If we let “Them” win on these issues then we will be damning ourselves to legislation that we could never have expected…

It really is a slippery slope…


P.S. If we went 100% organic we would be unable to feed 1/3 of the people on the planet...

Would you be one of the 2 BILLION people that would need to be sacraficed for "The Good Of The People"?

2007-10-12 12:07:22 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers