Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       02-03-2012, 8:56 AM Reply   
Quote:
In a letter to colleagues, he wrote that the ads "strike at the heart of personal responsibility and, in many cases, promote a completely inaccurate and disingenuous picture of America's food and beverage producers."
Education is the first step to creating personal responsibility. Oh that's right... republicans are against education.

Oh those poor oppressed soda pop makers. So sad.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...das-junk-food/

Quote:
His bill specifically would bar federal money from being used for any ad campaign "against the use of a food or beverage that is lawfully marketed under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act."
Old     (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       02-03-2012, 9:48 AM Reply   
Yep. If you're too stupid to know a Big Mac is bad for you, then we should spend 230 million dollars in taxpayer money to let you know.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       02-03-2012, 10:26 AM Reply   
According to the Republicans... if you are too stupid to know a Big Mac's bad for you then we should spend trillions in healthcare costs. The reality is that people are too ignorant to recognize the poor quality of the foods being offered and how damaging they are to your health. That's a fact born out by the obesity numbers.
Old     (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       02-03-2012, 12:33 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
The reality is that people are too ignorant to recognize the poor quality of the foods being offered and how damaging they are to your health. That's a fact born out by the obesity numbers.
What about the large percent of the population that smokes. As a former smoker I can say with certainty that nobody who smokes is unaware of how damaging it is to your health. Smokers are aware of it, but don't care. It's a personal choice, just like eating junk food is. As such it's none of my business or yours whether anyone smokes or eats big macs. It's a personal choice with personal repercussions.
Old     (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-03-2012, 10:27 AM Reply   
Let's dictate everything to everyone as the masses are too stupid to know what's right or wrong...
Old     (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-03-2012, 10:29 AM Reply   
John, with a national healthcare system make fat people and smokers pay out of pocket for their increased strain on the system. Instead of regulation, why not consider an incentive approach?

Last edited by norcalrider; 02-03-2012 at 10:32 AM.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       02-03-2012, 10:38 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by norcalrider View Post
John, with a national healthcare system make fat people and smokers pay out of pocket for their increased strain on the system. Instead of regulation, why not consider an incentive approach?
Last time they tried to introduce a bill for that the American Heart Association, American Diabetes Association, and American Cancer Society killed it.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3472/text

I have no problem with this, but.... You can't get blood from a stone and the healthcare system will be burdened with fat poor people. Education is an essential tool to combat poor nutrition. But Republicans would never stand for that.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       02-03-2012, 10:32 AM Reply   
Mik, you are puppet mastered! LOL

I see you are parroting the same lie as Rep. Scott DesJarlais, R-Tenn

Quote:
I don't think it's the federal government's (role) to try and regulate people's habits on products that were deemed safe by the FDA
FYI... education is not dictating and it's not regulating.
Old     (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       02-03-2012, 10:38 AM Reply   
oh brother.....


a democrat calling a rebulican puppet mastered and saying republicans lie

now that's rich
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       02-03-2012, 10:41 AM Reply   
I posted the lie Cliff. English language got you confused?
Old     (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-03-2012, 10:42 AM Reply   
I'm not parroting anyone, again, take a more thoughtful approach towards my comments before being so dismissive. My idea is far more dynamic than that. We have a national healthcare system. Charge those who have unhealthy behaviors just as you get charged more for speeding tickets with your car insurance. This serves to avoid the tax debate being pushed with this education and also eliminates the need to this ineffective PR campaign.

The FDA's BS food pyramid is education and pretty bad if you ask me. While listening to NPR this morning those promoting this education say that a sugar tax and regulations are needed for behavior change. So the same people saying this is just education have already showed their hand and this is the camels nose under the tent.

By incentizing this through HC insurance rates you get a better results without going down the line of a tax on goods.
Old     (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       02-03-2012, 10:43 AM Reply   
it does John. i have a business in a town that is over run by illegal Mexicans. I speak a lot of Spanish just to survive
Old     (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-03-2012, 10:44 AM Reply   
For the record, I'm not a Republican or a Democrat. I think the party system is what is wrong with our republic and continues to create blind followers incapable to coming up with alternatives that are not from their playbooks.

It took me all of 5 minutes to conclude that there was a more reasonable pathway to achieve the results that the precautionary principle leftist want and avoid the command and control the right fears.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       02-03-2012, 11:10 AM Reply   
The right does not fear command and control. They fear industry closing the deep pockets.

You are right the food pyramid is bad education. But you are making this sound the abortion issue. Your claim is it's a slippery slope to education people because the next step is taxation and regulation. Ironically if people could be properly educated to make the right choice, there would be no need to regulate. With freedom comes responsibility. Education gives people the tools to be responsible.

Now tell me what kind of a thoughtful approach is proper for a comment like this...

"Let's dictate everything to everyone as the masses are too stupid to know what's right or wrong... "

Are you saying you need me to be more sensitive? LOL
Old     (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-03-2012, 12:16 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
The right does not fear command and control. They fear industry closing the deep pockets.

You are right the food pyramid is bad education. But you are making this sound the abortion issue. Your claim is it's a slippery slope to education people because the next step is taxation and regulation. Ironically if people could be properly educated to make the right choice, there would be no need to regulate. With freedom comes responsibility. Education gives people the tools to be responsible.

Now tell me what kind of a thoughtful approach is proper for a comment like this...

"Let's dictate everything to everyone as the masses are too stupid to know what's right or wrong... "

Are you saying you need me to be more sensitive? LOL
John, my guess is you're not up to speed on campaign finance as evidenced by your first comment. Ignorant statement informed by nothing more than rhetoric lacking all understanding of the statutes surround money in politics.

The proponents of this education have said in the same breath that a tax on sugar is needed. Not a slippery slope when the proponents announce their intentions.

And what you quoted is supposed to highlight the absurdity of this. People are supposed to be responsible for their own well-being, I do not believe these programs serve much of a purpose other than to make the perfect feel better because they dictated how the good should live.
Old     (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       02-03-2012, 11:26 AM Reply   
how dare those evil rich that just want to make a buck. How dare people fear that there is indeed a slippery slpoe that fuels progressives to push to that next "level" of control/regulation.

how dare the restaurant that has the nerve to serve an alfredo sauce or a fatty ribeye.

how dare that cattle rancher not be fined heavily for having a cow that carries a fat percentage that might be considered too high to be healthy. How dare they not slaughter and dispose of the cow.

how dare we not all support the corruption that is the current health care waiver system......largely in Pelosi's district

how dare us



how was that for English
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       02-03-2012, 11:37 AM Reply   
That was good Cliff. Just the kind of bombastic mischaracterization of the issue I would expect from you.
Old     (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       02-03-2012, 11:41 AM Reply   
thanks
Old     (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       02-03-2012, 11:57 AM Reply   
"The reality is that people are too ignorant to recognize the poor quality of the foods being offered and how damaging they are to your health. That's a fact born out by the obesity numbers. "

And you honestly think some ads are going to change these ignorant people. Most know its bad, but are to lazy to do anything about it. Put the money in the education where it counts. Grade and middle school, then teach the kids its ok to laugh at really fat people.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       02-03-2012, 12:26 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by psudy View Post
And you honestly think some ads are going to change these ignorant people. Most know its bad, but are to lazy to do anything about it. Put the money in the education where it counts. Grade and middle school, then teach the kids its ok to laugh at really fat people.
Paul, the first step is to educate people instead of tricking them. Things like fat free on products made of practically 100% sugar is pretty good evidence that people are swayed by "ads". Teach people that refined sugars and fructose on an ingredient is a warning sign that it's not a nutritionally sound product.

After you make a public display showing people what they should be doing then you can move on to provide incentives as Mik mentioned.
Old     (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       02-03-2012, 1:01 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Paul, the first step is to educate people instead of tricking them. Things like fat free on products made of practically 100% sugar is pretty good evidence that people are swayed by "ads". Teach people that refined sugars and fructose on an ingredient is a warning sign that it's not a nutritionally sound product.

After you make a public display showing people what they should be doing then you can move on to provide incentives as Mik mentioned.
What part of "putting the money in education" in my post did you not understand? Creating ads that have fat people with a leg missing(Your referenced article) isn't "teaching" ****.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       02-03-2012, 1:06 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by psudy View Post
What part of "putting the money in education" in my post did you not understand? Creating ads that have fat people with a leg missing(Your referenced article) isn't "teaching" ****.
That's your opinion. If that was really your issue then you would have made the argument that the ads need to be different.

And the part about the people who need to hear the message aren't all in school.
Old     (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       02-03-2012, 1:19 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
That's your opinion. If that was really your issue then you would have made the argument that the ads need to be different.

And the part about the people who need to hear the message aren't all in school.
No. The ads are a waist of money. Educate kids like I said in the previous post. It will take time to turn things, but pretty soon those kids will be the parents. Some stupid ad isn't going to change a lazy parents mind. Let the kids know so they can tell mommy they don't want to be fat. putting up threatening ads is a knee jerk reaction to a deeply rooted problem.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       02-03-2012, 12:20 PM Reply   
Mik, it's good to know that you are firmly convinced that politics isn't influenced by money. Whew, what a load off my mind.

If you guys had the motto... "Educate Don't Regulate" I might be able to take you more seriously.
Old     (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       02-03-2012, 12:37 PM Reply   
IMHO, we should be educating people about health in the public school systems. I don't see why the Fed. gov. should be in the publicity business anyway.
Old     (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-03-2012, 12:41 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laker1234 View Post
IMHO, we should be educating people about health in the public school systems. I don't see why the Fed. gov. should be in the publicity business anyway.
We do... Upwards of $35.5 billion a year for pre-school and K-12 nutrition and health education funding is delivered through grants to the States who all have health education mandates.
Old     (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-03-2012, 12:27 PM Reply   
You guys? My idea was to create incentives for positive behavior. How can that be so bad, it's free, it won't affect people who are good actors, and will create the outcome desired. But no let's stick with the two sides defined by the parties and march to their tune because clearly there is no other way. And I'm accused of parroting...

John, I never said that, but to think that only one side of the aisle receives campaign support from corporations is ignorant.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       02-03-2012, 12:51 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by norcalrider View Post
You guys?
Yeah, the guys who knee-jerk react to education by calling it dictating and regulating.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       02-03-2012, 12:50 PM Reply   
Yes, but the parents who need to hear the message aren't attending school.

Cory, smoking is a good example. An extensive ad campaign educating against smoking has demonstrated results. Once you put the message in people's faces then they have fewer excuses to not take responsibility.

Mik, I agree that both sides take money.
Old     (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       02-03-2012, 1:09 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Yes, but the parents who need to hear the message aren't attending school.

Cory, smoking is a good example. An extensive ad campaign educating against smoking has demonstrated results. Once you put the message in people's faces then they have fewer excuses to not take responsibility.
Nothing is stopping anyone from buying ads to get this message out. My point was most, if not all, obese people know it's unhealthy. Personally I don't care if people are fat, it's none of my business. Ads are fine to convey the message, but it better not be government funded. It's not my responsibility to tell anyone how to live their life or to pay for that.
Old     (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-03-2012, 1:01 PM Reply   
As opposed to the guys who constantly feel the need to tell everyone how to live?

Everyone has a knee-jerk especially when the ultimate plan includes a sugar tax. But if allowed free argument and debate can develop sound solutions.

Last edited by norcalrider; 02-03-2012 at 1:07 PM.
Old     (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       02-03-2012, 1:03 PM Reply   
Oops. "put the money in education were it counts!"
Old     (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-03-2012, 1:18 PM Reply   
There are television shows solely based on the premise of losing weight. TV ads for diets, gyms, programs, and so on. Hell Charles Barkley is advertising for weight watchers. Dan Marino and others for that one where they send you all the meals. People know they need to reduce the processed food and workout for health. It doesn't take taxpayer funded education campaigns to get to that step.

Just put obese people and smokers into another self funded insurance pool so the rest of us are not affected by their bad behavior.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       02-03-2012, 1:22 PM Reply   
Cory, it's your business because poor health from bad nutrition costs the tax payer money.

Mik and Paul, if you are arguing that education won't make any difference then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Old     (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       02-04-2012, 5:12 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Cory, it's your business because poor health from bad nutrition costs the tax payer money.
The solution is to stop stealing from me to give to others who didn't earn that money. Arguing over how best to steal more money from my left pocket so you can maybe steal less from my right pocket is a terrible argument. Stop stealing from me to pay for others. In a free society everyone makes their own decisions and deals with the consequences, in this case, obesity, diabetes, and other health issues that will lead to a shorter life.
Old     (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       02-03-2012, 1:31 PM Reply   
Paul, just like how we advocate to kids the problems with teenage sex? How well do you say that is working?

The problem many have is the whole "jobs killing" boogieman. It seems you have people running on platforms that suggest if it negatively affects business, it is bad. Everything now has to take a backseat to ensure we don't kill jobs. Our health, our environment, our safety...we seem to give them less importance than jobs. Tragic to say the least.
Old     (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       02-06-2012, 7:41 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
Paul, just like how we advocate to kids the problems with teenage sex? How well do you say that is working?.
Different. People Want to have Sex. I don't think people Want to be fat. You could just tell the kids if they get fat, they will NEVER get laid.
Old     (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-03-2012, 1:43 PM Reply   
John, I'm arguing that we already spend TONS of money on this education. If it isn't working perhaps they need to fire some bureaucrats and restructure the delivery. There is no need to continue the same approach and as we've proven with so many programs, throwing money at it will not net the results the proponents are arguing for.

Jeremy what has taken a backseat? Name some programs that have been cut, and I'm not talking about the cuts to their increased funding but real elimination of funding. From first hand experience environmental policies are only getting more stringent, healthcare is being restructured, OSHA continues to increase the stringency of its requirements and reporting requirements. I don't see any evidence to support the conclusions that any of those policy areas have had any real degradation.

Last edited by norcalrider; 02-03-2012 at 1:46 PM.
Old     (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       02-03-2012, 1:47 PM Reply   
^Do you suspect that enviromental policies will be "more stringent" if Newt or Romney win?
Old     (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-03-2012, 2:05 PM Reply   
They aren't President so I don't understand the point unless you're trying to create a straw man.

The fact is that the bureaucracy has to escalate these policies to justify their existence and budget. Even under Bush clean air policies advanced as they have to based on the authorizing statute. Rarely is a President in office long enough to see the result of his policies. Not to mention the major authorizing environmental acts were all signed by Republican Presidents so even your straw man lacks historical relevance.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       02-03-2012, 2:15 PM Reply   
Mik, if you look at the article I posted it's clear that the Republican doesn't want the govt educating people about the dangers of products that are FDA approved as safe. This isn't a issue of finding the best way to deliver the message. It's an issue of the Republican in question wanting to make a law that the govt cannot engage in a campaign to make the message under any circumstances.

I see a lot of intellectual dishonesty with you guys. You know that people need to be informed but your stance is to object to that under any circumstances except in school. And quite frankly if this was an issue of the govt spreading the word in school I'd bet most of you would object to that. It hasn't been that long ago when the Republicans were in an uproar about Michele Obama promoting eating healthy in school as govt overreach in telling us how to feed our kids.

In a time when obesity has become public health enemy #1 and heathcare costs have hyper inflated you would think Republicans would adopt a pragmatic stance. But nope, they act like fk'n idiots.
Old     (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-03-2012, 2:44 PM Reply   
Does the FDA define the safe quantity? I think they have...

Why is restructuring existing programs not the answer and instead the default is more money, more expenditures, more programs, more bureaucrats?

We spend billions on this already.

While you saw an uproar about the First Lady's promotion, I saw an argument that these policies are best dealt with at the local level with local elected officials. We elect school boards and it is their responsibility not the Feds to deal with school lunch menus. The farther away from implementation a policy is the more expensive it costs. There is NO need for the Feds to be involved when we have local districts, city government, county government, and state government to petition and effectuate a local solution that best fits the people of that community.

I thought nationalized healthcare insurance was supposed to control inflation of healthcare?

Your rhetoric is entirely reliant in putting people into boxes and disparaging the box you are not in. Not unlike how the media portrays politics now. It is not that simple but as long as you continue to say Republicans are this and Democrats are that you have fallen into the trap. Both sides act like idiots. When you have 535 members of Congress it isn't hard to find a handful of angry Senators or Representatives to put into a box and define a polarized argument. Whereas the reality is less stark than is being painted but you have bought into the starkness and that your side is just and right in all their actions.

Look through the budget. There are billions out there to address this issue without developing a new program or causing any stir. But why would anyone be a good steward of the public dollars?
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       02-03-2012, 3:05 PM Reply   
Oh so the FDA has defined the safe quanitiy of sugar/fructose in your foods eh? IOW if it's on the shelf at the store then it must be fine. Where's that facepalm icon?

Yeah the locals have done a fine job with nutrition in the schools. Nothing to see here just move along. If you can get past the fat people.

If there are billions being spent on this issue (which is a number I'm sure you pulled out of your ass), then I'd say I'm being a good steward by expressing outrage that a congressman would want to pass a bill prohibiting the govt from talking about nutrition while spending billions to talk about it.

My rhetoric isn't about putting people in boxes. You guys do a fine job of that yourselves. I simply see a real problem in this country that isn't being properly dealt with. And prohibiting the govt by law from providing information is an act of stupidity.
Old     (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-03-2012, 4:08 PM Reply   
Maybe not the FDA, though it looks like at one time they suggested no more than 10 teaspoons per 2000 calorie of daily intake. The USDA suggests that most people should limit the calories from solid fats and added sugars combined to no more than 5 to 15 percent of their daily calorie intake.

There's legislation saying that? I thought this was a debate about legislation prohibiting the attack of products considered safe and legal. If this prohibits education please direct me to that source.

You keep saying you guys but I am not a member of any party.

Billions.

Head Start ~6.8 billion among other things health and nutrition education for low income families
Dept of Ag: ~7.9 billion discretionary and ~99 billion in mandatory on nutrition which as described in the budget include reduction in obesity

I can continue to mine the budget but it only belabors the point. There are billions earmarked for nutrition, nutrition education, food labeling, obesity prevention, diabetes prevention, ect, ect, ect... And that's only Federal. I know my state spends tons of money on these programs as well.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       02-03-2012, 5:04 PM Reply   
Education or Attack? How do you distinguish the difference? There is little or no nutrtional value in soda pop. Is that an attack or an informative statement?

The Dept of Agriculture tried to redefine what constituted adequate vegetables in a school lunch and Congress decided to bow down to the frozen food industry to write a law prohibiting it.

So the point remains that a bill is being introduced to prohibit the govt from talking about food products that are poor nutrition, even though the govt spends billions to educate. Nice that our law makers want to spend the billions, but also want to write laws to protect the purveyors of poor quality food products from being mentioned in that education. Your defense of them rings hollow.
Old     (xstarrider)      Join Date: Jun 2007       02-03-2012, 5:24 PM Reply   
How about people get to choose what they want to stuff their face with. How about parents teach their own kids how to eat healthy.

Obese people are not the strain on the health care and the economy. The ghetto hood rats who get shot every 10 mins, who go into the ER for free meds at every cough and don't do a thing to help this country are the problem. How about if you have been convicted of a felony you are not eligible for any aide. The amount of people who get checks for doing nothing, having asthma, and not being able to move because they got into a ghetto shootout should not be getting any kind of money. Before we start educating people on how to eat right and drink water, how about we educate our politicians on how to run a government, make the sacrifices we all make with pay cuts, and learn how to stop spending all are money on bs programs.

If I want to stuff my face with a big mac after work I should, If I want my kid to have a burger or pizza at school I should be able too. This whole idea of controlling people's freedom to chose what they want is rediculous. For god sake the unqualified ;eader of this country smokes and he wants to sign off on health bills. AWESOME! the ol do what I say not as I do.

The problem isn't the education system, its the people at home with the newer generations. NO ONE takes responsibility any more. Everyone wants to blame everyone else for their problems. The other huge problem is that more and more people think everyone should get the same things across the board.............That is absurd. People who work hard should have the opportunity to have more and those who don't aren't entitled to anything. Unfortunately our government seems to think everyone should have equal things......its the whole everyone gets a trophy idea that's killing the education system not funding

Last edited by xstarrider; 02-03-2012 at 5:31 PM.
Old     (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-03-2012, 5:41 PM Reply   
The article you posted says, "campaign against." It says nothing about campaigning FOR what is nutritional or healthy. The FDA even spends a few million on a "Know your Farmer" campaign supporting eating local. Go positive and stop trying to dictate what everyone hears.

Low-fat was the big fad but now there's a lot of evidence that indicates that natural fats in meats, nuts and vegetables are handled well by the body vs. the low-fat diets the FDA and everyone was trying to shove down our throats. I do not exactly trust the government or their agencies to tell me what is good for me. They've been wrong before and will be wrong again. So let me make the decisions on my own and stop trying to dictate the information we get.
Old     (xstarrider)      Join Date: Jun 2007       02-03-2012, 5:37 PM Reply   
Oh and since I read the title I will add

Democrats like to take from hardworking people give everyone's money away to deadbeats and savages that do nothing to help themselves. I can assure you there are more democratic programs that blatantly give my hard earned money away to people who don't lift a finger than republican programs. Its easy to institute programs when it's not your money.

Last edited by xstarrider; 02-03-2012 at 5:41 PM.
Old     (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       02-03-2012, 6:27 PM Reply   
bravo!!!
bravo!!!!
Old     (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       02-04-2012, 8:01 AM Reply   
"Obese people are not the strain on the health care"

This may be the most idiotic statement I have read in awhile.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       02-04-2012, 8:08 AM Reply   
I finally realized what the problem is. When Republicans hear the govt educate people they believe it's an order and must obey.
Old     (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-04-2012, 10:41 AM Reply   
As opposed to trying to save everyone from themselves when 2/3rds of the population doesn't have a problem. Sounds like 2/3rds of us shouldn't be financially responsible for this re-education or HC expenditures.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       02-04-2012, 11:08 AM Reply   
Too bad but you are paying for it, and so am I. I guess obstinance is better than a solution. Gotta stick with principles you know.
Old     (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-04-2012, 11:11 AM Reply   
I provided my solution which differs from both sides presented here so don't get too high and mighty. So to this point I'm the only person here to present an independent solution that would mitigate the concerns and politics of both parties. So hold your pejorative statements for someone else.

Last edited by norcalrider; 02-04-2012 at 11:13 AM.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       02-04-2012, 11:24 AM Reply   
I agree with your solution. But people more powerful than me (charities) don't agree. I actually think both are a good idea. Hit people hard with education and put incentives in insurance to be fit. If we are spending billions on education it would be a lot more effective to hit poor quality foods hard. You'll know you are doing a good job when a lot of food makers are pissed.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       02-04-2012, 11:30 AM Reply   
Here ya go if it makes you feel better.... Republicans and Democrats alike oppose telling food stamp recipients they can't have their soda pop.

Quote:
Both Republicans and Democrats alike said they were opposed to banning soda, cakes, and candy bars under the food stamp program. Government should not be telling people what types of food they can eat, several members of the House Health and Human Services Access Subcommittee said.

Read more here: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/naked...#storylink=cpy
Old     (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       02-04-2012, 11:50 AM Reply   
LOL, you think people eat bad because they aren't educated? They eat bad because its cheap and tastes good!! Everyone is well aware of the poor nutritional value of the food they eat. THEY DON'T CARE!!! You think people smoke because they haven't been told that it's bad for them? This is just another liberal "it's not the individuals fault" agenda.

Ok ok ok, let's pretend that there exists an American human who has been in suspended animation for the last 100 years and therefore did not hear about the nutritional value of fast food. Wouldn't it still be his responsibility to take a look at the nutritional values plastered on everything and make a common sense decision? It's not rocket science.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       02-04-2012, 12:06 PM Reply   
Jason, so you were the guy in suspended animation? In case you didn't notice there has been a very successful education campaign against smoking.
Old     (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       02-04-2012, 3:20 PM Reply   
I don't believe smoking education campaigns have had much effect. Everyone has known smoking will kill you since the 70s, if not earlier in 1964. It's a risk people accept. I remember as a young child seeing advertisements all over for cigarettes... Joe Camel being particularly entertaining for me.

It wasn't for at least another decade before I started smoking, and it had nothing to do with advertisements. I knew smoking would give me cancer and any number of other health issues but chose to smoke anyway. Everyone I knew who smokes knew that as well. Advertisements had no bearing on my decision to start smoking. They also did not help with my decision to quit after 9 years. For quite some time I wanted to quit but the stop smoking campaigns and crazy antis pushed me to keep on smoking. The ad and education campaigns, in my case, resulted in me smoking longer than I would have otherwise. I don't like others forcefully telling me how to live my life.

What finally got me to quit is when I realized how badly smoking was effecting my riding. When I'd crawl back into the boat totally beat to hell after a long set and some hard falls, totally out of breathe and immediately light up a cigarette. Wakeboarding drove me to quit smoking. It's what I love to do, and smoking was getting in the way of that. So the seed was planted, I picked a method that worked for me, and quit. I'm now about 4 months without a cigarette and I feel healthier, have more energy, and don't get winded. Cigarettes smell nasty, taste nasty and are downright disgusting to me now. Best of all, I'm not going to die young of lung cancer.

Now I don't eat healthy, at least not regularly. I'm not obese and a lot of people consider me fairly lean. I'm within my BMI range, so I guess that's good enough. Eating healthier is something I'm slowly getting into. Again, this is solely because I love to ride and I feel not eating as healthy as I should is holding me back.

I suppose my point is education and awareness don't do anything unless you are actually uneducated and unaware. I can't imagine anyone weighing in at 300+ lbs doesn't know they have health problems from their weight, or will eventually. I can't imagine anyone 250+ lbs doesn't know they could use to lose a few pounds. More likely, people are aware but it's difficult to change eating and exercise habits... Just like it was difficult for me to quit smoking, Everyone has their own trigger to live more healthy. I found mine, but it's an individual journey. Pressure and stress will have a negative effect of people.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       02-04-2012, 3:48 PM Reply   
The smoking campaign has been very effective. Attitudes about smoking have changed drastically. The same thing needs to be done with nutrition.

I'm 56 years old and have been educated quite a bit in the last two years. I've always been a fan of sugar in many forms. However, I've also always been fairly slim and in good shape. But just because you are slim and in good shape it doesn't mean that you are really as healthy as you could be.

All this kicking and screaming against the govt actually putting out some meaningful information doesn't impress me. The govt spends far more on many things that are counter to our interests. Promoting good nutrition is a good idea.
Old     (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-06-2012, 9:20 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Promoting good nutrition is a good idea.
That's not the premise of the argument. The argument was should the government attack certain products.

I think most of us agree that the government IS promoting good nutrition and has to the tune of billions on an ongoing and annual basis.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       02-06-2012, 9:57 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by norcalrider View Post
That's not the premise of the argument. The argument was should the government attack certain products.
Absolutely. The govt should take a stance against any product that creates a liability towards society. Why shouldn't it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by norcalrider View Post
I think most of us agree that the government IS promoting good nutrition and has to the tune of billions on an ongoing and annual basis.
I'm not among those in the "most of us" category. The fact that the govt allows candy and soda pop to be purchased with food stamps makes it cleat that the govt isn't doing enough. That a bill was passed prohibiting the dept of agriculture from upgrading health requirements for school lunches is another indicator that the govt isn't doing the right thing. If the govt is spending billions on education then it's doing a poor job with those billions.
Old     (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-06-2012, 11:10 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Absolutely. The govt should take a stance against any product that creates a liability towards society. Why shouldn't it?
Oh and while banning alcohol, smoking, gluten, dairy, food with pectin, and so on we should ban boats, cars, motocycles, jetskis, wakeboards, skis, snowboards or anything that allows people to move faster than their own two feet as those products create a liability towards society.

And let's not forget, television, the internet, computers, video games as they lead to inactivity and contact sports as people get hurt and sometimes paralyzed. We should also ban desk jobs and manufacturing jobs as those are prone to liabilities as well.

Last edited by norcalrider; 02-06-2012 at 11:13 AM.
Old     (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-04-2012, 8:30 PM Reply   
Just love all the stereotyping about weight and health. I would run 2 miles every other day, eat under 30 grams of fat a day and stay under 2000 calories. Ate 5 times a day small meals, lifted 2 times a week between running (I would run a mile prior to lifting) and either wakeboarded or mountain biked or what ever on the weekends and I could not get under 260. Of course I could do 3 sets of 10 at 1000lbs on the 45 degree leg press and yada yada. Did my weight make me unhealthy? I know a guy who was 50 years old, about 5'11" weighed about 175 lbs. Mountain biked and worked out all the time. Went out riding his bike and die of a heart attack. Weight and health are not a absolute indication of health level.

Last edited by deltahoosier; 02-04-2012 at 8:32 PM. Reason: because I needed too
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       02-06-2012, 7:58 AM Reply   
Just read an article about a study in the paper today. They posted signs telling people to use the stairs for health. The use of stairs increased from 10-30% after the signs were posted. It shows that people want to do things that are healthy and even though they could figure it out on their own, having someone tell them what they already know works.

People respond to cultural clues. If you can sway people into believing that others are doing it, then they are more likely to join in.
Old     (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-06-2012, 10:10 AM Reply   
John, let's ban alcohol again if that's your stance. And while we're at it we should consolidate all power for local school issues at the Federal level as far away from the people as possible. Hell let's abolish school districts, county offices of education, state offices of education and just run it all from WDC.

My state has taken steps to improve school nutrition and remove soda from schools... Perhaps you should work with your local district to make changes where your voice matters. School nutrition should NOT be a federal issue beyond funding programs to make sure low income students get fed.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       02-06-2012, 1:10 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by norcalrider View Post
School nutrition should NOT be a federal issue beyond funding programs to make sure low income students get fed.
So you are one of those who think fed tax dollars should go to feed the poor but the fed should have no right to insist the food meet any particular nutritional guidelines.
Old     (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       02-06-2012, 11:43 AM Reply   
I foresee the word "bombastic."
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       02-06-2012, 12:58 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by psudy View Post
I foresee the word "bombastic."
Well at least you recognize it when you see it.
Old     (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       02-06-2012, 11:47 AM Reply   
Careful Mik, he's going to accuse you of being bombastic!
again, it's that simple question of, in this economy, do we want the feds funding these types of programs. NO

make the tough calls and stop fed spending.......
Old     (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       02-06-2012, 11:48 AM Reply   
ha, you beat me to it
Old     (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-06-2012, 12:02 PM Reply   
The facts are we fund nutrition and health education to the tune of billions annually. This debate is around whether the government should disparage certain products. John states, "The govt should take a stance against any product that creates a liability towards society."

Perhaps it is a slippery slope or "bombastic" but it doesn't take much to extrapolate what he stated to getting to such absurd conclusions as product bans (I live in CA look at the debate around Green Chemistry based on the same precautionary principles John doesn't realize he is promoting). He wants the Federal government to dictate what we hear about food products. Which as I contend has been wrong on many occasions in the past and is still woefully inadequate with their emphasis on grains as healthy foods. Call it what want but my absurd illustration is not far from the truth in the eyes of the people promoting this pathway.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       02-06-2012, 1:08 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by norcalrider View Post
Perhaps it is a slippery slope or "bombastic" but it doesn't take much to extrapolate what he stated to getting to such absurd conclusions as product bans (I live in CA look at the debate around Green Chemistry based on the same precautionary principles John doesn't realize he is promoting). He wants the Federal government to dictate what we hear about food products.
Do you have reading comprehension problems Mik? At no point do I want the govt to dictate what we hear. Just the opposite. I've been on the record as saying that the govt should only provide information and the scope of the FDA should be to give information and not be able to go after people for not agreeing with the govt's truth. I have never supported the idea of stifling the public right to voice an opinion. Even if it's industry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by norcalrider View Post
Which as I contend has been wrong on many occasions in the past and is still woefully inadequate with their emphasis on grains as healthy foods. Call it what want but my absurd illustration is not far from the truth in the eyes of the people promoting this pathway.
If the information the govt provides is woefully inadequate, why are you arguing against me? Your position is that either the govt should not provide info, or if it does it should be constrained by law to not be forthcoming and say anything bad if the FDA has approved the product for public consumption. You guys take such a horrible stance that countering your arguments is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Old     (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-06-2012, 2:02 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Do you have reading comprehension problems Mik? At no point do I want the govt to dictate what we hear. Just the opposite. I've been on the record as saying that the govt should only provide information and the scope of the FDA should be to give information and not be able to go after people for not agreeing with the govt's truth. I have never supported the idea of stifling the public right to voice an opinion. Even if it's industry.
The government DOES provide billions of dollars in education information but you want more in expenditures for attack campaigns. It is not the governments role to dictate personal decisions or participate in smear campaigns of products that if used according to the dietary guidelines already promoted are not a health risk. The government should not pick winners and losers. That's the role of the consumer.

Just as I haven't made any deprecating remarks about you and you continue to make quips about me and others I think the government should always take the high ground and not be involved in attack campaigns of products that can be consumed within reason. It is up to the individual to choose what their daily intake should be. There is NO pervasive campaign out there that would lead citizens to think drinking multiple sodas a day is healthy or eating fast food is good. But you want to create a solution for a problem that has already been reasonably addressed.

If the government wants to do more they can create a market incentive through lower HC costs to healthy individuals as opposed to requiring everyone to front money for the behaviors of a minority of the population.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
If the information the govt provides is woefully inadequate, why are you arguing against me? Your position is that either the govt should not provide info, or if it does it should be constrained by law to not be forthcoming and say anything bad if the FDA has approved the product for public consumption. You guys take such a horrible stance that countering your arguments is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Because I believe it is the INDIVIDUALS responsibility to educate themselves. Let the government confirm that the statements are truthful but it is not the role of the government to tell me whether or not to have a soda or not.

You think giving the government the ability to disparage food products is OK when its dietary guidelines are so out of whack will make things better? Throwing money at a flawed system has never been the answer. If the product is safe for consumption the government should not be able to attack it. Should the government see issues come up with guidelines or quantities but to an extent that has been done and is why we have product labeling.

I don't exactly see you scoring points in this debate. You haven't been able to support the need to increase expenditures beyond the billions already in the budget to develop an attack campaign. The fact is you didn't realize we spent billions on nutrition and health education.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
So you are one of those who think fed tax dollars should go to feed the poor but the fed should have no right to insist the food meet any particular nutritional guidelines.
Clearly you're missing the State's rights argument that I've made clear. I want local control. I want more power and discretion at the city, county, and state level or as close to the public as possible. The less constituents an official has the more likely he is to respond to the immediate needs of his community. I live in a state with an abundance of these policies already. Adding additional costs for a Federal layer makes NO sense whatsoever.

I want these policies being decided at meetings I can attend in my community. I think the parents of each district should be able to influence the meals at their own schools not some nameless bureaucrat in WDC.
Old     (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-06-2012, 2:10 PM Reply   
Caveat, by minority population I mean obese people.

And by truthful I'm talking about product labeling and advertising.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       02-06-2012, 2:33 PM Reply   
Quote:
Because I believe it is the INDIVIDUALS responsibility to educate themselves. Let the government confirm that the statements are truthful but it is not the role of the government to tell me whether or not to have a soda or not.
This where we disagree. I believe the govt has the responsibility to provide information relating to issues that are critical to the health of the nation and the economy. I do not believe that the govt should passively stand by and keep it's mouth shut while at the same time the same govt makes us all responsible for providing health care and also driving up costs in the healthcare system.

Quote:
You think giving the government the ability to disparage food products is OK when its dietary guidelines are so out of whack will make things better?
Yes. The reason why the dietary guidelines are out of whack is because the govt doesn't want to hurt industry creating poor quality food products. Making a law forbidding the govt to speak out against poor quality nutritional products is exactly the wrong thing to do.

Quote:
The government DOES provide billions of dollars in education information but you want more in expenditures for attack campaigns. It is not the governments role to dictate personal decisions or participate in smear campaigns of products that if used according to the dietary guidelines already promoted are not a health risk.
No, I don't want the govt spend billions tiptoeing around offending industry. I want the money spent to be effective. Not "more" money spent doing the right thing while wasting money doing the wrong thing.

IMO it is the role of the govt to provide good information. Whether it smears the reputation of a bad product is irrelevant. Remember the govt made a law preventing the dept of agri from changing the guidelines. So your fallback position on the guidelines being the word of "God" doesn't hold water.

Not sure why you keep injecting the govt "dictating". Dictating is not part of this discussion. Seems like you have to keep injecting misinformation to support your argument. If the govt is paying for your food then it should dictate that what you eat is healthy. But that is not what we are talking about.
Old     (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-06-2012, 2:45 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Remember the govt made a law preventing the dept of agri from changing the guidelines. So your fallback position on the guidelines being the word of "God" doesn't hold water.
There's a law? My understanding is that the guidelines failed to be adopted. There is an open and public process that these things go through and that is the right way to go about things IMO. Not through smear campaigns. It is clear that your arguments rely upon castigating those you oppose and you support policies that take a similar approach to that. Fortunately in our Republic policy arguments of that nature fail even when they spark the mindless commentary of cable news.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Not sure why you keep injecting the govt "dictating". Dictating is not part of this discussion. Seems like you have to keep injecting misinformation to support your argument. If the govt is paying for your food then it should dictate that what you eat is healthy. But that is not what we are talking about.
Policies adopted by the government are mandates and therefor are dictating information or actions. There are many adjectives that are synonymous but I properly used the word and that's not misinformation.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       02-06-2012, 6:08 PM Reply   
So now it's dictating information? You said dictating personal decisions.

Quote:
It is clear that your arguments rely upon castigating those you oppose and you support policies that take a similar approach to that.
Translation.... when I misrepresent my opponents argument I can console myself by complaining that he castigates those who oppose him.

Quote:
Fortunately in our Republic policy arguments of that nature fail even when they spark the mindless commentary of cable news.
Or succeed. Plenty of mindlessness going around.
Old     (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-06-2012, 6:35 PM Reply   
Please point out where I have misrepresented your desire to allow the government to use public funds to attack goods that are safe for consumption within existing dietary guidelines.

Almost every post in this thread from you is ad hominem but deflection is a good strategy... And it's not a complaint, nor am I offended, just think you would be better served if you avoided it. You might even be able to make end roads and find consensus.

And yes attack ads in addition to education campaigns are dictating information to the public and the sugar tax that proponents of this measure support or removing products from the market place will dictate public action. Please refer to my earlier post about the governments low-fat campaign or push on dietary fiber as being healthy where there is a lot of information contradicting those guidelines.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       02-06-2012, 8:03 PM Reply   
You need to look up the definition of ad hominem. Then look up dictate. You don't seem to know the meaning of either.

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 6:30 AM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us