Get On The Bandwagon Quick!

It's time we did something about this!

Ok all of you PC lemmings out there, now is your chance to really make a difference in this country. We all know that obesity is the single biggest health problem facing America today. We have to do something to save these fat bastards from themselves, and we need to act quickly! We know what's best for them even if they don't and we need to force it upon them for their own good. I don't know about you but I am tired of all of those fat bastards sweating all over everything and taking up more than their fair share of food, clothing, and space.

Here is the plan:

1. Convince state and local legislatures to pass laws that will ban the sales of any unhealthy, fattening foods in any public place such as restaurants and snack bars, including fatty red meat. Also make it a crime to eat these foods anywhere in public view, including their cars. If we piss and moan enough, they'll pass them.

2. Lobby for immediate increases in the taxes on sugar. We need to raise the price of sugar to the point that any products containing sugar will be too expensive for the average fat bastard to afford.

3. Same as #2 but for red meat.

4. Begin an immediate disinformation campaign nationwide to effect social change. Convince people that unhealthy, fattening foods will kill them instantly as well as making sure to include the negative effects of the second hand fumes from these foods.

5. Lobby for a fat tax, but we won't actually call it that. We need to ensure that everyone is required to have their weight certified every year by a physician to ensure that they are at or below their ideal weight. Anyone over that weight must pay an additional tax on the order of $20/lb for every pound above their ideal weight.

6. Lobby for 1,000% tax increases for all clothing in sizes above "medium".

Ok, there's your game plan my dear PC lemmings, now get out there and start whining!
4,231 views 40 replies
Reply #1 Top

An obese person is not hurting me or mine with their bad habits.

So eat on!

Reply #2 Top

Do you know how many deaths and injuries are attributed to second hand fat every year?  Thousands!  Just think of all those Paramedics having heart attacks when trying to carry fat people!  Just think of those poor innocent victims that are maimed for life or even killed when a fat person trips and falls on them!

Obesity kills more people that all other causes combined!  It is time we put a stop to it!  Let's make it illegal for fat people to be fat anywhere near children or thin people!  Pass the law now to save ourselves from ourselves!  After all, if we can get a majority to agree with us, we can deprive fat people of their life, liberty and property!  Screw the constitution!

Reply #3 Top
Reply #1

An obese person is not hurting me or mine with their bad habits.

So eat on!


Yes they are. They are consuming an unfair share of resources and costing us billions of dollars a year in additional health care costs. It must be stopped!
Reply #4 Top
Reply #2

Do you know how many deaths and injuries are attributed to second hand fat every year? Thousands! Just think of all those Paramedics having heart attacks when trying to carry fat people! Just think of those poor innocent victims that are maimed for life or even killed when a fat person trips and falls on them!

Obesity kills more people that all other causes combined! It is time we put a stop to it! Let's make it illegal for fat people to be fat anywhere near children or thin people! Pass the law now to save ourselves from ourselves! After all, if we can get a majority to agree with us, we can deprive fat people of their life, liberty and property! Screw the constitution!


Glad to have you aboard!
Reply #5 Top
They are consuming an unfair share of resources and costing us billions of dollars a year in additional health care costs. It must be stopped!


That statement can be made about America in general.

I'm talking about my standard of health and that of my kids, a micro level. I don't want anyone doing damage to them that can easily be avoided.

Do you have a right to smoke? Yes, of course you do. But I believe that right stops as soon as the second hand smoke hits my nose. Then there has to be negotiation or else my right to breathe is violated.

We actually agree Mason. I don't hear you saying you want to smoke everywhere, and I am not saying there shouldn't be places for it to happen.
Reply #6 Top
Well...now we're just going to have poor, naked, hungry fat bastards running around grazing on various plants. I'm definately above a medium, so I'd better move to a warmer climate.

~Zoo
Reply #7 Top
I have said many times it is only a matter of time before cities start enacting public gluttony laws. Sadly, the majority of Americans do not care that we are fast heading towards totalitarianism.

Democratic totalitarianism....what a concept.
Reply #8 Top
I'm definately above a medium, so I'd better move to a warmer climate.


Sorry, you are not allowed to be fat outside of your house. If you are caught outside, you will be arrested. Your fatness is infringing on the thin people's right to a beautiful view. Second hand fat is going to kill us all unless we stop fat now.
Reply #9 Top
Sorry, you are not allowed to be fat outside of your house. If you are caught outside, you will be arrested. Your fatness is infringing on the thin people's right to a beautiful view. Second hand fat is going to kill us all unless we stop fat now.


Ah, well...damn. Looks like I'll have to rally and start eating skinny people to even out the odds.

~Zoo
Reply #10 Top
I don't consider the public making a law to keep themselves and their children safe from a known carcinogen....Democratic totalitarianism.

And if you ever wonder why moderate non smokers and even undecided non smokers go in and vote against smoking when "compromise" would be so much better....look at most of these replies.

God forbid anyone would want to look after their own health and that of their children.



Reply #11 Top
I don't consider the public making a law to keep themselves and their children safe from a known carcinogen....Democratic totalitarianism.


Oh, but they have not passed any such laws. Show me where any state, municipality, or federal government has outlawed the sale of cigarettes?
Reply #12 Top
I don't consider the public making a law to keep themselves and their children safe from a known carcinogen....Democratic totalitarianism.


Banning what I do on my property is pretty totalitarian, Tova. When we're talking about public property, it's another issue altogether, but what I do in my home (not yet banned) or business (banned in many areas) is my concern...provided I accept the risks for what I do.

Now, if you decide you don't want to patronize my business because I allow smoking, that is definitely your right. If enough people decide not to patronize the business, I would have to weigh the benefits of remaining a smoking establishment vs. the extra revenue I would bring in if nonsmokers returned because I didn't allow smoking. Frankly, I find smoking an abhorrent practice, but I have strong reservations about enforcing my view on others.

As far as multi-unit dwellings go, I can actually see the point. Too many apartments are poorly constructed, and smoke can seep through the cracks into a nonsmoker's apartment pretty easily. This effectively removes the choice for the nonsmoker.

But, back to my main rebuttal: I made the comparison with "public gluttony laws" because there IS a comparison to be made. Certain eating habits damage the individual, and eating to excess in public can trigger that desire in others. But is it really the role of government to micromanage our lives?

I'm a nonsmoker. But most of my life, I've had little difficulty avoiding smokers when I really choose not to be around them. One highly notable exception is in restaurants, and there I would not at all be against a compromise solution.

As you pointed out, though, Tova, smokers in the state of Ohio, at least, have noone to blame but themselves for all of this. Because if they hadn't tried to pass their "smokers' rights amendment", the rebuttal movement might never have formed, and would certainly have been less likely to gain such momentum. But if this were the ONLY example of overregulatory governmental laws, I would be inclined to dismiss it. The sad truth is, this is one of MANY such ridiculous laws.
Reply #13 Top
Banning what I do on my property is pretty totalitarian, Tova. When we're talking about public property, it's another issue altogether,


My point exactly.

Frankly, I find smoking an abhorrent practice, but I have strong reservations about enforcing my view on others.


Except Gid, in Ohio, which is all I've been discussing, this was passed as part of an employee protection program. "It is your employer's legal responsibility to inform you of both general and specific hazards connected with your job and to provide you with a safe and healthful workplace."

WWW Link

Enough voters, enough "we the peoples" in Ohio think second hand smoke is dangerous not only to themselves and their children, but to the people who work in it.

Do you think its totalitarianism that adults under the age of 21 can't drink? That bars who serve them are violating the law and can be fined?

I don't. And I believe if most Americans did think it, it'd change. That beauty of democracy.
Reply #14 Top
Oh, but they have not passed any such laws. Show me where any state, municipality, or federal government has outlawed the sale of cigarettes?


Come on. There are thousands of known carcinogens LEGAL and for sale in the US. I guess that's all about money too. Yet if you took most of them into an restaurant and put them in people's food, air, or water, you'd go to jail for trying to poison them.

WWW Link

The legality of cigarettes has no bearing. They are still legal and people can still smoke 100 packs a day if they want too. The places smokers can smoke has been curtailed for the sake of the part of the population that doesn't smoke...but they are still free to exercise their smoking right.

Just like condoms are legal, but having sex in public is not.
Reply #15 Top
I don't. And I believe if most Americans did think it, it'd change. That beauty of democracy


We have to be very careful, however, how far we extend "democracy". If enough "we the peoples" voted to execute certain minorities, for instance, we (hopefully) wouldn't stand for it, because a democracy cannot exist unless we afford certain protections to minorities.

Now that is an extreme example, and a comparison that I am loathe to make because I don't feel the smokers' rights issue is in any way a civil rights issue. But the point in making it was to show you that even in a democracy there MUST be exceptions to simply allowing a majority vote to make the end determination of what our rights are as citizens.

If we truly feel we must ban smoking altogether, why aren't we banning cigarettes? We certainly would be within our rights to do that much (although I certainly wouldn't support such a ban). We are, in essence, banning the use of a product purchased legally. The alcohol ban is on purchases, not on usage, Tova, and while I again am not in favor of all of the laws on the books, they are not bans that target usage.

I have already conceded (albeit grudgingly) the right to ban smoking on public property, Tova. That's not the issue here at all. The issue is when the ban is extended to PRIVATE property, as this amendment clearly does. The owner has the right to make reasonable determinations as to what (legal) activities may or may not occur on his property, just as you, the consumer, have a right to determine whether or not to patronize the owner's business. I already stated I wouldn't have much of an issue with requiring signage to forewarn customers that said establishment is a smoking establishment, but I think that ultimately the property owner should have some of the rights and privileges of ownership.
Reply #16 Top
Sorry Tova, but there is simply nothing that can rationalize these sorts of extreme fascist bans in a supposedly free society. Requiring a bar or other business to post a sign stating that smoking is permitted there would be reasonable, passing a law that forbids the owner of the business from allowing it is not no matter how many far fetched justifications one can come up with.

Requiring a restaurant to provide separate, isolated, and well ventilated dining areas for smokers and non-smokers is reasonable, banning it entirely is not.

Passing a law that says if you live in an apartment or condo you can't smoke in your own home is in no way reasonable. Passing a law that says you can't smoke in your own car is not reasonable.

This is all nanny state bullshit. Fascism. If people are so damned worried about their health and the health of their children they should be worrying far more about the damn cars they drive than some guy smoking a cigarette. The exhaust from a car is far more toxic than a 100 cigarettes. You inhale more carcinogens just driving down a busy street for 20 minutes than you ever could sitting in a bar full of smokers. The entire issue is nothing more than PC bullshit.

Back to the real topic here: demonizing the fat bastards in the name of public health and PC Fascism everywhere!

Additional step for The Plan:

As far too many of these fat bastards spend too much time sitting in front of their televisions and computers instead of getting much needed exercise, we need to lobby for a substantial tax increase on both cable television and internet services.

Reply #17 Top
Sorry Tova, but there is simply nothing that can rationalize these sorts of extreme fascist


hahahahaha.

The real fascists here were trying to force everyone in Ohio to allow smoking by making it a constitutional RIGHT. Thereby over ruling all no smoking laws and ordinances.

THAT would have been a crime.

Reply #18 Top
The real fascists here were trying to force everyone in Ohio to allow smoking by making it a constitutional RIGHT. Thereby over ruling all no smoking laws and ordinances.


Ummm, no. Fascism is authoritarianism (simplified version). Smoking bans are fascism, trying to amend the constitution in order to defend one's rights is a reaction to fascism. The real crime is that Americans allow this to go on in this country without a single complaint, and even support it, until it becomes directed at them personally.

The other real crime is that people in this country have completely forgotten that the whole point of a democratic society is compromise.

Reply #19 Top
Do you know how many deaths and injuries are attributed to second hand fat every year? Thousands! Just think of all those Paramedics having heart attacks when trying to carry fat people! Just think of those poor innocent victims that are maimed for life or even killed when a fat person trips and falls on them!


Too true! Not only does it endanger the health of emergency workers, but when the patient is obese it takes more assets to treat them.

Instead of 1 ambulance crew, two or three are needed. Sometimes a fire crew and ladder truck have to be dispatched to assist also.

My heaviest patient was 850lbs. She needed to be transported back to her home from the hospital. It took 4 crews out off the streets for 2 1/2 hours. All on the taxpayer's dime.

The thing is, she didn't even need medical treatment or observation enroute. She ONLY needed an ambulance because she couldn't walk, nor could she sit in any other kind of vehicle.

~~~~~~~

The whole, "When they came for the Jews, I did nothing, because I wasn't a Jew" thing comes to mind here...

What next, rock stars calling for banning of organized religion? ;~D
Reply #20 Top
The whole, "When they came for the Jews, I did nothing, because I wasn't a Jew" thing comes to mind here...


That comes to my mind every time I read/hear about yet another one of these bans being passed in a supposedly free society.
Reply #21 Top
In Australia, wowsers have taken candy, chips and softdrinks from school canteens in a bid to reduce childhood obesity instead of addressing the problem directly with proper exercise and diet regimes, which include treats.

Bloody idiots...
Reply #22 Top
Reply #21
In Australia, wowsers have taken candy, chips and softdrinks from school canteens in a bid to reduce childhood obesity instead of addressing the problem directly with proper exercise and diet regimes, which include treats.

Bloody idiots...


Is happening here as well.
Reply #23 Top
Smoking bans are fascism, trying to amend the constitution in order to defend one's rights is a reaction to fascism. The real crime is that Americans allow this to go on in this country without a single complaint, and even support it, until it becomes directed at them personally.


That's an interesting twist Mason. So when we make laws against murder, speeding, whatever, its fascism? Or is it just fascism when it involves smoking?

How is it ok to have public health laws? Why should someone be FORCED to wash their hands after taking a crap before making your sandwich? How DARE we tell people what to do. It's fascism, so we should all just eat crap sandwiches and be happy about it? But of course they could always post a SIGN saying "Some employees do not wash their hands. This heres MY place and I don't make'm."

Come on.
Reply #24 Top
No Tova, it becomes fascism when perfectly sane and reasonable compromises are refused out of hand in favor of authoritarian rule. If you can't understand that most simple of concepts I don't know what to tell you.

As for your hyperbole, well that's really all it is, isn't it?
Reply #25 Top
As for your hyperbole, well that's really all it is, isn't it?


Yes and no. It was meant as a humorous exaggeration (thanks for reading it as intended), but there was still a valid question. Should all health laws be done away with? If so how do we decide which goes and which stays?