MasonM MasonM

Get On The Bandwagon Quick!

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!
4,232 views 40 replies
Reply #26 Top
Should all health laws be done away with? If so how do we decide which goes and which stays?


Of course not, but in this case you are attempting to mix apples and footballs with your question. Trying to couch this sort of ban under the "public health laws" fluff just doesn't wash and if you read and understood reply #24 you'd already know why so I don't understand why you continue along this line. It's obviously not a legitimate argument when fair, sane, and reasonable alternatives to a ban could be implemented without infringing upon the freedoms of anyone at all. It's a red herring.

Reply #27 Top
Trying to couch this sort of ban under the "public health laws" fluff just doesn't wash and if you read and understood reply #24 you'd already know why so I don't understand why you continue along this line.


I guess because I don't think its a red herring. It makes perfect sense to me.

I have said numerous times I think there is a middle ground Mason. I would have VOTED for a middle ground law if one was on the table. But there wasn't.

I didn't mean to offend you.

Thanks for the debate.

Reply #28 Top
I guess because I don't think its a red herring. It makes perfect sense to me.


So it seems, but I fail to see how one can intelligently equate a public health regulation for which there aren't reasonable alternatives to outright banning something when there are.

I have said numerous times I think there is a middle ground Mason. I would have VOTED for a middle ground law if one was on the table. But there wasn't.


Yes, you have but then you have also argued in favor of these sorts of bans so you are either for fascist bans or reasonable compromise, but you can't be for both.

I didn't mean to offend you.

Thanks for the debate.


You haven't offended me, I enjoy the debate.
Reply #29 Top
Yes, you have but then you have also argued in favor of these sorts of bans so you are either for fascist bans or reasonable compromise, but you can't be for both.


HAHAHA.

Well actually, I can. I agree second hand smoke is harmful and so I also agree it is harmful to employees. I voted to ban it because there was no other alternative and I didn't want the constitutional amend for smoking to pass (essentially forcing me to breathe it whenever in public).

I do believe people who live in a state, the majority, have a right to make laws on how that state is run. Even if the amendment DID pass and smoking was made legal everywhere. I wouldn't agree with it, and wouldn't be eating out much, but I still think majority rules is a great system.

I can believe all those things, and still think accommodations can be made for smokers. Because I don't really care if you or any other adult chooses to smoke. So long as it doesn't effect me, its not my business. If places of employment want to take measures to protect their employees (like hiring smokers for smoking sections) then I am fine with that.

But starting Dec 7th in Ohio all indoor places are smoke free. There are still a few places for smoking under this new law. They are... tobacco stores, outdoor patios and private clubs. I just found that a few minutes ago. I read a lot of stuff for the elections, there were so many things to vote on. I musta forgot or missed these exceptions.

I can't speak for what went on in the whole state of Ohio. But I can tell you the smoking amendment was backed by R.J. Reynold’s and not individual citizens. The name of the amendment "Smoke Free Ohio" caught a lot of slack because people like Gov Taft said it was intentionally misleading....to get people to accidentally vote for it. That probably brought more people to the polls than the actual issue to be honest.

Anyway, you can come here and eat when the weather is nice and smoke on a patio. OR go to private clubs. And I think you will start seeing "smoking clubs" becoming really popular.

That's just my guess though.
Reply #30 Top
I voted to ban it because there was no other alternative and I didn't want the constitutional amend for smoking to pass


But didn't you state that they were two different items? If so, voting for one had nothing at all to do with voting against the other.

If places of employment want to take measures to protect their employees (like hiring smokers for smoking sections) then I am fine with that.


And yet you voted for a ban that denied them the right to do so, effectively saying that no, you don't really believe this at all.

I can believe all those things, and still think accommodations can be made for smokers


No they can't because your vote denied all business owners the right to do so.

Anyway, you can come here and eat when the weather is nice and smoke on a patio. OR go to private clubs


Sure, the old back of the bus routine, that's quite fair and reasonable isn't it?

People can try to justify these bans any way they like but they still amount to the same thing, and it sure doesn't belong in a supposedly free country based on the ideas of compromise and personal liberty.
Reply #31 Top
But didn't you state that they were two different items? If so, voting for one had nothing at all to do with voting against the other.


Yes there were two items.

I voted to get rid of smoking because I don't smoke and don't like it, period. In fact, I hate it. Right now around here the only places that are smoke free are fast food chains. And the restaurants that have both have no real division of space at all. So the smokers, the minority, were getting all of what they wanted and the non smokers were getting McDonalds.

I voted for the ban because while it wasn't my ideal law, it still gave me more of what I wanted than how things are now.

Some people may go to the polls and vote altruistically. When I go, I vote my values....and since they usually aren't on the ballot, I vote as close as I can get.

You're right we are a free country. We are free to make laws and change them when we don't like them. I'm sorry, I don't consider smoking a right and I voted accordingly.
Reply #32 Top
I voted to get rid of smoking because I don't smoke and don't like it, period. In fact, I hate it.


Ah, finally a truly honest answer. While I disagree with you, I can at least respect an honest reply.

Back to the topic at hand:

Screw other people, get what you want! We need to ban the fat bastards from the public view all will be right with the world!
Reply #33 Top
Screw other people, get what you want!


hahaha. Uh, yeah. Do you often vote for people and laws that go against what you believe?  

Isn't getting your say the whole point of voting?
Reply #34 Top
Come on. There are thousands of known carcinogens LEGAL and for sale in the US. I guess that's all about money too.


No, if you truly cared about the health of people, you would go to the source. The other carcinogens are not ingested, and so they are not as deadly (supposedly) as cigarettes.

At least be honest. If you cared, make them illegal. But you have not, nor has any locality. Why? Because you are addicted to the tax revenue. A tax of death.
Reply #35 Top
At least be honest. If you cared, make them illegal


I have said over and over. I don't CARE if an adult chooses to smoke, they can poison themselves with cigarettes, 409, whatever. I only CARE when it effects my health, or my kids.

Because you are addicted to the tax revenue.


Oh yeah. Think I'll go buy me a big t-bone steak at a no smoking restaurant tonight with my ill gotten gains. Oh wait, we don't have any no smoking steak houses.   

Reply #36 Top
Isn't getting your say the whole point of voting?


I suppose someone could look at it that way. I always kind of thought one was supposed to vote for what is best for the country as a whole, but hey that's just crazy ole me.
Reply #37 Top
As tongue in cheek as this article is, claiming that obesity is a victimless crime is wrong.

Obese people live shorter lives. They deprive their loved ones of the joy of being in their company for their selfish habit.

Obese people put undue strain on an already overpriced medial system. In turn, those of us who choose to eat sensibly and exercise pay a higher price for heath care.

Obese people require more resources. This has some measure of a cost to the general public because of the law of supply and demand.

I could find more ways that they have an effect on your life but that isn't my point.

Smoking is bad. It's bad for the smoker. It's bad for the family of a smoker. It costs the general public.

How long before the law makers find a reason to take obesity to the next level or any of the other of the societal ills. Think back to the 60's and 70's. Smoking was most certainly acceptable in all arenas. I think you could still smoke in hospitals in that era.

It only takes a majority vote to deprive you if your vice. Even if it's growing your own vegetables because the quality of them can't be verified.
Reply #38 Top
Even if it's growing your own vegetables because the quality of them can't be verified.


That's on the list right below getting rid of the fat bastards and banning cars.
Reply #39 Top
banning cars


That doesn't seem all that far fetched since they do pollute the atmosphere. And, all of the petro chemical plants are such a danger even when you overlook the pollution they provide.
Reply #40 Top
Ok PC lemmings, the World Health Organization is now on board with my plan, taking up the fight to ban the fat bastards in Europe. WWW Link


We can't fall behind here in the US. Get out there and start whining to your state and local officials. We need to get the ball rolling and get rid of the fat bastards, their fat wives, and their ugly fat children as soon as possible.

Remember, it's for their own good and the good of society as a whole.