← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · jay
Thread ID: 7397 | Posts: 24 | Started: 2003-06-16
2003-06-16 15:03 | User Profile
[url=http://fitfat.ctvnews.com/copy/copy_solution7_full.html]http://fitfat.ctvnews.com/copy/copy_soluti...tion7_full.html[/url]
**Almost half of Canadians support the idea of a ââ¬Åfat taxââ¬Â on high-fat foods such as chips, soft drinks and snack cakes, a new poll suggests.
And four in 10 people surveyed recently by Ipsos-Reid for The Globe and Mail and CTV said they believe there should be tax breaks for those who maintain a healthy lifestyle.
Over all, the majority of Canadians disapprove of such heavy-handed measures as a way to tackle the country's growing obesity problem. But there is widespread support for investing as much money promoting healthy lifestyles as has been spent fighting smoking, and almost universal backing for making physical-education courses an integral part of school curriculum. Public-health experts tend to agree.
ââ¬ÅWe don't need to be health Nazis, because that won't work,ââ¬Â said David Butler-Jones, president of the Canadian Public Health Association, in speaking out against a fat tax **
All: Just got back from my honeymoon, and our cruise was filled with the fattest people I've ever seen. honestly, I've harrangued on this before but my GAWD it was sick. Fat everywhere, people pushing thru you to get in line for the buffet.
The fat-tax is coming, and I support it fully. There is no way that I (5-10, 165 and healthy at 28) should fund irresponsibility - be it in drug use, violence, or overeating. One lady at my old company had knee surgery....and she was 300 pounds? Maybe that contributed to her problems?
The rebuttal is "Jay, the GOVT will take that tax money and spend it on other things" That's possible. At least the fatties will be funding those other activities.
-Jay
2003-06-16 15:48 | User Profile
**The fat-tax is coming, and I support it fully. There is no way that I (5-10, 165 and healthy at 28) should fund irresponsibility **
The fact that you are 5'10 and 165 has nothing to do with any innate virtue that God endowed in you at inception but with the genes endowed at that critical juncture in the history of the world.
Like you, I find the fatties repellent and for that reason avoid the Golden Corral like the plague but I don't buy the fat tax BS although when we crossed the Rubicon on smoking it became inevitable.
Ten years ago all the fat chicks at work were the loudest promoters of the anti smoking taxes.
They used the same argument you do.
Now they are about to get the same treatment smlokers did.
Believe me, eventually they will find a way to tax you and everybody else.
After all, carrying the argument to its logical conclusion, why should I subsidize sky divers, skiers, bungee jumpers or people who play touch football? Or people who sit on barstools during Happy Hour? Or people who are couch potatoes?
2003-06-16 16:02 | User Profile
In terms of the Canadian reality, it makes sense for a fat tax. Obesity can cause a host of related medical problems. Canada has a public health care system which unfairly sees a majority of its dollars go to treat preventable disease due to alcohol, tobacco, and obesity. All these idiots should finance their own medical treatment with taxes. If there was no public health care system in Canada I would feel otherwise.
2003-06-16 17:43 | User Profile
Canadians never see a law or regulation that they don't like, but I'm surprised at you fellows. Once the principle of statism is accepted, everything is fair game. One person's fat tax is another person's gun control, or Patriot Act.
2003-06-16 18:22 | User Profile
The same arguments to create high tobacco taxes apply in spades to fat foods. Fat foods don't even have warning labels and are often sold as healthy foods (I've never seen a tobacco ad that implied tobacco was safe).
And, just like with smokers, many fat people are very good and decent -- some are my friends -- but obesity is still disgusting and very unhealthy. At least smoking can be sexy.
I'm against a fat tax, but fighting such a tax would not be a priority for me. How about we transfer the medicaid payroll tax to fat foods?
If you're fat, STOP BEING FAT! I have no real experience losing weight (I use to work on gaining weight). But, it seems simple enough. DON'T BUY FAT FOOD.
I see fat people eating out. They eat like they want to be fat. They shouldn't be eating out in the first place until they get their weight in check. And, don't watch TV. Sitting there leaves you nothing to do but eat (aside from the fact that watching TV doesn't burn any calories).
2003-06-16 20:51 | User Profile
This is a great example of the slippery slope "what's next?" theory. They go after gas guzzling cars. They go after tobacco. They go after fatty food. Maybe you drive an econo-box, don't smoke and eat healthy... but eventually they will find a vice that will allow them to get their claws in to your wallet. Every tax we accept makes the next tax a little easier for them to pass on to us.
For those who have a legitimate medical problem, maybe there is a place for it (even though I'm against socialized medicine) as the costs in the long run will be much lower if the obesity can be helped. Yet we all know that the vast majoirty of people who are overweight are in that state because they eat too much and exercise too little. They are often the people who complain the loudest when the rest of us dare to suggest that they need to change their lifestyles.
2003-06-16 21:08 | User Profile
The solution is for private health care alternatives and restrictions on state-funded care (if there must be state-funded care at all), not lifestyle taxes.
The government tends to get this stuff wrong, anyway.
Which food product will make you fat?
or
Answer: Bread
Which food product would the government most likely impose a "fat tax" on?
or
:rolleyes:
2003-06-16 21:23 | User Profile
Originally posted by jay@Jun 16 2003, 11:03 * *[url=http://fitfat.ctvnews.com/copy/copy_solution7_full.html]http://fitfat.ctvnews.com/copy/copy_soluti...tion7_full.html[/url]
**Almost half of Canadians support the idea of a ââ¬Åfat taxââ¬Â on high-fat foods such as chips, soft drinks and snack cakes, a new poll suggests.
And four in 10 people surveyed recently by Ipsos-Reid for The Globe and Mail and CTV said they believe there should be tax breaks for those who maintain a healthy lifestyle.
Over all, the majority of Canadians disapprove of such heavy-handed measures as a way to tackle the country's growing obesity problem. But there is widespread support for investing as much money promoting healthy lifestyles as has been spent fighting smoking, and almost universal backing for making physical-education courses an integral part of school curriculum. Public-health experts tend to agree.
ââ¬ÅWe don't need to be health Nazis, because that won't work,ââ¬Â said David Butler-Jones, president of the Canadian Public Health Association, in speaking out against a fat tax **
All: Just got back from my honeymoon, and our cruise was filled with the fattest people I've ever seen. honestly, I've harrangued on this before but my GAWD it was sick. Fat everywhere, people pushing thru you to get in line for the buffet.
The fat-tax is coming, and I support it fully. There is no way that I (5-10, 165 and healthy at 28) should fund irresponsibility - be it in drug use, violence, or overeating. One lady at my old company had knee surgery....and she was 300 pounds? Maybe that contributed to her problems?
The rebuttal is "Jay, the GOVT will take that tax money and spend it on other things" That's possible. At least the fatties will be funding those other activities.
-Jay**
Congratulations, re: the honeymoon, Jay!
I've often seen your anti-obesity posts in the past. I generally agree with your sentiments since Americans are rather undisciplined in terms of their personal lifestyles. I suspect that the "Immaculate 'They" benefit from keeping Americans on the couch eating unhealthy foods in large amounts.
One of the biggest problems Americans also have is with "portion control." Restaurants don't help in this matter since they usually give you massive portions, which, to be fair, I suppose they have to do if they want to attract and satisfy customers. Maybe childhood mental programming comes into play here as well, since our mothers told us to finish everything on our plates.
The image of the fatties tackling the buffet--I can imagine...part of me find this amusing, part of me finds it sad or distasteful. And I totally agree with you regarding the 300 lb. knee surgery woman--gee, I wonder why she might have bad knees?
Good to see you posting again.
2003-06-16 21:44 | User Profile
Slippery slope is right. They've already got their toes in the door, eh? Let's just give 'em the whole foot. Screw it. If people don't have the discipline to stop themselves from growing an ass that's two nightsticks wide, it's their problem. Do you think the money from such a tax in the US would be spent on fighting flab? Sheee-iitttt. It's going to help fund Izzy, fund "Orthodox communities", Letresha and her welfare babies, Lupe and her anchor babies, Jose's medical bill after he drunkenly drives himself into another accident, Tyrone's emergency room bill after he breaks his hand busting an old woman's skull during a purse snatching, and the continued dispossesion of this land from whites.
Edana, people are ignorant as hell about what makes a person fat. Ask them which is healthier, a big fat T-Bone, or a plate of pasta? 99 out of 100 will tell you the pasta. I like pasta, but I'm also aware it's a prime ingredient in lard-ass-itis.
2003-06-16 22:59 | User Profile
**One person's fat tax is another person's gun control, or Patriot Act. **
All ready way to late for Canada. Socialized health care is the least of their problems. Gun confiscation has already started, as have the prosecution for "thought crimes". A pastor at a church was arrested for preaching that God did not approve of Homosexuality. You can write that country off....freedom has ceased to exist.
2003-06-16 23:07 | User Profile
Good grief, maybe we should consider a stupidity tax.
2003-06-17 00:02 | User Profile
The state has to have SOME controls or else the rogue elements of our society (even the fat people) will keep pushing. Maybe taxing Jane will leave her less money for McDonald's.
Whites are really bothering me with their weight issues. It's a sign of a lazy people that have stopped trying. It's spilling over into other areas of our lives (like tax revolt, and immigration control) If our people don't care about their fat asses and giant guts - their own life expectancies! - why would they care about Julio hopping some border 1,000 miles south?
-Jay
2003-06-17 01:59 | User Profile
*Originally posted by jay@Jun 16 2003, 20:02 * ** 1. We can go too far with this "Next thing ya know, the Government will...." argument. Should the GOVT be able to strip a DUI offender of his license for 6 months? You bet, IMO.
The state has to have SOME controls or else the rogue elements of our society (even the fat people) will keep pushing. Maybe taxing Jane will leave her less money for McDonald's.
Whites are really bothering me with their weight issues. It's a sign of a lazy people that have stopped trying. It's spilling over into other areas of our lives (like tax revolt, and immigration control) If our people don't care about their fat asses and giant guts - their own life expectancies! - why would they care about Julio hopping some border 1,000 miles south?
-Jay **
Jay,
I have always found value in using these sorts of barometers to gauge the state that the American people are in. I think your assessment of what the high levels of obesity really reveal about White Americans is correct.
Sadly, I've seen apologists for the Regime use the obesity figures to justify and support the status quo--they claim that the obesity means that Americans are happy and "well-off" economically, and they basically say this with an attitude that implies they want Americans to continue down this track since that's what "prosperity and freedom" are all about.
As for this:
....working out? Nahh, I'll watch Will & Grace.
you really know how to highlight contrasts, don't you? :lol: Actually, what does it say about the Will and Grace show that they have to bring on celebrities every week to attract viewers? I noticed a commercial a while back that they brought Macaulay Culkin on as a young lawyer. [And what's up with Culkin? He also just did a movie in which he played a gay guy. Why's he gravitating to these roles and associations?]
Can I take consolation from this celebrity-heaviness on the show--might this mean that not many people are watching W&G? Or does it mean that lots of people watch it, and that's why the celebs come on? Which side of it is driving this equation?
Part of me believes that they'll never take W&G off the air even if it tanks in ratings, because they have their agenda they have to push by keeping it on TV. After all, they had to have a show to replace Ellen DeGenerate with.
2003-06-17 02:34 | User Profile
*Originally posted by jay@Jun 16 2003, 16:02 * ** 1. We can go too far with this "Next thing ya know, the Government will...." argument. Should the GOVT be able to strip a DUI offender of his license for 6 months? You bet, IMO.
The state has to have SOME controls or else the rogue elements of our society (even the fat people) will keep pushing. Maybe taxing Jane will leave her less money for McDonald's.
Whites are really bothering me with their weight issues. It's a sign of a lazy people that have stopped trying. It's spilling over into other areas of our lives (like tax revolt, and immigration control) If our people don't care about their fat asses and giant guts - their own life expectancies! - why would they care about Julio hopping some border 1,000 miles south?
-Jay **
I'm not easily able to equate drunken driving with overeating, although alcohol and overeating go hand in hand for many.
The high levels of obesity reflect a sedentary culture. I doubt they reflect political beliefs for most. I've seen enough fat assed WN's, leftists, repubs, dems, libertarians, skinheads, Marxists, browns, blacks and yellows to know better.
Yeah, just what we need, more laws. Hell, they want to control everything, "do" everything for "us".
"Mommy, I'm done ..."
We have more important things to worry about than overweight Americans. They want to eat themselves to death, fine. Worry about mandatory memberships at Bally's when more pressing concerns have been taken care of.
2003-06-17 02:44 | User Profile
I like to check out other people's carts while I stand in line at Costco.
My cart: Box of unbattered chicken breasts, tuna salads, mozeralla cheese, whole grain bread loaf, onions, oranges or apples, grape juice, cans of vegetable & beef stew, big bag o' lettuce, brown rice, beef chunks.
Just about everyone else's cart: Potato chips, box of premade cheeseburgers, pop, mac & cheese, popcorn, popsicles, crackers, cookies, corndogs, battered fish sticks, "fruit snacks" if they have kids, donuts, microwave meals.... you get the picture.
2003-06-17 02:46 | User Profile
It all boils down to "convenience", eh?
Yeah, whites are too comfortable. For now.
2003-06-17 02:57 | User Profile
I think these people just don't know how to cook or don't want to take the time to cook. Stuff made from scratch is usually healthier than pre-made, packaged shite.
2003-06-17 03:27 | User Profile
Sadly, I've seen apologists for the Regime use the obesity figures to justify and support the status quo--they claim that the obesity means that Americans are happy and "well-off" economically, and they basically say this with an attitude that implies they want Americans to continue down this track since that's what "prosperity and freedom" are all about.
I agree 100% with you on that. On one hand, society says "This obesity is going to bankrupt us and cost lives!" Then they say, "This obesity proves how good we have it!"
Mixed messages. No doubt, fat content is high in stuff and labels are misleading. But where were the labels in 1955? Were none, people cared about their figure. ANother thing P.C. killed: the right for the hubby (or whoever) to get angry about fat.
you really know how to highlight contrasts, don't you? :lol: Actually, what does it say about the Will and Grace show
hahahahaha! My wife watches that show, it's a disgrace....)
-Jay
2003-06-17 03:34 | User Profile
People just ate more wholesome food in the 50's - wholesome, home-cooked food.
2003-06-17 04:26 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Edana@Jun 16 2003, 19:34 * ** People just ate more wholesome food in the 50's - wholesome, home-cooked food. **
More mothers were home to cook meals in those days also. Even up through the late 60's. Destroy the family, kill ya' with integration, with snivel rights, with "nutrition" ... an attack on all fronts.
2003-06-17 13:49 | User Profile
Gluttony is, afterall, a deadly sin.
It seems worse in Amerikwa than any other country I've been to. Even France, where heavy cream and butter is used in EVERY meal, and cigarettes are smoked everywhere by everyone, not to mention consumation of wine, doesn't have nearly as many fat people that Amerikwa has, not to mention a 40% LESS heart-attack rate than the US. (I don't have the link for that stat, I'll try to find it, I recently read it, but believe me it's true).
It's laziness and gluttony and apathy and stress of multiculturalism and a jew infected culture and lifestyle which is driving Americans to seek solace and peace in an easy, much available figure.....FOOD.
2003-06-17 14:19 | User Profile
It's not heavy cream and butter which makes one fat. It's overconsumption of simple carbs and sugars.
2003-06-17 15:09 | User Profile
Yes, having both parents work is another cause of obesity. Anyway. . .
There is a logic in a fat tax. If I break your window, I'll pay for it. In our socialist system, fat foods cause medical expenses so those foods should pay for those medical expenses. The problem isn't the logic of a tax on fat food; the problem is socialism.
In a Socialist system where there is no natural consequence of self-destructive behavior (because the state pays for the damages), the state to maintain a viable economy, must control what people do. If you accept socialism then you must accept that eating a doughnut should be a crime.
In a Free system, if you eat the doughnut then you end up paying more for your medical bills. If you have insurance, the insurance company should be free to charge you more for being fat, or for anything they believe will raise their costs. (In the Free system, there is no need to worry about how to be fair, fairness is the natural result.)
In a simi-socialist system that we have now, there are other ways. Poor people use food stamps. Simply prohibit the use of those food stamps for any fat food.
2003-06-17 15:18 | User Profile
Edana, I have much the same experience at the supermarket. My cart: healthy - other people's carts: twelve-packs of pop, ice cream, chips, chocolate bars. Sometimes I look at other people's so-called groceries and wonder why we don't see a gross resurgence in nutritional disease. I recall reading a report of a malnourished child in the paper the other day who had to have all her teeth pulled because she had been fed so much sugar in her diet. Malnutrition is a form of child abuse, I figure: you're not doing your kids any favours by giving in to their demands for Mickey D's or Dairy Queen.
**Yeah, whites are too comfortable. For now. **
Roy Batty, my father said exactly the same thing on Sunday when we stood in the supermarket. "During the war (WWII) we had barely anything, after the war it was even worse... look at all this, everything you take for granted... we are too comfortable. When tragedy strikes - and it will, someday - I wonder how the younger generations will be able to deal with it. Or if at all."
I love my Dad. In his late 60's, gets up every day at 5:30 and runs 5 miles, in better shape than your average 30 year-old. Speaks eight languages. He is inspiring.