US presidential election

[Foxi4]

Under most states law children are sometimes seen more as property of their parents. Plus they can't vote. So their Representatives or Senators are a lot less likely to consider their opinions. And again those kids want that fat food, so technically everything is all right legally.

I see. So someone who is underage falls into different categories just because he or she is young. That, and you personally surveyed the fat population in its entirety.

I know of cases where children were fed fast food only because it was a cheap option, not because they wanted to eat it on a daily basis. Moreover, you conviniently mistake the argument and transcribe it from "regulating diets of children and imposing rules on the parents until the child can decide what diet it wants to follow" to "letting kids eat what they want".

They are the property of their parents with little rights, but they have the right to choose what to eat? Contrasts and double standards, I say.

 

[Phoenix Goddess]

Under most states law children are sometimes seen more as property of their parents. Plus they can't vote. So their Representatives or Senators are a lot less likely to consider their opinions. And again those kids want that fat food, so technically everything is all right legally.

And what about the ones who don't want it, but it's what they are given anyway? Would you suggest they starve? Would you say, "Well, they were given a choice. Fatty food or hunger."?

 

[Foxi4]

And what about the ones who don't want it, but it's what they are given anyway? Would you suggest they starve? Would you say, "Well, they were given a choice. Fatty food or hunger."?

Don't you know that pizza is a vegetable? Did you live under a rock for the last year?

Remember - 5 slices a day cover your daily intake of vegetables and fruit!

 

[smile72]

Under most states law children are sometimes seen more as property of their parents. Plus they can't vote. So their Representatives or Senators are a lot less likely to consider their opinions. And again those kids want that fat food, so technically everything is all right legally.

I see. So someone who is underage falls into different categories just because he or she is young. That, and you personally surveyed the fat population in its entirety.

I know of cases where children were fed fast food only because it was a cheap option, not because they wanted to eat it on a daily basis. Moreover, you conviniently mistake the argument and transcribe it from "regulating diets of children and imposing rules on the parents until the child can decide what diet it wants to follow" to "letting kids eat what they want".

They are the property of their parents little rights, but they have the right to choose what to eat? Contrasts and double standards, I say.

I don't see many kids saying no to candy or McDonalds.If their parents violate their rights, then the States step in, but parents have a lot of rights over their kids they can do a lot of things, if they want to raise their kid as a racist it's legal, diets are thought of as parents discretion.Do I believe America should be healthier yes, but it's people's choice.
This is a perfect example http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/23/10487071-florida-agency-returned-kids-to-monster-dad

 

[Phoenix Goddess]

Don't you know that pizza is a vegetable? Did you live under a rock for the last year?

Remember - 5 slices a day cover your daily intake of vegetables and fruit!

I try to hide under the biggest rock I can find since I can't currently escape this planet

But have no fear, when the aliens come, enslave all and leave this planet, I'll come back up from my rock and fix what everyone destroyed

And get rid of every piece of fried food I can find

But I do have to ask... does that include pizza with bacon, hamburger, an assload of cheese, tons of pepperoni, chicken, and sausage?

 

[smile72]

Under most states law children are sometimes seen more as property of their parents. Plus they can't vote. So their Representatives or Senators are a lot less likely to consider their opinions. And again those kids want that fat food, so technically everything is all right legally.

And what about the ones who don't want it, but it's what they are given anyway? Would you suggest they starve? Would you say, "Well, they were given a choice. Fatty food or hunger."?

Call the police, it's the only thing they can do. I can't help them, don't know them, plus it would be kidnapping.

 

[Deleted_171835]

You mentioned the high rate of obesity, you can't stop parents that want to buy their kids tons of fast food. Or food that's really high in fat. So we can't do much about obesity. We can tell people to eat healthier but it's their decision at the end of the day.

Education about healthy foods can help as can the already proposed fat tax. No sane parent would purposely feed their kid what is essentially garbage day in and day out. They're either forced to due to money issues, an inability to cook and just not knowing any better. And have you thought that there may be other issues contributing to the problem such as perhaps poverty? If you had a choice between eating junk food or nothing at all, what would you choose?

 

[Foxi4]

I don't see many kids saying no to candy or McDonalds.If their parents violate their rights, then the States step in, but parents have a lot of rights over their kids they can do a lot of things, if they want to raise their kid as a racist it's legal, diets are thought of as parents discretion.Do I believe America should be healthier yes, but it's people's choice.
This is a perfect example http://usnews.msnbc....-to-monster-dad

American Child Services have alot to learn from for example European ones.

It's not within the rights of a parent to destroy the life and health of their child or fashion them into a socially incompatible freak.

But I do have to ask... does that include pizza with bacon, hamburger, an assload of cheese, tons of pepperoni, chicken, and sausage?

As long as it has tomato sauce on it, you're good to go. Everything else is just "toppings". No, literally.

 

[Gahars]

To be fair, Congress never said that pizza itself was a vegetable - just the tomato sauce used in it.

Is it still stupid? Absolutely, but hey, it's not as horrible.

EDIT: I see you Ninja'd me with that slice of a post

 

[smile72]

Junk food But a fat tax is a tax and who controls our House of Representatives? Let's say it together now REPUBLICANS! Yeah, that ain't happen in the near future might be a possibility in 2013 (if the elections go the Democrats way).

---

 

[Foxi4]

Education about healthy foods can help as can the already proposed fat tax. No sane parent would purposely feed their kid what is essentially garbage day in and day out. They're either forced to due to money issues, an inability to cook and just not knowing any better. And have you thought that there may be other issues contributing to the problem such as perhaps poverty? If you had a choice between eating junk food or nothing at all, what would you choose?

Really well-said. The funny thing is that the government seems to be walking the other way, for example by proclaiming pizza (well, sauce, but still) a vegetable just to allow schools to serve it as one of the daily portions of veg. Perpostrous - they could've just increased the funding for school kitchens and make cuts elsewhere. Y'know, in a department that doesn't make the future of America a greasy one, and children are the future.

Some Americans look at Europe with disdain. They hate anything that uses Europe as an example to say we're second to them. I don't think that way but some do, hence why some politicians (cough*Mitt Romney*cough) take advantage of that.

A nation should strive to become better and better rather then bother with petty issues like "who came up with this idea first?". By this logic you should abandon democracy because it's a Greek invention. It's sad to hear that some politicians do resort to the "our law is shit but it's OUR law, at the very least!" argument which is againts all logic. A good idea is a good idea, and that's that.

 

[pubert09]

I took this poll that compared my opinions to candidates and my most important values matched Obama.

 

[Sterling]

@[member='Sterling']

The problem with that, though, is that there will always be "more pressing" concerns to focus on. If we kept pushing off and delaying action by that justification (economic troubles here, war there, etc.), than nothing would ever be accomplished.

And, by that logic, why not just get it over with so that it's no longer distracting us from the rest of the problems we face?

Just put it on the back burner, and treat it like a background process on a computer. There will always be bigger problems, but most resources should be devoted to the bigger issues, and minimal ones to the smaller (but still important) ones. look, it'll get done eventually, but a forced transition is just uncomfortable, and no real good will come of it. Homosexuals will just have to bear and grin until it's solved, because a slow and precise change will be much better in the long run.

That analogy still doesn't quite work. If the smaller problem is constantly taking away precious time and resources from the bigger problems looming on the horizon, why not get it out of the way so it's no longer a distraction? That way the maximum amount of attention can be spent on the "most important" issues.

Again, you say, "it'll get done eventually," where does that end? Years? Decades? Longer? With each new problem that faces us, it will be pushed further and further into the back burner.

Sure, forced transitions are uncomfortable, but civil rights are never a matter of comfort. We're talking about traditions and customs built upon discrimination against a group of people; should we abide by institutional injustice because that's way it's always been done? Think of it as a band-aid on your knee; better to rip it off and get it over with than to slowly peel it off and prolong the pain.

Homosexuals will just have to bear and grin until it's solved

I think your choice of words there was a bit... awkward

Doesn't quite work? A background process on a computer commits a certain amount of unwavering resources. In this case, we introduce laws and by slow integration get American society comfortable with the idea. It may be a small issue, but it's an important one. I'm not saying we need to ignore it. Also, I don't see my choice of words awkward... Unless you mean bear.

 

[Gahars]

@[member='Sterling']

Yes, I'm very well aware of what you were referring to. The problem is, though, the political process of the US just doesn't work that way. As we've gone over, sure, there are many places in the nation where people are reevaluating their longstanding views; however, in other areas, there is active resistance to change. Progress has stalled in these places, if it ever began at all; the "background process" approach will accomplish nothing there.

I understand that you want to avoid causing undue conflict and strain (generally paraphrasing here), but your suggested approach would do just that. If half of the nation continually develops a progressive stance on this basic issue of civil rights while the other half remains firm in its intolerance, that will only create a wider and wider gap between them. That's divisive tension right there.

Why wait, and let the injustice against this group of people continue any longer than it has to? Like I said before, ending this will be uncomfortable no matter what; we might as well be done with it quickly instead of prolonging the pain and turmoil. Let's just get this out of the way instead of ignoring it (and, really, delaying comprehensive action in favor of other problems is ignoring it).

 

[Sterling]

@[member='Gahars']

How would you propose to go about that? I'm not a politician, but I am conservative. I'm resistant to sudden change, and progress for the sake of progress isn't good for the country. I was raised a Christian, and my parents taught me that being gay is wrong. So, the part about the Bible belt being very resistant to something like this is accurate. As I grew up though, I've realized things and I have changed my opinion. I would be one of the first people to line up at the voting cubicles to allow gay marriage. My point is, that given enough time, people growing up will have differing opinions and then change would be welcomed, but sudden change will just bring resentment. Last I checked, resentment is what cause the American Revolution. Though I'm not saying that will happen, but like I say resentment isn't such a good thing.

 

[notmeanymore]

>Santorum drops out of the race.
>America is doomed.

 

[Gahars]

@[member='Gahars']

How would you propose to go about that? I'm not a politician, but I am conservative. I'm resistant to sudden change, and progress for the sake of progress isn't good for the country. I was raised a Christian, and my parents taught me that being gay is wrong. So, the part about the Bible belt being very resistant to something like this is accurate. As I grew up though, I've realized things and I have changed my opinion. I would be one of the first people to line up at the voting cubicles to allow gay marriage. My point is, that given enough time, people growing up will have differing opinions and then change would be welcomed, but sudden change will just bring resentment. Last I checked, resentment is what cause the American Revolution. Though I'm not saying that will happen, but like I say resentment isn't such a good thing.

Sweeping legislation (DOMA shows us that the Federal Government does have the power to define marriage on the national level) and a Supreme Court ruling or a Constitutional Amendment (if it had to come to that) would easily clear the way. Are any of those likely given the political atmosphere in Washington today? No, but that doesn't we shouldn't keep fighting for it.

I am happy to hear how your views have changed and grown over the years. Sadly though, you're not the standard; if anything, you are somewhat of an exception. Your own personal experiences do not guarantee that a majority of those resistant to progress will come to change their minds.

And yeah, civil rights will naturally cause resentment from those holding backwards, outdated viewpoints. Beyond the Civil War (when bigotry and oppression were economic institutions for the South), has that resentment sparked a full blown war after women were granted the right to vote? After the victories of the Civil Rights movement in the 60s? After the Supreme Court declared that states couldn't bar interracial marriage? After the Supreme Court declared that states couldn't outlaw same-sex sexual activity? No, no, no, and no. Using that pretense to prolong injustice just doesn't hold up.

And to go back to your reference to the American Revolution, it's worth remembering that we are a nation founded upon the beliefs that all were created equal, and that each person is entitled to the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. How can we take pride in our heritage when we can't even live by those basic tenets of our society?

>Santorum drops out of the race.
>America is doomed.

Yeah, I saw. I guess santorum just wasn't gelling with the voters...

 

[notmeanymore]

No man, his daughter is real sick. He's dropping out to be with her.

 

[smile72]

>Santorum drops out of the race.
>America is saved.

Fixed it for you.

 

[Gahars]

No man, his daughter is real sick. He's dropping out to be with her.

I'm aware that's the explanation he's offered, though I'd be willing to make a $10,000 bet that his trailing in the polls (even in his own home state) and massive campaign debt were the primary reasons he dropped out (or, at the very least, played a significant role).