Should the government bar food stamps from being used to buy sugary and fatty foods?

[giblets]

Hell, you probably want to ban flour and rice too because you're ****ing insane.

[Al B. Sure!]

Shh... close your eyes and ears to a major health problem with dollar consequences and national security implications.

Mandating vaccinations was such an affront to liberty, too!

[Al B. Sure!]

And I love how that whole 'you elitist **** think you know better than everybody else' waits until I come to the thread. That was the direction the previous thread on this topic that I posted went...

Very interesting though that no one makes those claims against The Mad Monk and anyone else who supported that position in this thread... it waits until I post.

See what I mean, Guynemer? It's the Apolyton Twilight Zone double-standard.

[giblets]

Shh... close your eyes and ears to a major health problem with dollar consequences and national security implications.

Mandating vaccinations was such an affront to liberty, too!

National security implications? We're going to get invaded if we have too many fat people?
Dollar consequences? So you think if the government spends anything on health care, it acquires the right to plan everyone's diet? Really???? And how do you know unhealthy people actually cost taxpayers money instead of dropping dead sooner and collecting less social security?

[giblets]

And I love how that whole 'you elitist **** think you know better than everybody else' waits until I come to the thread. That was the direction the previous thread on this topic that I posted went...

Very interesting though that no one makes those claims against The Mad Monk and anyone else who supported that position in this thread... it waits until I post.

See what I mean, Guynemer? It's the Apolyton Twilight Zone double-standard.

Pretty much anyone else could participate in this thread without making the outrageous claim that Americans are too stupid to realize cookies and ice cream are bad for them.

[Al B. Sure!]

Here's the original thread:

http://apolyton.net/showthread.php/191601-Why-doesn-t-the-gov-t-legislate-what-people-buy-with-food-stamps

As you can see, it went 9 pages. Sorry, The Mad Monk, but we had this discussion before. Even trying to appeal to the idea that it's our tax dollars and so that gives us the right to determine what it is spent on didn't fly.

[Al B. Sure!]

National security implications? We're going to get invaded if we have too many fat people?

Do you try to be an idiot? How the **** do you get 'we'll be invaded because we have too many fat people' out of the very obvious to a normal ****ing person... that high obesity rates reduces the force pool for recruitment and conscription.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57393115/too-fat-to-serve-military-wages-war-on-obesity/

The Pentagon spends more than $1 billion a year on medical care relating to weight and obesity. And America's growing weight problem means finding new troops fit enough to fight has never been more challenging.

Army recruiter Sgt. Laura Peterson says America's growing waistline is shrinking the pool of those qualified to serve.

"I've definitely seen the problem getting worse," she said. "The population has gotten bigger. They don't move as much."

Among 17- to 24-year-olds, 27 percent are too overweight for military service. Over the past 50 years, the number of women considered ineligible due to weight has tripled, and the number of men has doubled, officials say.

Retired Rear Adm. James Barnett has said of obesity, "(It's) not just a major health issue for our nation; it's also become a national security issue."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/04/too_fat_to_fight_obesity_and_n.html

The proportion of recruits rejected for being overweight jumped from 12 percent in 1995 to 21 percent in 2008. Other categories for rejection include failure to graduate from high school and having a criminal record.

The group cites federal health statistics that show more than 40 percent of adults from 17 to 24 are overweight or obese in 39 states — up from only one state a decade ago. In Kentucky, Alabama and Mississippi, more than half of young adults are too heavy, according to the definition used by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The new report says the military discharges more than 1,200 first-term enlistees each year because of weight problems. That costs the armed services about $50,000 per person — or $60 million — to recruit and train replacements.

The average overweight 17-to-24-year-old would have to lose 34 pounds to achieve "normal" weight, the CDC says.

[giblets]

Do you try to be an idiot? How the **** do you get 'we'll be invaded because we have too many fat people' out of the very obvious to a normal ****ing person... that high obesity rates reduces the force pool for recruitment and conscription.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57393115/too-fat-to-serve-military-wages-war-on-obesity/

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010...ity_and_n.html

So ****ing what? The military is fretting over things that won't actually matter. If we really did need more soldiers to defend the country and all the potential recruits were too fat, then the military can conscript people and force them to lose weight.

Oh right, you're willing to attempt to join the marines THREE TIMES putting your life on hold in the process but no one would lose weight so they could join the military.

[Dinner]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...vertising.html



Americans are ****ing stupid.

Then you have low-fat cakes and stuff that people swear are healthy (they're even marketed as diet food) when the sugar is still there and often more sugar is added to make up for the fat removal.

Yeah, she is stupid and probably poor and that's why she lives in Imperial Beach. It's right up against the border, the schools suck, and the Tijuana sewer... er, I mean river goes right through the middle of town. That means the raw untreated sewage of all 1.2 million people in Tijuana floats right by her house and you can't go into the ocean there without getting sick (too much sewage waste). On the upside its probably the only place left in Southern California where you can be poor but live right next to the beach. You just have to have no sense of smell and not mind all the garbage washing up on shore.

[Dinner]

I used to live in an area like that in Vancouver.

Funny thing - they had a close grocery store, several of them in fact. Why isn't it still open? Theft put them out of business. It wasn't just there, it was several of them, all trying to make a go of it there.

Look up what a food desert is and then imagine you live in one without a car.

[Dinner]

That said, I went with a friend down to Tijuana last weekend and the food was great, the restaurant Mision 19 served some amazingly good "Baja Med" cuisine using all local ingredients (their fresh local shellfish and local cheeses were especially good though Mexican wine still leaves something to be desired) was great while the prices were easily half what they'd be in California. The staff all spoke English too.

Now if we could only get them to build a sewer treatment plant or start using the one US taxpayers spent tens of millions of dollars building for them then we would be on to something good.

[Ben Kenobi]

Look up what a food desert is and then imagine you live in one without a car.

Apparently I just said so - the reason there are no businesses there is because the businesses went out of business previously. Too much theft.

[Guynemer]

Yeah, if people don't spend money the way YOU would spend it then they're dumb and you should be in charge of telling them what to consume. I know. Yeah, I can't wait to live in a world where all candy, soda cookies and cakes are banned because some elitist ***** decided he knows what's best for everyone.

No one wants to ban candy, pop, cookies, or cake. But the government should not subsidize the purchase of those products. That seems a no-brainer to me.

[loinburger]

Beggar: Hey can I have some booze?
loin: No, but you can have a sandwich...
Beggar: You elitist *****!

[Az]

stop paronizing me!
Re: fruit, the name of the game here is fructose. Fructose is half of a couple of carb molecules that make up things such as:
-Sugar
-HFCS
(these are very similar in ingredients by the way)

Even if you don't stick to a low-medium carb diet, fructose has a whole host issues to be avoided-
a) It is not actually a direct nutrient - it can be metabolized by the liver only, and stored as fat.
b) It causes leptin resistance. leptin, mind you, is the hormon regulating obesity. It also somewhat blocks it, AFAIK, so prevents you from stopping being hungry.
c) It raises level of triglycerides - the one factor which has been truly directly link to heart desease, unlike total cholesterol levels, or others.

Our love for fructose is pretty natural. Fruit in nature are:
a) not as abundant as we have them year-long.
b) are very short lived once they ripen.
c) prepare us for a rather unpleasant winter of getting skinnier and sitting on our asses.


If guynemer has any correction on my .99c babble, I'd appreciate it.