Shadow Serious
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2009
- Messages
- 1,460
- Reaction score
- 395
- Location
- Oklahoma
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
The people who eat unhealthily are the ones responsible for their consequences of doing so.
I really want to know what a conservative taxpayer thinks about this:
If you support this unhealthy freedom, are you going to support the costs of this freedom through your taxes?
Freedom does not have a tax. If it has a user tax then it is not freedom.
If people don't want to be disgustingly overweight, they should stop eating themselves to death, and perhaps walk, or jog, or do some situps. I don't know, maybe just tell them to shut the hell up and take responsibility for the consequences of their actions, instead of demanding that the populace pay for their terrible life choices. If my taxes are to pay to get these human like objects in shape, I'd gladly support sending them to the Military, where they can pay the taxpayer back via contract. I don't believe in free rides, especially when the solution to the problem is less spending on food and fuel, and more time and effort spent on exercise that doesn't cost a dime. There's no justifiable excuse for this:We seem to be breaking down, wallowing in our debilitation and lack of willpower. There is a group of people in America that on one hand opines that we Americans should be allowed to slowly kill ourselves through unhealthy food, and on the other hand complain about increasing taxes for the costs of affording the results of said unhealthy living. You should not be able to have it both ways; either support unhealthy living and pay taxes because of it, or don't support unhealthy freedom and don't pay taxes for it.
Do you think our grandparents and great-grandparents were vegan ******s who ate nothing but salad? **** no they didn't eat vegan ***** food.They ate cheeseburgers, organ meats, french fries cooked in animal fat, candy bars,unfortified bread, stuff loaded with butter, stuff cooked in lard and other animal fat and a whole **** load of other unhealthy stuff.We do not need any regulation or food police to curb obesity. The cause of obesity is the fact Americans are living more sedimentary lives.Our jobs are more sedimentary and due to the length of distances some people have to travel to get to work or to a store we have to drive or ride to those places.
Maybe we can do something for public school kids and kids on public assistance so that they are not obese when they are in school.For example-
1. Make PE mandatory in all school grades.Get rid of a music class, foreign language class or some other elective to make it happen.
2.Get the schools to have recess and or make it mandatory.
3.Starting from kindergarten start offering only healthy low calorie food at public schools.Yeah there are kids who bring their own lunch to school, but a lot of kids are on the free or reduced price lunch program they will eat the food if they are hungry enough and if the food actually taste good.
4.Ban unhealthy food from public school vending machines.
5.Ban the following from food stamp and welfare purchases cookies,candies, cakes, sugary snacks, energy drinks and other junk food. As tax payers we most certainly have the right to demand that those asking for our help not waste the money we give them on junk food.
If people don't want to be disgustingly overweight, they should stop eating themselves to death, and perhaps walk, or jog, or do some situps. I don't know, maybe just tell them to shut the hell up and take responsibility for the consequences of their actions, instead of demanding that the populace pay for their terrible life choices. If my taxes are to pay to get these human like objects in shape, I'd gladly support sending them to the Military, where they can pay the taxpayer back via contract. I don't believe in free rides, especially when the solution to the problem is less spending on food and fuel, and more time and effort spent on exercise that doesn't cost a dime. There's no justifiable excuse for this:
View attachment 67128622
kinda funny, considering how you used taxes to justify your opinion in the thread about the girl being sent to jail for truancy.Geezus...another "my taxes blah blah blah" rant.
It means everything. They made the choice to be lard asses, they can live with it.Hate to tell you this (not really) but fat people pay taxes to. Those that are against making laws that attempt to force people to eat a certain way also pay taxes. So your claim of "my taxes" don't mean squat.
kinda funny, considering how you used taxes to justify your opinion in the thread about the girl being sent to jail for truancy.
It means everything. They made the choice to be lard asses, they can live with it.
It directly applies to will. If you want something, go and take it. Those who want to lose weight but can't typically have willpower weakness.
Losing weight has always been about willpower. Do you will yourself to eat healthier, to push yourself further and further, or to ignore the constant temptations?
That is an incentive, but others probably want an added incentive.
Why not just tax people based on body fat percentage?
I should also mention that there are other, better, alternatives to banning things. Such as promoting exercise for obese people by offering free or reduced priced programs that help them lose weight.
There are always exceptions to every rule. That even applies to the Rights in the Bill of Rights. Besides, there is a clear difference between banning someone from eating something and enforcing a truancy law that makes a kid that voluntarily signed up for school attend. On the other hand no one wants to get sick and use medical services.
Your taxes means just as much as someone who doesn't support bans on certain foods. Your taxes means just as much as the fat persons taxes. So in the over all picture, no, your taxes don't mean squat.
And they do live with it. You don't. You don't even have a say as to where your taxes are spent.
The people who eat unhealthily are the ones responsible for their consequences of doing so.
Yup.I gotta ask these two questions.
Do people have the right to eat? Yes or no?
Yup.Do people have the right to choose so long as they do not infringe on other peoples rights? Yes or no?
I should also mention that there are other, better, alternatives to banning things. Such as promoting exercise for obese people by offering free or reduced priced programs that help them lose weight.
The BMI is a load of ****. At 175lbs I'll have a six pack but my BMI is just inside the "overweight" category. Body fat percentage would be a far better measure.
Nothing is free. Someone is paying for those "free" classes.
Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2
Freedom does not have a tax. If it has a user tax then it is not freedom.
Says who. . . . .
If you support this freedom, will you support paying for the cost of this freedom through your taxes?
Actually, I do have a say since I'm a tax paying voter. It's my responsibility as an American to make my opinion known when I oppose, or even support a political issue that effects the population as a whole. Maybe I lose, maybe I win, it's a hell of a lot better than silent complacency, which is just a nice term for cowardice. That's something I will not do, and you telling me I don't have a say, or a choice only fuels that fire. I don't give a damn what they live with, because they inflicted that on themselves. Your little appeal to emotion won't work on me, because I lack empathy for those who consciously choose to destroy their own lives.
They could get on a treadmill for an hour every day, or taking a walk around the block, and cut down on the quantities and calories they eat. They could take personal accountability, and take it upon themselves to fix their own mistakes. But that's too hard, so money that could go to underfunded medical centers, and police departments, fixing up run down neighborhoods, fixing up schools, expanding colleges, helping small business owners, or hell, it could even just not be spent, and go towards or multi-trillion dollar deficit. But no, instead we get news reports that are supposed to make us feel sad enough to give them a pat on the back, and a free ride at the expense of people who need the medical care a hell of a lot more than they do. People with real disabilities, such as missing limbs, MS, leukemia, Parkinson's, etc. I have no sympathy for the obese, not one tiny fraction of a bit.
Yup.
Yup.
That is all.
Or minding your own fvcking business.
Offering help is in no way interfereing with peoples lives. So why not offer it?
There's nothing wrong with offering help.
But that doesn't mean one can boss other people around.
Freedom is the exercise of ones rights. "Rights" that come with user fees or taxes are not rights but privileges.
Without the ability to exercise ones rights one is not free and doesn't have freedom. If one doesn't have the right to eat what one wants without taxes or user fees than that is not a right.
I was responding to a statement made by Wake:
As you can see he was making a statement he used the word freedom and implied it had to be paid for in taxes (money).
The only thing that we need to pay for freedom is due diligennce.
In responce to your question WHO says this i simply point to the 10th admendment of the US Constitution. The federal government has no role in this and as far as I am concered the state goverments would have no role either since they have intrests for this either.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?