People who want to tell other people how to live - is this a red state thing? (Phoenix: camps, association)

[Nanny Goat]

I don't think the govt. should tell people what to eat. But, obesity is a public health issue. It's a fine line, though. No one wants to be told what to eat.
But, with similiar issues--what about the air and water quality? SHould the gov't stay out of that? And, tainted food outbreaks? Influenza outbreaks?

[Java Jolt]

Originally Posted by Bondurant

This thread is going nowhere and has nothing to do with Phoenix. Before it, hopefully, is moved or locked I will say this...

It's scary that people support laws that dictate who can eat what. We are entering a frightening era in this country. Our civil liberties are erroding and the spiral continues under Obama. "The Government knos best" mentality will be the deathknell of the United States. Wake up. It starts with smaller things that people will accept and ignore...

So our civil liberties weren't eroding under Bush?

The Patriot Act and all this tight airport security restricting what we can take aboard flights came about under Bush and a mostly republican-controlled congress.

Controlling what we do in our everyday lives isn't just a liberal, left-wing issue, people on the extremes of both the left and right sides are guilty of this.

[Bondurant]

Originally Posted by Java Jolt

So our civil liberties weren't eroding under Bush?

The Patriot Act and all this tight airport security restricting what we can take aboard flights came about under Bush and a mostly republican-controlled congress.

Controlling what we do in our everyday lives isn't just a liberal, left-wing issue, people on the extremes of both the left and right sides are guilty of this.

I think you should re-read what I wrote.

"continues under Obama"

[Java Jolt]

Originally Posted by Bondurant

I think you should re-read what I wrote.

"continues under Obama"

In that sense I agree with you, it just didn't read that way in the entire statement.

[MotleyCrew]

Originally Posted by Cyborg13

Actually the nutritional Nazism is on the left...look no further than San Francisco's ban on kid's meal toys, the proposed New York salt ban, etc. Pot, kettle, black.

I believe they have the left who are pushing the weight police on the American people, confused with the right who embrace personal freedom, even the freedom to be larger than the anorexic models they keep pushing on us. Mistygirl needs, desires, to return to CA, and should explore life in San Francisco where Happy Meals have been branded toxic waste. I see the left as more intrusive into personal lives than the right have ever been. Salt anyone?

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

But children can't decide how much or what to eat, whether to get Whooping cough vaccinations or much of anything. If parents make bad choices, children can suffer. So does it make sense to outlaw Happy Meals? Do parents have the right to destroy or neglect their children's health? To run up future costs to society for life-long problems that will begin with bad habits parents taught their kids? If it's OK for parents to make decisions about food choices that will impact their health, is is OK to beat them? to molest them? to give them alcohol? drugs? How about mutilation in religious tradition? Honor killings? Do we use your list of taboos or the liberals' list? I suppose you would want us to use yours, which makes you just like everyone else: telling others how to live, believing your beliefs are better than mine.

Parents by their nature take care of their children. That is kind of what it means to be a parent. You brought up points that have nothing to do with being a parent. Alcohol is allready against the law for children. Molesting a child is allready against the law. Those parents that participate in those events are no longer acting as a parent but of a predator. The actions that you are proposing are not common towards someone that is rasing a child. Feeding a child is a common thing. The ability to choose how I as a parent feed my children is between me and my wife. Saying all that this discussion started out as being between adults and has nothing to do with how I or anyone raise our children. As an adult I don't need anyone to tell me what or how much of something I can eat.

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

Originally Posted by Java Jolt

So our civil liberties weren't eroding under Bush?

The Patriot Act and all this tight airport security restricting what we can take aboard flights came about under Bush and a mostly republican-controlled congress.

Controlling what we do in our everyday lives isn't just a liberal, left-wing issue, people on the extremes of both the left and right sides are guilty of this.

When what you do effects those around you on a plane at 30,000 feet then you give up the rights to act as you want. If you want those rights restored buy your own plane. No one tells me what I can or can't carry on my airplane. Most people that I know that fly commercial are thinking that all those people that went through what they did to get on the plane are probably not carrying anything that will hurt or maim those on the plane. They also feel safer when they board the plane because of the safety checkes that are in effect. That does not keep you from doing your own thing in your own aircraft, car, or home. The key here is how what you do effects others around you. We all know it is unsafe to drive under the influence. You could kill someone else or yourself. Should we then tell people that they should not drink at all? Lets say that you are at home drinking. You are not hurting anyone. Lets say that some Government person belives that the possibility exists that you could hurt someone and then takes your rights away. That is givernment encroaching on our personal life while your example is far off the mark.

[Java Jolt]

Originally Posted by MotleyCrew

I believe they have the left who are pushing the weight police on the American people, confused with the right who embrace personal freedom, even the freedom to be larger than the anorexic models they keep pushing on us. Mistygirl needs, desires, to return to CA, and should explore life in San Francisco where Happy Meals have been branded toxic waste. I see the left as more intrusive into personal lives than the right have ever been. Salt anyone?

Not so fast.

It is people on both extremes who race for more control of our everyday lives but I see the ultraconservatives as being the overall winners of that race.

Denying marriage and adoption rights to gays, calling for an overturn of Roe v. Wade and restricting abortion access, opposing medicinal marijuana, favoring police actions over citizens' civil rights, strip-searches and patdowns in airports.

It isn't the liberals who advocate all those things.

[Java Jolt]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

When what you do effects those around you on a plane at 30,000 feet then you give up the rights to act as you want. If you want those rights restored buy your own plane. No one tells me what I can or can't carry on my airplane. Most people that I know that fly commercial are thinking that all those people that went through what they did to get on the plane are probably not carrying anything that will hurt or maim those on the plane. They also feel safer when they board the plane because of the safety checkes that are in effect. That does not keep you from doing your own thing in your own aircraft, car, or home. The key here is how what you do effects others around you. We all know it is unsafe to drive under the influence. You could kill someone else or yourself. Should we then tell people that they should not drink at all? Lets say that you are at home drinking. You are not hurting anyone. Lets say that some Government person belives that the possibility exists that you could hurt someone and then takes your rights away. That is givernment encroaching on our personal life while your example is far off the mark.

So in other words you favor restrictions on the right to do as we want in a public location?

Sounds pretty strange being that conservatives are always preaching personal freedom and even favor unrestricted gun-carrying laws in crowded public places such as on the street and in bars and restaurants.

But we can't carry any remotely sharp objects that are possibly dangerous on an airline?

I don't get the logic.

Either you favor more government intervention or you don't. We can't just pick and choose what things or where we want the government to interfere.

[Ponderosa]

Originally Posted by Java Jolt

So in other words you favor restrictions on the right to do as we want in a public location?

Sounds pretty strange being that conservatives are always preaching personal freedom and even favor unrestricted gun-carrying laws in crowded public places such as on the street and in bars and restaurants.

But we can't carry any remotely sharp objects that are possibly dangerous on an airline?

I don't get the logic.

Either you favor more government intervention or you don't. We can't just pick and choose what things or where we want the government to interfere.

I think planes would be safer if everyone was allowed to carry guns on board.