Nanny govt and pettiness continues...after restaurants

Status
Not open for further replies.
And sorry. My experience here is that Democrats are the party of cry babies
and gimme gimme gimme
 
TXgolfer said:
And sorry. My experience here is that Democrats are the party of cry babies
and gimme gimme gimme
Click to expand...

Sounds like my kids from time to time.

I want, I want! Gimme, gimme, gimme!


I tell them.... Money doesn't grow on trees.

Just though to add that input.
 
Babyblue said:
Sounds like my kids from time to time.

I want, I want! Gimme, gimme, gimme!


I tell them.... Money doesn't grow on trees.

Just though to add that input.
Click to expand...

Now that I have resigned you should be President.
 
What would you do differently if it were you making the changes to the bill?


I agree with the intent behind making a count of calories open to the public.

I don't agree with the business' being forced to change it.

You have to admit....there is a growing trend...obesity in the population and it starts out with children.....one of my sons is husky and getting more husky because his dad is too lazy to cook and feeds them both McD's burger king, pizza and all sorts of things.

I think it is the governments way of a step to being a healthy country, ...but how they are doing it...there is another way...
 
I'm not surprise about this thread. :iough:
 
TXgolfer said:
And sorry. My experience here is that Democrats are the party of cry babies
and gimme gimme gimme
Click to expand...

Just wondering, do you mean "here" as in this forum? Or in your real life? In my life, I mainly know democrats. All of them have good jobs and are hard workers. Very few are "crybabies."

In my experience the "crybabies" and "gimme gimme gimme" types are people with neither a political association, nor the fortitude to go vote. I think conservatives, especially as of late with the whole Tea Party movement, have a pretty skewed tendency to "other" anyone who isn't in their own narrow mindset and label them as a "liberal" or democrat.

Let me ask you this hypothetical question: If I work hard for what I earn, and I do and always have, even if it is not much, don't I deserve the right to express my opinion on how taxes should be spent?

Oh wait, that sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Conservative have some silly notion that they are the only people making money in this country and thus are the only people who should decide how taxes are used. I think you'd be pretty shocked to see the real numbers.
 
TheWriteAlex said:
Just wondering, do you mean "here" as in this forum? Or in your real life? In my life, I mainly know democrats. All of them have good jobs and are hard workers. Very few are "crybabies."

In my experience the "crybabies" and "gimme gimme gimme" types are people with neither a political association, nor the fortitude to go vote. I think conservatives, especially as of late with the whole Tea Party movement, have a pretty skewed tendency to "other" anyone who isn't in their own narrow mindset and label them as a "liberal" or democrat.

Let me ask you this hypothetical question: If I work hard for what I earn, and I do and always have, even if it is not much, don't I deserve the right to express my opinion on how taxes should be spent?

Oh wait, that sounds familiar, doesn't

Conservative have some silly notion that they are the only people making money in this country and thus are the only people who should decide how taxes are used. I think you'd be pretty shocked to see the real numbers.
Click to expand...

I was referring to real life.

Everyone has the right to their opinion.....that is why we would be better off letting states handle these issues. Then people who believe as I do could choose to live in a state that fits our philosophy and vice versa. :)

Everybody can be happy.
 
I might add that it might be different if we were all taxed at the same rate. It does seem a little ridiculous that person A pays 22% and person B pays 40% yet the person that pays 22% has an equal say in whether person B should pay more and what they should pay for.

If that person paying 22% was paying 40% they might have a different opinion about how much we spend and how we spend it. Some might argue that Person B isn't getting fair representation.
 
yizuman said:
What business is to a Government as to what we eat?

Yiz
Click to expand...

read again. the government is not deciding what you can eat. the government is requiring the food place to post nutritional information so that you can make an informed decision.

How do you know if you're eating "healthy food" or not? Just because McDonald is touting its chicken nugget with massive advertisement and big print - "white meat". Misleading, isn't it?

watch Food, Inc. and you'll see how deep the government is in food industry's pocket. so deep that it's the food industry that actually controls the government to their profitable gain and it controls how you eat.
 
TXgolfer said:
I was referring to real life.

Everyone has the right to their opinion.....that is why we would be better off letting states handle these issues. Then people who believe as I do could choose to live in a state that fits our philosophy and vice versa. :)

Everybody can be happy.
Click to expand...

Hey, I agree with you there, in theory. I wish California could be its own country (and I bet everyone else does as well. LOL!) The only problem is poor states don't have enough money to provide even basic necessities for their constituents, like education and infrastructure. In those cases, a Federal safety net must be in place. (Ironically, the states that all require more federal aid than what they pay into the system are all "red" states). Also, for every person that doesn't want to live in a state with government sponsored healthcare, I can guarantee you there are at least three who do. States that provide healthcare would eventually be overloaded.
 
kokonut said:
Counting calories is fine. Jst that it's just the pettiness of this bill that will hurt smaller chains which tend to be more local in nature than regional or nationwide ones like Pizza Hut or Chilis. In making changes on a menu it would be easier to do for larger chains. But not so for smaller chains costing them perhaps a few hundred thousand dollars to analyze their food specialties and revamping menus in all restaurants. It becomes harder, financially so, o the smaller sized chains. All this permeates an anti-growth policy treating adults like children. Elitist snobbery over common sense.
Click to expand...

I don't know about you but if the chain restaurant has 20 or more.... I'm sure it can shit a few hundred thousand dollars to analyze their food. one time only.
 
Jiro said:
I don't know about you but if the chain restaurant has 20 or more.... I'm sure it can shit a few hundred thousand dollars to analyze their food. one time only.
Click to expand...

I doubt it would cost that much.

Also, people have a right to know what they are putting in their body. Food we buy at the grocery store all has this information. Why not food at a restaurant?
 
TheWriteAlex said:
I doubt it would cost that much.

Also, people have a right to know what they are putting in their body. Food we buy at the grocery store all has this information. Why not food at a restaurant?
Click to expand...

and where it came from and whether or not is it approved by certain organization/agency for its organic claim.
 
Years ago when Oregon worked on a state health care plan population growth was a concern.....But it didn't happen. I will have to look it up but I haven't heard of a mass exodus to MA either. Texas on the other hand is rapidly growing.
 
TXgolfer said:
Years ago when Oregon worked on a state health care plan population growth was a concern.....But it didn't happen. I will have to look it up but I haven't heard of a mass exodus to MA either. Texas on the other hand is rapidly growing.
Click to expand...

That's cause nobody gives a rat's ass about Oregon and Mass. has no room for newcomers anyway :)

Given the choice out of those three, I would probably move to Texas, too... but only Austin ;)
 
At least liberals are not squatting in foreclosed homes... complaining about lices, scabbies and crabs and how Lindane is slowly killing them off, yet they refuse to work because the hourly wage system's not anarchy.
 
TXgolfer said:
I might add that it might be different if we were all taxed at the same rate. It does seem a little ridiculous that person A pays 22% and person B pays 40% yet the person that pays 22% has an equal say in whether person B should pay more and what they should pay for.

If that person paying 22% was paying 40% they might have a different opinion about how much we spend and how we spend it. Some might argue that Person B isn't getting fair representation.
Click to expand...

LOL...

And the liberals will argue that with flat tax, those who are making more will influence the government with their money; but with progressive tax-- everyone got a fair say.

Ah well.

That's my political stance is "playing in the sandbox," because everyone got all these ideas-- but anything can happen when applied to real life.
 
Jiro said:
read again. the government is not deciding what you can eat. the government is requiring the food place to post nutritional information so that you can make an informed decision.

How do you know if you're eating "healthy food" or not? Just because McDonald is touting its chicken nugget with massive advertisement and big print - "white meat". Misleading, isn't it?

watch Food, Inc. and you'll see how deep the government is in food industry's pocket. so deep that it's the food industry that actually controls the government to their profitable gain and it controls how you eat.
Click to expand...

Well, if we follow the above line of thinking, we can say the government allowed all those unhealthy items in the food supply. Then onec in a while, they make the food people reveal what's in our food.....vicious cycle, isn't it? Now look at where we are.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top