[POLL] Do You Support Socialized Food?

[HardcoreRobot]

wow, lots of communists in this thread

also, hardcore you look like an idiot

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Hardcore

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: biostud
It's not like many people die of hunger in US, rather the opposite. But maybe it should be more expensive to buy unhealthy food than healthy.

Well, socialized food would mean an end to unhealthy foods as the government nanny-state would control all food production.

LOLOL nanny-state, is that suppose to be an insult? You conservatives want government controlled of all 'moral' issues, like drug use, profanity and nudity on tv, etc, but when it actually comes to helping people and requires YOU to give up something, you won't.

Here's a clue, since you can't seem to find one:

I am not a political conservative. I oppose the Religious Right and everything it stands for. I oppose all morality laws, be they the religious morality proposed by the RR, or the social morality proposed by the socialist liberals.

I give up roughly 20% of my income to charities. How much do you contribute?

As for your Bush quote, I find it laughable that a liberal would try and use a quote like that against him... when the liberal agenda robs individuals of just as many, if not more freedoms than the conservative agenda.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Hardcore

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: biostud
It's not like many people die of hunger in US, rather the opposite. But maybe it should be more expensive to buy unhealthy food than healthy.

Well, socialized food would mean an end to unhealthy foods as the government nanny-state would control all food production.

LOLOL nanny-state, is that suppose to be an insult? You conservatives want government controlled of all 'moral' issues, like drug use, profanity and nudity on tv, etc, but when it actually comes to helping people and requires YOU to give up something, you won't.

Amused has always struck me as more of a libertarian than a neo-con. You're reading something that isn't there.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

also, hardcore you look like an idiot

You should know. You're his robot.

 

[Looney]

I give up roughly 20% of my income to charities. How much do you contribute?

I don't give up anything, but that's because i have a 14" penis. LOLOL easy to make claims on teh interweb isn't it?

As for your Bush quote, I find it laughable that a liberal would try and use a quote like that against him... when the liberal agenda robs individuals of just as many, if not more freedoms than the conservative agenda.

Yes, my agenda is to rob everybody of freedom! You found me out.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

also, hardcore you look like an idiot

Awww please don't hurt my feelings.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Hardcore

I give up roughly 20% of my income to charities. How much do you contribute?

I don't give up anything, but that's because i have a 14" penis. LOLOL easy to make claims on teh interweb isn't it?

As for your Bush quote, I find it laughable that a liberal would try and use a quote like that against him... when the liberal agenda robs individuals of just as many, if not more freedoms than the conservative agenda.

Yes, my agenda is to rob everybody of freedom! You found me out.

It was very clever of you to completely avoid the point that you made assumptions about my political positions that were totally false. It was even more clever of you to continue to insult me rather than admit your mistake.

Good luck with that penis.

 

[JDub02]

We already have socialized food. It's called WIC / food stamps, whatever.

If you's po', you's gets the gub'ment cheese.



My position is this, the government should stay far, far away from the charity business. Let the charities handle it. My church helps out alot of people with bills and food and is not forcefully taking money off of anyone.

 

[Looney]

It was very clever of you to completely avoid the point that you made assumptions about my political positions that were totally false. It was even more clever of you to continue to insult me rather than admit your mistake.

Avoid what point? That i don't know who you are, and made the assumption based on the basis of your thread? awww should i apologize, because you're an ELITE, and i SHOULD know about you, but i don't?

I AM SORRY AMUSED! I DID NOT KNOW WHO YOU ARE. I AM SOOO SORRY!

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Hardcore

It was very clever of you to completely avoid the point that you made assumptions about my political positions that were totally false. It was even more clever of you to continue to insult me rather than admit your mistake.

Avoid what point? That i don't know who you are, and made the assumption based on the basis of your thread? awww should i apologize, because you're an ELITE, and i SHOULD know about you, but i don't?

I AM SORRY AMUSED! I DID NOT KNOW WHO YOU ARE. I AM SOOO SORRY!

That is very mature.:roll:

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Hardcore

It was very clever of you to completely avoid the point that you made assumptions about my political positions that were totally false. It was even more clever of you to continue to insult me rather than admit your mistake.

Avoid what point? That i don't know who you are, and made the assumption based on the basis of your thread? awww should i apologize, because you're an ELITE, and i SHOULD know about you, but i don't?

I AM SORRY AMUSED! I DID NOT KNOW WHO YOU ARE. I AM SOOO SORRY!

My Elite status has nothing to do with it.

I would figure someone who has been around as long as you have and posted as often as you have would have seen at least ONE of my political debates.

At any rate, my problem lies in you making wild assumptions, not in the fact that you don't already know my positions.

As for your GWB quote. It's still laughably hypocritical. You do realize that socialism requires the limitation of freedoms, right? That the "nanny-state" term you took as an insult is named that because the laws passed in it's name require the limitation of freedoms.

Helmet laws? A limit to freedom
Seatbelt laws? A limit to freedom
Business regulation? A limit to freedom.
Gun Control? A limit to freedom
Sin taxes on anything deemed unhealthy? A limit to freedom
Socialism? A limit to freedom

I could go on, but why?

 

[deerslayer]

No.

 

[blakeatwork]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: DurocShark
I don't support socialized anything (except maybe sex?)

Socialized Sex = Comrade Sutra

Boooo!!!



There's too many econmic variables that would have to be changed for something like "social food growing" to be considered. Farmers have to make money to cover the costs of the fertilizer/seeds/equipment etc. Too much to figure out in a forum thread...

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: blakeatwork

There's too many econmic variables that would have to be changed for something like "social food growing" to be considered. Farmers have to make money to cover the costs of the fertilizer/seeds/equipment etc. Too much to figure out in a forum thread...

Wouldn't the same hold true for medicine?

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
you get plenty of free food in the military

And its REALLY good too....


HAHAHAHAHA

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: FoBoT
you get plenty of free food in the military

And its REALLY good too....


HAHAHAHAHA

Actually, I was SO damn hungry all the time in Basic and AIT that I LOVED the food.

I would actually try to get on KP so I could eat the untouched leftovers.

 

[GasX]

Originally posted by: Queasy
Socialized food? So instead of a Whopper I'd get a Comrade Whopper with Comrade Fries and a Comrade Diet Coke?

No, you would get the opportunity to stand in line for a Comrade Whopper with Comrade Fries and a Comrade Diet Coke...

 

[blakeatwork]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: blakeatwork

There's too many econmic variables that would have to be changed for something like "social food growing" to be considered. Farmers have to make money to cover the costs of the fertilizer/seeds/equipment etc. Too much to figure out in a forum thread...

Wouldn't the same hold true for medicine?

Dunno... i'm not talking about medicine on AT... liable to get my throat slashed... Besides, I'm a Commie Canadian... however, I think basic medicines (not insurance, doctor visits, but medicine) should be one of those things things that shouldn't cost a potential arm and leg, becuase an R&D department has to pay an executive bigwig millions to sit and boast about his product. but that's another argument that i don't want to get into this thread...

 

[Looney]

I would figure someone who has been around as long as you have and posted as often as you have would have seen at least ONE of my political debates.

Sorry, but i just don't remembered what your political stance are. I may have a high post counts, but i visit this forum in spurts, and i certainly don't always read the political threads.

At any rate, my problem lies in you making wild assumptions, not in the fact that you don't already know my positions.

Well then why do you need an apology?

As for your GWB quote. It's still laughably hypocritical. You do realize that socialism requires the limitation of freedoms, right? That the "nanny-state" term you took as an insult is named that because the laws passed in it's name require the limitation of freedoms.

Helmet laws? A limit to freedom
Seatbelt laws? A limit to freedom
Business regulation? A limit to freedom.
Gun Control? A limit to freedom
Sin taxes on anything deemed unhealthy? A limit to freedom
Socialism? A limit to freedom

I could go on, but why?

Hey, i'm all for socialism! I just put that in for the Bush fans.

 

[BigToque]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Hardcore

It was very clever of you to completely avoid the point that you made assumptions about my political positions that were totally false. It was even more clever of you to continue to insult me rather than admit your mistake.

Avoid what point? That i don't know who you are, and made the assumption based on the basis of your thread? awww should i apologize, because you're an ELITE, and i SHOULD know about you, but i don't?

I AM SORRY AMUSED! I DID NOT KNOW WHO YOU ARE. I AM SOOO SORRY!

My Elite status has nothing to do with it.

I would figure someone who has been around as long as you have and posted as often as you have would have seen at least ONE of my political debates.

At any rate, my problem lies in you making wild assumptions, not in the fact that you don't already know my positions.

As for your GWB quote. It's still laughably hypocritical. You do realize that socialism requires the limitation of freedoms, right? That the "nanny-state" term you took as an insult is named that because the laws passed in it's name require the limitation of freedoms.

Helmet laws? A limit to freedom
Seatbelt laws? A limit to freedom
Business regulation? A limit to freedom.
Gun Control? A limit to freedom
Sin taxes on anything deemed unhealthy? A limit to freedom
Socialism? A limit to freedom

I could go on, but why?

With regards to the seatbelt law... driving is a privledge, not a right. When you drive without a seatbelt (I don't know why anyone would), you have to realize in the event of an accident the chance that your carcass gets thrown from the vehicle goes up and therefore you endanger the lives of everyone driving around you that has to swerve to not run you over. Therefore to minimize the chance you have of killing someone else, you are required to be fastened in your seat.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Amused

Helmet laws? A limit to freedom
Seatbelt laws? A limit to freedom
Business regulation? A limit to freedom.
Gun Control? A limit to freedom
Sin taxes on anything deemed unhealthy? A limit to freedom
Socialism? A limit to freedom

I could go on, but why?

of course, the trick is to balance limits to find an optimal mix. if there are very few limits then everyone is stepping on everyone else's toes (if not worse).

 

[ShotgunSteven]

As someone from Canada told me in regards to socialized medicine, it is the most beneficial for people that cannot otherwise afford or get access to health care. The people that can, on the other hand, go across the border to the U.S. because the quality is better and you don't have to wait for months for a procedure.

I imagine it would be the same way with food. It would be most beneficial to the people that couldn't afford food to begin with, but those that have sufficient income would find themselves less than pleased with what was available from Nanny Sam.

 

[SagaLore]

I support a junk food tax, and tax incentives to the vegetable industry.

I had an idea years back where nobody would have kitchens anymore, and there were restaurants. There were just "cafeterias" that fed everyone for free, and the food selection was regulated by a government department to ensure proper health. In fact I think I brought it up here. The problem is that looking at school food, you know the government has no clue about "health", and everyone is of different size and metabolism and nutritional needs so any kind of limit on portions and selection would end up unfair.

So I go back to my statement about junk food tax and vegetable incentives.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Amused

Helmet laws? A limit to freedom
Seatbelt laws? A limit to freedom
Business regulation? A limit to freedom.
Gun Control? A limit to freedom
Sin taxes on anything deemed unhealthy? A limit to freedom
Socialism? A limit to freedom

I could go on, but why?

of course, the trick is to balance limits to find an optimal mix. if there are very few limits then everyone is stepping on everyone else's toes (if not worse).

The limit should then be: Do not step on other's toes.

The limits should not be: Size and style limitations on shoes. Waiting periods for shoes. Required safety classes and licensing for walking and a ban on all close dancing.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Stefan

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Hardcore

It was very clever of you to completely avoid the point that you made assumptions about my political positions that were totally false. It was even more clever of you to continue to insult me rather than admit your mistake.

Avoid what point? That i don't know who you are, and made the assumption based on the basis of your thread? awww should i apologize, because you're an ELITE, and i SHOULD know about you, but i don't?

I AM SORRY AMUSED! I DID NOT KNOW WHO YOU ARE. I AM SOOO SORRY!

My Elite status has nothing to do with it.

I would figure someone who has been around as long as you have and posted as often as you have would have seen at least ONE of my political debates.

At any rate, my problem lies in you making wild assumptions, not in the fact that you don't already know my positions.

As for your GWB quote. It's still laughably hypocritical. You do realize that socialism requires the limitation of freedoms, right? That the "nanny-state" term you took as an insult is named that because the laws passed in it's name require the limitation of freedoms.

Helmet laws? A limit to freedom
Seatbelt laws? A limit to freedom
Business regulation? A limit to freedom.
Gun Control? A limit to freedom
Sin taxes on anything deemed unhealthy? A limit to freedom
Socialism? A limit to freedom

I could go on, but why?

With regards to the seatbelt law... driving is a privledge, not a right. When you drive without a seatbelt (I don't know why anyone would), you have to realize in the event of an accident the chance that your carcass gets thrown from the vehicle goes up and therefore you endanger the lives of everyone driving around you that has to swerve to not run you over. Therefore to minimize the chance you have of killing someone else, you are required to be fastened in your seat.

Oh BULLSH!T. Please post one, much less a pattern of incidents in which an unbelted driver injured another person through the direct result of not wearing a belt.

The MAIN reason for the law is nanny-state busybodism. The left feels that in it's elitism it can dictate what is best for you, and you are too stupid to take on increased risks with anything involving your own life or health. It is NO better than the RR trying to pass laws to protect your soul.

The secondary reason is socialism. If society has to pay for your mistakes, it will outlaw them every chance it gets.