The Official Obama Scorecard Thread

[brvheart 1,752]

Incredibly stupid.I like New York's solution to the issue: require calories to be posted and that full nutritional information be readily available. After that, it's up to the individual to make their own choice. It's the government's job to see that the information is up to date, accurate, and easily found. It's the parent's choice whether they want their kid to have diabedes by age 8 or not.And this whole "the advertising is so manipulative" argument is total BS. Yes, it makes the kids want to go for the toy. But guess what: the kids don't have money and can't drive cars. They have to go through their parents first. And hopefully their parents are intelligent enough to say, "Though you want this crappy toy, it's not worth your ruining your health." Or even, "We'll only go once a week," or something like that.It's stupid laws like this that give democrats bad names and lose them elections. That's why I'm particularly angry about this. How many conservatives are not going to start arguments with, "First they took our Happy Meals..."

Welcome to the Republican party.

[CaneBrain 95]

But they have already banned what you can cook food in, haven't they. The whole 0 transfat thingy? I hate that govt. interferes in our lives in this way, but the 0 transfat thing will probably extend a lot of lives.

It is a very, very, very difficult line to balance. And the problem is there are things the left wants to be intrusive about (food, pollution, education, etc) and things the right wants to be intrusive about (marriage, drugs, sex education, etc).....because at the end of the day we SAY we don't want the government to ever be too intrusive but we really only CARE when they are intrusive about things we deem less important.Food is the only one I think is defensible and that is because we have set up a health care system where we literally share costs so someone making un-healthy decisions drives up health care costs for all. And like you said the transfat thing will extend lives. But even that makes me a little uncomfortable.I can't go in one thread and say Keep your filthy conservative government paws off my pot and then come in here and tell people they cant eat fast food. Because I am not Sarah Palin and being hypocritical bothers me.

Welcome to the Republican party.

If only this was true. Republicans just try to make our choices for us on different issues.

[Balloon guy 158]

It is a very, very, very difficult line to balance. And the problem is there are things the left wants to be intrusive about (food, pollution, education, etc) and things the right wants to be intrusive about (marriage, drugs, sex education, etc).....because at the end of the day we SAY we don't want the government to ever be too intrusive but we really only CARE when they are intrusive about things we deem less important.Food is the only one I think is defensible and that is because we have set up a health care system where we literally share costs so someone making un-healthy decisions drives up health care costs for all. And like you said the transfat thing will extend lives. But even that makes me a little uncomfortable.I can't go in one thread and say Keep your filthy conservative government paws off my pot and then come in here and tell people they cant eat fast food. Because I am not Sarah Palin and being hypocritical bothers me.If only this was true. Republicans just try to make our choices for us on different issues.

What about when the government outlaws things like Jet skiing and Snowboarding because people often times get hurt and they are paying our medical costs?If long term habits can be regulated, then short terms ones are next.Best to sell that motorcycle now, they will be illegal soon.

[Balloon guy 158]

If only this was true. Republicans just try to make our choices for us on different issues.

Ones that effect all of society, not just the individual.

[CaneBrain 95]

What about when the government outlaws things like Jet skiing and Snowboarding because people often times get hurt and they are paying our medical costs?If long term habits can be regulated, then short terms ones are next.Best to sell that motorcycle now, they will be illegal soon.

You do realize I just spent 97% of that post agreeing the government should not be outlawing things because prohibition does not work? I only said I can at least find a plausible argument for food restrictions.....And I would never go on a motorcycle anyway; I'm whatever the opposite of an adrenaline junkie is. edit: Boring. I'm boring.Also, what tard gets hurt on a jet ski?

[brvheart 1,752]

Fond childhood memories intentionally implanted by an evil corporation in order to sell me products that aren't good for me.. isn't that insidious (proceeding in a gradual, subtle way, but with harmful effects; harmful but enticing; developing so gradually as to be well established before becoming apparent)?They made me think something bad was good, without me knowing it until much later. Most people don't become aware of the trick though.

A sphincter says what?

[CaneBrain 95]

Ones that effect all of society, not just the individual.

lol. two guys married, society crumbles! National Health costs affect society a heck of a lot more than an increase in stable two parent couplings.Just another conservative thinking he knows what is best for society and that only he can tell what is acceptable intrusion and what is not.

[brvheart 1,752]

Food is the only one I think is defensible and that is because we have set up a health care system where we literally share costs so someone making un-healthy decisions drives up health care costs for all. And like you said the transfat thing will extend lives. But even that makes me a little uncomfortable.

What are you talking about? We don't share costs with anyone*. If Sweaty McNuggetski wants to eat fast food all day, he will be unhealthy and the free market will raise his insurance rates. The only time cost is shared is if he is one of the 12.7% of native-born citizens that are uninsured and has an emergency.

[Balloon guy 158]

lol. two guys married, society crumbles! National Health costs affect society a heck of a lot more than an increase in stable two parent couplings.Just another conservative thinking he knows what is best for society and that only he can tell what is acceptable intrusion and what is not.

Maybe there is an argument that the government shouldn't be paying for the health care of every person????Society makes lots of rules, some states do not allow alcohol to be sold on Sunday, they have a right to decide that for themselves.Not to have a federal government with the ability to dictate what they are allowed to decide for their own community.

[Balloon guy 158]

You do realize I just spent 97% of that post agreeing the government should not be outlawing things because prohibition does not work? I only said I can at least find a plausible argument for food restrictions.....And I would never go on a motorcycle anyway; I'm whatever the opposite of an adrenaline junkie is.

We call them women, or girls.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

It is a very, very, very difficult line to balance. And the problem is there are things the left wants to be intrusive about (food, pollution, education, etc) and things the right wants to be intrusive about (marriage, drugs, sex education, etc).....because at the end of the day we SAY we don't want the government to ever be too intrusive but we really only CARE when they are intrusive about things we deem less important.Food is the only one I think is defensible and that is because we have set up a health care system where we literally share costs so someone making un-healthy decisions drives up health care costs for all. And like you said the transfat thing will extend lives. But even that makes me a little uncomfortable.I can't go in one thread and say Keep your filthy conservative government paws off my pot and then come in here and tell people they cant eat fast food. Because I am not Sarah Palin and being hypocritical bothers me.If only this was true. Republicans just try to make our choices for us on different issues.

But overweight people, and smokers, ect. pay more for health insurance. As far as marriage, sex ed ect, I am much more lib on these things but I understand why conservatives bitch about them. If you want to live a promiscuous lifestyle and put condoms in boxes of crackerjacks that's fine with me, but don't make those who decide to marry and raise their own kids pay for those who don't. Unsupported children of single mothers are a great drain on this society. So you(not meaning you personally Cane) anti-religious zealots who blame everything bad in the world on religion, ignore the cost of "free love". Call us old fashioned, prude, racist, whatever you want to call us, but don't then turn around and bill us for the consequences of your hedonism.

[vbnautilus 48]

Eating fast food every now and again isn't harmful

Sure it is, its just more harmful the more you eat it. What you mean is that if you eat it infrequently enough the effects will be small enough that you probably won't notice them.

When you say most people don't become aware of the trick, what do you mean? If these childhood memories prevent you from discerning the true value/nature of the product as an adult, then I will grant you that something should be done about it.

I think that's a pretty good description of what happens. Human decision-making relies on a combination of rational thought with emotional weighting of incentive value. The emotional weighting part relies heavily on the memory of bodily states. See for example the somatic marker hypothesis (corroborated by the fact that people with brain damage who are unable to conjure up the past physiological states of their body make very odd decisions). The impressions that rewarding stimuli make in childhood are particularly strong in biasing later decision making. Consider, for instance, the lifelong sexual fetishes that can be formed by ones first sexual experiences. You make a child feel good and happy and you pair that with your product...even if that product is going to kill him, he is likely to still want it later on in life.

some sort of science-y answer

BOOM

[CaneBrain 95]

But overweight people, and smokers, ect. pay more for health insurance. As far as marriage, sex ed ect, I am much more lib on these things but I understand why conservatives bitch about them. If you want to live a promiscuous lifestyle and put condoms in boxes of crackerjacks that's fine with me, but don't make those who decide to marry and raise their own kids pay for those who don't. Unsupported children of single mothers are a great drain on this society. So you(not meaning you personally Cane) anti-religious zealots who blame everything bad in the world on religion, ignore the cost of "free love".

overweight people and smokers sometimes pay more. depends on their plan, employment, etc. that's why we often "share" costs. I'm overweight; I pay the same as my skinnier co-workers.In the same post you decried the drain of unsupported children of single mothers while bringing up giving away condoms as a joke. That's the sad irony of conservative views on this issue....the best way to stop more single mothers is to give out condoms and encourage their use (since stopping people from having sex is impossible)....which religious people are vehemently against bc contraception is a no-no. Could not make less sense.

What are you talking about? We don't share costs with anyone. If Sweaty McNuggetski wants to eat fast food all day, he will be unhealthy and the free market will raise his insurance rates. The only time cost is shared is if he is one of the 12% of the nation that is uninsured and has an emergency.

When insurance companies have to pay out more than they thought they would have to for sweaty mcnuggetski they raise everyone's premiums to make up the difference. It's not that fluid on an individual basis afaik.I am glad you recognize that we need to get those 12% insured though for the sake of us all.

[brvheart 1,752]

When insurance companies have to pay out more than they thought they would have to for sweaty mcnuggetski they raise everyone's premiums to make up the difference. It's not that fluid on an individual basis afaik.I am glad you recognize that we need to get those 12% insured though for the sake of us all.

Yes, but then you are free to choose a lower priced insurer.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

BOOM

Dammit.

[CaneBrain 95]

Yes, but then you are free to choose a lower priced insurer.

I agree which is why I said you could make a plausible argument about food regulations and bannings but ultimately even that should be off-limits. If I want to make free choices about pot and gambling and who should marry and such, I have to accept that I must give other people the option to eat fast food all they want even if it might affect my premiums indirectly.Now, how about conservatives do the same....

[brvheart 1,752]

I can't speak for conservatives. I think marriage and pot are state issues.

[El Guapo 8]

I can't speak for conservatives. I think marriage and pot are state issues.

Marriage yes, pot no.EDIT: Actually because of the IRS, marriage is a Federal issue as well.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

overweight people and smokers sometimes pay more. depends on their plan, employment, etc. that's why we often "share" costs. I'm overweight; I pay the same as my skinnier co-workers.

So what, f*c* skinny people, wormy looking bastards.

In the same post you decried the drain of unsupported children of single mothers while bringing up giving away condoms as a joke. That's the sad irony of conservative views on this issue....the best way to stop more single mothers is to give out condoms and encourage their use (since stopping people from having sex is impossible)....which religious people are vehemently against bc contraception is a no-no. Could not make less sense.

Places where condoms and birth control are more freely available is where most unwanted births occur? Now how do explain that?Stopping people from having sex is impossible, but certainly you would agree that 50 years ago teenage pregnacies and single motherhood was fairly rare by todays standards. Yet contaceptives were also rare back in that time. Contraceptives are only a no no in the Catholic Church. Abortion is a no no, but not contraception.

[CaneBrain 95]

So what, f*c* skinny people, wormy looking bastards.Places where condoms and birth control are more freely available is where most unwanted births occur? Now how do explain that?Stopping people from having sex is impossible, but certainly you would agree that 50 years ago teenage pregnacies and single motherhood was fairly rare by todays standards. Yet contaceptives were also rare back in that time. Contraceptives are only a no no in the Catholic Church. Abortion is a no no, but not contraception.

actually, I can never tell how much is just about more coverage. I think they just did abortions out of sight out of mind Cidar House Rules style back in the day.I have no idea if more unwanted births occur where birth control is freely available....I would have to see some data on that.....that does not sound correct on its face. I do know that studies show kids only exposed to abstinence education are more likely to not use condoms if (WHEN) they break down and do it.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

actually, I can never tell how much is just about more coverage. I think they just did abortions out of sight out of mind Cidar House Rules style back in the day.I have no idea if more unwanted births occur where birth control is freely available....I would have to see some data on that.....that does not sound correct on its face. I do know that studies show kids only exposed to abstinence education are more likely to not use condoms if (WHEN) they break down and do it.

No. abortion was a lot less frequent, though it certainly existed, and there were unwanted pregnancies, which were hidden but the fact is, school children weren't having sex back then, it wasn't impossible for a whole bunch of highschoolers to manage to make it through high school without having sex. Places where birth control is freely available, raises the amount of sexual activity which raises the amount of unwanted pregnancies, because even people who are willing to use birth control don't use it every time. (especially true of young people). Now there may be places that provide the arm implant for girls, which may be more effective, I haven't read much about that.

[CaneBrain 95]

Places where birth control is freely available, raises the amount of sexual activity which raises the amount of unwanted pregnancies, because even people who are willing to use birth control don't use it every time. (especially true of young people).

You are going to have to provide some sort of evidence for this because this sounds like complete BS. Sexual activity is not raised where birth control is available----horny teens are horny teens in all parts of the globe. Condoms do not incite lust. Being a teen does.http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa36...01/ai_n8793448/http://www.jstor.org/pss/2953334http://www.naturopathydigest.com/important...th/other/13.phphttp://connection.ebscohost.com/content/ar...1031811869.htmlhttp://www.scienceblog.com/community/older...D/20031653.htmlyeah, I am not buying your argument sorry. It appears the opposite of what you are saying is true.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

You are going to have to provide some sort of evidence for this because this sounds like complete BS. Sexual activity is not raised where birth control is available----horny teens are horny teens in all parts of the globe. Condoms do not incite lust. Being a teen does.http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa36...01/ai_n8793448/http://www.jstor.org/pss/2953334http://www.naturopathydigest.com/important...th/other/13.phphttp://connection.ebscohost.com/content/ar...1031811869.htmlhttp://www.scienceblog.com/community/older...D/20031653.htmlyeah, I am not buying your argument sorry. It appears the opposite of what you are saying is true.

blah, blah, blah, facts, facts, facts, So sick of you guys always demanding "evidence" and stuff every time I try to make an argument.

[strategy 4]

Marriage yes, pot no.EDIT: Actually because of the IRS, marriage is a Federal issue as well.

that's your opinion, or what? pot is treated as a federal issue but it is clearly not if we look at the spirit of the constitution.

[CaneBrain 95]

blah, blah, blah, facts, facts, facts, So sick of you guys always demanding "evidence" and stuff every time I try to make an argument.

lmaooooooooo.