Topic: New York makes it illegal to buy soda with food stamps.
Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago #2,217
jump !VIfloDyEYo joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later[^] [v] #40,447
Discriminatory. Don't force people to eat healthy. I mean, it's just soda too. So they can still get trans fat loaded cookies and shit?
Don't police peoples personal actions. If they want to spend some of their food stamps on soda, so what? It doesn't hurt anyone else. They aren't getting less food stamps.
Idiocy.
Don't police peoples personal actions. If they want to spend some of their food stamps on soda, so what? It doesn't hurt anyone else. They aren't getting less food stamps.
Idiocy.
(Edited 17 seconds later.)
Meowth joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 59 seconds later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #40,448
I don't agree with this. I would however think it's a great idea to ban the purchase of alcohol with food stamps. All I drink is soda, and I'm perfectly fine.
Also, @previous (jump !VIfloDyEYo).
Also, @previous (jump !VIfloDyEYo).
(Edited 23 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 21 seconds later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #40,449
@40,447 (jump !VIfloDyEYo)
> Discriminatory. Don't force people to eat healthy. I mean, it's just beer too. So they can still get trans fat loaded cookies and shit?
>
> Don't police peoples personal actions. If they want to spend some of their food stamps on beer, so what? It doesn't hurt anyone else. They aren't getting less food stamps.
So you must think it's discriminatory to ban alcohol from food stamps too then?
> Discriminatory. Don't force people to eat healthy. I mean, it's just beer too. So they can still get trans fat loaded cookies and shit?
>
> Don't police peoples personal actions. If they want to spend some of their food stamps on beer, so what? It doesn't hurt anyone else. They aren't getting less food stamps.
So you must think it's discriminatory to ban alcohol from food stamps too then?
(Edited 6 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #40,450
Here is why it is banned:
Food stamps are around to feed people, to nourish them. Soda does not do that.
Food stamps are around to feed people, to nourish them. Soda does not do that.
Meowth replied with this 15 years ago, 45 seconds later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #40,451
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #40,452
@40,448 (Meowth)
> I would however think it's a great idea to ban the purchase of alcohol with food stamps.
It's already banned.
> All I drink is soda, and I'm perfectly fine.
I'm sure you are, hell people can drink alcohol and eat candy too and be fine. Doesn't mean they should be able to use money for nourishment on it.
> I would however think it's a great idea to ban the purchase of alcohol with food stamps.
It's already banned.
> All I drink is soda, and I'm perfectly fine.
I'm sure you are, hell people can drink alcohol and eat candy too and be fine. Doesn't mean they should be able to use money for nourishment on it.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #40,455
Meowth replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #40,457
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 59 seconds later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #40,458
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #40,460
ITT: People who think "Soda is a human right".
Pay for your own soda.
Pay for your own soda.
Meowth replied with this 15 years ago, 56 seconds later, 25 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #40,461
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 46 seconds later, 26 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #40,462
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #40,463
@40,447 (jump !VIfloDyEYo)
If you're using the government's money, the government is well within its rights to tell you what you can and cannot do with it.
If you're using the government's money, the government is well within its rights to tell you what you can and cannot do with it.
brie !OudrPWaUDQ joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 39 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #40,465
lol that's gay. It's not just soda either, but other "sugary drinks".
You're supposed to be able to buy anything that's food with food stamps.
So when are they going to reclassify soda? They won't do it, so this is bullshit.
It's a slippery slope (lol), with this shit it won't be long before soda is banned entirely in New York.
You're supposed to be able to buy anything that's food with food stamps.
So when are they going to reclassify soda? They won't do it, so this is bullshit.
It's a slippery slope (lol), with this shit it won't be long before soda is banned entirely in New York.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 43 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #40,466
brie !OudrPWaUDQ replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #40,467
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 31 seconds later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #40,468
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 47 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #40,469
@40,465 (brie !OudrPWaUDQ)
> You're supposed to be able to buy anything that's food with food stamps.
This is a drink.
> So when are they going to reclassify soda? They won't do it, so this is bullshit.
There is no reason why the government should be paying for soda. Food stamps are to feed people, not pay for their candy (which is all soda is, water and sugar).
> It's a slippery slope (lol), with this shit it won't be long before soda is banned entirely in New York.
"The government won't pay for my booze/internet/vacation, it's only a matter of time before they ban booze/internet/vacation".
> You're supposed to be able to buy anything that's food with food stamps.
This is a drink.
> So when are they going to reclassify soda? They won't do it, so this is bullshit.
There is no reason why the government should be paying for soda. Food stamps are to feed people, not pay for their candy (which is all soda is, water and sugar).
> It's a slippery slope (lol), with this shit it won't be long before soda is banned entirely in New York.
"The government won't pay for my booze/internet/vacation, it's only a matter of time before they ban booze/internet/vacation".
(Edited 48 seconds later.)
brie !OudrPWaUDQ replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 50 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #40,470
@previous (A)
Why are soft drink manufacturers regulated by the FDA and the USDA if soda isn't considered a food?
Soda is a food and can be a part of a healthy diet, perhaps the state of New York should pay for nutritional education programs instead of doing this bullshit.
Why are soft drink manufacturers regulated by the FDA and the USDA if soda isn't considered a food?
Soda is a food and can be a part of a healthy diet, perhaps the state of New York should pay for nutritional education programs instead of doing this bullshit.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 54 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #40,471
@previous (brie !OudrPWaUDQ)
> Why are soft drink manufacturers regulated by the FDA and the USDA if soda isn't considered a food?
By that logic, drugs and lasers are food. The FDA is a big agency, and since both food and drink are consumed it makes sense to have the same agency regulating them.
> Soda is a food and can be a part of a healthy diet
Soda isn't healthy though. You can have it and still be healthy, and still be fit. The question is: Why should the government be paying for something like this?
> perhaps the state of New York should pay for nutritional education programs instead of doing this bullshit.
Perhaps the government shouldn't be paying for candy.
> Why are soft drink manufacturers regulated by the FDA and the USDA if soda isn't considered a food?
By that logic, drugs and lasers are food. The FDA is a big agency, and since both food and drink are consumed it makes sense to have the same agency regulating them.
> Soda is a food and can be a part of a healthy diet
Soda isn't healthy though. You can have it and still be healthy, and still be fit. The question is: Why should the government be paying for something like this?
> perhaps the state of New York should pay for nutritional education programs instead of doing this bullshit.
Perhaps the government shouldn't be paying for candy.
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 2 seconds later, 54 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #40,472
@40,470 (brie !OudrPWaUDQ)
No. It's more economically viable to just take it away.
Besides, what are you going to do about it? You're too fat to walk in a protest.
No. It's more economically viable to just take it away.
Besides, what are you going to do about it? You're too fat to walk in a protest.
brie !OudrPWaUDQ replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 55 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #40,474
@40,469 (A)
> "The government won't pay for my booze/internet/vacation, it's only a matter of time before they ban booze/internet/vacation".
Way to pick three things that the government, has previously banned(booze), is currently attempting to exert a major amount of control and regulation over(The Internet), and has made a pain in the fucking ass for most people (vacations).
> "The government won't pay for my booze/internet/vacation, it's only a matter of time before they ban booze/internet/vacation".
Way to pick three things that the government, has previously banned(booze), is currently attempting to exert a major amount of control and regulation over(The Internet), and has made a pain in the fucking ass for most people (vacations).
brie !OudrPWaUDQ double-posted this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #40,476
@40,471 (A)
> by that logic
Sorry, that's not how logic works. Try again.
> Soda isn't healthy though. You can have it and still be healthy, and still be fit. The question is: Why should the government be paying for something like this?
I never said that soda was healthy, but it is food. And the government isn't paying any more or any less just because someone had a soda instead of a pack of hotdogs.
> Perhaps the government shouldn't be paying for candy.
I'm sorry, what? I'll just take my leave here since you and Anon F over there are clearly just trolls who have no intention of having a legitimate discussion.
> by that logic
Sorry, that's not how logic works. Try again.
> Soda isn't healthy though. You can have it and still be healthy, and still be fit. The question is: Why should the government be paying for something like this?
I never said that soda was healthy, but it is food. And the government isn't paying any more or any less just because someone had a soda instead of a pack of hotdogs.
> Perhaps the government shouldn't be paying for candy.
I'm sorry, what? I'll just take my leave here since you and Anon F over there are clearly just trolls who have no intention of having a legitimate discussion.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 30 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #40,477
@40,474 (brie !OudrPWaUDQ)
You said the government not paying for something will lead to it getting banned.
By that logic, anything the government doesn't pay for would eventually get banned.
Booze was prohibited sure. It's not anymore. By your logic, not letting people get free booze is a step toward neo-prohibition.
The internet/vacations is not being regulated because it's not free. Correlation and causation, learn them.
You said the government not paying for something will lead to it getting banned.
By that logic, anything the government doesn't pay for would eventually get banned.
Booze was prohibited sure. It's not anymore. By your logic, not letting people get free booze is a step toward neo-prohibition.
The internet/vacations is not being regulated because it's not free. Correlation and causation, learn them.
brie !OudrPWaUDQ replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #40,478
@previous (A)
> By your logic
Again, that is not how it works. There is no such thing as "my logic".
And your point is retarded, that is clearly not what I was implying.
> By your logic
Again, that is not how it works. There is no such thing as "my logic".
And your point is retarded, that is clearly not what I was implying.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 30 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #40,479
@40,476 (brie !OudrPWaUDQ)
> Sorry, that's not how logic works. Try again.
You said that if the government doesn't pay for something, it's a "slippery slope" leading to them banning it. You're a fucking idiot.
> I never said that soda was healthy, but it is food.
No, it's not. Open a dictionary and look up that word.
> I'm sorry, what?
Candy is just sugar. It is nutritionally equal to soda which is just water and... sugar!
> I'll just take my leave here since you and Anon F over there are clearly just trolls who have no intention of having a legitimate discussion.
Oh, okay.
> Sorry, that's not how logic works. Try again.
You said that if the government doesn't pay for something, it's a "slippery slope" leading to them banning it. You're a fucking idiot.
> I never said that soda was healthy, but it is food.
No, it's not. Open a dictionary and look up that word.
> I'm sorry, what?
Candy is just sugar. It is nutritionally equal to soda which is just water and... sugar!
> I'll just take my leave here since you and Anon F over there are clearly just trolls who have no intention of having a legitimate discussion.
Oh, okay.
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 5 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #40,480
@40,476 (brie !OudrPWaUDQ)
What are you going to do about it?
Nothing, that's what. You're too fat to protest against soda being taken away.
Fatty fatty, fat fat fat. Statistics say you'll die before getting your first Social Security paycheck. Hurry up and die so you can save taxpayers some money.
What are you going to do about it?
Nothing, that's what. You're too fat to protest against soda being taken away.
Fatty fatty, fat fat fat. Statistics say you'll die before getting your first Social Security paycheck. Hurry up and die so you can save taxpayers some money.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 23 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #40,481
@40,478 (brie !OudrPWaUDQ)
> Again, that is not how it works. There is no such thing as "my logic".
You said that if the government doesn't pay for something, it's a "slippery slope" leading to them banning it. You're a fucking idiot.
> And your point is retarded, that is clearly not what I was implying.
Then don't say it.
> Again, that is not how it works. There is no such thing as "my logic".
You said that if the government doesn't pay for something, it's a "slippery slope" leading to them banning it. You're a fucking idiot.
> And your point is retarded, that is clearly not what I was implying.
Then don't say it.
Meowth replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #40,483
@40,468 (F)
Neither is that hot dog the guy down the street sells, but we still consider that food.
@40,469 (A)
So by that logic, you're saying we can't buy milk or water with food stamps...
@OP
@40,480 (F)
MAXIMUM BUTTHURT
Neither is that hot dog the guy down the street sells, but we still consider that food.
@40,469 (A)
So by that logic, you're saying we can't buy milk or water with food stamps...
@OP
@40,480 (F)
MAXIMUM BUTTHURT
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #40,485
@previous (Meowth)
> So by that logic, you're saying we can't buy milk or water with food stamps...
No, by that logic those are not foods. Which they aren't.
Food stamps are for nourishment. In 3.5 oz of milk, you get calcium, protein, vitamin D, and the following:
> Energy 252 kJ (60 kcal)
> Carbohydrates 5.26 g
> Sugars 5.26 g
> Lactose 5.26 g
> Fat 3.25 g
> saturated 1.865 g
> monounsaturated 0.812 g
> polyunsaturated 0.195 g
> Protein 3.22 g
> Tryptophan 0.075 g
> Threonine 0.143 g
> Isoleucine 0.165 g
> Leucine 0.265 g
> Lysine 0.140 g
> Methionine 0.075 g
> Cystine 0.017 g
> Phenylalanine 0.147 g
> Tyrosine 0.152 g
> Valine 0.192 g
> Arginine 0.075 g
> Histidine 0.075 g
> Alanine 0.103 g
> Aspartic acid 0.237 g
> Glutamic acid 0.648 g
> Glycine 0.075 g
> Proline 0.342 g
> Serine 0.107 g
> Water 88.32 g
> Vitamin A equiv. 28 μg (3%)
> Thiamine (Vit. B1) 0.044 mg (3%)
> Riboflavin (Vit. B2) 0.183 mg (12%)
> Vitamin B12 0.44 μg (18%)
> Vitamin D 40 IU (10%)
> Calcium 113 mg (11%)
> Magnesium 10 mg (3%)
> Potassium 143 mg (3%)
And that is why milk should be on food stamps.
MAXIMUM BUTTHURT
> So by that logic, you're saying we can't buy milk or water with food stamps...
No, by that logic those are not foods. Which they aren't.
Food stamps are for nourishment. In 3.5 oz of milk, you get calcium, protein, vitamin D, and the following:
> Energy 252 kJ (60 kcal)
> Carbohydrates 5.26 g
> Sugars 5.26 g
> Lactose 5.26 g
> Fat 3.25 g
> saturated 1.865 g
> monounsaturated 0.812 g
> polyunsaturated 0.195 g
> Protein 3.22 g
> Tryptophan 0.075 g
> Threonine 0.143 g
> Isoleucine 0.165 g
> Leucine 0.265 g
> Lysine 0.140 g
> Methionine 0.075 g
> Cystine 0.017 g
> Phenylalanine 0.147 g
> Tyrosine 0.152 g
> Valine 0.192 g
> Arginine 0.075 g
> Histidine 0.075 g
> Alanine 0.103 g
> Aspartic acid 0.237 g
> Glutamic acid 0.648 g
> Glycine 0.075 g
> Proline 0.342 g
> Serine 0.107 g
> Water 88.32 g
> Vitamin A equiv. 28 μg (3%)
> Thiamine (Vit. B1) 0.044 mg (3%)
> Riboflavin (Vit. B2) 0.183 mg (12%)
> Vitamin B12 0.44 μg (18%)
> Vitamin D 40 IU (10%)
> Calcium 113 mg (11%)
> Magnesium 10 mg (3%)
> Potassium 143 mg (3%)
And that is why milk should be on food stamps.
MAXIMUM BUTTHURT
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #40,487
> MAXIMUM BUTTHURT
A high intake of phosphoric acid can lead to gout, which can lead to naturally occurring butthurt.
A high intake of phosphoric acid can lead to gout, which can lead to naturally occurring butthurt.
Meowth replied with this 15 years ago, 1 second later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #40,488
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 18 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #40,489
Nega !34Kas0OdzM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #40,492
Soda most certainly is not a human right, but this still smells more of a political decision that a practical one, i.e they want to show that they're cracking down on leeches and people abusing the system in general.jump !VIfloDyEYo replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #40,494
@40,449 (A)
Yes.
I don't care. It's not saving tax payees any money.
They don't get less food stamps. Unless they aren't feeding their kids, i don't care.
I think it's a bit cruel to take a comfort away from someone simply because of the means of how they pay for it.
It's not going to have any effect on me. I don't think it will lead to healthier eating habits. So it's not gonna save money in healthcare or whatever they use to push it.
These people probably live shitty lives. I'm sorry if they can't drink soda now. It tastes good.
Yes.
I don't care. It's not saving tax payees any money.
They don't get less food stamps. Unless they aren't feeding their kids, i don't care.
I think it's a bit cruel to take a comfort away from someone simply because of the means of how they pay for it.
It's not going to have any effect on me. I don't think it will lead to healthier eating habits. So it's not gonna save money in healthcare or whatever they use to push it.
These people probably live shitty lives. I'm sorry if they can't drink soda now. It tastes good.
Jack Squire !gOStA1p7Pc joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 second later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #40,495
@40,447 (jump !VIfloDyEYo)
> Discriminatory. Don't force people to eat healthy. I mean, it's just soda too. So they can still get trans fat loaded cookies and shit?
>
> Don't police peoples personal actions. If they want to spend some of their food stamps on soda, so what? It doesn't hurt anyone else. They aren't getting less food stamps.
>
> Idiocy.
I'm not advocating this viewpoint, but it could be argued that when somebody is taking public money for food, it is not a personal choice.
> Discriminatory. Don't force people to eat healthy. I mean, it's just soda too. So they can still get trans fat loaded cookies and shit?
>
> Don't police peoples personal actions. If they want to spend some of their food stamps on soda, so what? It doesn't hurt anyone else. They aren't getting less food stamps.
>
> Idiocy.
I'm not advocating this viewpoint, but it could be argued that when somebody is taking public money for food, it is not a personal choice.
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #40,497
Great. Some cock holster telling us what is and is not nourishing. PEOPLE ARE GROWN UPS LET THEM HAVE WHAT THEY WANT. If you don't want to feed them then don't pay taxes for fucking food stamps.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #40,499
@40,494 (jump !VIfloDyEYo)
> I don't care. It's not saving tax payees any money.
Might as well make alcohol legal to buy with it then.
> They don't get less food stamps. Unless they aren't feeding their kids, i don't care.
o_O. giving kids soda is not feeding them. Nutritionally you might it's equal to not giving them anything.
> I think it's a bit cruel to take a comfort away from someone simply because of the means of how they pay for it.
You could use that argument to justify government funded movie tickets, booze, vacations, or internet.
> I don't care. It's not saving tax payees any money.
Might as well make alcohol legal to buy with it then.
> They don't get less food stamps. Unless they aren't feeding their kids, i don't care.
o_O. giving kids soda is not feeding them. Nutritionally you might it's equal to not giving them anything.
> I think it's a bit cruel to take a comfort away from someone simply because of the means of how they pay for it.
You could use that argument to justify government funded movie tickets, booze, vacations, or internet.
jump !VIfloDyEYo replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #40,500
@40,495 (Jack Squire !gOStA1p7Pc)
Exactly. It's punishment for being on welfare. How dare those lazy fuckers take OUR money (ignore the fact that I myself have received financial help in many ways throughout my life, but since I was never on welfare I can pretend I've worked for everything).
It's ridiculous. There is no benefit. You want people to eat healthier? Great! Start with education. Not with disallowing a small portion of the population from using government benefits for it. It doesn't mean they will even stop drinking it.
I see no real benefit to this law.
Exactly. It's punishment for being on welfare. How dare those lazy fuckers take OUR money (ignore the fact that I myself have received financial help in many ways throughout my life, but since I was never on welfare I can pretend I've worked for everything).
It's ridiculous. There is no benefit. You want people to eat healthier? Great! Start with education. Not with disallowing a small portion of the population from using government benefits for it. It doesn't mean they will even stop drinking it.
I see no real benefit to this law.
Jack Squire !gOStA1p7Pc replied with this 15 years ago, 48 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #40,501
@previous (jump !VIfloDyEYo)
Plus, if they eat themselves into a heart attack, that's less money taxpayers have to spend on them.
Plus, if they eat themselves into a heart attack, that's less money taxpayers have to spend on them.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 21 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #40,503
@40,497 (Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ)
> PEOPLE ARE GROWN UPS LET THEM HAVE WHAT THEY WANT.
I agree. People should be able to drink what they want. Soda, booze. Hell, let them get euthanized for all I care.
However they should not expect taxpayers to fund something they don't need.
People need food to stay alive, so it should be funded for those in need. They don't need soda, however
> If you don't want to feed them then don't pay taxes for fucking food stamps.
I do want people to be fed, that's the point. If they are not fed, they suffer from malnutrition. Soda does not help with that. this is not a difficult concept.
> PEOPLE ARE GROWN UPS LET THEM HAVE WHAT THEY WANT.
I agree. People should be able to drink what they want. Soda, booze. Hell, let them get euthanized for all I care.
However they should not expect taxpayers to fund something they don't need.
People need food to stay alive, so it should be funded for those in need. They don't need soda, however
> If you don't want to feed them then don't pay taxes for fucking food stamps.
I do want people to be fed, that's the point. If they are not fed, they suffer from malnutrition. Soda does not help with that. this is not a difficult concept.
Jack Squire !gOStA1p7Pc replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #40,504
@previous (A)
That's bullshit though. What do you expect people to drink? Fucking water all the goddamn time? That's a bit too barebones.
That's bullshit though. What do you expect people to drink? Fucking water all the goddamn time? That's a bit too barebones.
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 51 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #40,505
jump !VIfloDyEYo replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #40,507
@previous (F)
Soda isn't completely lacking nutrients. You do need some sodium. That's one.
Myths aren't toys bud, grow up and leave.
Soda isn't completely lacking nutrients. You do need some sodium. That's one.
Myths aren't toys bud, grow up and leave.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #40,508
@40,504 (Jack Squire !gOStA1p7Pc)
The sugar content of soda means it does not hydrate. This is especially true with caffeinated drinks.
If government is going to pay for just sugar, might as well let people spend their food stamps at candy shops.
The sugar content of soda means it does not hydrate. This is especially true with caffeinated drinks.
If government is going to pay for just sugar, might as well let people spend their food stamps at candy shops.
Jack Squire !gOStA1p7Pc replied with this 15 years ago, 28 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #40,509
@40,505 (F)
That's not my point though. You can't realistically expect people to drink nothing but water. Just because somebody accepts taxpayer money doesn't mean they can be stripped of everything they don't need.
What's that? You spent money on a haircut while accepting public money?
That's not my point though. You can't realistically expect people to drink nothing but water. Just because somebody accepts taxpayer money doesn't mean they can be stripped of everything they don't need.
What's that? You spent money on a haircut while accepting public money?
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 36 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,510
Jack Squire !gOStA1p7Pc replied with this 15 years ago, 6 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,511
@40,508 (A)
People do spend food stamps at candy shops. At least my best friend, who used to be on food stamps did.
People do spend food stamps at candy shops. At least my best friend, who used to be on food stamps did.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,512
@40,507 (jump !VIfloDyEYo)
> Soda isn't completely lacking nutrients. You do need some sodium. That's one.
LOL. No one in america is going to have sodium depletion because they can't buy soda. Chances are they are getting too much as it is.
> Soda isn't completely lacking nutrients. You do need some sodium. That's one.
LOL. No one in america is going to have sodium depletion because they can't buy soda. Chances are they are getting too much as it is.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 17 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,513
Jack Squire !gOStA1p7Pc replied with this 15 years ago, 37 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,514
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 28 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,515
@40,509 (Jack Squire !gOStA1p7Pc)
Howard Stern, who earns a salary of $80,000,000 per year, only drinks water, milk and the occasional glass of wine.
He makes $80,000,000. He drinks no soda. He has no complaints.
Howard Stern, who earns a salary of $80,000,000 per year, only drinks water, milk and the occasional glass of wine.
He makes $80,000,000. He drinks no soda. He has no complaints.
Jack Squire !gOStA1p7Pc replied with this 15 years ago, 56 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,517
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 39 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,518
@40,514 (Jack Squire !gOStA1p7Pc)
When they stop getting their sugar-water paid for, they will drink less of it.
People can't buy beer on food stamps, right? And it would be a joke to say they will stop because they can't use their foodstamps to buy more. Does that mean we should make booze allowed on food stamps?
When they stop getting their sugar-water paid for, they will drink less of it.
People can't buy beer on food stamps, right? And it would be a joke to say they will stop because they can't use their foodstamps to buy more. Does that mean we should make booze allowed on food stamps?
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,519
@40,517 (Jack Squire !gOStA1p7Pc)
My point is this: a multi-millionaire isn't complaining about not drinking soda. He voluntarily gave it up.
Furthermore, there's always grape juice, orange juice, apple juice, tonic water, seltzer water, sparkling water, etc.
My point is this: a multi-millionaire isn't complaining about not drinking soda. He voluntarily gave it up.
Furthermore, there's always grape juice, orange juice, apple juice, tonic water, seltzer water, sparkling water, etc.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,520
@40,509 (Jack Squire !gOStA1p7Pc)
> Just because somebody accepts taxpayer money doesn't mean they can be stripped of everything they don't need.
No, it doesn't. It just means they will pay for it themselves.
> Just because somebody accepts taxpayer money doesn't mean they can be stripped of everything they don't need.
No, it doesn't. It just means they will pay for it themselves.
Jack Squire !gOStA1p7Pc replied with this 15 years ago, 14 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,521
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 29 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,522
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 19 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,523
@40,521 (Jack Squire !gOStA1p7Pc)
Lol, can't answer the question then?
Should beer be allowed? YES or NO?
Lol, can't answer the question then?
Should beer be allowed? YES or NO?
(Edited 19 seconds later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,524
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,525
Lol Jack has leave because his argument is falling apart.
If banning something didn't reduce usage, then it doesn't matter if beer is allowed.
If banning something didn't reduce usage, then it doesn't matter if beer is allowed.
jump !VIfloDyEYo replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,526
@40,519 (F)
It's a way of punishing people on food stamps. Don't pretend it isn't.
Sure, if the program was started without allowing soda, that is one thing. It wasn't though. There is no benefit to excluding soda. It wasn't done because of a lack of nutritional value. It was pointless to do. Poor people drink more soda than others. It was a way of being big ole meanies.
It's a punk move by people angry that some people get government assistance.
It's a way of punishing people on food stamps. Don't pretend it isn't.
Sure, if the program was started without allowing soda, that is one thing. It wasn't though. There is no benefit to excluding soda. It wasn't done because of a lack of nutritional value. It was pointless to do. Poor people drink more soda than others. It was a way of being big ole meanies.
It's a punk move by people angry that some people get government assistance.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 33 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,530
@previous (jump !VIfloDyEYo)
> Soda isn't completely lacking nutrients. You do need some sodium. That's one.
It's a way of making sure they use the program for what it was intended for: to prevent malnutrition. Soda does not nourish, so it's not allowed.
> There is no benefit to excluding soda.
The benefit is that people will have to spend the money on nutrition instead of sugar.
> Poor people drink more soda than others.
What's your point?
> It was a way of being big ole meanies.
God, what a totalitarian dictatorship we live in today. Those poor people can only get healthy food for free, and have to pay for non-essential luxuries themselves.
> Soda isn't completely lacking nutrients. You do need some sodium. That's one.
It's a way of making sure they use the program for what it was intended for: to prevent malnutrition. Soda does not nourish, so it's not allowed.
> There is no benefit to excluding soda.
The benefit is that people will have to spend the money on nutrition instead of sugar.
> Poor people drink more soda than others.
What's your point?
> It was a way of being big ole meanies.
God, what a totalitarian dictatorship we live in today. Those poor people can only get healthy food for free, and have to pay for non-essential luxuries themselves.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,531
What dicks. I hear homeless shelters are only giving out turkey and soup in some areas, even though many people would prefer if they had an option of pizza and soda.
Why do homeless shelters try to punish the poor?
Why do homeless shelters try to punish the poor?
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,532
@40,526 (jump !VIfloDyEYo)
The fact that you think eating healthy is punishment is the reason you are obese.
The fact that you think eating healthy is punishment is the reason you are obese.
Deckard Cain !xhERPesk0k joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,534
Sure smells like butthurt in here! TBH I don't care what happens with food stamps because I'm not a leech. If you aren't happy with the new rules, try getting a job and using your own money.
Harleen Quinzel !jEsTERxAng joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,535
Lol NYC is so corrupt. Stores wilm still sell it. Along with cigs for foodstamps. Gotta love people who just don't give a fuck.
Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 17 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,544
+1
People who use food stamps are also those most likely to use medicare and other state-sponsored medical services. The government also has every right to give handouts on its own terms - that's why they give food stamps and not just mad money to spend at the grocery store, shoe store, or crack house.
People who use food stamps are also those most likely to use medicare and other state-sponsored medical services. The government also has every right to give handouts on its own terms - that's why they give food stamps and not just mad money to spend at the grocery store, shoe store, or crack house.
Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,546
@40,535 (Harleen Quinzel !jEsTERxAng)
Not if it's enforced and the penalties are stiff enough. It's similar to making sure stores ID before selling alcohol or tobacco.
Not if it's enforced and the penalties are stiff enough. It's similar to making sure stores ID before selling alcohol or tobacco.
Harleen Quinzel !jEsTERxAng replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,550
@40,544 (Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG)
Yep.
@previous (Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG)
They would never penalty it hard enough. Plus some stores provide hot food, which is illegal.
Yep.
@previous (Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG)
They would never penalty it hard enough. Plus some stores provide hot food, which is illegal.
Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,552
@previous (Harleen Quinzel !jEsTERxAng)> They would never penalty it hard enough. Plus some stores provide hot food, which is illegal.
"Officer, I am very, very sorry. I mean, this is all for a scare, right?"
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 24 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,559
OP makes some logical points. Sure it's a bit controlling, but it should push people who are usually the least healthy to better, healthier drinking choices.
I have to say, I'm quite disappointed in how some people stormed off and called the OP a troll rather than having a calm and civil debate.
I have to say, I'm quite disappointed in how some people stormed off and called the OP a troll rather than having a calm and civil debate.
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,560
@previous (N)
> I have to say, I'm quite disappointed in how some people stormed off and called the OP a troll rather than having a calm and civil debate.
Welcome to minichan!
> I have to say, I'm quite disappointed in how some people stormed off and called the OP a troll rather than having a calm and civil debate.
Welcome to minichan!
Anonymous N replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,562
jump !VIfloDyEYo replied with this 15 years ago, 24 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,570
@40,532 (J)
It isn't my fault you can't understand my point. I never said eating healthy is punishment. I am saying making a rule to disallow one particular type of beverage is meant to be a punishment.
If the system was made that way, I would think its perfectly fine. I just dont see a reason to spend resources to make this a law except as a way for people who hate "those lazy fucks on welfare" to stick it to those "lazy bastards." I think the intention of the law is to "punish."
@40,531 (A)
I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. I don't think its bad. Im not saying anyone is entitled to soda. Im saying to pass a law limiting soda seems like a nonsense thing to do. If there is more to this bill, like a push to improve school lunches and teach kids healthy eating habits, and this is just one aspect of it, then I take back everything I said. I
@40,544 (Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG)
It isnt preventing people from drinking soda or eating unhealthy.
It isn't my fault you can't understand my point. I never said eating healthy is punishment. I am saying making a rule to disallow one particular type of beverage is meant to be a punishment.
If the system was made that way, I would think its perfectly fine. I just dont see a reason to spend resources to make this a law except as a way for people who hate "those lazy fucks on welfare" to stick it to those "lazy bastards." I think the intention of the law is to "punish."
@40,531 (A)
I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. I don't think its bad. Im not saying anyone is entitled to soda. Im saying to pass a law limiting soda seems like a nonsense thing to do. If there is more to this bill, like a push to improve school lunches and teach kids healthy eating habits, and this is just one aspect of it, then I take back everything I said. I
@40,544 (Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG)
It isnt preventing people from drinking soda or eating unhealthy.
(Edited 47 seconds later.)
advi !!3gpAcg/hF joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 41 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,595
I'd agree with this if it banned wholly unhealthy food as a whole, but only banning soft drinks makes no sense. I doubt having to drink juice with their cookies and twinkies is going to deter welfare bums. I don't know about the rest of the US but where I live fucking Papa Murphy's accepts food stamps.
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 58 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,596
advi !!3gpAcg/hF replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,597
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,598
Anonymous Q joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 24 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,599
Ash Ketchup * !bbKEtchUp. joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 34 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,614
They should get an extensive list of healthy foods to pick from and none of the entries should be junk food. They should then have programmes that teach people how to cook.
salty !0k2UQf2nOU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 25 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,621
@previous (Ash Ketchup * !bbKEtchUp.)
Why? People with money get to decide how to spend it. Taking away their choice is oppressive and ridiculous. If they have to eat healthy, everyone else should have to, as well. Should poor people not get to have a glass of soda once in a while, just due to the fact that they're poor? Besides, the reason that food stamps were even invented was so that people who usually went to food banks would get to choose their own meals, rather than being dished out something they might not like or aren't culturally familiar with.
Why? People with money get to decide how to spend it. Taking away their choice is oppressive and ridiculous. If they have to eat healthy, everyone else should have to, as well. Should poor people not get to have a glass of soda once in a while, just due to the fact that they're poor? Besides, the reason that food stamps were even invented was so that people who usually went to food banks would get to choose their own meals, rather than being dished out something they might not like or aren't culturally familiar with.
Ash Ketchup * !bbKEtchUp. replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,632
@previous (salty !0k2UQf2nOU)
> People with money get to decide how to spend it.
It's not money. It's a food stamp. If they want to buy shit, they should get a job and use their own money to buy shit.
> Besides, the reason that food stamps were even invented was so that people who usually went to food banks would get to choose their own meals, rather than being dished out something they might not like or aren't culturally familiar with.
Note I said 'extensive' list, and I mean extensive list. Not 'lol here have this meal today, this one tomorrow'. They can choose anything they like off the list, which should have been obvious. They'll have no excuses because free cooking classes are offered in the programme mentioned.
Your country has a 74.1 % obesity rate. Something needs to be done.
> People with money get to decide how to spend it.
It's not money. It's a food stamp. If they want to buy shit, they should get a job and use their own money to buy shit.
> Besides, the reason that food stamps were even invented was so that people who usually went to food banks would get to choose their own meals, rather than being dished out something they might not like or aren't culturally familiar with.
Note I said 'extensive' list, and I mean extensive list. Not 'lol here have this meal today, this one tomorrow'. They can choose anything they like off the list, which should have been obvious. They'll have no excuses because free cooking classes are offered in the programme mentioned.
Your country has a 74.1 % obesity rate. Something needs to be done.
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,633
@previous (Ash Ketchup * !bbKEtchUp.)
America's obesity rates are ridiculous. I just don't think that this particular ban will help.
America's obesity rates are ridiculous. I just don't think that this particular ban will help.
Ash Ketchup * !bbKEtchUp. replied with this 15 years ago, 44 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,635
@previous (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
The soda ban or my idea?
Because I agree about this ban being stupid. It's treating a symptom, not an illness.
The soda ban or my idea?
Because I agree about this ban being stupid. It's treating a symptom, not an illness.
Anonymous N replied with this 15 years ago, 57 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,639
@40,633 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
It will improve health a little. People will have to seek out healthier beverages.
Sure it'll be a minute effect, but it's still a positive one.
It will improve health a little. People will have to seek out healthier beverages.
Sure it'll be a minute effect, but it's still a positive one.
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,642
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic double-posted this 15 years ago, 21 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,645
psychopath !PAHVpsycho joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,647
Why can't we just make food stamps illegal to save money?
Anonymous N replied with this 15 years ago, 37 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,648
@40,645 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
That's rather stupid of them, considering how poor they have to be to qualify for foodstamps in the first place.
Hopefully some of them will drink a healthier drink because of this.
That's rather stupid of them, considering how poor they have to be to qualify for foodstamps in the first place.
Hopefully some of them will drink a healthier drink because of this.
Ash Ketchup * !bbKEtchUp. replied with this 15 years ago, 4 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,649
@40,647 (psychopath !PAHVpsycho)
Because not everyone can subsist on jacking off into their own mouth like you can.
Because not everyone can subsist on jacking off into their own mouth like you can.
psychopath !PAHVpsycho replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,653
@previous (Ash Ketchup * !bbKEtchUp.)
Well, New York actually has job oppertunities unlike this shithole.
Well, New York actually has job oppertunities unlike this shithole.
salty !0k2UQf2nOU replied with this 15 years ago, 35 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,656
@40,632 (Ash Ketchup * !bbKEtchUp.)
Something needs to be done, but not at the expense of those who are unfortunate enough to not be able to purchase food for themselves. Do you know how humiliating it is, in the first place, to have to rely on the government for your food? Admitting that you can't take care of yourself? Often times, these people simply can't get jobs. I know a woman who had a back injury in a car accident, and is now unable to work for a very long time. Do you propose that people in these situations should not get a pizza once in a while? A bag of chips?
The obesity rate is quite alarming, but targeting impoverished people won't do much good. If you honestly care about the obesity rate in my country, you should be more concerned about the nutritional habits of the youth than the nutritional habits of people in poverty.
Something needs to be done, but not at the expense of those who are unfortunate enough to not be able to purchase food for themselves. Do you know how humiliating it is, in the first place, to have to rely on the government for your food? Admitting that you can't take care of yourself? Often times, these people simply can't get jobs. I know a woman who had a back injury in a car accident, and is now unable to work for a very long time. Do you propose that people in these situations should not get a pizza once in a while? A bag of chips?
The obesity rate is quite alarming, but targeting impoverished people won't do much good. If you honestly care about the obesity rate in my country, you should be more concerned about the nutritional habits of the youth than the nutritional habits of people in poverty.
Ash Ketchup * !bbKEtchUp. replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,657
@previous (salty !0k2UQf2nOU)
> Do you propose that people in these situations should not get a pizza once in a while? A bag of chips?
Yes. But they could easily make their own pizza with their food choices. Also, don't pretend that it's 'once in a while' 'a bag' 'a glass'. They do nothing but guzzle down this shit.
Also
> implying that this programme wouldn't be available to everyone
> Do you propose that people in these situations should not get a pizza once in a while? A bag of chips?
Yes. But they could easily make their own pizza with their food choices. Also, don't pretend that it's 'once in a while' 'a bag' 'a glass'. They do nothing but guzzle down this shit.
Also
> implying that this programme wouldn't be available to everyone
(Edited 25 seconds later.)
salty !0k2UQf2nOU replied with this 15 years ago, 7 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,658
@40,653 (psychopath !PAHVpsycho)
You have no idea what you're talking about, you fucking spoiled bourgeois brat.
You have no idea what you're talking about, you fucking spoiled bourgeois brat.
salty !0k2UQf2nOU double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,660
@40,657 (Ash Ketchup * !bbKEtchUp.)
Are you trolling? Who does nothing but guzzle down this shit? Americans in general, right? So why don't we ban unhealthy food entirely? That would be more just than just banning it for poor people.
Are you trolling? Who does nothing but guzzle down this shit? Americans in general, right? So why don't we ban unhealthy food entirely? That would be more just than just banning it for poor people.
AC !tyLmN8C16E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 48 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,661
This is quite a thread.
Ash Ketchup * !bbKEtchUp. replied with this 15 years ago, 35 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,662
@40,660 (salty !0k2UQf2nOU)
> Who does nothing but guzzle down this shit?
We're talking about poor people. Work this out.
> So why don't we ban unhealthy food entirely?
Lol, and you called me 'oppressive'.
> Who does nothing but guzzle down this shit?
We're talking about poor people. Work this out.
> So why don't we ban unhealthy food entirely?
Lol, and you called me 'oppressive'.
salty !0k2UQf2nOU replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,666
@previous (Ash Ketchup * !bbKEtchUp.)
Poor people don't do nothing but guzzle down shit.
> Lol, and you called me 'oppressive'.
It would be less oppressive than just banning unhealthy foods for people below a certain income level.
Poor people don't do nothing but guzzle down shit.
> Lol, and you called me 'oppressive'.
It would be less oppressive than just banning unhealthy foods for people below a certain income level.
Ash Ketchup * !bbKEtchUp. replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,668
@previous (salty !0k2UQf2nOU)
If they don't like it, they don't have to go onto benefits. It's not like my proposal is a bad thing, and it's not like healthy food tastes bad. You're acting like I'm suggesting feeding them gruel.
In fact, yeah, we should ban unhealthy food overall and teach everyone how to cook. Everyone would be much better off.
If they don't like it, they don't have to go onto benefits. It's not like my proposal is a bad thing, and it's not like healthy food tastes bad. You're acting like I'm suggesting feeding them gruel.
In fact, yeah, we should ban unhealthy food overall and teach everyone how to cook. Everyone would be much better off.
Anonymous V joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,672
@40,632 (Ash Ketchup * !bbKEtchUp.)
> Your country has a 74.1 % obesity rate. Something needs to be done.
Oh gawd, the classic battle cry of pussified leftism rears it's ugly head. It's not the least bit curios to you that "something" is always done in a politically discriminatory and entirely ineffective fashion.
Why only soda? Why not all foods containing High Fructose Corn Syrup? Why not get rid of the corn subsidies that make HFCS artificially cheap to produce? Oh wait, those moves would piss off people with political clout.
As for the poor, we enjoy fucking with them. It's all so fucking high school when you think about it. The middle class gets bullied by the rich. Rather than challenge the powerful bully in the struggle for dominance, it's just easier to beat the shit out of somebody weaker.
> Your country has a 74.1 % obesity rate. Something needs to be done.
Oh gawd, the classic battle cry of pussified leftism rears it's ugly head. It's not the least bit curios to you that "something" is always done in a politically discriminatory and entirely ineffective fashion.
Why only soda? Why not all foods containing High Fructose Corn Syrup? Why not get rid of the corn subsidies that make HFCS artificially cheap to produce? Oh wait, those moves would piss off people with political clout.
As for the poor, we enjoy fucking with them. It's all so fucking high school when you think about it. The middle class gets bullied by the rich. Rather than challenge the powerful bully in the struggle for dominance, it's just easier to beat the shit out of somebody weaker.
Ash Ketchup * !bbKEtchUp. replied with this 15 years ago, 52 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,673
@previous (V)
Wow, it's like you only read that one sentence before angrily slapping your keyboard with your ape-like fists in reply.
Wow, it's like you only read that one sentence before angrily slapping your keyboard with your ape-like fists in reply.
Anonymous N replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,675
salty !0k2UQf2nOU replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,678
psychopath !PAHVpsycho replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,680
@40,658 (salty !0k2UQf2nOU)
Not my fault they failed the Darwinist-Capitalist system. Why should I have to pick up THEIR slack?
Not my fault they failed the Darwinist-Capitalist system. Why should I have to pick up THEIR slack?
salty !0k2UQf2nOU replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,683
@40,668 (Ash Ketchup * !bbKEtchUp.)
All I'm saying is that mandating something for one class of people and not the other is bad. I'm not sure how any reasonable person could dispute that.
Having cooking classes is a superb idea, but why only for the poor? Why not make all highschool students take a cooking course as part of their GE in order to get their diploma?
All I'm saying is that mandating something for one class of people and not the other is bad. I'm not sure how any reasonable person could dispute that.
Having cooking classes is a superb idea, but why only for the poor? Why not make all highschool students take a cooking course as part of their GE in order to get their diploma?
(Edited 24 seconds later.)
Anonymous N replied with this 15 years ago, 10 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,684
@40,678 (salty !0k2UQf2nOU)
No witty rebuttal? I expected better from you.
And it is quite arrogant to say that as an anon I don't matter.
No witty rebuttal? I expected better from you.
And it is quite arrogant to say that as an anon I don't matter.
salty !0k2UQf2nOU replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,687
@previous (N)
> No witty rebuttal? I expected better from you.
Not feeling very witty this morning. Suck it.
And I didn't say that because you're anonymous.
> No witty rebuttal? I expected better from you.
Not feeling very witty this morning. Suck it.
And I didn't say that because you're anonymous.
psychopath !PAHVpsycho replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,694
Anonymous V replied with this 15 years ago, 17 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,695
@40,673 (Ash Ketchup * !bbKEtchUp.)
If you say so. But I did read though your comments, and it boils down to this: You believe YOU and your government are better positioned to make decisions for poor people than they themselves are. Not only that, but the mere fact they are poor somehow magically equates to them "needing" nutritional education. Give me a break. You're fucking stereotyping.
There's plenty of rich fatasses out there. Just so you know.
If you say so. But I did read though your comments, and it boils down to this: You believe YOU and your government are better positioned to make decisions for poor people than they themselves are. Not only that, but the mere fact they are poor somehow magically equates to them "needing" nutritional education. Give me a break. You're fucking stereotyping.
There's plenty of rich fatasses out there. Just so you know.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
AC !tyLmN8C16E replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,697
Mayor Bloomberg replied with this 15 years ago, 26 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,711
I'm banning it anyway.
Deal with it.
Deal with it.
Jack Squire !gOStA1p7Pc replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,726
Jack Squire !gOStA1p7Pc double-posted this 15 years ago, 50 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,728
@40,668 (Ash Ketchup * !bbKEtchUp.)
> Everyone would be much better off.
The ends do not always justify the means.
> Everyone would be much better off.
The ends do not always justify the means.
Ash Ketchup * !bbKEtchUp. replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,729
@40,683 (salty !0k2UQf2nOU)
I already said everyone would get them. And class doesn't enter into it - just people who want the government to give them free food.
@previous (Jack Squire !gOStA1p7Pc)
In this case, they do.
@40,695 (V)
> You believe YOU and your government are better positioned to make decisions for poor people than they themselves are.
Yes.
I already said everyone would get them. And class doesn't enter into it - just people who want the government to give them free food.
@previous (Jack Squire !gOStA1p7Pc)
In this case, they do.
@40,695 (V)
> You believe YOU and your government are better positioned to make decisions for poor people than they themselves are.
Yes.
(Edited 51 seconds later.)
salty !0k2UQf2nOU replied with this 15 years ago, 22 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,740
@previous (Ash Ketchup * !bbKEtchUp.)
> And class doesn't enter into it - just people who want the government to give them free food.
Seriously? You have to be under a certain income level to receive food stamps. If you have no job, and no other means of procuring money for food, you do not have a choice. Food stamps are the only option. This places the *very* lowest members of society in a position that they have to get food stamps in order to survive. It is not a choice for those people. Of course, some people use food stamps merely as a supplement to their food supply, but some rely on them completely. You can't tell me that class doesn't enter into whether or not a person receives food stamps.
> And class doesn't enter into it - just people who want the government to give them free food.
Seriously? You have to be under a certain income level to receive food stamps. If you have no job, and no other means of procuring money for food, you do not have a choice. Food stamps are the only option. This places the *very* lowest members of society in a position that they have to get food stamps in order to survive. It is not a choice for those people. Of course, some people use food stamps merely as a supplement to their food supply, but some rely on them completely. You can't tell me that class doesn't enter into whether or not a person receives food stamps.
Jack Squire !gOStA1p7Pc replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,741
@40,596 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
> I've seen ghetto clothes stores that accept food stamps.
There's a store nearby that will accept foodstamps for cigarettes. It's saved my life, as my friend who is on food stamps will stockpile on cigs and share them with me.
> I've seen ghetto clothes stores that accept food stamps.
There's a store nearby that will accept foodstamps for cigarettes. It's saved my life, as my friend who is on food stamps will stockpile on cigs and share them with me.
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 5 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,742
@40,740 (salty !0k2UQf2nOU)
> Seriously? You have to be under a certain intelligence level to receive food stamps. If you have no job, and no other means of procuring money for food, you are lazy. Food stamps are the only option. This places the *very* laziest members of society in a position that they have to get food stamps or get a job. It is not a choice for those people. Of course, some people use food stamps merely as a supplement to their food supply, but some rely on them completely. You can't tell me that laziness doesn't enter into whether or not a person receives food stamps.
ftfy
> Seriously? You have to be under a certain intelligence level to receive food stamps. If you have no job, and no other means of procuring money for food, you are lazy. Food stamps are the only option. This places the *very* laziest members of society in a position that they have to get food stamps or get a job. It is not a choice for those people. Of course, some people use food stamps merely as a supplement to their food supply, but some rely on them completely. You can't tell me that laziness doesn't enter into whether or not a person receives food stamps.
ftfy
(Edited 14 seconds later.)
Mayor Bloomberg replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,746
Jack Squire !gOStA1p7Pc replied with this 15 years ago, 48 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,747
@previous (Mayor Bloomberg)
Well, fuck your shit. Don't make me hijack a plane and fly it into the empire state building.
Well, fuck your shit. Don't make me hijack a plane and fly it into the empire state building.
Anonymous Q replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,752
Jack Squire !gOStA1p7Pc replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,756
@previous (Q)
I guess I probably shouldn't mention my top secret plan to overthrow the government and replace it with an Islamic utopia, than.
I guess I probably shouldn't mention my top secret plan to overthrow the government and replace it with an Islamic utopia, than.
Anonymous Q replied with this 15 years ago, 25 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,768
Ash Ketchup * !bbKEtchUp. replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,773
@40,740 (salty !0k2UQf2nOU)
So only lower-class people can go bankrupt? Only they can lose their possessions? And you make the point I'm arguing for. They don't need cheetos and coca cola to survive. They need good food, and the knowledge of how to use that.
Why don't you just think of the children (lol).
So only lower-class people can go bankrupt? Only they can lose their possessions? And you make the point I'm arguing for. They don't need cheetos and coca cola to survive. They need good food, and the knowledge of how to use that.
Why don't you just think of the children (lol).
(Edited 45 seconds later.)
salty !0k2UQf2nOU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,839
@previous (Ash Ketchup * !bbKEtchUp.)
No, but when someone loses all their money and possessions to the point that they need governmental assistance in order to eat, they are not a member of the upper class anymore.
They might not need cheetos and coca cola to survive, and they'd probably be better off without them, but the government has no right to restrict a person's freedom to eat what they want to. Especially if that restriction is targeted to a specific group of people (ex. people with low incomes).
No, but when someone loses all their money and possessions to the point that they need governmental assistance in order to eat, they are not a member of the upper class anymore.
They might not need cheetos and coca cola to survive, and they'd probably be better off without them, but the government has no right to restrict a person's freedom to eat what they want to. Especially if that restriction is targeted to a specific group of people (ex. people with low incomes).
Anonymous N replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,841
@previous (salty !0k2UQf2nOU)
It's them giving out the foodstamps, so they get to dictate what they can be used for.
It's them giving out the foodstamps, so they get to dictate what they can be used for.
salty !0k2UQf2nOU replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,848
Anonymous N replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,855
Jack Squire !gOStA1p7Pc replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,858
@40,848 (salty !0k2UQf2nOU)
> No. That's ridiculous. The government shouldn't get to dictate anything.
That's taking it a bit too far. To a certain point, it is OK. Some (not all) are poor because of bad impulse control. If they were allowed to spend food stamps on say, movie tickets, they would.
> No. That's ridiculous. The government shouldn't get to dictate anything.
That's taking it a bit too far. To a certain point, it is OK. Some (not all) are poor because of bad impulse control. If they were allowed to spend food stamps on say, movie tickets, they would.
salty !0k2UQf2nOU replied with this 15 years ago, 46 seconds later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,859
@40,855 (N)
Enforce? Sure. The people elect representatives to make decisions on behalf of them and in their interest, and those decisions of course have to be enforced. But dictate? Nope. Check your diction.
Enforce? Sure. The people elect representatives to make decisions on behalf of them and in their interest, and those decisions of course have to be enforced. But dictate? Nope. Check your diction.
salty !0k2UQf2nOU double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,862
@40,858 (Jack Squire !gOStA1p7Pc)
Yeah, I agree with that. Food stamps are for food, not recreation. But why should the government get to tell people what to eat? It doesn't make sense to me.
Yeah, I agree with that. Food stamps are for food, not recreation. But why should the government get to tell people what to eat? It doesn't make sense to me.
Anonymous N replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #40,864
@40,859 (salty !0k2UQf2nOU)
My diction is fine. To dictate is to command, and it is sometimes nessasary for a government to do something that the public didn't specifically elect them for.
In this case, it's in the people's interests to stop wasting their precious foodstamps on junkfood.
My diction is fine. To dictate is to command, and it is sometimes nessasary for a government to do something that the public didn't specifically elect them for.
In this case, it's in the people's interests to stop wasting their precious foodstamps on junkfood.
Nimj joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #41,030
Ash Ketchup * !bbKEtchUp. replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #41,036
@previous (Nimj)
With any unhealthy, processed, chemical-filled food, apparently. Note how she argued that people on welfare deserve pizza, even though pizza can be made from scratch with little effort.
But then, my thing necessitates set prices for the stuff they can pick, which would mean a kind of 'government supermarket' for people on Welfare. This probably wouldn't work in America. It would work in my hypothetical paradise, though.
With any unhealthy, processed, chemical-filled food, apparently. Note how she argued that people on welfare deserve pizza, even though pizza can be made from scratch with little effort.
But then, my thing necessitates set prices for the stuff they can pick, which would mean a kind of 'government supermarket' for people on Welfare. This probably wouldn't work in America. It would work in my hypothetical paradise, though.
Smegma joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #41,040
Jack Squire !gOStA1p7Pc replied with this 15 years ago, 18 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #41,067
@41,036 (Ash Ketchup * !bbKEtchUp.)
> This probably wouldn't work in America.
Have you ever even been in the U.S.? What do you base your views of American society on?
> This probably wouldn't work in America.
Have you ever even been in the U.S.? What do you base your views of American society on?
Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #41,073
@40,621 (salty !0k2UQf2nOU)
> Why? People with money get to decide how to spend it.
People without money don't. That's why they're called food stamps and not beer stamps or fashion stamps. In fact, all government handouts (and alimony and child support for that matter) should be distributed in a way which contributes to the welfare of the individual and society, not hedonistic pursuits.
> Taking away their choice is oppressive and ridiculous.
Actually, we're giving them a choice by giving them other people's money.
> If they have to eat healthy, everyone else should have to, as well.
If they don't like it, they can opt out of the food stamps or use their own money for it.
> Should poor people not get to have a glass of soda once in a while, just due to the fact that they're poor?
Once again, if you get free money you should be subject to some restrictions on how you spend it.
> Besides, the reason that food stamps were even invented was so that people who usually went to food banks would get to choose their own meals, rather than being dished out something they might not like or aren't culturally familiar with.
I think it's time the people doling out the free money have a greater say on how it's spent.
> Why? People with money get to decide how to spend it.
People without money don't. That's why they're called food stamps and not beer stamps or fashion stamps. In fact, all government handouts (and alimony and child support for that matter) should be distributed in a way which contributes to the welfare of the individual and society, not hedonistic pursuits.
> Taking away their choice is oppressive and ridiculous.
Actually, we're giving them a choice by giving them other people's money.
> If they have to eat healthy, everyone else should have to, as well.
If they don't like it, they can opt out of the food stamps or use their own money for it.
> Should poor people not get to have a glass of soda once in a while, just due to the fact that they're poor?
Once again, if you get free money you should be subject to some restrictions on how you spend it.
> Besides, the reason that food stamps were even invented was so that people who usually went to food banks would get to choose their own meals, rather than being dished out something they might not like or aren't culturally familiar with.
I think it's time the people doling out the free money have a greater say on how it's spent.
Jack Squire !gOStA1p7Pc replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #41,074
I think it's high time the government started issuing heroin stamps.
Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #41,076
é¾ !cP2gi3jKX2 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 16 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #41,091
@41,073 (Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG)
By "free money", the expectation is "gratis" and "libre", not merely the former.
By "free money", the expectation is "gratis" and "libre", not merely the former.
Ash Ketchup * !bbKEtchUp. replied with this 15 years ago, 30 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #41,110
Jack Squire !gOStA1p7Pc replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #41,116
salty !0k2UQf2nOU replied with this 15 years ago, 26 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #41,127
@41,030 (Nimj)
That's not what I was referring to at all. Asians immigrants who, for example, are given beans that they don't even know how to cook when they go to a food pantry.
That's not what I was referring to at all. Asians immigrants who, for example, are given beans that they don't even know how to cook when they go to a food pantry.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #41,129
@41,074 (Jack Squire !gOStA1p7Pc)
Canada, Switzerland, and the Netherlands prescribe free heroin to addicts to prevent them from stealing to support themselves which is much better for the people that would have to deal with the theft. Also it's safer, it's not cut with anything, and a nurse is available, and means no unpaid trips to the ER room (would be paid for by the taxpayer).
It's worked out quite well, and honestly I think it should be done in the US.
Also, it means criminals make less money, which gives them that much less incentive to push the drug onto new customers.
Canada, Switzerland, and the Netherlands prescribe free heroin to addicts to prevent them from stealing to support themselves which is much better for the people that would have to deal with the theft. Also it's safer, it's not cut with anything, and a nurse is available, and means no unpaid trips to the ER room (would be paid for by the taxpayer).
It's worked out quite well, and honestly I think it should be done in the US.
Also, it means criminals make less money, which gives them that much less incentive to push the drug onto new customers.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #41,130
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #41,131
@previous (F)
The clinics do offer it, and many clinics will users over after a time. Many addicts are turned off to the idea at first, and don't pursue it, but no addict will turn away a free hit of heroin and so that's how the clinic gets a chance to discuss alternatives. Those drugs are mainly helpful to people that have been addicted for a long time, that can't get high anymore, though, and are just good for staving off withdrawals, and are not helpful for early users who want to get high.
The clinics do offer it, and many clinics will users over after a time. Many addicts are turned off to the idea at first, and don't pursue it, but no addict will turn away a free hit of heroin and so that's how the clinic gets a chance to discuss alternatives. Those drugs are mainly helpful to people that have been addicted for a long time, that can't get high anymore, though, and are just good for staving off withdrawals, and are not helpful for early users who want to get high.
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #41,133
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #41,136
@previous (F)
Has this been tried? Why wouldn't it work?
IV heroin is stronger than oral/insulfated Oxycodone, and that might be a reason.
But the programs they have now do work, it gives people a safe place, removes the burden of theft, reduces ER costs, keeps a human being alive and gives them a better chance of recovery, and hurts criminal gangs.
Has this been tried? Why wouldn't it work?
IV heroin is stronger than oral/insulfated Oxycodone, and that might be a reason.
But the programs they have now do work, it gives people a safe place, removes the burden of theft, reduces ER costs, keeps a human being alive and gives them a better chance of recovery, and hurts criminal gangs.
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #41,138
@previous (A)
I actually listen to a very cool podcast run by two drug health workers. It's called Hooked, and it teaches people how to ingest hard drugs in less risky ways. It's on itunes, if you want to check it out.
http://www.simplysyndicated.com/shows/hooked/
I actually listen to a very cool podcast run by two drug health workers. It's called Hooked, and it teaches people how to ingest hard drugs in less risky ways. It's on itunes, if you want to check it out.
http://www.simplysyndicated.com/shows/hooked/
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #41,140
@previous (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
I'll check it out. I learned a while back how to inject without collapsing the vein, and how to get clean needles, and avoid infection and all of that, but never ended up doing it. Not heroin btw.
I'll check it out. I learned a while back how to inject without collapsing the vein, and how to get clean needles, and avoid infection and all of that, but never ended up doing it. Not heroin btw.
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #41,148
Ash Ketchup * !bbKEtchUp. replied with this 15 years ago, 12 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #41,515
Jack Squire !gOStA1p7Pc replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #41,519
@previous (Ash Ketchup * !bbKEtchUp.)
right, because that's not a sampling error. How would you feel if extraterrestrials came to earth, went only to the absolute shittiest place on it (New Jersey), and judged the whole planet based on that one location? It would be like me judging the UK just based of a short trip to N. Ireland.
right, because that's not a sampling error. How would you feel if extraterrestrials came to earth, went only to the absolute shittiest place on it (New Jersey), and judged the whole planet based on that one location? It would be like me judging the UK just based of a short trip to N. Ireland.
Ash Ketchup * !bbKEtchUp. replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #41,521
@previous (Jack Squire !gOStA1p7Pc)
N. Ireland is pretty much what you can expect to find everywhere else. Also New Jersey is heaven to starving West African people.
N. Ireland is pretty much what you can expect to find everywhere else. Also New Jersey is heaven to starving West African people.
Jack Squire !gOStA1p7Pc replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #41,526
@previous (Ash Ketchup * !bbKEtchUp.)New Jersey is home to the Snooki, a dangerous indigenous creature.
Ash Ketchup * !bbKEtchUp. replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #41,543
Jack Squire !gOStA1p7Pc replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #41,549
@previous (Ash Ketchup * !bbKEtchUp.)
It is a snooki. They litter the landscape of post-apocolyptic New Jersey. Most of the population was safe in underground shelters, called "Vaults". Some, however, were unable to find protection from the nuclear destruction. The resulting radiation altered their genetic codes, creating these monstrosities, commonly referred to as "Guidos", or, by their scientific name: "Italians".
It is a snooki. They litter the landscape of post-apocolyptic New Jersey. Most of the population was safe in underground shelters, called "Vaults". Some, however, were unable to find protection from the nuclear destruction. The resulting radiation altered their genetic codes, creating these monstrosities, commonly referred to as "Guidos", or, by their scientific name: "Italians".