Topic: Government: You are not smart enough to make your own diet choices, so we will ban trans fats.
Metæ started this discussion 13 years ago #32,461
HFCS remains legal and subsidized, though, because Con Agra and ADM have better lobbyists than the trans fat industry.
Why is it that the government thinks people are smart enough to choose politicians, but not smart enough to buy food or lightbulbs without the nanny state "guiding" them at gunpoint?
If you don't want to eat trans fats, then vote against them in the marketplace by purchasing foods without them. Why should the government be telling people how to eat?
Why is it that the government thinks people are smart enough to choose politicians, but not smart enough to buy food or lightbulbs without the nanny state "guiding" them at gunpoint?
If you don't want to eat trans fats, then vote against them in the marketplace by purchasing foods without them. Why should the government be telling people how to eat?
Syntax joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 15 minutes later[^] [v] #453,372
If you want trans fats u are free to buy them from a supplier. Buy all you want2 now cause the shelf life is 4ever.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 7 minutes later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #453,373
mmm HFCS
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 7 minutes later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #453,375
People aren't smart enough to make their own diet choices, lol. That's just reality. Have you looked around at how many overweight and obese people there are, recently? Nothing happens in a vacuum; everything they do affects everybody else in society - overweight people are more likely to take time off work, they're more likely to need healthcare, etc.
(Edited 58 seconds later.)
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #453,376
Typical cis oppression.
squeegee joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 13 minutes later, 46 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #453,377
Less about peoples choices, more about corporate responsibility. If a business can make money off making you sick and die, they will. So I see this as putting a stop to irresponsible business rather than stopping peoples choices.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #453,381
Regarding the lightbulbs, enviroment bud.`
Metæ (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #453,383
@453,377 (squeegee)
So if someone knowingly buys a lot of foods with trans fat and gets sick from it, it's all the business's fault? What if someone drinks nonstop and dies a slow, painful death from liver cirrhosis? Would that be [insert liquor company]'s fault?
So if someone knowingly buys a lot of foods with trans fat and gets sick from it, it's all the business's fault? What if someone drinks nonstop and dies a slow, painful death from liver cirrhosis? Would that be [insert liquor company]'s fault?
Metæ (OP) double-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #453,384
@453,381 (G)
Manufacturing mercury-filled lightbulbs in a company with basically no environmental laws and then shipping them across the ocean is great for the environment.
Manufacturing mercury-filled lightbulbs in a company with basically no environmental laws and then shipping them across the ocean is great for the environment.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 3 days later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,686
@OP
> HFCS remains legal and subsidized, though, because Con Agra and ADM have better lobbyists than the trans fat industry.
>
> Why is it that the government thinks people are smart enough to choose politicians, but not smart enough to buy food or lightbulbs without the nanny state "guiding" them at gunpoint?
>
> If you don't want to eat trans fats, then vote against them in the marketplace by purchasing foods without them. Why should the government be telling people how to eat?
please explain to me having the option of choosing a normal lightbulb and one that saves energy is "the nanny state guiding them at gunpoint" you fuckin fag
> HFCS remains legal and subsidized, though, because Con Agra and ADM have better lobbyists than the trans fat industry.
>
> Why is it that the government thinks people are smart enough to choose politicians, but not smart enough to buy food or lightbulbs without the nanny state "guiding" them at gunpoint?
>
> If you don't want to eat trans fats, then vote against them in the marketplace by purchasing foods without them. Why should the government be telling people how to eat?
please explain to me having the option of choosing a normal lightbulb and one that saves energy is "the nanny state guiding them at gunpoint" you fuckin fag
squeegee !first/o5zA joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,716
@453,383 (Metæ)
actually, yeah, that's a valid way of looking at it. It's like fast cars. if the speed limit is set to a max of 80, then how can car manufacturers get away with making cars that can go double that.
most city speeds top out between 55 and 70. cars that can go faster are just dangerous.
fast cars could be made illegal, and auto makers would be forced to build economical cars that are safer on the roads.
fast cars are like AR-15s. they should be BANNED.
actually, yeah, that's a valid way of looking at it. It's like fast cars. if the speed limit is set to a max of 80, then how can car manufacturers get away with making cars that can go double that.
most city speeds top out between 55 and 70. cars that can go faster are just dangerous.
fast cars could be made illegal, and auto makers would be forced to build economical cars that are safer on the roads.
fast cars are like AR-15s. they should be BANNED.
Meta (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 37 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,718
@previous (squeegee !first/o5zA)
Do you feel that 12 packs of soda should be banned, as well, since they contain far more sugar than anyone needs, and are a leading contributor to obesity and tooth decay?
Do you feel that 12 packs of soda should be banned, as well, since they contain far more sugar than anyone needs, and are a leading contributor to obesity and tooth decay?
(Edited 23 seconds later.)
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 13 years ago, 29 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,724
@previous (Meta)
probably. why not just go all the way and just prohibit pre-sweetened beverages. if people gotta have sugar they can add it themselves.
anyway it doesn't matter how i feel about it, i'm just saying logically
probably. why not just go all the way and just prohibit pre-sweetened beverages. if people gotta have sugar they can add it themselves.
anyway it doesn't matter how i feel about it, i'm just saying logically
Meta (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,725
@previous (squeegee !first/o5zA)
Okay, which categories of people's lives and behavior should the government not regulate?
Okay, which categories of people's lives and behavior should the government not regulate?
eels joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 53 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,729
Many do not have the means to avoid transfat. Transfat makes food cheap and apparently delicious .
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 13 years ago, 11 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,731
HaikerensGuide420 !dBGi/iH4eY joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,733
@453,724 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
how's a man to get sweet tea? it's rather shameful to have to dump a whole bag of sugar into an 8oz cup just to get the same taste
how's a man to get sweet tea? it's rather shameful to have to dump a whole bag of sugar into an 8oz cup just to get the same taste
(Edited 27 seconds later.)
Meta (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 7 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,734
@453,731 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
I didn't ask what the supreme court thinks, I asked what you think. You seem quite opinionated on what should be regulated, what do you think should not?
I didn't ask what the supreme court thinks, I asked what you think. You seem quite opinionated on what should be regulated, what do you think should not?
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 13 years ago, 35 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,745
@previous (Meta)
let's see... speech should be regulated, guns should be regulated...
i believe in socialism, so, like, jobs would be regulated, and salaries.
i dunno what i wouldn't regulate, it's easier to just list what should be.
ask me some things that you want to know about specifically and i'll say yes they should be regulated, or no it should not be regulated.
oh yeah, and the state should provide all the gasoline to us, fuck the for profit oil hegemony.
if the state owned oil and gas it would be a fuck load cheaper than constantly being gouged by rich british ex-pats.
let's see... speech should be regulated, guns should be regulated...
i believe in socialism, so, like, jobs would be regulated, and salaries.
i dunno what i wouldn't regulate, it's easier to just list what should be.
ask me some things that you want to know about specifically and i'll say yes they should be regulated, or no it should not be regulated.
oh yeah, and the state should provide all the gasoline to us, fuck the for profit oil hegemony.
if the state owned oil and gas it would be a fuck load cheaper than constantly being gouged by rich british ex-pats.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Meta (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,746
Syntax replied with this 13 years ago, 14 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,747
@453,745 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
> i believe in socialism, so, like, jobs would be regulated, and salaries.
Is there actually a real example of a socialist country that regulated salaries Fairly?
> i believe in socialism, so, like, jobs would be regulated, and salaries.
Is there actually a real example of a socialist country that regulated salaries Fairly?
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,749
@previous (Syntax)
well, with 3d printing and robots pretty soon we won't have jobs anymore. we won't need salaries.
just lots of plastic.
@453,746 (Meta)
people should be held accountable for their words, and publicly disseminating known mistruths should be a crime. example: holocaust denial, which in germany is a crime. so there's precedent.
well, with 3d printing and robots pretty soon we won't have jobs anymore. we won't need salaries.
just lots of plastic.
@453,746 (Meta)
people should be held accountable for their words, and publicly disseminating known mistruths should be a crime. example: holocaust denial, which in germany is a crime. so there's precedent.
squeegee !first/o5zA double-posted this 13 years ago, 13 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,750
oh, i think the internet should be regulated.
i think that everyone should have to provide a legal form of identification,
such as a driver's license number or a credit card number, before being able to add content to a website.
i think that everyone should have to provide a legal form of identification,
such as a driver's license number or a credit card number, before being able to add content to a website.
Meta (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 16 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,754
@previous (squeegee !first/o5zA)
Jesus damn, shit's like 1984
Also, wouldn't requiring ID disenfranchise minority internet users?
Jesus damn, shit's like 1984
Also, wouldn't requiring ID disenfranchise minority internet users?
(Edited 33 seconds later.)
Syntax replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,758
@previous (Meta)
I need to re-read 1984 but as I remember it the New York city use of Cams and software - But no way did I read anything like that in the book way back then.
I need to re-read 1984 but as I remember it the New York city use of Cams and software - But no way did I read anything like that in the book way back then.
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 13 years ago, 42 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,759
Meta (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,760
@previous (squeegee !first/o5zA)
So you basically want a totalitarian socialist society commanded by an all-powerful state?
So you basically want a totalitarian socialist society commanded by an all-powerful state?
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,761
420niggas joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,763
why was this needed excactly?
i live in the fattest part of USA and i have never once seen Trans Fat at more than 0g on the nutrition facts label
i live in the fattest part of USA and i have never once seen Trans Fat at more than 0g on the nutrition facts label
Anonymous E replied with this 13 years ago, 9 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,764
Anonymous E double-posted this 13 years ago, 11 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,765
@453,750 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
You are soooo drunk and trolling right now. Seriously... put the bottle down, buddy.
You are soooo drunk and trolling right now. Seriously... put the bottle down, buddy.
Anonymous E triple-posted this 13 years ago, 19 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,766
So... A quick breakdown for everyone worried that our lawmakers are actually doing something:
> "Microwave popcorn, cake frosting and frozen pizzas generally have high levels of trans fats."
Oh shit. I eat microwave popcorn for every fucking meal! Sometimes I top it off with a can of frosting! Fuck me! Actually... no. No one gives an actual shit. Period. We knew that these things were unhealthy. If you require stiffer labeling for this... umm fine? But why ban it? People aren't living off of microwave popcorn or frosting, right? Fritos, Pringles, Hot Pockets, Gummy Bears, Walter's diet... No trans fats. :(
> "Food containing below the .5 gram per serving would not likely be banned under proposal", an FDA official said.
Oh, sweet. All they have to do is decrease the listed serving size from 18-20 grains of popcorn to 2-5 grains of popcorn. Suuuuu-per! Glad to know our lawmakers are out there keeping people healthy by law (unless it involves mandatory health care... then that's fucking socialism!)
> "Microwave popcorn, cake frosting and frozen pizzas generally have high levels of trans fats."
Oh shit. I eat microwave popcorn for every fucking meal! Sometimes I top it off with a can of frosting! Fuck me! Actually... no. No one gives an actual shit. Period. We knew that these things were unhealthy. If you require stiffer labeling for this... umm fine? But why ban it? People aren't living off of microwave popcorn or frosting, right? Fritos, Pringles, Hot Pockets, Gummy Bears, Walter's diet... No trans fats. :(
> "Food containing below the .5 gram per serving would not likely be banned under proposal", an FDA official said.
Oh, sweet. All they have to do is decrease the listed serving size from 18-20 grains of popcorn to 2-5 grains of popcorn. Suuuuu-per! Glad to know our lawmakers are out there keeping people healthy by law (unless it involves mandatory health care... then that's fucking socialism!)
(Edited 7 minutes later.)
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,769
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,775
Well the Government knows for a fact we are not smart enough to choose our own leaders. Why should they trust us to make any personal decisions really?
Meta (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 4 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,806
@453,766 (E)
You need the government to help make your eating decisions, otherwise how would you know a diet of 20 pounds of cake frosted popcorn a day is not healthy?
You can't be expected to, like, read labels or count calories or research nutrition or make informed choices or anything.
You need the government to help make your eating decisions, otherwise how would you know a diet of 20 pounds of cake frosted popcorn a day is not healthy?
You can't be expected to, like, read labels or count calories or research nutrition or make informed choices or anything.
240paki joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 46 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,809
@453,733 (HaikerensGuide420 !dBGi/iH4eY)
Sweet tea?!
Heathen. Sugar spoils tea. Sugar in tea is purely for infants.
Sweet tea?!
Heathen. Sugar spoils tea. Sugar in tea is purely for infants.
squeegee replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,810
@453,806 (Meta)
You mean the nutrition labels that are required on food packaging by law? Yeah, those are only there because of the nanny state.
You mean the nutrition labels that are required on food packaging by law? Yeah, those are only there because of the nanny state.
(Edited 51 seconds later.)
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 23 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,812
@453,806 (Meta)
> You can't be expected to, like, read labels or count calories or research nutrition or make informed choices or anything.
people don't do that which is why 60% of the USA is obese and will probably die age 60
> You can't be expected to, like, read labels or count calories or research nutrition or make informed choices or anything.
people don't do that which is why 60% of the USA is obese and will probably die age 60
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 20 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,815
@previous (O)
You need to let go of this idea that consumers have power.
Any power consumers have is easily checked by controlling the available options. Producers and retailers have the power, and consumers get to bitch and moan while buying up that shit anyways since any shit is still better than no shit at all.
You need to let go of this idea that consumers have power.
Any power consumers have is easily checked by controlling the available options. Producers and retailers have the power, and consumers get to bitch and moan while buying up that shit anyways since any shit is still better than no shit at all.
Anonymous O replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,816
Anonymous P replied with this 13 years ago, 16 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,817
Triptych !IupsXZPnnU joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,839
@453,749 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
That'll be interesting. I foresee a Player Piano scenario, I hope that doesn't happen.
@OP
Trans fats are objectively just... bad for you. Food is one of the most important things in life, it should certainly be regulated to keep harmful shit out of it.
That'll be interesting. I foresee a Player Piano scenario, I hope that doesn't happen.
@OP
Trans fats are objectively just... bad for you. Food is one of the most important things in life, it should certainly be regulated to keep harmful shit out of it.
Triptych !IupsXZPnnU double-posted this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,840
@453,766 (E)
Plenty of people make highly uninformed eating decisions. It's an objective good for society, and in the implementation of this we will lose... absolutely nothing?
I really wish they'd ban or highly regulate HFCS. Shit's terrible and in everything.
Plenty of people make highly uninformed eating decisions. It's an objective good for society, and in the implementation of this we will lose... absolutely nothing?
I really wish they'd ban or highly regulate HFCS. Shit's terrible and in everything.
Anonymous O replied with this 13 years ago, 53 seconds later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,841
Ks !KansasxqvM joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 2 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,844
This is so backwards. If we stopped subsidizing corn and soybeans we wouldn't have this problem (at least to this extent). We even subsidize the shit out of sugar! We throw money at farmers to create the problem and then make a law to prevent it. Wtf hell. There is just no common sense anymore.
The average person probably doesn't even know the shit is bad for you...
The average person probably doesn't even know the shit is bad for you...
420niggas replied with this 13 years ago, 34 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,847
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,848
@previous (420niggas)
I've never heard that expression. I love it. Thanks 420niggas! You're no 420_yolo_swag_for_jesus, but you're pretty okay.
I've never heard that expression. I love it. Thanks 420niggas! You're no 420_yolo_swag_for_jesus, but you're pretty okay.
420 yolo swag for nigga jesus replied with this 13 years ago, 29 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,851
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 13 years ago, 21 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,858
Triptych !IupsXZPnnU replied with this 13 years ago, 13 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,859
@453,844 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
It'd be nice to subsidise something useful and healthy instead, using that money.
I have no idea what that could be.
It'd be nice to subsidise something useful and healthy instead, using that money.
I have no idea what that could be.
(Edited 11 seconds later.)
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,866
@previous (Triptych !IupsXZPnnU)
I'm not sure subsidizing anything is a good answer. If we wanna make food more affordable a healthy dose of competition is good for that. If we wanna make food more accessible to the poor, vouchers would be the way to go. If we want people to eat healthy education is probably the best course of action, informed people make better decisions. Giving subsidies gives certain people more money, it doesn't make food cheaper.
Subsidies are welfare for people that usually don't need it. You'll rarely hear anyone complain about that type of welfare though. There is a bizarre disconnect, actual welfare for poor people is the only kind that's "killing our country" according to the media. Corporate welfare, farmer welfare, and all other forms of subsidies, tax breaks, grants etc are never even brought up.
I'm not sure subsidizing anything is a good answer. If we wanna make food more affordable a healthy dose of competition is good for that. If we wanna make food more accessible to the poor, vouchers would be the way to go. If we want people to eat healthy education is probably the best course of action, informed people make better decisions. Giving subsidies gives certain people more money, it doesn't make food cheaper.
Subsidies are welfare for people that usually don't need it. You'll rarely hear anyone complain about that type of welfare though. There is a bizarre disconnect, actual welfare for poor people is the only kind that's "killing our country" according to the media. Corporate welfare, farmer welfare, and all other forms of subsidies, tax breaks, grants etc are never even brought up.
(Edited 25 seconds later.)
Triptych !IupsXZPnnU replied with this 13 years ago, 22 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,867
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
I'd like subsidies for smaller farmers to facilitate competition. That'd be good, I think.
People do complain about corporate subsidies; just not the same people who complain about people welfare.
I'd like subsidies for smaller farmers to facilitate competition. That'd be good, I think.
People do complain about corporate subsidies; just not the same people who complain about people welfare.
Anonymous E replied with this 13 years ago, 3 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,876
@453,840 (Triptych !IupsXZPnnU)
> I really wish they'd ban or highly regulate HFCS.
word
> Shit's terrible and in everything.
word x 1000
> I really wish they'd ban or highly regulate HFCS.
word
> Shit's terrible and in everything.
word x 1000
Anonymous S joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 22 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,882
Are cis fats good for you?
Triptych !IupsXZPnnU replied with this 13 years ago, 20 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,884
Anonymous T joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 8 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,911
@453,759 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
Basically, "the mark of the beast." Yeah, I'm sure that's gonna work out great.
Seriously though, why you trolling so hard? I though you were better than this.
Basically, "the mark of the beast." Yeah, I'm sure that's gonna work out great.
Seriously though, why you trolling so hard? I though you were better than this.
(Edited 25 seconds later.)
Anonymous U joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 11 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,936
@453,866 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Obamacare is a subsidy for the insurance industry though, and you love that.
No need to make your product affordable, just make a law forcing people go buy it.
Obamacare is a subsidy for the insurance industry though, and you love that.
No need to make your product affordable, just make a law forcing people go buy it.
Triptych !IupsXZPnnU replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,937
Meta (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 2 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,944
@453,867 (Triptych !IupsXZPnnU)
> I'd like subsidies for smaller farmers to facilitate competition. That'd be good, I think.
There should be no subsidies for any farmers, big or small.
> People do complain about corporate subsidies; just not the same people who complain about people welfare.
Libertarians complain about both.
> I'd like subsidies for smaller farmers to facilitate competition. That'd be good, I think.
There should be no subsidies for any farmers, big or small.
> People do complain about corporate subsidies; just not the same people who complain about people welfare.
Libertarians complain about both.
Triptych !IupsXZPnnU replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,945
@previous (Meta)
Agriculture is essential. At the moment, it is by and large dominated by a few corporations. Encouraging competition with smaller farmers would be helpful in breaking up that oligopoly.
Agriculture is essential. At the moment, it is by and large dominated by a few corporations. Encouraging competition with smaller farmers would be helpful in breaking up that oligopoly.
Meta (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,946
@453,937 (Triptych !IupsXZPnnU)
Here in Texas a state ID card is $16 and valid for 6 years. A drivers license is $25, also valid for 6 years.
I don't think the cost of ID is particularly onerous (at least not compared to all the state and federal taxes Texans already have to pay) but maybe that's my white male cis privilege showing.
Here in Texas a state ID card is $16 and valid for 6 years. A drivers license is $25, also valid for 6 years.
I don't think the cost of ID is particularly onerous (at least not compared to all the state and federal taxes Texans already have to pay) but maybe that's my white male cis privilege showing.
Triptych !IupsXZPnnU replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,947
@previous (Meta)
My ID costs $35, plus another $35 for a birth certificate, which is required in order to get an ID. $70 ID.
My ID costs $35, plus another $35 for a birth certificate, which is required in order to get an ID. $70 ID.
(Edited 14 seconds later.)
Meta (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,948
@453,945 (Triptych !IupsXZPnnU)
Yes, and big agribusiness is gobbling up billions in subsidies, at least here. Do large corporations like ConAgra and ArcherDanielsMidland really need to be fed tax dollars?
What else would be helpful in breaking up the oligopoly is cutting off subsidies. Does agriculture really need subsidies? It's not like people are going to stop eating any time soon.
Yes, and big agribusiness is gobbling up billions in subsidies, at least here. Do large corporations like ConAgra and ArcherDanielsMidland really need to be fed tax dollars?
What else would be helpful in breaking up the oligopoly is cutting off subsidies. Does agriculture really need subsidies? It's not like people are going to stop eating any time soon.
Triptych !IupsXZPnnU replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,950
Meta (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 7 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,951
@previous (Triptych !IupsXZPnnU)
But that would diminish agricultural productivity because there would be no incentive to run a larger farm and take advantage of economies of scale. Food prices would subsequently rise. Why do you want poor people to starve?
But that would diminish agricultural productivity because there would be no incentive to run a larger farm and take advantage of economies of scale. Food prices would subsequently rise. Why do you want poor people to starve?
Triptych !IupsXZPnnU replied with this 13 years ago, 6 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,954
Meta (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,956
@previous (Triptych !IupsXZPnnU)
Which ultimately comes from the middle class. The poor have nothing to tax and the 1% can move all their assets offshore and hire the best Jewish accountants to deduct the rest.
Why do you hate the middle class?
Which ultimately comes from the middle class. The poor have nothing to tax and the 1% can move all their assets offshore and hire the best Jewish accountants to deduct the rest.
Why do you hate the middle class?
Triptych !IupsXZPnnU replied with this 13 years ago, 33 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,957
Meta (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 7 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #453,958
@previous (Triptych !IupsXZPnnU)
Ultimately you don't want anyone to live an independent life. I bet you would like to see all reduced to being wards of an omnipotent omniscient state.
Ultimately you don't want anyone to live an independent life. I bet you would like to see all reduced to being wards of an omnipotent omniscient state.