Liberals versus Salt

Watermark said:
Yeah and we should still allow carcinogens in manufacturing because the consumers will have a choice.
Click to expand...
You are likely to get the most carcinogens in your food from eating charcoal broiled food like at BBQ's, doesn't seem to stop many people does it?
As with most things, you exercise self-restraint and moderation, we do NOT need government to save us from every little health hazard.
Maybe you do wussboy, but most people are not as weak as you.
 
KingCondanomation said:
Sigh, in the latest leftwing war on yet another random thing they hate, it is Liberals of New York (and yes Bloomberg is a Liberal) trying to threaten business to reduce salt or else.

"NEW YORK (CBS) ― Singer Jimmy Buffett will never find his "lost shaker of salt" in New York City or any other place in the country if Mayor Michael Bloomberg has his way. The mayor is waging a war on salt and he wants food manufacturers and restaurants to join his army … or else. "
http://wcbstv.com/politics/bloomberg.war.on.2.920343.html

But I think even New Yorkers have had enough of their nanny state:
"Nanny state. We don't need any more nanny state people can take care of themselves. We don't need the government to take care of us," said Patrick Keenan of Hell's Kitchen.

I wonder if any of these totally moronic lefties realize that adding more and more regulation makes a more unfriendly business environment, increases cost and kills jobs.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that Government doesn't have an interest in protecting the public? That it shouldn't regulate food quality?

So if we can limit the amount of mercury, benzene or MSG in food why shouldn't sodium chloride levels be regulated? The affects of excessive sodium chloride levels are well documented. So how does the government doing it's job competently make this a nanny state? Or do you still believe that the story is still out on tobacco and that it shouldn't be regulated?

This is just another right wing strawman.

How comes you wingnuts are incapable of an honest argument?
 
KingCondanomation said:
You are likely to get the most carcinogens in your food from eating charcoal broiled food like at BBQ's, doesn't seem to stop many people does it?
As with most things, you exercise self-restraint and moderation, we do NOT need government to save us from every little health hazard.
Maybe you do wussboy, but most people are not as weak as you.
Click to expand...

LOL. Ad hominem. I'm not doing this for myself, Dano, because unlike you I'm not selfish. I just don't think corporations should make all of my decisions. If it takes the government stepping in to give me a choice, then so be it. YOu're too attached to your corporate nanny state.
 
Watermark said:
There are no restaurants that aren't high in salt. That's no solution. You just want a nanny state in which corporations make all your decisions for you because you can't think for yourself dano.
Click to expand...
Are you moronic? Salt content is right on labels on food in grocery stores and some foods have next to no salt. You have tons of choice.
As for restaurants, ever tried salad? You can always ask for no salt and most restaurants are very happy to accomodate you. You see with corporations they are interested in making money and to do that they need to give customers what they want.

I don't think you could have picked a worse example, food probably has more competition and choice than any other product, well in a capitalist society anyway.
 
Mottleydude said:
So what you're saying is that Government doesn't have an interest in protecting the public? That it shouldn't regulate food quality?

So if we can limit the amount of mercury, benzene or MSG in food why shouldn't sodium chloride levels be regulated? The affects of excessive sodium chloride levels are well documented. So how does the government doing it's job competently make this a nanny state? Or do you still believe that the story is still out on tobacco and that it shouldn't be regulated?

This is just another right wing strawman.

How comes you wingnuts are incapable of an honest argument?
Click to expand...
Am I debating the harmful effects of too much salt? There are harmful effects of too much sugar, fat and plenty else. Is it REALLY so much to ask a regular person to take responsibility for their own choices in food?

I mean aren't you supposed to be a moderate Mottley, you really agree with the wingnuts from New York City on this?
 
KingCondanomation said:
Are you moronic? Salt content is right on labels on food in grocery stores and some foods have next to no salt. You have tons of choice.
As for restaurants, ever tried salad?
Click to expand...

Aside from the fact that it's conceivable that I probably want choices in sodium content in more items than salad, I went to McDonald's website and obtained this information that no normal consumer would have at time of purchase because they don't show it:

http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/nutritionexchange/itemDetailInfo.do

Premium Southwest Salad with Grilled Chicken

Sodium content: 960 mg

http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/nutritionexchange/itemDetailInfo.do

Big Mac

Sodium content: 1040 mg



Epic Danownage. You see, even you couldn't tell what was low in sodium. You randomly tried to reach for a salad, but of course, they make that as unhealthy as anything else, and only market it because people think it's healthier than their other items when it's really not. Thanks for falling for the trick.

The main problem is, if one restauaraunt puts sodium content (which is, of course, never published in an obvious way to the customers) in to boost its taste, any other restaraunt will have to do the same to boost taste or go out of business. That's what happens when you can keep things hidden. People have no idea about the impact on their health. It's the conservative allowed monopoly of unhealthy, unregulated food.

You just don't believe in freedom Dano. You want corporations to make all of your decision for you, I want them to be forced to give me a choice. You have too small a mind for that. Sorry Conservative. :(
 
KingCondanomation said:
Am I debating the harmful effects of too much salt? There are harmful effects of too much sugar, fat and plenty else. Is it REALLY so much to ask a regular person to take responsibility for their own choices in food?

I mean aren't you supposed to be a moderate Mottley, you really agree with the wingnuts from New York City on this?
Click to expand...

You can make the exact same argument about tobacco, the deadliest drug in the history of humanity. It is no way an extreme argument that the Govermnet has a right to protect the public interest by regulating this most dangerous of drugs. In this regards, since the deadly affects of excessive salt and trans fats are well known then government has both a moral and ethical responsiblity to protect the public interest. That is in no way an extreme view but a proper function of government. To consider that a "nannny state" is a bogus strawman.
 
Mottleydude said:
You can make the exact same argument about tobacco, the deadliest drug in the history of humanity. It is no way an extreme argument that the Govermnet has a right to protect the public interest by regulating this most dangerous of drugs. In this regards, since the deadly affects of excessive salt and trans fats are well known then government has both a moral and ethical responsiblity to protect the public interest. That is in no way an extreme view but a proper function of government. To consider that a "nannny state" is a bogus strawman.
Click to expand...

WTF?!?!?!?! the government interest in the public interest should only be instituted when an individuals action hurts the public. none of the above topics come close to broaching a public interest
 
Watermark said:
Aside from the fact that it's conceivable that I probably want choices in sodium content in more items than salad, I went to McDonald's website and obtained this information that no normal consumer would have at time of purchase because they don't show it:

http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/nutritionexchange/itemDetailInfo.do

Premium Southwest Salad with Grilled Chicken

Sodium content: 960 mg

http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/nutritionexchange/itemDetailInfo.do

Big Mac

Sodium content: 1040 mg



Epic Danownage. You see, even you couldn't tell what was low in sodium. You randomly tried to reach for a salad, but of course, they make that as unhealthy as anything else, and only market it because people think it's healthier than their other items when it's really not. Thanks for falling for the trick.

The main problem is, if one restauaraunt puts sodium content (which is, of course, never published in an obvious way to the customers) in to boost its taste, any other restaraunt will have to do the same to boost taste or go out of business. That's what happens when you can keep things hidden. People have no idea about the impact on their health. It's the conservative allowed monopoly of unhealthy, unregulated food.

You just don't believe in freedom Dano. You want corporations to make all of your decision for you, I want them to be forced to give me a choice. You have too small a mind for that. Sorry Conservative. :(
Click to expand...

Get ready for massive reverse ownage. You see I worked at McDonalds, and you season the meat, which means you add a salt and pepper sprinkling to meat patties when they are done. All you need to do (and customers have done this) is ask for no seasoning or no salt and they will not add it to your meat.
And for fucks sakes you stupid tool, this is not government with a monopoly you can eat at more places than McDonalds. There are a few trendy health restaurants where you can eat very healthy if you wish, you just haven't gone out in the world much.
 
Mottleydude said:
You can make the exact same argument about tobacco, the deadliest drug in the history of humanity. It is no way an extreme argument that the Govermnet has a right to protect the public interest by regulating this most dangerous of drugs. In this regards, since the deadly affects of excessive salt and trans fats are well known then government has both a moral and ethical responsiblity to protect the public interest. That is in no way an extreme view but a proper function of government. To consider that a "nannny state" is a bogus strawman.
Click to expand...
Is salt addictive like tobacco is?
Look Mottley, please, look at our budget, look at how many things government does now and they just snowball with more government involvement in paying for health means more gov regulation in keeping its costs down.
People have free choice, they know risks and as individuals it's up to each to determine what level of what they should ingest.
There are so many many things that COULD be harmful, at some point we cannot just keep trying to protect people from their own choices - how will anyone ever learn to be self-responsible if government keeps taking on more and more responsibilities?
 
KingCondanomation said:
Is salt addictive like tobacco is?
Look Mottley, please, look at our budget, look at how many things government does now and they just snowball with more government involvement in paying for health means more gov regulation in keeping its costs down.
People have free choice, they know risks and as individuals it's up to each to determine what level of what they should ingest.
There are so many many things that COULD be harmful, at some point we cannot just keep trying to protect people from their own choices - how will anyone ever learn to be self-responsible if government keeps taking on more and more responsibilities?
Click to expand...

But that's just it. It's not free choice. Do you know what the salt content is in the can of soup you just ate? How about the trans fat content in the french fries you just had? Regulating food quality is not a "snowballing program".

I also need to point out that were not talking about "things that could be harmful" we are talking about two chemicals that in excessive amounts are proven to be harmful. Regulating their contents in food is no different than making sure the food I eat is free from e-coli. It's no different than the restrictions placed on nitrates, as food preservatives ,when their link to cancer was discovered. This is a legitimate roll for government and is hardly some left wing radical idea.
 
Mottleydude said:
But that's just it. It's not free choice. Do you know what the salt content is in the can of soup you just ate? How about the trans fat content in the french fries you just had? Regulating food quality is not a "snowballing program".
Click to expand...
are you being forced to eat that can of soup?

Mottleydude said:
I also need to point out that were not talking about "things that could be harmful" we are talking about two chemicals that in excessive amounts are proven to be harmful. Regulating their contents in food is no different than making sure the food I eat is free from e-coli. It's no different than the restrictions placed on nitrates, as food preservatives ,when their link to cancer was discovered. This is a legitimate roll for government and is hardly some left wing radical idea.
Click to expand...
it's not a legitimate regulation practice when a person can go to a grocery store and buy a shaker of salt to take with him.
 
KingCondanomation said:
Get ready for massive reverse ownage. You see I worked at McDonalds, and you season the meat, which means you add a salt and pepper sprinkling to meat patties when they are done. All you need to do (and customers have done this) is ask for no seasoning or no salt and they will not add it to your meat.
And for fucks sakes you stupid tool, this is not government with a monopoly you can eat at more places than McDonalds. There are a few trendy health restaurants where you can eat very healthy if you wish, you just haven't gone out in the world much.
Click to expand...

Ah, that's our token Dano pretension.

Dano's an expert in the world cus he worked at McDonald's?? I'm sorry dano. It doesn't seem like you've gone out in the world much. :(

I don't really care what you think. We are going to do what's best for America and ignore you stupid delusional conservatives who want to deliberately fuck up the place.
 
Man, liberals hate my flat screen tv, the seasonings I put on my food, and my grandmother. Liberals hate everything good.
 
Watermark said:
Aside from the fact that it's conceivable that I probably want choices in sodium content in more items than salad, I went to McDonald's website and obtained this information that no normal consumer would have at time of purchase because they don't show it:

http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/nutritionexchange/itemDetailInfo.do

Premium Southwest Salad with Grilled Chicken

Sodium content: 960 mg

http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/nutritionexchange/itemDetailInfo.do

Big Mac

Sodium content: 1040 mg



Epic Danownage. You see, even you couldn't tell what was low in sodium. You randomly tried to reach for a salad, but of course, they make that as unhealthy as anything else, and only market it because people think it's healthier than their other items when it's really not. Thanks for falling for the trick.

The main problem is, if one restauaraunt puts sodium content (which is, of course, never published in an obvious way to the customers) in to boost its taste, any other restaraunt will have to do the same to boost taste or go out of business. That's what happens when you can keep things hidden. People have no idea about the impact on their health. It's the conservative allowed monopoly of unhealthy, unregulated food.

You just don't believe in freedom Dano. You want corporations to make all of your decision for you, I want them to be forced to give me a choice. You have too small a mind for that. Sorry Conservative. :(
Click to expand...

Yeah but, I go to the Starbucks website and check the calorie, fat, and sugar content on the drinks I like there all of the time. And I definitely factor that into what I decide to get.

I don't really agree with this. I think it's kinda stupid. I am all for forcing restaurants to post nutrional information in the restaurants, because not everyone has a computer and not everyone realizes just how bad some of this stuff is. But after that, I think the information is readily available, take an interest in your own well-being.
 
I'm all for regulating salt content. They put so much salt in our shit it's worse than loading it up with carcinogens. I support Bloomberg 1000% on this, and I'm not going to try to be against it for no other purpose than to sport moderate crendials.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top