December 6, 2006 8:51 AM
New York bans trans fat
First smoking, now trans fat.
New York became the first city in the nation to ban restaurants from cooking with trans fat oil, which has been linked to obesity and heart disease.
City health officials created the unprecedented new requirements Tuesday. Restaurants will get a grace period to make both changes, but by mid-2008, Dunkin' Donuts will have to find a substitute for the 3.5 grams of trans fat in its Boston Kremes and tell customers up front that the snacks contain 240 calories.But the city's gigantic food-service industry has opposed parts of both new rules, and some restaurant companies have hinted that they might challenge them in court.
A wise move to protect citizens' health or big brother poking his nose in the pantry? Given the level of health/fitness consciousness in Colorado, do you think one of our cities will be next? Are you surprised Boulder didn't beat New York to the punch?
December 6, 2006
9:26 AM
gr8fuldude writes:
I saw this story on CNN's site yesterday, and am amazed that more people are not outraged.
While the intent might be better health, I think that the gummint should stay out of this. As has been asked before on this blog, what's next on the chopping block? Booze? smokes? Too much sun? Promiscous sex?
December 6, 2006
9:43 AM
JW writes:
Have to agree. Good intentions, horrible execution.
December 6, 2006
9:50 AM
Liberty King writes:
First the government wants to be in the bedroom now it wants to be in the kitchen.
Come on people, telling a person what they can eat, can we get any more nazi than this?
December 6, 2006
9:53 AM
down with government writes:
Worst Idea by the government since Social security!!!
December 6, 2006
10:00 AM
jay writes:
Great intention...trans fats are literally killing people and driving up our healthcare costs and they are not being pulled because it's cheaper to make food with them than without them....HOWEVER...it's a matter of personal choice. Just like smoking, you can choose to kill yourself....as long as you're not taking anyone with you. Until they start weaponizing trans fats into vapor and piping them into public places...they should probably mind their own business.
December 6, 2006
10:02 AM
Elwood writes:
Automobiles have been linked to many deaths, when are they going to be banned?
Congressmen (and women) have been linked to many crimes, shouldn't they be banned too?
How many other things can we ban to protect just "one life"?
Get real people, look after yourself and let the government take care of the important things, like spending our taxes.
December 6, 2006
10:06 AM
Anonymous writes:
Jay
Do you really think that banning trans fats will reduce the costs of health care? The insurance industries have a cash cow in their business and won't leg go of that. They'll just increase dividend checks and corporate bonuses, no relief to the insured!
December 6, 2006
10:13 AM
Anonymous writes:
I think this is such a step in the right direction. Our country is going to be so much more healthy and in such a better mood. I won't feel so guilty about eating mcdonalds anymore. Hopefully Colorado will come to and pass the same law here. I can't wait.
December 6, 2006
10:19 AM
Anonymous writes:
10:13 - Glad to see the ol' Prozac is working for you...
December 6, 2006
10:30 AM
Gonna catch me Ridin' Healthy writes:
YES!!! Finally a proactive step in making america healthy again. It is so sad how unhealthy we are now. I am so tired of hearing all these health reports on tv and now we are on the right track. Way to go NYC, I hope we are next. We need to become more healthy than those wacky europeans!
December 6, 2006
10:33 AM
Anonymous writes:
no eating Trans-Fats in public
December 6, 2006
10:34 AM
Anonymous writes:
I think Montgomery Gentry (c&w band) said it best:
"You do your thing, I'll do mine"...
December 6, 2006
10:41 AM
Anonymous writes:
Apparently New York City government doesn't have enough to do so why not dictate what their citizens can and cannot eat.
December 6, 2006
10:47 AM
Anonymous writes:
Just another episode of the world according to the loony left.......you can have your civil liberties, as long as they are the liberties they think you should have
December 6, 2006
10:53 AM
Liberty King writes:
Probably what is most distrubing about this ban is that it will not be the last time we hear of this (although this one will never come to pass). It is but a trial ballon that governmental types use to try to get the public to accept the idea. Eventually, an idea simular to this one will be put to the public that the public will accept that doesn't seem too bad on the surface (i.e full of good intentions) and bingo, we will then have a new group of people to segergate from society. The real shame is that we should down this notion and all the other laws that have to do with correcting someone's personal choices.
Down with the government in our personal lives!
December 6, 2006
10:53 AM
Adolf writes:
This is certanly a step in the right direction!
Next, they should create a task force, made of police, to go door-to-door and check on each citizen's weight.
If someone is overweight, then they will be arrested and made a ward of the state. They would be taken to a "fat camp" where they are forced to work off the weight and put on a restrictive diet.
Once these unhealthy, obese people meet our common weight expectation then they will be released under a probation program where they are frequently weighed to make sure they are not gaining weight again.
December 6, 2006
11:05 AM
Cheese King writes:
As long as they don't take my cheese away I am happy. I really should just move to wisconsin because I love cheese that much. Vive La Fromage!!!
December 6, 2006
11:36 AM
ML writes:
It's called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!
December 6, 2006
11:40 AM
Anonymous writes:
actually its called PERSONAL CHOICE!!
December 6, 2006
11:50 AM
Anonymous writes:
What's amusing to me is that the left thinks that EVERY woman should be trusted with the ability to kill a fetus, but NOBODY can be trusted with the responsibility of choosing potentially dangerous food.
December 6, 2006
11:54 AM
Liberty KING writes:
That is interesting, but what is more interesting is the fact that the government and some people think that it is their business to regulate behavoiors that do not hurt anyone else. Reguardless of trans-fat or if it is prostitution
December 6, 2006
12:09 PM
Raymond Burr for President writes:
Maybe the government is trying to take away the lawsuit loophole. All a New York lawyer needs to get his or her bloated face on TV is a client and an excuse.
December 6, 2006
12:18 PM
Kevin Jones writes:
These bans should be limited to city or county level at most, since state or Federal legislation is a particularly blunt instrument. That way people can vote with their feet without much hindrance.
Because the ban is only limited to NYC, I'm not terribly exercised about it. Allegedly the more toxic kinds of cooking oils can be replaced without injury to taste, though I wonder how much the law will boost already hefty NYC food prices.
December 6, 2006
12:43 PM
Liberty KING writes:
You SEE, Kevin is proving my point, already some people are thinking that such a ban is not-so-bad. Wrong, you let the governemnt in the door and the next thing you know, you are bent over and taking it in the a**
Just say no to governmental regulation of behavoior, no exectptions no compromises.
December 6, 2006
12:44 PM
David (R) writes:
Interesting and thought-provoking comments on both sides of the issue so far.
Here are my thoughts; I believe there is a tendency in this country to be trusting. That applies in most areas, such as getting change back at a store, going to a doctor or hospital for health care, hiring someone to do some home improvement work for you, and going to most any eatery and assuming we're getting good, healthy food.
So, we know that animal fats are mostly the so-called "saturated" or fat soluable fats that are very difficult to get rid of. They are also associated with arterial clogging and can lead to coronary bypass surgery.
We also know that plant fats, such as corn or peanut oil, are mostly the so-called "unsaturated" or water soluable fats. If I remember correctly all kinds of fats contain some form of cholesterols, which can be bad for heart disease as well.
I looked up "trans fats" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_fat, and found that it says, "Trans fatty acids (commonly termed trans fats) are a type of unsaturated fat......" and, "Most trans fats consumed today, however, are industrially created as a side effect of partial hydrogenation of plant oils — a process developed in the early 1900s and first commercialized as Crisco in 1911."
Okay - so that's for information, but why are trans fatty acids bad for us? Here's what it says: "Unlike other fats, trans fats are neither required nor beneficial for health. Eating trans fat increases the risk of coronary heart disease. For these reasons, health authorities worldwide recommend that consumption of trans fat be reduced to trace amounts. Trans fats from partially hydrogenated oils are generally considered to be more of a health risk than those occurring naturally."
There is a large amount of other information there, but the bottom line seems to be that trans fatty acids are bad, and many countries already ban them.
The question here is whether or not NY has the right or responsibility of protecting public health. There are naturally occuring oils that aren't hydrogenated, that don't contain trans fats, but if establishments used them, they would have to report higher calorie contents in their menu items. So, is this a matter of "We cook in oil that is bad for you so we can report lower calories?"
It appears so to me. My opinion is that NY has the responsibility of at least alerting consumers to the dangers of what they're eating. McDonalds, et al, surely will not. As far as controlling it? I'm going to chew on that awhile because I normally eschew government interventions and controls, but this is a public health issue.
December 6, 2006
12:46 PM
Anonymous writes:
Once again New York implements a ban that will have far more economical costs than actual benefits.
About a decade ago, they banned the sale of miniature figurines that contained lead in them. Actually, the ban was on Toys containing lead, but the city/state of New York decided to classify hobbyist miniatures, such as diorama pieces, scale train figures and dollhouse pieces as toys.
Most of the manufacturers are/were Mom & Pop organizations located outside the state of NY, serving a limted, adult audience. Manufacturers of these figurines were either forced to not sell in New York, or re-formulate their metal contents to remove the lead. This forced change drove several of them out of business because of the combined decrease in quality of product and increased costs of the reformulated metal content. The hobby is only recently recovering from the decisions in NY. It might have survived just NY, but then CA followed suit.
And NY can't point to one single case where their forced regulation has prevented a case of lead poisoning by any of these hobbyist items.
The big restuarant chains will probably wind up changing everywhere to comply with the NY regulations, particularly if any other large markets follow suit. Franchises may or may not, depending upon their supplier arrangements. There is a good chance this will have a marked economic impact on those businesses. But when all is said in done, I wonder if NY will be able to point to a single, tangible benefit for doing this?
December 6, 2006
12:56 PM
Anonymous writes:
People choke on food and die all the time, they need to just ban food. It is becoming clearere and clearer why the left loves loony muslims, they are loony lefties with the same appetite for absolute control of the populace. Remember folks, liberals are atheists, Hitler was a atheist.....you make the connection
December 6, 2006
12:59 PM
Anonymous writes:
so, 12:46, are you saying that makers of things should just be allowed to use materials and sell to uninformed and/or unsuspecting buyers without any regard for potential dangers? it would be okay for me to sell you a car made with a steering wheel that is 5% plutonium that will eventually kill you, because it would cost the maker of the steering wheel too much money to find other materials that are strong enough? or it would be ok for a maker to sell you chocolate with low levels of arsenic in it because the ground where the cocoa plants are grown is laced with it and the maker can't afford to buy and move to new fields? is that what you're saying? why is changing which oil they buy a hardship in your view? where is the problem? instead of buying partially hydrogenated corn or canola oil, they have to buy pure corn or canola oil. it's the same or less cost because hydrogenating oil is a time-consuming process that adds to the expense. do you know why they hydrogenate oils? it's so that the calories from the oil can't be digested, and if it can't be digested they can omit the calories from the total count, even though many people become ill from eating it. nice.
December 6, 2006
12:59 PM
Liberty King writes:
et tu David,
Shame on you and Kevin. While I don't think that anyone will disagree with the fact that Trans fats are bad, it is not enough justification for a government to intervene in the choice of diet for a person. Plus, just like smoking, I am pretty sure that most everyone knows that McDs and the rest, are not good for you. However, if a person chooses to hurt themself, it is not the business of the state to dictate what is good and right, thus it is not a public health problem even if it is a personal health problem.
December 6, 2006
1:04 PM
Godfather writes:
There is a very simple solution to this problem. New York eateries can use olive oil and my olive oil import business will see that they are stocked -- for a price, or for a favor if I wish to ask for one.
December 6, 2006
1:13 PM
David (R) writes:
Liberty King - I understand where you're coming from, thus, my hesitation in making a statement about actually banning its use. Remember, I stated that I felt the NY government had a responsibility to inform people or to make the establishments do it.
This is based in the fact that most people simply don't know what they're eating, and they just assume that for the most part, it isn't anything that is capable of being very detrimental to them.
Overall, this issue is part of a much broader set of questions, one of which is whether or not the government at all levels has the right and/or responsibility to monitor and/or intervene in issues that involve the general health, well-being, and safety of the people whom they serve.
It's a very tough question, and one that has been answered thousands of times with a general "yes". Consider the government role in commissioning roads to be built. Certain methods, procedures, and standards are enforced. Why? To protect the public from poorly or improperly done work. When your house was built, the permits and inspections department did their part to reduce or eliminate potential problems that you could have faced had they not done their work. Can you imagine what type of home you might be living in if no code enforcement was thrust upon the contractors?
Do we live in a perfect world where some entity watching out for others always works? No, unfortunately. But can you imagine if there were no checks and balances?
December 6, 2006
1:18 PM
Anonymous writes:
12:59, are you retarded? Cocoa would not grow in arsenic laced soil you moron. YOu cannot make a steering wheel out of plotonium in the first place, so you are desperatley reaching with arguments that dont even make sense. Kindley poke your eyes out jackass
December 6, 2006
1:25 PM
Robert Zimmerman writes:
"Just another episode of the world according to the loony left"
HA HA HA!
The prime mover behind this is Mayor Bloomberg, and he's a Republican!
December 6, 2006
1:27 PM
trans slim writes:
The FDA intervenes on behalf of the public health all the time. For example, when you buy tomato sauce, the amount of worms in the sauce is regulated by the FDA. If a substance is found to burden the public health, then regulation of that substance may be in the public interest. But there has to be an allocation of jurisdiction and power to a government agency. I'm not sure if Boulder could regulate trans fats under its home rule powers, but maybe it can. Then there is the added question, does the local regulation burden interstate commerce, so that the FDA should be making the rule, instead of the state or local government.
December 6, 2006
1:28 PM
Anonymous writes:
it's one thing to understand that eating fast foods too much will make me fat, and another thing to not know that what it's being made from and with can plug up my heart valves.
1:18, i am so sorry you weren't intelligent enough to draw on the parody without assuming it was a potential reality. but look at it this way, why were the statuettes banned from NY? because they contained lead. were the people going to honestly eat them? no. and they were painted so skin transfer was not likely either. the example was to show that there are tens of thousands of things that could present potential threats to people and all a person or government agency can do is try to deal with them one at a time. thank you for the suggestion about poking my eyes out. may i ask where you got your braille monitor? should i call you Harry?
December 6, 2006
1:33 PM
Chris H writes:
"so, 12:46, are you saying that makers of things should just be allowed to use materials and sell to uninformed and/or unsuspecting buyers without any regard for potential dangers?"
Forgot to sign my post. No, that's not what I'm saying. I forgot that not everyone would have known that there were already requirements in place in many locations that the use of lead be disclosed. The products I dealt with all had warnings on the products that they contained lead, and weren't suitable for children.
As a hobbyist, I _knew_ those products had lead in them, and I was aware of the dangers - something I was quite willing to take personal responsibilty for and take approriate protective measures to protect myself and my family from, IE, keeping them out of reach of children, using dust masks, etc.
Interestingly enough, now that lead isn't allowed in those types of products, I have no idea whats in them, other than pewter and/or tin. Nothing that is in them now apparently requires any sort of warning label, but could potentially be a health hazard, albeit an unrecognized one.
The point of my post was that these so called "proactive" states like CA and NY implement regulations that can and do affect the rest of the nation, simply because of their economic size, and that they rarely are able to show any _tangible_ benefits of those regulations?
How would you feel if you were a law abiding business located in Podunk, ID suddenly being forced out of business by market pressures because of a regulation passed in a place like NY that you had no input on?
I'm all for warning labels and education programs and mandates. I am against local bans that have far broader consequences than the locality they're implemented in.
December 6, 2006
1:39 PM
Anonymous writes:
harry, here's another way to look at it, say that the steering wheels contained a small amount of radioactivity. do you think they run those by a geiger counter to measure if they have some? have you made this test on your car? so, at some level, it is at least possible for it to happen accidentally. once it is found out, can you imagine the government not requiring it to be changed? just like once NY or others find out about the detrimental effects of trans fat or other things, then they feel action is needed? that's all i'm saying.
Chris H., thanks for the clarification, and i do see your point, though those kinds of regulations and bans are not likely to diminish in the future. by the way, is there a Podunk, Idaho? :)
December 6, 2006
1:41 PM
Liberty King writes:
What ever happened to buyer beware? why do we need a government to step in and demand that companies give information that a savy customer should ask. For instance, if someone is confused about what is in their McDs burger or tomato sauce, they have the responsiblity to inquire. If they cant get a satisfactory answer, then they should not buy that product. It is that simple. It is not the responsilbity of the company to disclose what their product is made of (unless forced by the government). The only mandate a company has, is if enough people boycott the product becaue they can't get the information about contents, then they will provide it. Imagine what would happen if people were suddenly compelled to make choices reguarding what they eat because they were not sure what was in their food, they would demand to know. That, and they would start eating more heathly and cooking more, which is a good thing since it is eating out every day that makes so many fat.
December 6, 2006
1:53 PM
Anonymous writes:
so, mr.king, all we have to do is get rid of all our government, and the corporations will be totally honest with us, committed to seeing we get great, safe products at fair prices without any form of collusion or price-fixing, they will see to it that nothing ever causes harm to us, and those of us that work for those companies will be treated with dignity, respect, compassion, and fairness. holy shit. i can't believe all the wasted government and union intervention during the last century when it was completely unnecessary.
December 6, 2006
1:54 PM
trans slim writes:
Liberty King,
There is a bounty of literature dating back over 100 years that addresses all of your arguments. You may not like the FDA or the FTC, or the FDIC, or the SEC, or any number of agencies, but you are advocating for a government and market structure that collapsed by the very weight of its problems a long time ago, and the american public decided that your position is not in the public interest. Of course, in my opinion, I would like open season on wooly mammoths.
BTW, do you want medicare and medicaid to spend more or less of your contributions for vascular lesions?
December 6, 2006
1:54 PM
home builder 101 writes:
some one asked what would your house be like if you didn't have regualation when it was bulit. Well, back in the late 1800s, the homes were bulit without zoning or regulation of any kind; those homes are still standing and are highly sought after. Meanwhile, homes bulit in the late 1980's on, when there was the height of regulation, are cheap, poorly bulit homes. While they are more efficent in their materials, they will never last as long as those homes bulit b4 the government decided to involve itself with home buliding.
Remember, it does not help a home bulider to bulid a crappy house, for then he risks being put out of business through a libablity lawsuit. The only reason the government want to regulate the home buliding is so they can get a piece of the tillion plus $ business. They are no better than the mob.
BTW, I have been building homes for 30+ years.
December 6, 2006
1:57 PM
Anonymous writes:
"harry, here's another way to look at it, say that the steering wheels contained a small amount of radioactivity. do you think they run those by a geiger counter to measure if they have some? have you made this test on your car? so, at some level, it is at least possible for it to happen accidentally. once it is found out, can you imagine the government not requiring it to be changed? just like once NY or others find out about the detrimental effects of trans fat or other things, then they feel action is needed? that's all i'm saying."
NO. The goverment has no right to step in and regulate food, you are comparing apples to oranges. Something life threatening would never make it to a production line in the first place. Why on earth would a steering wheel contain any amount of radioactivity? Transfats are unhealthy, potentially digesting to much overtime can kill you, but so can freaking pretzels if you woof enough down. The goverment should not be regulating it. People should make the decision themselves. Liberalism could potentially be proved to be harmful for to your health, should the republicans sponsor brainwashing to turn the public away from the left and then ban it because college kids are morons? this can cut both ways and for a bunch of people who argue about peoples rights to die or kill babies, I am suprised you would be talking about what should be regulated and what should not when it comes to food that over a long period of time may clog your arteries. Time has already proven you give the nanny state an inch they take a foot.
December 6, 2006
1:59 PM
trans slim writes:
Homy,
I don't think you are connecting cause with effect. We had clean water 150 years ago. What do we have today? An EPA and dirty water. Must be the government's fault.
December 6, 2006
2:04 PM
Liberty King writes:
Trans slim,
First, medicare and medicade need to go. It is the responsiblity of each person to provide for themselves, which includes retirement, health care, and medical needs.
Second, 1:53. No I don't beleive the corporations should be allowed free reign on the people, but I do believe that the corporations are more proactive to change than a government since it is people, and their buying habbits, that determine a companie's practices. If you don't like the business practice, don't buy that product. When enough people don't buy, the company will change or go bankrupt. Governments don't have that imperative, they don't go bankrupt (at least ours doesn't) they simply rack up more debt even though the product they sell is not what the customers (voters) want. Governments just keep selling a crapy product and then force it upon people until they accept it.
Thrid, the reason why the market that supported a small government collapsed was due to people making poor decisions about their lifestyles, not because the government didn't do enough to protect the people. When you buy on margin, you better understand the consequences of what you are doing, and if you don't, when the bottom falls out, I guarntee that you will learn that lesson the hard way, but you will learn it. Bottom line, people need to be responisblie for themselves and forget about what their neighbor is doing unless it impeeds with your liberty.
December 6, 2006
2:05 PM
Anonymous writes:
home builder 101, let me ask something, are the materials today better, the same, or worse, than the materials of today? remember that interiors were lathing and plaster compared to todays drywall, exterior siding was actual wood and not cardboard/wood fiber, 2x4s were actual 2x4s and not 1.5x3.25. sure, there are some things that are better such as shingles and glass quality, but much of the lasting qualities you are talking about are due to the materials and not the builder, although there is no doubt that craftsmanship is important.
December 6, 2006
4:02 PM
Anonymous writes:
I am sick of paying high health insurance rates for fat people. I'm glad NYC did this. Sometimes people need to be saved from themselves.
December 6, 2006
8:54 PM
Anonymous writes:
I can't wait when I don't have to make any decisions for myself. Good Lord, when is this liberal non-sensical politically correct governing going to get out of our system like a bad burrito?
December 7, 2006
12:44 AM
Kevin Jones writes:
For all I care, NYC is as almost as foreign as London to me.
The libertarian types are getting the vapors over a government on the other side of the country regulating food and deciding what goes in the mouth.
In the meantime, most of the country has been educated by a government-run education system, controlling to a great extent what goes in the mind and what the acceptable limits of debate are. Get your priorities straight.
December 7, 2006
7:28 AM
Anonymous writes:
NYC is just full of contradictions.
They ban trans fat so people won't die of heart attacks then they kill someone with 50 bullets.Go figure.
December 7, 2006
8:45 AM
JW writes:
"In the meantime, most of the country has been educated by a government-run education system, controlling to a great extent what goes in the mind and what the acceptable limits of debate are. Get your priorities straight."
Oh yes I agree! By all means, lets educate our kids with a 2000 year old fantasy instead. It works for the Saudis like a charm!
"I can't wait when I don't have to make any decisions for myself. Good Lord, when is this liberal non-sensical politically correct governing going to get out of our system like a bad burrito?"
See, this is just retarded. There is nothing "liberal" about banning trans fats in NY. If anything, its food Nazi work just like banning abortion is Christofascist Nazi work. Also, if you had half a brain and look up liberal, you would find its got NOTHING to do with making decisions for you, and EVERYTHING to do with you doing what you want.
You people who think liberal is a bad word need to figure out what the fuck it means. Id say the same to people who think conservative is a bad word, but they just arent represented on this blog.
December 7, 2006
8:58 AM
jay writes:
"In the meantime, most of the country has been educated by a government-run education system, controlling to a great extent what goes in the mind and what the acceptable limits of debate are. "
If only allowing scientific debate in science class is "controlling to a great extent what goes in the mind and what the acceptable limits of debate are"...I'm okay with that....let's leave the myths and fairy tales for philosophy and fictional literature classes.
As far as who is regulating the materials for the food industry...it's not a liberal conspiracy people.
December 7, 2006
9:45 AM
sk writes:
so JW, your level of discourse on abortion is to call Christians and their belief that abortion is killing- "banning abortion is Christofascist Nazi work"
And how exactly is that related to transfat or do you just like to use that catchy phrase? You know, cause it makes you look all macho and shit.
December 7, 2006
9:46 AM
Anonymous writes:
sk is a Christofacist supporter
December 7, 2006
9:58 AM
sk writes:
come on 9:46, you can do better than that. Can't you? I been insulted by the best on the net. Give it your 'best' shot there spanky.
December 7, 2006
10:00 AM
Anonymous writes:
sk is an unintelligent Christofacist supporter
December 7, 2006
10:05 AM
sk writes:
That's all you got? Come on, try a lot harder. I want to go away crying from your words, trembling with fear, unable to function, never to return to this place of horror.
December 7, 2006
11:01 AM
Anonymous writes:
at least you are not denying it
good for you
stick to your 2000 year old misconceptions
December 7, 2006
12:32 PM
JW writes:
"And how exactly is that related to transfat or do you just like to use that catchy phrase? You know, cause it makes you look all macho and shit. "
Mostly I was using it to make a point. Banning trans fat is hardly a "Liberal" thing to do.
Again, people that think "Liberal" is a bad word and an insult are stupid. You need a damn dictionary.
December 7, 2006
12:39 PM
Anonymous writes:
Eroding personal choice/responsible for the "greater good" is a very liberal thing to do.
Don't lie!
December 7, 2006
1:03 PM
Anonymous writes:
gay marriage
abortion
which party wants to restrict people's choice in these matters?
DONE
NEXT
December 7, 2006
1:09 PM
Scot writes:
I'd merely outlaw carrying concealed transfat, and if you're transporting trans fat in a vehicle it must be in a case in the trunk. I someone breaks into your home and it's poses a threat to your security - you can , if they are within the confines of your home- feed them foods rich in trans fat (pies, cakes etc.) A sort of "Bake my Day" sort of legislation.
December 7, 2006
2:17 PM
sk writes:
"Again, people that think "Liberal" is a bad word and an insult are stupid. "
Exactly. That's why Daily Kos, Firedoglake, Crooks and Liars and all the 'progressive' blogs are.
Your words, not mine. I would never use insults. /sarcasm
December 7, 2006
2:58 PM
JW writes:
Whats your point ?
Fox says they are fair and balanced, but are they?
And if you are going to agree and then say all the "progressive" blogs are stupid for using "liberal" as a bad word, in all fairness, shouldnt you include just about every conservative blog you can think of, most conservative politicians, and YOURSELF?
December 7, 2006
3:26 PM
Anonymous writes:
she has no point
that is the point
December 7, 2006
3:28 PM
sk writes:
Fox is fair and balanced when compared to CBS, NBC, ABC, etc.
I would think you need to talk to your shrink about your hangup with the word 'liberal'. You prescribe your own meaning to it, I might think that I am more liberal than you in a dictionary definition that you call for.
def.-open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
December 7, 2006
3:38 PM
Anonymous writes:
open minded to everything that does not contradict the bible right sk?
December 7, 2006
4:03 PM
JW writes:
sk, you should just stop. Ive been calling people who bash the word Liberal stupid for the last day or two. That included you, because you use the word as an insult. Now you are describing yourself as Liberal, even though you consider it an insult. You are, in a word, confused.