OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..

How about letting individuals be less subjected to food advertisements
24/7?

How would you recommend that be accomplished? Legislation? Certainly
the food-producing/retailing companies won't voluntarily abstain from
advertising. Thus the government would have to *protect us* from such
harmful advertising. And wouldn't that constitute a nanny state?


It's also the result of the profit motive: large corporations are making
lots of money convincing Americans to eat more, thus becoming larger
corporally.

Corporations also encourage us to smoke, spend hours in front of video
games and TV, and take medications we likely don't require. There appear
to be only two solutions: personal responsibility, or the good ol' nanny
state. I prefer the former.


Now that brings us to the question... which works better? No opinions
now... just da facts.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com




When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Seahag wrote:
"katy" wrote:

Seahag wrote:

Bill's 2ond. wife made one the dogs wouldn't eat...turned
out she didn't cook the noodles first!

hahahahaha...that's REALLY dimbulb....


Yeah, her covered roast chicken was a close second. Had
that sort of puffed blanched greasy skin with no seasoning
thing going on. Mind you, his mother invented the food
'deflavorizer'.

S


Must be some kind of distant relative to my mother, then...she doesn't
even put chili powder in chili anymore...

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Maxprop wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

. . .and it doesn't convert to formaldehyde like

Nutrasweet...


Yeah, but think how well-preserved you'd be with Nutrasweet.

Max


....with Alzheimer's....

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

DSK wrote:
I've substituted Splenda in many recipes that I've served people and
they never knew it wasn't sugar...



Maybe they were too polite to tell you?

Nah..it was family..if they didn't like it they'd say so...vociferously...

Maybe the horrid aftertaste was
disguised by all that jalapeno

SOn't use jalepeno's...there is no horrid aftertaste with Splenda...
?


Seahag wrote:

sugar's a quick burn sort of thing. Think of the quantitudes of fats
Americans chow down at every turn. And then have to ":jog" off again.


Yep, Atkins had at least one thing right... the type of calories makes a
difference.


I had lunch at a place in Miami that the meal had to have weighed at
least 10lbs. on the plate. It was gross. What was worse was just
throwing all that untouched mountain of food away.


A lot of people have also been conditioned to not throw food away. I'm
working on not buying it in the first place... saves money too.

DSK

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Maxprop wrote:
How about letting individuals be less subjected to food advertisements
24/7?


How would you recommend that be accomplished?

I'm not sure. I have not personally examined the forces that pushed the
current system into place, so I'm not going to say how to push things in a
different direction.

.... Legislation?

Bad idea IMHO, for 2 fundamental reasons:
1- it's not likely to work all that well
2- that government is best which governs least.

Complete agreement with both points.

.... Certainly the food-producing/retailing companies won't voluntarily
abstain from advertising.

I agree, as long as the current socio-economic-legal systems are in place.
You seem to be on the opposite spectrum from Frank B who seems to believe
that advertising is just a curious way corporations have of disposing
excess dollars.

Independent studies have demonstrated, repeatedly and for decades, the value
of advertising and other forms of marketing to a company's bottom line.
That's beyond dispute. I wonder what Frank thinks the effect on GDP would
be were advertising completely eliminated?

.... Thus the government would have to *protect us* from such harmful
advertising. And wouldn't that constitute a nanny state?


Depends on how it's done. If the gov't were to say "No advertising
cheeseburgers, people are too dumb to know how much is healthy" then yes,
that would be nannyism.

No essential difference from the little caveats on cigarette packages:
"Smoking may be hazardous to your health." Duh.

If OTOH advertising expenditures were to be penalized by taxation, for
example in a way similar to how research & development is encouraged by
tax rules, then that would not be nannyism and might tilt the system away
from heavy advertising.

Of course it's nannyism. The end product is to protect Americans from
themselves: nannyism. Penalizing advertising is, incidentally, a
legislative action, which you seemed to decry above. And it would not work
unless the level of punitive taxation would exceed the financial benefit to
the company in quesiton. Bad, unworkable idea.

And how would a government effect such tax penalties without appearing
prejudicial? Would it be acceptable to allow, say, Phillip Morris to
promote their 'prevent kids from smoking' website while taxing McDonalds for
pushing Big Macs? Both companies produce potentially harmful products that
become addictive.



It's also the result of the profit motive: large corporations are making
lots of money convincing Americans to eat more, thus becoming larger
corporally.


Corporations also encourage us to smoke, spend hours in front of video
games and TV, and take medications we likely don't require. There appear
to be only two solutions: personal responsibility, or the good ol' nanny
state. I prefer the former.


If you see only two solutions, then you're being intentionally obtuse, or
your blinders are strapped on a little too tight, or you're stupider than
I'd have given you credit for.

And you accuse Dave of ad hominems, particularly when they are no such
thing. This is beyond laughable, Doug. You are the cardinal hypocrite in
this NG.

Back to the issue: There are essentially only two alternatives. If the
government enacts *any* sort of program to protect us from ourselves, that
*is* nannyism. Couching such actions in the guise of selective/progressive
taxation or penalties is the most blatant from of denial. Either the
government protects us from ourselves, or it does not. How it effects such
protection is irrelevant.

Capt. JG wrote:
Now that brings us to the question... which works better? No opinions
now... just da facts.


One fact that is already on the ground is that advertising works. Personal
responsibility also works, when it is present.

Holy hypocrisy, Batman, that sure looks like just two alternatives to me.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Seahag" wrote in message
...

"katy" wrote:
Seahag wrote:
Bill's 2ond. wife made one the dogs wouldn't eat...turned out she didn't
cook the noodles first!
hahahahaha...that's REALLY dimbulb....

Yeah, her covered roast chicken was a close second. Had that sort of
puffed blanched greasy skin with no seasoning thing going on. Mind you,
his mother invented the food 'deflavorizer'.

S


Did she steam broccoli for 45 minutes?

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Todd Nossel wrote:
"Seahag" wrote in message
...

"katy" wrote:

Seahag wrote:

Bill's 2ond. wife made one the dogs wouldn't eat...turned out she didn't
cook the noodles first!

hahahahaha...that's REALLY dimbulb....

Yeah, her covered roast chicken was a close second. Had that sort of
puffed blanched greasy skin with no seasoning thing going on. Mind you,
his mother invented the food 'deflavorizer'.

S



Did she steam broccoli for 45 minutes?


My mother did until I had broccoli at a friends and found out it was
supposed to be bright green...I fixed it from thereon...

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Maxprop wrote:
When was the last time you saw something
notable or particularly productive emanating from Norway? Gorgeous country,
but stagnant.


How provincial.

Cheers
Marty

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

.... Certainly the food-producing/retailing companies won't voluntarily
abstain from advertising.

I agree, as long as the current socio-economic-legal systems are in place.
You seem to be on the opposite spectrum from Frank B who seems to believe
that advertising is just a curious way corporations have of disposing
excess dollars.


Maxprop wrote:
Independent studies have demonstrated, repeatedly and for decades, the value
of advertising and other forms of marketing to a company's bottom line.
That's beyond dispute. I wonder what Frank thinks the effect on GDP would
be were advertising completely eliminated?


Dunno, not sure I'm getting his POV... Maybe he'll continue
in this thread, I hope so.


My complaint is that advertising should be part of GDP even
though it is a "service." It does not create wealth nor
improve any thing... it's demonstrable that *some*
advertising, as an information network, helps market
efficiency. But to spend gazillions on it is a waste, overall.




.... Thus the government would have to *protect us* from such harmful
advertising. And wouldn't that constitute a nanny state?


Depends on how it's done. If the gov't were to say "No advertising
cheeseburgers, people are too dumb to know how much is healthy" then yes,
that would be nannyism.


No essential difference from the little caveats on cigarette packages:
"Smoking may be hazardous to your health." Duh.


If OTOH advertising expenditures were to be penalized by taxation, for
example in a way similar to how research & development is encouraged by
tax rules, then that would not be nannyism and might tilt the system away
from heavy advertising.


Of course it's nannyism. The end product is to protect Americans from
themselves: nannyism. Penalizing advertising is, incidentally, a
legislative action, which you seemed to decry above.

No, it's fiscal policy.

I guess you think that tax deductions for charity
contributions, and for legitimate R&D, etc etc, are also
nany-ism?

Face facts. The current social & economic & legal framework
within which we all function, and all businesses &
corporations too, is a result of "legislation" if you use it
as a blanket term. Why is a dollar bill worth a dollar, why
do merchants accept it? Because of legislation.

In other words, using that word as a catch-all for big bad
gummint interference (which I am also against) is friggin'
stupid. There is *alread* a huge web of rules & practices in
place, which gave rise to the situation as it exists.
Oretending they don't exist, so you can whine about how
changing already-existing policy is nannyism, is not any
effective answer.



... And it would not work
unless the level of punitive taxation would exceed the financial benefit to
the company in quesiton. Bad, unworkable idea.


I guess the current tax skews towards charity donations &
R&D are also bad unworkable ideas?


And how would a government effect such tax penalties without appearing
prejudicial?

Why worry about that? Of course it's prejudicial! The
"Medicare Reform Bill" thinly disguised bail-out for the big
pharm corps was prejudicial, as are speeding laws. Heck, the
recent Supreme Court decision to make the Treasury put
Braille on all paper money is prejudicial against people
with good vision... after all, we have to pay for it.

Did somebody promise you that life was always totally fair?
If so, I hope they gave you a lollipop too.


... Would it be acceptable to allow, say, Phillip Morris to
promote their 'prevent kids from smoking' website while taxing McDonalds for
pushing Big Macs? Both companies produce potentially harmful products that
become addictive.


Maybe we should just sue both companies... no wait, somebody
tried that.



If you see only two solutions, then you're being intentionally obtuse, or
your blinders are strapped on a little too tight, or you're stupider than
I'd have given you credit for.


And you accuse Dave of ad hominems, particularly when they are no such
thing. This is beyond laughable, Doug. You are the cardinal hypocrite in
this NG.


Hardly. I'm not pretending to be a libertarian, nor
pretending to be against nannyism while demanding that a
Race Committee protect me from too much wind.


Back to the issue: There are essentially only two alternatives.

Hardly.

.... If the
government enacts *any* sort of program to protect us from ourselves, that
*is* nannyism.

Perhaps you could look at it that way... if you go far
enough with this approach, then you might as well get rid of
gov't. After all, it's only a great big nanny to protect
those who shouldn't need it or want it if only they had
enough backbone.


... Couching such actions in the guise of selective/progressive
taxation or penalties is the most blatant from of denial.

Only if you're either too stupid to know the difference, or
profoundly prejudiced against looking at the situation
rationally.

DSK

OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...cheese
 

Maxprop wrote:
When was the last time you saw something
notable or particularly productive emanating from Norway? Gorgeous country,
but stagnant.



Martin Baxter wrote:
How provincial.


Agreed. But then, to Max, there are only two choices.

I really like Jarlsberg cheese, don't know if making it
notable, productive, or indicative of creativity. I think
the milk does have to stagnate first ;)

DSK

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Maxprop wrote:
How about letting individuals be less subjected to food advertisements
24/7?


How would you recommend that be accomplished?

I'm not sure. I have not personally examined the forces that pushed the
current system into place, so I'm not going to say how to push things in
a different direction.

.... Legislation?

Bad idea IMHO, for 2 fundamental reasons:
1- it's not likely to work all that well
2- that government is best which governs least.

Complete agreement with both points.

.... Certainly the food-producing/retailing companies won't voluntarily
abstain from advertising.

I agree, as long as the current socio-economic-legal systems are in
place. You seem to be on the opposite spectrum from Frank B who seems to
believe that advertising is just a curious way corporations have of
disposing excess dollars.

Independent studies have demonstrated, repeatedly and for decades, the
value of advertising and other forms of marketing to a company's bottom
line. That's beyond dispute. I wonder what Frank thinks the effect on GDP
would be were advertising completely eliminated?

The value of advertising or the value of the quality of advertising?

If advertising were eliminated I think excess consumption would be reduced.
Do you realize how much of the economy is hinged on crap and stuff that
really isn't needed?



.... Thus the government would have to *protect us* from such harmful
advertising. And wouldn't that constitute a nanny state?


Depends on how it's done. If the gov't were to say "No advertising
cheeseburgers, people are too dumb to know how much is healthy" then yes,
that would be nannyism.

No essential difference from the little caveats on cigarette packages:
"Smoking may be hazardous to your health." Duh.

Smoking should be encouraged. Cigarettes should be put into school lunches.
Government should openly market death, rather than sugar coat it like it has
for decades. The food pyramid was a death triangle, above ground nuclear
testing harmed thousands, legislation banning 4 point seatbelts has led to
millions of additional injuries. Government should be honest and say they
are here to kill and rob you.
Gambling, smoking, booze - all big tax revenues for government! Advertise it
as so: "smoke and drink here while you gamble away your entire SS check!"
Provide free busing from nursing homes to casinos! Who should rreally worry
about a little sugar and trans fat?



If OTOH advertising expenditures were to be penalized by taxation, for
example in a way similar to how research & development is encouraged by
tax rules, then that would not be nannyism and might tilt the system away
from heavy advertising.

Of course it's nannyism. The end product is to protect Americans from
themselves: nannyism.


Who will protect us from government?

The same people that teach us about government?


Penalizing advertising is, incidentally, a
legislative action, which you seemed to decry above. And it would not
work unless the level of punitive taxation would exceed the financial
benefit to the company in quesiton. Bad, unworkable idea.

Penalize advertising by not buying the product. Are some people so foolish
to believe that all advertising works? First you need a good product and
truthful advertising.



And how would a government effect such tax penalties without appearing
prejudicial? Would it be acceptable to allow, say, Phillip Morris to
promote their 'prevent kids from smoking' website while taxing McDonalds
for pushing Big Macs? Both companies produce potentially harmful products
that become addictive.

What identifiable ingredient in food is addictive? McDonald's is actually
good for you. In this case, too much of a good thing isn't exactly
wonderful.





It's also the result of the profit motive: large corporations are making
lots of money convincing Americans to eat more, thus becoming larger
corporally.


Corporations also encourage us to smoke, spend hours in front of video
games and TV, and take medications we likely don't require. There
appear to be only two solutions: personal responsibility, or the good
ol' nanny state. I prefer the former.


If you see only two solutions, then you're being intentionally obtuse, or
your blinders are strapped on a little too tight, or you're stupider than
I'd have given you credit for.

And you accuse Dave of ad hominems, particularly when they are no such
thing. This is beyond laughable, Doug. You are the cardinal hypocrite in
this NG.

Maybe runner up, unless you consider RB no longer a member.



Back to the issue: There are essentially only two alternatives. If the
government enacts *any* sort of program to protect us from ourselves, that
*is* nannyism. Couching such actions in the guise of
selective/progressive taxation or penalties is the most blatant from of
denial. Either the government protects us from ourselves, or it does not.
How it effects such protection is irrelevant.

It's ok for government to stop us from ordering an extra side of fries, but
it's not ok for them to stop us from ripping an unborn baby from the womb
and tossing it in the dumpster - that's a "personal decision"! Oh the
hypocrisy!

Just get the government out of everyone's lives and businesses. Humans made
it for hundreds of thousands of years without governments. All government
and religion can really do is cause big wars. The worst individuals can do
is demonstrated at British soccer matches. Compare that to WWII.

Keep government small and limited if you really care about safety and well
being.



Capt. JG wrote:
Now that brings us to the question... which works better? No opinions
now... just da facts.


One fact that is already on the ground is that advertising works.
Personal responsibility also works, when it is present.

Holy hypocrisy, Batman, that sure looks like just two alternatives to me.

Personal responsibility is always a choice. Some people just want government
to limit choices or worse yet, remove the consequences of those personal
choices and place the burdens of those responsibilities onto others.

There are no alternatives. Death is not an alternative. Either you chose to
live or you simply die.




Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Todd Nozzle wrote:
Just get the government out of everyone's lives and businesses. Humans made
it for hundreds of thousands of years without governments.

I assume that you are living in the woods, wearing the skin
of an animal you killed with a rock.

Oh wait, you're on the internet.

And you accuse me of hypocrisy. Thanks for the laugh.

DSK

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Dave wrote:
Ah, take if from those awful Big Corporations and give it to some govmint
employees to do good deeds.

Is that a familiar theme?

I see a familiar theme he "whatever Doug says has to be
forced into a mold (however poor the fit) of -liberal-."

How is slightly restucturing an already existing policy, to
discourage corporations from spending their shareholders
money in non-productive ways, "taking it away"? Did you see
any words of mine proposing that gov't employees do good
deeds? Nope, it's all ad-hominem... pulled from a fantasy
world, to boot.

BTW I'm waiting to hear your explanation of how advertising
got to be so prominent in our economy, and the long list of
economists who agree that Galbraith has been discredited.

DSK

OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...cheese
 

DSK wrote:

Maxprop wrote:
When was the last time you saw something
notable or particularly productive emanating from Norway? Gorgeous country,
but stagnant.



Martin Baxter wrote:
How provincial.


Agreed. But then, to Max, there are only two choices.

I really like Jarlsberg cheese, don't know if making it
notable, productive, or indicative of creativity. I think
the milk does have to stagnate first ;)


GDP per capita:

Norway, $42,800
USA, $41,600

(2005 figures)

Who'da thunk it?

Cheers
Marty

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Dave wrote:
Several fallacies in that single sentence.

Only from your extremely convolured & prejudiced viewpoint.

... When you impose a tax on
something it's taking money away from somebody.

And when you restructure a tax that already exists?
That is what I am suggesting.


Calling it a "slight restructuring an existing policy" doesn't make it
something other than a tax.


Calling it "taking away from somebody" is ignoring several
basic facts.



Second, I'm not at all persuaded that politicians are better at deciding
what a productive use for a business's money is than the managers of that
business.

In general, I'm not either.

.... In general, under our economic system we have such decisions made
by the businesses themselves. And when we don't, the unintended consequences
are likely as not to be bad ones rather than good ones.


And the consequences (intended or otherwise) of the way
things currently work.... Billions of dollars spent on
advertising, to convince people to buy stuff that's bad for
them, for the sake of increased profits.

Note the difference between "increased profits" and
increased wealth, increased standard of living, etc etc.


For example, how do you feel about the completely
unporductive use of gazillions of dollars spent on lobbying?
That also increases profits to the detriment of citizens
interests.



Did you see
any words of mine proposing that gov't employees do good
deeds?


What are you proposing the govmint employees do with the money?

The same thing they are already doing, whether it's good or
bad is not a judgement imposed by this position.

Question: Why are *you* seeking to insert this judgement
into a totally unrelated logical suggestion?

In other words, you are once again putting up straw men,
misquoting... in other words, ad-hominem attack instead of
logic.

DSK

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..

How about letting individuals be less subjected to food advertisements
24/7?

How would you recommend that be accomplished? Legislation? Certainly
the food-producing/retailing companies won't voluntarily abstain from
advertising. Thus the government would have to *protect us* from such
harmful advertising. And wouldn't that constitute a nanny state?


It's also the result of the profit motive: large corporations are
making lots of money convincing Americans to eat more, thus becoming
larger corporally.

Corporations also encourage us to smoke, spend hours in front of video
games and TV, and take medications we likely don't require. There
appear to be only two solutions: personal responsibility, or the good
ol' nanny state. I prefer the former.


Now that brings us to the question... which works better? No opinions
now... just da facts.

My last sentence was an opinion, based on the observation that the nanny
state does little to encourage self-reliance and motivation. To the
contrary, in those countries, such as Norway, where people have
cradle-to-grave provision by the government, the creative juices just
don't seem to flow very copiously. When was the last time you saw
something notable or particularly productive emanating from Norway?
Gorgeous country, but stagnant.

Max

Unfortunately, opinions aren't facts. Is self-reliance and motivation better
than actual problem solving?

Their healthcare system is far better than ours for example. I also like
Doug's cheeze answer, but for different reasons.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-healthcare.htm

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Bzzt. What if a gov't "slightly restructured an existing policy" to
eliminate a tax? No, don't tell me. The answer is invade Iraq. :-)

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 10:03:14 -0500, DSK said:

How is slightly restucturing an already existing policy, to
discourage corporations from spending their shareholders
money in non-productive ways, "taking it away"?

Several fallacies in that single sentence. When you impose a tax on
something it's taking money away from somebody. Otherwise it isn't a tax.
Calling it a "slight restructuring an existing policy" doesn't make it
something other than a tax.

Second, I'm not at all persuaded that politicians are better at deciding
what a productive use for a business's money is than the managers of that
business. In general, under our economic system we have such decisions
made
by the businesses themselves. And when we don't, the unintended
consequences
are likely as not to be bad ones rather than good ones.

Did you see
any words of mine proposing that gov't employees do good
deeds?

What are you proposing the govmint employees do with the money? Bad deeds?
Keep the money in the form of higher salaries? Give it to people the
politicians think will vote for them?

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

For example, how do you feel about the completely
unporductive use of gazillions of dollars spent on lobbying?
That also increases profits to the detriment of citizens
interests.


Dave wrote:
Classic example of the kind of unintended consequences to which I referred
earlier. Whenever you put the govmint into Robin Hood mode, transferring
money from one citizen to another to effect some kind of policy goal, you
create the incentive for groups to act in their own interest to persuade law
makers that their cause is a deserving one, and should be on the receiving
end, or should not on the giving end, of the transfers.


I'd be all in favor of putting a stop to it, except that
every single gov't that ever existed, AFAIK, indulged in the
same thing to one degree or another.

Got any practical ideas, or do you just want to torch straw
men some more?

DSK

OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...cheese
 

"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
...
DSK wrote:

Maxprop wrote:
When was the last time you saw something
notable or particularly productive emanating from Norway? Gorgeous
country,
but stagnant.



Martin Baxter wrote:
How provincial.


Agreed. But then, to Max, there are only two choices.

I really like Jarlsberg cheese, don't know if making it
notable, productive, or indicative of creativity. I think
the milk does have to stagnate first ;)


GDP per capita:

Norway, $42,800
USA, $41,600

(2005 figures)

Who'da thunk it?

Cheers
Marty

The US does it in spite of bordering third world countries both north and
south.

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Todd Nozzle wrote:
Just get the government out of everyone's lives and businesses. Humans
made it for hundreds of thousands of years without governments.

I assume that you are living in the woods, wearing the skin of an animal
you killed with a rock.

Oh wait, you're on the internet.

And you accuse me of hypocrisy.


Never accused you of hypocrisy. I was questioning Maxipad's rating system.


Thanks for the laugh.

DSK


Keep government out of people's lives and businesses. Restore the
Constitution.

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Bzzt. What if a gov't "slightly restructured an existing policy" to
eliminate a tax? No, don't tell me. The answer is invade Iraq. :-)


Your tax dollars made the Iraq invasion possible.

Tax dollars paid for the gas chambers in Germany.

WMD's all paid for with tax dollars.

All crimes against humanity done with tax dollars.

OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...cheese
 

Maxprop wrote:

When was the last time you saw something
notable or particularly productive emanating from Norway? Gorgeous
country, but stagnant.

Ever hear of Nokia? The big cel phone manufacturer? Norway was way
ahead of the curve in cel phone technology. Still is.

Plus Nokia Hakkepallitta tires are the best snowtires you will ever have
the pleasure of driving on. Bar none.

Please stop being such an ignorant jingoist twit. Thank you.


Todd Nozzle wrote:

The US does it in spite of bordering third world countries both north and
south.

Please stop being such an ignorant jingoist twit. Thank you.

//Walt

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

I'd be all in favor of putting a stop to it, except that
every single gov't that ever existed, AFAIK, indulged in the
same thing to one degree or another.

Got any practical ideas


Dave wrote:
A number. Unfortunately, I have to do some work rather than writing a book.

So I see.

Does answering all those other usenet posts count as work ;)

DSK

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

This is the time to cut taxes?? I thought the economy is doing really well.
Why do we need to cut taxes for the rich even more?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 10:08:56 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

What if a gov't "slightly restructured an existing policy" to
eliminate a tax?

Hey, the Reps just cut taxes a bit and the Dems screamed bloody murder.
Actually eliminate a tax? How will the members of the govmint employees'
union put food on the table?

OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...cheese
 

"Walt" wrote in message
...

Maxprop wrote:

When was the last time you saw something
notable or particularly productive emanating from Norway? Gorgeous
country, but stagnant.

Ever hear of Nokia? The big cel phone manufacturer? Norway was way ahead
of the curve in cel phone technology. Still is.

Plus Nokia Hakkepallitta tires are the best snowtires you will ever have
the pleasure of driving on. Bar none.

Please stop being such an ignorant jingoist twit. Thank you.


Todd Nozzle wrote:

The US does it in spite of bordering third world countries both north and
south.

Please stop being such an ignorant jingoist twit. Thank you.

//Walt

Ann Arbor Librul!

OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...cheese
 

Todd Nozzle wrote:
crap snipped


Glen, would you please do me the favor of staying in your friggin
killfile and sparing me the transparent sockpuppets?

Good grief, you don't even know how to keep your IP out of the
headers. At least Neal has that basic level of competence for all his
sock-puppetry.

Pathetic.

// Walt

OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...cheese
 

"Walt" wrote in message
...
Todd Nozzle wrote:
crap snipped


Glen, would you please do me the favor of staying in your friggin killfile
and sparing me the transparent sockpuppets?

They are purposely transparent.



Good grief, you don't even know how to keep your IP out of the headers.
At least Neal has that basic level of competence for all his
sock-puppetry.

Even worse, you don't even have the basic level of skill to use my IP
address to killfile me.


Pathetic.


Truly.

// Walt


Walt, Gilligan was a bungling incompetent on a TV show. Search the name
"Glen Harris Milstead" you'll find he was a 300lb transvestite famous for
eating dog feces in a movie. He died in his sleep from apnea because he was
so fat. He played a character named "Babs Johnson" - the filthiest person
alive. Lloyd Bonifide is a real life sock puppet who is famous for his
cluelessness. I'm not revealing who or what Todd Nozzle is yet but there is
significance there.

I want my IP in the headers. I want to make it obvious. If it is easy then
people tend not to think. If they don't think then they are easy targets for
amusing trolls. God, do I laugh when our own Dick Tracy - Charlie Morgan -
points out "Look at the IP!" "It's Gilligan" on discovering something so
obvious.

If it really annoys you so much then report me, all the info is there. My
provider will cut service and your source of irritation will be gone. Your
world will be a better place.

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"katy" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

. . .and it doesn't convert to formaldehyde like

Nutrasweet...


Yeah, but think how well-preserved you'd be with Nutrasweet.

Max
...with Alzheimer's....

Not so bad, really. Everyone you meet is a newcomer.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..

Maxprop wrote:

Of course it's nannyism. The end product is to protect Americans from
themselves: nannyism. Penalizing advertising is, incidentally, a
legislative action, which you seemed to decry above.

No, it's fiscal policy.

That's nothing short of spin, plain and simple. Fiscal policy is ways and
means. Punitive taxation is nannyism.

I guess you think that tax deductions for charity contributions, and for
legitimate R&D, etc etc, are also nany-ism?

Nope. They aren't punitive, nor designed to protect citizens from
themselves.


Face facts. The current social & economic & legal framework within which
we all function, and all businesses & corporations too, is a result of
"legislation" if you use it as a blanket term. Why is a dollar bill worth
a dollar, why do merchants accept it? Because of legislation.

I never implied that legislation, in and of itself, constitutes nannyism.
When legislation is enacted to protect us from ourselves, then it is. Why
is this such a tough concept to grasp?


In other words, using that word as a catch-all for big bad gummint
interference (which I am also against) is friggin' stupid. There is
*alread* a huge web of rules & practices in place, which gave rise to the
situation as it exists. Oretending they don't exist, so you can whine
about how changing already-existing policy is nannyism, is not any
effective answer.

See my response immediately above.

... And it would not work unless the level of punitive taxation would
exceed the financial benefit to the company in quesiton. Bad, unworkable
idea.

I guess the current tax skews towards charity donations & R&D are also bad
unworkable ideas?

Oh dear. (sigh)

And how would a government effect such tax penalties without appearing
prejudicial?


Why worry about that? Of course it's prejudicial! The "Medicare Reform
Bill" thinly disguised bail-out for the big pharm corps was prejudicial,
as are speeding laws. Heck, the recent Supreme Court decision to make the
Treasury put Braille on all paper money is prejudicial against people with
good vision... after all, we have to pay for it.

It isn't prejudicial if it does not penalize someone or a particular group.
Does it penalize the sighted if braille is added to paper money? Hardly.
Prejudice in terms of punitive taxation would be penalizing McDonalds for
advertising high-fat food while exempting Phillip Morris because they
advertise a website devoted to helping kids avoid smoking. Phillip Morris
kills more people each year than murderers, and McDonalds, through the
Ronald McDonald Foundation, helps myriad needy families throughout the
country. My point is that when such prejudicial decisions as to whom to tax
and whom to exempt are made by those idiots in Washington we commonly refer
to as 'legislators,' the end result will be a morass.

Did somebody promise you that life was always totally fair? If so, I hope
they gave you a lollipop too.

I've been around longer than you, Doug. I know all about inequity in life.
Don't be so arrogant as to preach to one whose experience trumps yours by a
wide margin.

... Would it be acceptable to allow, say, Phillip Morris to promote their
'prevent kids from smoking' website while taxing McDonalds for pushing
Big Macs? Both companies produce potentially harmful products that
become addictive.


Maybe we should just sue both companies... no wait, somebody tried that.

Knock yourself out. Personally I just choose to avoid the products of both.
What a novel idea! I believe it's called self-reliance.



And you accuse Dave of ad hominems, particularly when they are no such
thing. This is beyond laughable, Doug. You are the cardinal hypocrite
in this NG.


Hardly. I'm not pretending to be a libertarian, nor pretending to be
against nannyism while demanding that a Race Committee protect me from too
much wind.

LOL. You sound like a friggin' broken record. Whatever.


Back to the issue: There are essentially only two alternatives.

Hardly.

.... If the government enacts *any* sort of program to protect us from
ourselves, that *is* nannyism.

Perhaps you could look at it that way... if you go far enough with this
approach, then you might as well get rid of gov't. After all, it's only a
great big nanny to protect those who shouldn't need it or want it if only
they had enough backbone.

Actually the government is really just one big nanny. They protect us from
armed combatants (the armed services), they provide for the welfare of the
needy (welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, etc.), and they mandate such things
as seatbelt laws, gun laws, labor laws, drug laws, etc. ad infinitum/ad
nauseum. They also mandate social security rather than allowing people to
invest that money in something that earns income. With the exception of the
military, I generally turn a jaundiced eye to what our government does.
That makes me a libertarian, like it or not. You, OTOH, abhor the concept
of self-reliance (your vitriolic rancor toward the GOP's attempt to
privatize retirement funds as opposed to social security a typical example)
(socialism), which makes you a socialist. Of course you claim to be a
conservative. So who's the hypocrite here?

... Couching such actions in the guise of selective/progressive taxation
or penalties is the most blatant from of denial.

Only if you're either too stupid to know the difference, or profoundly
prejudiced against looking at the situation rationally.

And your definition of rationality would be *being in unswerving agreement
with you?*

You are not fractionally as bright as you believe yourself to be. You are
interminably steeped in hypocrisy and denial. Can you spell 'dogma?'

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:
When was the last time you saw something
notable or particularly productive emanating from Norway? Gorgeous
country,
but stagnant.


How provincial.

Spoken like a true cannuck. You guys do live in provinces, doncha?

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...cheese
 

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Maxprop wrote:
When was the last time you saw something
notable or particularly productive emanating from Norway? Gorgeous
country,
but stagnant.



Martin Baxter wrote:
How provincial.


Agreed. But then, to Max, there are only two choices.

I really like Jarlsberg cheese, don't know if making it notable,
productive, or indicative of creativity. I think the milk does have to
stagnate first ;)

Jarlsberg is nothing but a recipe for emmentaller, stolen from the Swiss.


Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...cheese
 

"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
...
DSK wrote:

Maxprop wrote:
When was the last time you saw something
notable or particularly productive emanating from Norway? Gorgeous
country,
but stagnant.



Martin Baxter wrote:
How provincial.


Agreed. But then, to Max, there are only two choices.

I really like Jarlsberg cheese, don't know if making it
notable, productive, or indicative of creativity. I think
the milk does have to stagnate first ;)


GDP per capita:

Norway, $42,800
USA, $41,600

(2005 figures)

Who'da thunk it?

I'm surprised it's so close. Norway has a population of 4.5 million vs. the
USA's 287.5 million. Bit of an apples/oranges situation, but considering
the disparity, I'm impressed that the USA has done so well. Speaks well for
the capitalistic system of self-reliance.

Norway will be facing a welfare state's dilemma soon:

http://www.aarp.org/research/interna...wayhealth.html

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...cheese
 

"Walt" wrote in message
...

Maxprop wrote:

When was the last time you saw something
notable or particularly productive emanating from Norway? Gorgeous
country, but stagnant.

Ever hear of Nokia? The big cel phone manufacturer? Norway was way ahead
of the curve in cel phone technology. Still is.

Using US, Japanese, and Korean engineers. The company is loaded with them.

Plus Nokia Hakkepallitta tires are the best snowtires you will ever have
the pleasure of driving on. Bar none.

Never heard of them. If they are so impressive, why don't they market them
here? The Tire Rack--world's largest tire retailer--doesn't have 'em.

Please stop being such an ignorant jingoist twit. Thank you.

Please stop being such an arrogant, self-righteous fart. You're welcome.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...cheese
 

"Todd Nozzle" wrote in message
. ..

If it really annoys you so much then report me, all the info is there. My
provider will cut service and your source of irritation will be gone. Your
world will be a better place.

A sound and apropos suggestion for a fascist such as Walt.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Dave wrote:
Ah, take if from those awful Big Corporations and give it to some govmint
employees to do good deeds.

Is that a familiar theme?

I see a familiar theme he "whatever Doug says has to be forced into a
mold (however poor the fit) of -liberal-."

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck . . .

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
This is the time to cut taxes?? I thought the economy is doing really
well. Why do we need to cut taxes for the rich even more?

Because it's *their* money?

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
Unfortunately, opinions aren't facts. Is self-reliance and motivation
better than actual problem solving?

In my opinion, yes. Self-reliance and motivation generally lead to problem
solving. Government seldom does. To the contrary, virtually every action
of a government has unintended consequences. Problem solved--another
created.

Their healthcare system is far better than ours for example.

They have 4.5 million folks--we have nearly 300 million. Quite a different
set of dynamics. And our population continues to increase, especially in
the demographics of the working and non-working poor. If you can provide
the recipe for a health care system that equals that of Norway but provides
for a population 65 times larger without bankrupting the country and killing
the economy, I'm all ears.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Todd Nossel" wrote in message
...

"Seahag" wrote in message
...

"katy" wrote:
Seahag wrote:
Bill's 2ond. wife made one the dogs wouldn't
eat...turned out she didn't cook the noodles first!
hahahahaha...that's REALLY dimbulb....

Yeah, her covered roast chicken was a close second. Had
that sort of puffed blanched greasy skin with no
seasoning thing going on. Mind you, his mother invented
the food 'deflavorizer'.

S


Did she steam broccoli for 45 minutes?

Steam??? Hell no, she boiled it. Mind you, she put up a
pretty good Pennsylvania Dutch holiday feast. I still make
her cherry pudding. Not what you'd think of as pudding,
more like a sour cherry filled moist pound cake concoction.

Seahag

OT / My pet peeve *fatties* ...cheese
 

He's a child, and he does this trying to pretend to be a grownup.... Just
plonk the sockpuppets. It's easy.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Walt" wrote in message
...
Todd Nozzle wrote:
crap snipped


Glen, would you please do me the favor of staying in your friggin killfile
and sparing me the transparent sockpuppets?

Good grief, you don't even know how to keep your IP out of the headers.
At least Neal has that basic level of competence for all his
sock-puppetry.

Pathetic.

// Walt

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
Unfortunately, opinions aren't facts. Is self-reliance and motivation
better than actual problem solving?

In my opinion, yes. Self-reliance and motivation generally lead to
problem solving. Government seldom does. To the contrary, virtually
every action of a government has unintended consequences. Problem
solved--another created.

Opinions don't make facts. And, bzzzt... virtually every action by an
individual has unintended consequences.

Their healthcare system is far better than ours for example.

They have 4.5 million folks--we have nearly 300 million. Quite a
different set of dynamics. And our population continues to increase,
especially in the demographics of the working and non-working poor. If
you can provide the recipe for a health care system that equals that of
Norway but provides for a population 65 times larger without bankrupting
the country and killing the economy, I'm all ears.

Yes, the Norweigian one.