Gay Patriot Header Image

GayPatriot LA Steak Dinner, MONDAY, December 10

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 2:28 pm - November 28, 2012.
Filed under: LA Stories

In honor of the Los Angeles City Council’s recent approval of a resolution “endorsing the ‘meatless Monday’ campaign and asking residents to make a personal pledge to ditch meat for one day a week”, our next steak dinner will take place on Monday, December 10.

Drop me a note to RSVP — and include the word “Steak” in the subject.

Share

73 Comments

  1. I understand the point of the steak dinner, to defy the new city council resolution. But if the resolution has no teeth, and you do not gain or lose anything from defiance, why bother? If you’re doing it for the social aspects and comradery, while at the same time giving a symbolic middle finger to the city council, then cool.

    However, I thought this was just the type of government Republicans want. The LA city council probably decided to make this resolution based on its citizens health concerns, the cattle market, etc. If they’re simply making recommendations and not writing any new laws or enforcement protocols, then isn’t that the type of limited government conservatives strive for? What are some arguments against this resolution being passed and why do you feel the need to defy it?

    Comment by Aaron — November 28, 2012 @ 3:20 pm - November 28, 2012

  2. However, I thought this was just the type of government Republicans want. The LA city council probably decided to make this resolution based on its citizens health concerns, the cattle market, etc. If they’re simply making recommendations and not writing any new laws or enforcement protocols, then isn’t that the type of limited government conservatives strive for? What are some arguments against this resolution being passed and why do you feel the need to defy it?

    Comment by Aaron — November 28, 2012 @ 3:20 pm – November 28, 2012

    Los Angeles is currently demanding massive tax hikes.

    Why? To deal with the “fiscal emergency” created by rampant and stupid mismanagement.

    But as we know, liberals and “progressives” like Aaron don’t care about what you do nearly as much as they care about what you believe.

    And the reason you don’t understand this is simple, Aaron: conservatives understand multiple views of a situation, while liberals blindly chant Obama talking points and insist that anyone who disagrees with Obama is a racist.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 28, 2012 @ 3:56 pm - November 28, 2012

  3. Compare the meatless Friday that Catholicism used to demand of its adherents once upon a time. Funny how the more the Left forgets, the more it becomes what it professes to despise or disdain.

    Comment by perturbed — November 28, 2012 @ 4:07 pm - November 28, 2012

  4. Nothing in comment #2 relates to anything I said in #1.

    Comment by Aaron — November 28, 2012 @ 4:27 pm - November 28, 2012

  5. If they’re simply making recommendations and not writing any new laws or enforcement protocols, then isn’t that the type of limited government conservatives strive for?

    No. Any government making a “recommendation” from its position of authority goes beyond its legitimate functions. The City of Los Angeles should be reminded who its boss is (i.e. the citizens of Los Angeles) and this is a good way to do it.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 28, 2012 @ 6:19 pm - November 28, 2012

  6. Aaron’s comments are both spot on.

    He made a point that I made last time you had this dinner about the point and what values you are exactly trying to portray in relation to conservative values and limited government, and apparently by making that one point about the city council’s actions, he’s declared his entire ideology and opinion on every political issue?

    NDT really needs to find another bridge to go troll under…

    Comment by Tim in MT — November 28, 2012 @ 6:38 pm - November 28, 2012

  7. Tim, please state for the record: “I am a grown adult who is incapable of making my own decisions and need government to tell me what to eat. Furthermore, governments time is better spent telling me what to eat then it is in actually dealing with the massive mess it has created.”

    When you can do that, your argument will at least be coherent.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 28, 2012 @ 7:40 pm - November 28, 2012

  8. It’s been said that the difference between tragedy and comedy is distance. I’m SO glad I live in OC and can watch this from the other side of the Orange Curtain – I’m just worried about all those millions of politically-deranged, economically-deprived refugees streaming into OC.

    But seriously – I am glad to see that in the opinion of the LA City Council that the world is in such great shape that LA council can focus on recommending healthier food – and that that’s the biggest problem on their plate.

    Maybe they should pass a resolution banning themselves from passing resolutions that make them look so out-of-touch with reality?

    Comment by Ken — November 28, 2012 @ 8:39 pm - November 28, 2012

  9. If you’re doing it for the social aspects and comradery, while at the same time giving a symbolic middle finger to the city council, then cool.

    Aaron, I think it’s clear to most people that that is, in fact, the point.

    I thought this was just the type of government Republicans want.

    A government that micro-manages its citizens’ diets? Maybe RINOs want that, like Nanny Bloomberg of NYC. I would hope that other Republicans don’t.

    If they’re simply making recommendations and not writing any new laws or enforcement protocols, then isn’t that the type of limited government conservatives strive for?

    Nope. Left-liberals have a horrible way of turning today’s “recommendations” into tomorrow’s mandates. The bottom line is this: People’s dietary preference for meat on which days, is no legitimate government function. If you think otherwise, you may be a Democrat or a RINO, and as well, kind of a fascist.

    NDT’s point is on, in this respect: the Los Angeles council should be worrying about much more important and legitimate topics.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 28, 2012 @ 9:14 pm - November 28, 2012

  10. He made a point that I made last time you had this dinner about the point and what values you are exactly trying to portray in relation to conservative values and limited government

    A pity that it’s not a very strong point.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 28, 2012 @ 9:18 pm - November 28, 2012

  11. The hilarity of the left on this knows no bounds.

    Have a steak dinner with your own money at a restaurant and the left starts screaming sedition.

    Strip naked and march into the Speaker of the House’s office shouting epithets and they applaud wildly.

    Simply put, liberal fascists like Aaron want conservatives to be silenced, smeared, and eradicated. Once you realize that, their game-playing and whining become transparently obvious.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 28, 2012 @ 10:25 pm - November 28, 2012

  12. Of course the LA city council could be spending their time better on more pressing issues. But you’re also failing to look at the long term benefits of simply trying to make people more health conscious. If all the city council has to do is vote yay or nay on a resolution, and they can prevent or reverse some of their constituents health problems, I do not see this as any real issue. And once again, they are not enforcing it! It’s a recommendation for the county to be healthier.

    I’m not from LA, but I remember there was once a huge smog problem right? The government got involved and made things much better. I understand that this is a completly different issue because it involves the food you eat (an individual decision) as opposed to the air you breathe (beyond an individuals control). But if the health concerns of obese people and environmental effect of meat production is once again burdening the community through poor environment or increased taxes to cover health care costs of fatties, I can find no problem with LA asking, not forcing, its constituents to try and be healthier.

    And now to the legitimate function of government argument. How is trying to better the health and environment of the citizens not a legitimate function? They are not impeding anyones individual liberty to eat meat at any time. It appears to me that in this case they are not violating the social contract, the constitution, or individual liberty. Once again, to me it seems that this type of resolution, as opposed to the soft drink think in NYC, would be more in line with Republican ideology.

    Comment by Aaron — November 29, 2012 @ 10:21 am - November 29, 2012

  13. Of course the LA city council could be spending their time better on more pressing issues.

    You’re lying. You don’t believe that, and you’re just saying it to obfuscate. You are a malicious and duplicitous liar who’s trying to pretend to be “balanced” to push your leftist lies.

    How do we know?

    But you’re also failing to look at the long term benefits of simply trying to make people more health conscious.

    And:

    How is trying to better the health and environment of the citizens not a legitimate function?

    So you DON’T think they could be spending their time better. You DON’T believe that their financial crisis, their mismanagement, and their need to put crushing taxes on people to make up for their own incompetence is important. You think the MOST important thing they should be doing, rather than running the city, is making decisions about what grown adults should and should not do on a topic on which they are not qualified to comment and then using the platform of government to push it.

    And this, most of all, showed your complete and utter cluelessness.

    Once again, to me it seems that this type of resolution, as opposed to the soft drink think in NYC, would be more in line with Republican ideology.

    The problem you have, Aaron, is that you, like Levi, are nothing more than a statist and fascist who believes that the source of all good is government and that government exists to force everyone to do what the government elites think is “best” for them.

    The reality is quite the opposite. People on food stamps have a higher rate of obesity than those that are off. Despite you liberals bleeding the rest of the country dry to pay for “the poor”, poverty rates have skyrocketed.

    As ILC puts it, poison as food, poison as antidote. Statists and fascists like you cannot comprehend a solution or reality outside government. You worship government as your god and insist that anything government does must be right; therefore, you slap program after program after program after program on top of failing program, and then you scream and cry that conservatives who criticize you want to put poor people on the streets.

    You should have stopped after your first sentence, fascist. But the problem was you didn’t actually believe that; you were just lying to make up for your idiotic statement that the government should spend more time lecturing people on what to eat than actually doing its job.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 29, 2012 @ 10:48 am - November 29, 2012

  14. Would anyone other than NDT like to opine?

    Comment by Aaron — November 29, 2012 @ 11:05 am - November 29, 2012

  15. Why, Aaron?

    Not feeling the love for your statement that the government’s most important function is to lecture and nanny people on what they eat?

    Not able to answer why your beloved “programs” to “improve health” actually make people sicker and more obese?

    Moreover, if you really wanted to improve health and save money, why not demand that the LA City Council nanny and nag about promiscuous gay sex, given how dangerous it is, how expensive it is, and how much it’s damaged Los Angeles?

    Answer: Because statists and fascists like you don’t actually care about health and welfare; those are just excuses you use to steal and mooch and expand your fascist reach.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 29, 2012 @ 11:19 am - November 29, 2012

  16. How is trying to better the health and environment of the citizens not a legitimate function?

    How does specifiying on which days of the week the citizenry should or should not consume meat in any way advance their health, or the environment?

    It’s important to answer the deeper question as well. Government’s legitimate purpose is to impartially protect individual rights to life, liberty and property. That is crucial to society. Government is a territorial monopoly on the use of physical force. To avoid blood feuds and civil strife, and to reduce (or at least punish) crime, people delegate a PART (but not all) of their inherent right of self-defense to government.

    Government then acts as the People’s agent, that is the People’s servant, in bringing the use of physical force under the control of an objective third party. This removes physical force – that is, crimes which would damage life, liberty or property – as an issue in most people’s daily lives. Which, in turn, enables a civil society to flourish: that is, a society in which people deal with one another only by voluntary, mutual consent (nobody forces anybody; or if they do, at least it is treated as a crime).

    The legitimate functions of government are thus police, courts and military – again limited to the protection of individual rights. In going beyond those limits, or in attempting any other purpose or in taking on any other function: government not only loses its focus on the protection of individual rights, it becomes itself a violator of such rights; an oppressor. For example, show me a government which believes its job is to achieve someone’s idea of economic “fairness”, or even “growth”, and I will show you a government which violates the individual’s right to produce and trade freely as she sees fit, and as well, her right to keep what she earns.

    You have made a classic, left-wing, slippery-slope, “muddy the waters” argument. “Oh, government isn’t saying that people must do meatless Mondays; only that they should. Compliance is voluntary.” But the point is, government shouldn’t have an opinion on that matter to begin with, much less ask for any form of compliance. Government is supposed to be the People’s servant. Servants should have no opinion, NONE whatever, on such irrelevancies as whether your Mondays are sufficiently meatless.

    Your view is that government should have such opinions. That implies a socio-ethical-political theory in which government is not a servant, but a master – or a least, government is a servant/tool of a wise who are the masters. That theory began in Plato’s _Republic_ and ended in Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. It implies worship of government as what NDT said, “that the source of all good is government and that government exists to force everyone to do what the government elites think is best for them.” Worship of the State – taking an expansive view of its importance in people lives – is, much more than racism, the essence of fascist ideology.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 29, 2012 @ 11:27 am - November 29, 2012

  17. Typo, “government is a servant/tool of a wise -elite- who are the masters”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 29, 2012 @ 11:29 am - November 29, 2012

  18. Thanks ILC

    Comment by rusty — November 29, 2012 @ 11:55 am - November 29, 2012

  19. You can aruge that passing this resolution is an attempt to impartially protect the individual right to life, liberty, and property.

    Let’s go back to the smog example. People have been free to buy and produce automobiles and pollute for a long time. Once the smog in LA got to the point that it was effecting peoples right to life, the government decided it was operating within their parameters to protect the people being adversely affected by the pollution. If the government controls the police, courts, and miltary in order to maintain a free market, then shouldn’t they also be able to try and counter the ill-effects of a free market if they are robbing people of their right to life? Remember, a free-market solution to lowering polution doesn’t make sense. If the most profitable and competitive avenue to making cars is to produce them without catalytic converters, that’s what the free market will gravitate towards. The government acted as that third party arbiter between the polluters and air-breathers (everyone) to ensure the right to life was not being violated. Everyone had to once again yield a portion of their right to self-govern so they could breathe cleaner air.

    I know this is a stretch from air pollution to what and when individuals should eat, but both instantces have the same concern of the people at their core; individual health and right to life. Now let me make this clear, I do not think the government should dictate what people eat. In times of war or famine yes, but not in 2012 LA. But since the government has not done that, what’s the issue? ILC beleives that the government should have no opinion and act as a servant, to which I partially agree. But wouldn’t you want your servant to warn you if you were becoming a gigantic, unhealthy fat person? Wouldn’t you want the servant to have enough chutzpah to recommend that you put the fork down, for your own health? Remember, they aren’t forcing you to, they are your servant.

    This is what the city of LA is attempting to do with meatless Mondays. If maybe, just maybe, some of the citizens can view this resolution as a way to startle themselves into self-reflection, and therefore better health, as opposed to viewing it as an attempt at control, then the resolution may serve just the purpose it was designed for; to better the health and life of the individual.

    And no NDT, I didn’t forget about you. You’re just nuts. Start framing your arguments the way ILC does and we can talk. Instead you just link a couple of irrelevant articles, and all of a sudden you’re right because I’m a fascist.

    Comment by Aaron — November 29, 2012 @ 12:12 pm - November 29, 2012

  20. And the Nazis argued that eliminating Jews, who were disproportionately wealthy and educated, was necessary to counter the ill-effects of a free market that had allowed them to prosper.

    For a fascist, everything is an excuse to legislate, arbitrate, mandate, and regulate. For Aaron, government is the all in all: everything government does is good and justifiable, and government must do everything.

    Mainly because it leaves more steaks for Aaron and the wannabe nomenklatura.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 29, 2012 @ 12:24 pm - November 29, 2012

  21. See comment #14

    Comment by Aaron — November 29, 2012 @ 12:34 pm - November 29, 2012

  22. And this was particularly hilarious.

    Remember, a free-market solution for lowering pollution doesn’t make sense..

    Wrong.

    So wrong.

    So completely wrong.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 29, 2012 @ 12:58 pm - November 29, 2012

  23. How in the hell can a steak dinner on a Monday as a protest cause so much controversy. Why doesn´t OWS become vegitarians and save the small family farms. If I lived in L.A., I´d participate.

    Comment by Roberto — November 29, 2012 @ 1:20 pm - November 29, 2012

  24. So if enough people reply ‘stake’ to the e-mail, is Dan going to lead an expedition to Sunnydale?

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 29, 2012 @ 1:46 pm - November 29, 2012

  25. And once again, they are not enforcing it! It’s a recommendation for the county to be healthier.

    This is a good point. The government has no business being involved in healthcare at all, but if it is, they (and taxpayers) have a reason to “recommend” that people eat healthier to reduce healthcare costs. Otherwise, they would have no reason to care.

    How is trying to better the health and environment of the citizens not a legitimate function?

    Illegitimate government functions include not leaving people the f*ck alone (whether through “recommendations” (in other words, future laws) or through illegitimate laws) when they aren’t breaking legitimate laws.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 29, 2012 @ 2:48 pm - November 29, 2012

  26. shouldn’t they also be able to try and counter the ill-effects of a free market if they are robbing people of their right to life?

    Smog isn’t a good comparison to people’s eating habits. Smog affects everyone who is in the area of the smog, but eating habits affect only the person doing the eating (and the taxpayers who fund those people’s unhealthy habits through government healthcare. So the solution is to get government out of healthcare entirely).

    But wouldn’t you want your servant to warn you if you were becoming a gigantic, unhealthy fat person?

    Again, an unapt comparison. Servants have no authority over their employers. The beauty of a society that fully respects people’s individual rights would let people make mistakes and deal with the consequences of those mistakes themselves. That doesn’t mean people can’t give other people advice, but the relationship people have with other people, in general, is voluntary, whereas with the government it isn’t.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 29, 2012 @ 3:00 pm - November 29, 2012

  27. I have a right to eat what I want. It’s my right as an individual to choose what makes me happy. If that’s twinkies and steaks and french fries, I can eat that and deal with the consequences. Even if I adapted a vegan diet, my life and death will be expensive. That’s why we have life insurance and health insurance (and they have a right to not insure me if they think it will cost too much). No city council or state or federal offocial has any damn business recommending or dictating what I can and cannot put in my body. Period. Manage the budget, maintain the roads, and cut ribbons, but shut up about what I can eat or smoke or whatever. Government does not belong in the business of social engineering and THAT is what meatless Mondays is all about. Some dipsh!t decides that this is how society should be so said dipsh!t issues recommendations and laws to regulate human behavior in true fascist fashion.

    Comment by Paul — November 29, 2012 @ 3:55 pm - November 29, 2012

  28. The progressives are so self-righteous, ill informed, and self-inflated that they think they can legislate away health problems and even death itself (unless you are an unexpected baby, then they’ll just kill you) by making recommendations, regulations, and nudging; they’re willing to make everyone MISERABLE in the process by suggesting that the act of eating a steak or drinking a 32oz soda is, somehow, going to cause unneccesary suffering on some poor soul.

    Comment by Paul — November 29, 2012 @ 4:02 pm - November 29, 2012

  29. Lastly, it was the Nazis who were among the first anti-smoking, anti-meat advocates because they wanted to create a utopian society.

    Comment by Paul — November 29, 2012 @ 4:08 pm - November 29, 2012

  30. You can aruge that passing this resolution is an attempt to impartially protect the individual right to life, liberty, and property.

    To be precise: Yes, you can try… but you’ll still be wrong.

    Let’s go back to the smog example.

    But the example for this thread is specifically Meatless Mondays. In other words, you are determined to push a collectivist / Big Government set of assumptions, even if you have to change the subject. Even if I don’t endorse all of NDT’s rhetoric, I think he has been correctly perceiving your philosophy/agenda.

    Once the smog in LA got to the point that it was [a]ffecting peoples right to life, the government decided it was operating within their parameters to protect the people being adversely affected by the pollution

    Nope. First, again, none of this has to do with Meatless Mondays. Personal meat consumption is not in any way like pollution. Irrelevant example.

    Second, as NDT’s 3 counter-examples show, free-market consumer demand is more than enough to bring about constructive changes to market products. No need for government regulation. Indeed, the freer the market, the *more* consumer demands will sway what’s made; it is the regulated markets which get dysfunctional and respond to consumer demands poorly (the government having substituted its sovereign demands for those of the formerly sovereign consumer).

    Third, where there is a real case of person A or her property being harmed by person B’s negligent pollution, we have a tort system (courts) to deal with that. Again, no need for government regulation.

    Saying “government regulation cleaned up X” is always false, in the sense that government mandates mean nothing without business people busting their butts. Even with government pretending to lead the way, business is the one who does it (not government). Furthermore, the majority of government mandates happen AFTER the free market has long since begun to solve the problem. In previous discussions I’ve cited child labor, which was >90% ended by the free market, BEFORE the first effective Federal law against it.

    a free-market solution to lowering polution doesn’t make sense.

    Sure it does. You would simply rather it weren’t so.

    I do not think the government should dictate what people eat. In times of war or famine yes

    Translation: the “yes” part. You do think government should dictate what people eat; you just want to pretend you don’t. In case you haven’t noticed, this is a time of war. Obama managed to wind down Iraq by following the instructions & timetable that Bush left for Him, but Afghanistan is still going, plus Obama’s Libya war which claimed the life of a U.S. ambassador last month. Plus a five-decade, declared war on poverty, and a barely-metaphorical war on drugs. The “time of war” distinction is increasingly meaningless.

    wouldn’t you want your servant to warn you if you were becoming a gigantic, unhealthy fat person?

    NO. Not if it wasn’t my doctor, i.e. a servant whom I hired specifically for advice in some area. You see, I’m a responsible grownup. Even when I do something ‘wrong’, I have my reasons. Don’t you?

    But even if yes: Once again, what does it have to do with Meatless Mondays? Hint: nothing. I know fat vegetarians. I know fat Meatless Friday people. I know skinny 7-day meat-eating people.

    If maybe, just maybe, some of the citizens can view this resolution as a way to startle themselves into self-reflection

    Again: that is not government’s job. Unless it’s an arrogant government, one which thinks it’s wiser than the People it claims to serve.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 29, 2012 @ 4:57 pm - November 29, 2012

  31. Paul: Right on.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 29, 2012 @ 5:01 pm - November 29, 2012

  32. On capitalism ending child labor: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/04/19/can-government-make-life-fair-for-gay-people/#comment-674236

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 29, 2012 @ 5:17 pm - November 29, 2012

  33. But the example for this thread is specifically Meatless Mondays. In other words, you are determined to push a collectivist / Big Government set of assumptions, even if you have to change the subject.

    You nailed it, ILC.

    Now, let’s check if Aaron has the balls to make his argument coherent by simply stating, “I am a grown adult who is incapable of making my own decisions and need government to tell me what to eat. Furthermore, governments time is better spent telling me what to eat then it is in actually dealing with the massive mess it has created.”

    My guess is that he will not do that, which means he is insisting that everyone else but himself is too stupid and ignorant to make choices about their own diet.

    It is because, as you aptly put it, his intent is to rule. He doesn’t actually care about health, or obesity, or pollution, or anything of the sort; his sole purpose in arguing is for government takeover and government expansion.

    Why? Simple. Private industry hires and pays based on performance and contribution. Government pays out based on skin color, minority status, and influence-peddling.

    I’ll give you two guesses at which Aaron is better.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 29, 2012 @ 5:25 pm - November 29, 2012

  34. So I have a dumb question here. Is the issue here just that they have a resolution suggesting that one skip meat once a week, which is being taken as big government forcing us what to do? What if they just put out information that said that studies have shown reducing meat in your diet has been shown to be beneficial to your individual health, better for the environment (in terms of reduced water usage, etc), and so on? Or does the government have no place in sharing that kind of information at all? Is it strictly the suggestion part of the resolution, or is it everything?

    Just curious……

    Comment by Alan — November 29, 2012 @ 5:38 pm - November 29, 2012

  35. As discussed in the thread comments: They only put out a “recommendation”… and the issue is the arrogance, the lack of focus on what they should be worrying about, and, I would add, the slippery slope. (“Recommendation” to become a mandate in a few more years, I predict.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 29, 2012 @ 5:49 pm - November 29, 2012

  36. ILC – Thanks for the clarification. I understand the “recommendation” = mandate concern. I’m still trying to figure out where you guys stand on the city council (or any government) providing scientific information to its citizens (health studies relating to eating meat, environmental concerns, etc) without recommendations. Does that fall under the umbrella of legitimate government function?

    Comment by Alan — November 29, 2012 @ 5:54 pm - November 29, 2012

  37. I don’t speak for everyone here :-)

    Let me put it this way. First, if I were organizing the ideal new government, no it wouldn’t “provide” information. Because that, like any other distraction, is better left to citizens, citizen-initiated nonprofits, private universities, consumer groups, for-profit businesses, etc. In taking on that function, government distracts itself from what it reeeeaaaallly should concentrate on: the impartial protection of individual rights. (You can’t seriously argue that government in the U.S. does a good enough job of the latter.) Moreover, government starts picking scientific “winners and losers”. It starts talking nonsense like “scientific consensus”. (Science doesn’t work by consensus; science works by *defying* consensus.) In short, it politizices science.

    Now, having said that: Just getting rid of Obamacare or Dodd-Frank is far higher on my list of priorities than, say, abolishing the NIH. It will do far more to help the economy. The larger point is that if only one-third of libertarian-conservatism were implemented, things would get so fantastic that no one would worry about implementing the remaining two-thirds; people would be too busy living their adventurous, prosperous lives.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 29, 2012 @ 6:08 pm - November 29, 2012

  38. Alan,

    Politicians are NOT QUALIFIED to make food and health recommendations. It is NOT THEIR JOB to disseminate scientific information:

    Oat bran was going to save us all from heart disease, then it wasn’t. Eggs were bad for you, then they were good for you.

    Here’s ONE example of politicians RECOMMENDATIONS being based on incomplete information and then turning into social enginerring:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22116724/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/what-if-bad-fat-isnt-so-bad/#.UCalyJ2PWcw

    and then there’s this gem:

    http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/257048/Now-salt-is-safe-to-eat/

    Politicians don’t belong in health care or social engineering. Keep bureaucrats damn hands off my body!

    Comment by Paul — November 29, 2012 @ 6:10 pm - November 29, 2012

  39. Oh yeah, the first link is from MSNBC so it MUST be true.

    Comment by Paul — November 29, 2012 @ 6:12 pm - November 29, 2012

  40. ILC – Thanks again for your explanation. While I disagree with your more libertarian leanings, I respect your vision of what a government should (and shouldn’t) be involved in.

    It also helps explain some of the other comments folks have made in this thread. The jump from “hey have you thought about slightly cutting back on meat” to dystopian fascist state seemed like a big jump to me (not that I’m accusing you of such hyperbole….*eyes NDT*)

    Paul – I’m not sure your examples are the result of politicians being involved. Seems like scientific literature is always being updated as new results and tests become available. The health effects of an egg has nothing to do with what a politician says, and everything to do with what the current science says. I honestly don’t have a problem with the government making recommendations based on the latest scientific information available at the time. I’m aware that they are just recommendations and that new evidence can change the conventional wisdom. My bigger issue is the influence of special interests in the creation of the recommendations. There are plenty of examples of the sugar and salt industries (among others) tweaking the recommendations to benefit their industry (regardless of what the science says). I definitely recognize that there are issues with distilling complex issues into simple sound bites (the all fat is bad craze is a good example of that), but I don’t have the inherent resistance to the government involvement here that others do.

    Comment by Alan — November 29, 2012 @ 6:34 pm - November 29, 2012

  41. The health effects of an egg has nothing to do with what a politician says, and everything to do with what the current science says.

    So if politician said “The overwhelming scientific consensus is that eggs are (bad/good) for you, we must (ban/tax/regulate/subsidize/promote) them!”, you’d be OK with that?

    The point is that the meddling politician always claims to be motivated by current science; and sometimes he’s even right; but science changes, and we would all be much better off had the meddling never occurred. Exhibit A: global warming.

    I honestly don’t have a problem with the government making recommendations…
    My bigger issue is the influence of special interests in the creation of the recommendations…

    Do you really not see the connection there?

    So-called “special interests” (i.e., real businesses and people which will prosper or suffer, live or die, because of government pronouncement X) get involved because their lives depend on it. Another reason why government shouldn’t be involved.

    By the way – the real, and largest, self-seeking and manipulative special interest of them all is: government.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 29, 2012 @ 7:45 pm - November 29, 2012

  42. Conservatism sucks so hard because this is how it reacts to the tiniest bit of civic-mindedness. If someone in the government so much as suggests that eating a little less meat might be healthy, we all get treated to a nice, long cry. Because this such a nefarious plot, right? Government mandates controlling your diet are just around the corner, right? Better flail around whining about your freedoms for half an hour!

    Every parent in the country could agree that it’s a good thing to teach your kid to exercise and eat healthy. But oh my god, if a conservative sees Michelle Obama promoting that idea, then it’s time to draw whip out the Nazi Germany issue and rants about rounding people into camps. And it’s always about such menial shit. I mean, even if the government forced everyone in the country to not eat meat for one day per week, would that really be grounds to compare them to Soviet Russia? There are people starving all over the world, and conservatives are throwing fits about completely imagined plots to have their luxurious and extravagant lifestyles made ever so slightly less luxurious and extravagant.

    All the council said was something we all know to be true: eating less meat might be good for you. Hey, you know what? You might even save some money. Who couldn’t use a few extra bucks these days? Just a tip from your local government. Why not? Who would disagree with that? There are definitely people giving that advice in social settings. What’s so wrong with somebody from the government giving a completely soft sell on trying this? You guys act like they come knocking on your doors every night screaming it in your face. Get a grip.

    What’s really important though, is that conservatives really don’t seem to care about the pathetic state of our country’s health. As supposed economic aficionados, you’d think conservatives would understand that the lost efficiency, the increased healthcare costs, and early death are threatening our competitive advantage. We don’t want our economy chasing after a problem unique to our country that is entirely avoidable. We are competing with the rest of the world, and the rest of the world doesn’t have that problem. It’s like stabbing all your linemen in the thigh with a pocketknife before every every game.

    Comment by Levi — November 30, 2012 @ 7:29 am - November 30, 2012

  43. So Levi now supports abstinance only education supplied by the states?

    After all it would just be “the tiniest bit of civic-mindedness. If someone in the government so much as suggests that not having sex outside of marriage might be healthy, we all get treated to a nice, long cry. Because this such a nefarious plot, right? Government mandates controlling your sex life are just around the corner, right? Better flail around whining about your freedoms for half an hour!”

    What’s wrong Levi? getting tired of having your lies torn apart so you redeploy to another thread to start yelling again?

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 30, 2012 @ 7:54 am - November 30, 2012

  44. “Second, as NDT’s 3 counter-examples show, free-market consumer demand is more than enough to bring about constructive changes to market products. No need for government regulation. Indeed, the freer the market, the *more* consumer demands will sway what’s made; it is the regulated markets which get dysfunctional and respond to consumer demands poorly (the government having substituted its sovereign demands for those of the formerly sovereign consumer).

    Third, where there is a real case of person A or her property being harmed by person B’s negligent pollution, we have a tort system (courts) to deal with that. Again, no need for government regulation.”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 29, 2012 @ 4:57 pm – November 29, 2012

    This was a pretty ridiculous claim that I must respond to. Did you read those 3 articles NDT put up? Let me sum them up for you:

    Article 1: a 7% increase in 18-24 year olds are now willing to pay more (a nebulous amount, how much more? a dime? 50%? 2x? 3x? what a poorly conducted survey), a couple of other small percentage point increases towards green product awareness and consumption.

    Article 2: Some vary vague statistics about how much more people (never identified how many, age groups, anything other than those who normally buy organic products and those who don’t) are willing to pay for organic chicken. And the last line reads, “Van Loo noted that more research is needed that would include real market data reporting actual consumer purchases.” So great, and incomplete study is cited.

    Article 3: People are willing to pay more (see above) for renewable energy, and people support the development of renewable energy. What a shock! People think wind energy is a better idea then burning carbon and depositing it in the atmosphere.

    Do any of these articles mean a thing about the free market being able to handle community problems? Not even close. They all say the same thing; some people are willing to pay “more”. This all leads to the free-rider problem. If a market for cleaner, healthier products is available, some people will use them, others will not. Those who don’t will continue to contribute to the problem without having to worry about its solution. In the meatless monday case it is healthcare costs. If you’re poor and fat, and the cheapest food available is not organically grown, you’re not going to buy it! Same thing with cars in the smog example. If it is easier for someone to afford transportation while polluting more, they are going to do it. Thus, the government becomes neccesary to lead us in the right direction. Capitalism is great, but the hybrid system where the government controls certain aspects in order to protect individual life, liberty, and freedom, is much much better.

    The second part about the tort system is also ridiculous. Tort laws are only effective on a small scale. What happens when entire communities are effected, and the courts can’t leverage the company enough to pay the damages? Like the asbestos in Libby Montana, or Dioxin in Times Beach Missouri, or Love canal in Niagra Falls? Once again, the free market falls short at resolving these issues. So in order to maintain the capitalist system that allows these things to happen, the government steps in to arbitrate. This way companies can still do what they have to do to make money, they just can’t kill people in the process.

    “I do not think the government should dictate what people eat. In times of war or famine yes”

    “Translation: the “yes” part. You do think government should dictate what people eat; you just want to pretend you don’t. In case you haven’t noticed, this is a time of war. Obama managed to wind down Iraq by following the instructions & timetable that Bush left for Him, but Afghanistan is still going, plus Obama’s Libya war which claimed the life of a U.S. ambassador last month. Plus a five-decade, declared war on poverty, and a barely-metaphorical war on drugs. The “time of war” distinction is increasingly meaningless.”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 29, 2012 @ 4:57 pm – November 29, 2012

    I’m not talking about fake wars like the ones the Republicans started. The ones where we decided to lower taxes, encourage shopping, and hope the war would pay for itself through imagined oil revenues. I’m talking about real wars. The all hands on deck type of wars like WWII, when we as a country decided that we all had to help by rationing food and clothes, buying war bonds, etc. These bullsh!t wars we have now are a joke. I should have been clearer in my original post.

    I also like the prediction ILC made about the recommendation turing into a mandate in a couple of years. HAHAHAHHA. But! it does lead me to my next point. What happens when society has to start making tough decisions? Not BS like Meatless Mondays, I’m talking about real problems like population control. Or water/resource rationing. Where are the free market solutions to these problems? We can’t force people not to breed or drink. But on a long enough timeline with this current growth rate, eventually we are going to have to figure stuff like that out. And here we are, whining about Meatless Mondays.

    And sorry I can’t do the block quotes, my browser on this computer sucks and I can’t change it. I also have to agree with Levi. What is the whining about? A couple of news articles or fliers about meatless Mondays circulate through LA. So what. Follow it or don’t, don’t try to extrapolate the city council recommending to it’s citizens to try and be healthier into a fascist regime. You sound stupid

    Comment by Aaron — November 30, 2012 @ 10:22 am - November 30, 2012

  45. I also like the prediction ILC made about the recommendation turing into a mandate in a couple of years. HAHAHAHHA. But! it does lead me to my next point. What happens when society has to start making tough decisions? Not BS like Meatless Mondays, I’m talking about real problems like population control. Or water/resource rationing. Where are the free market solutions to these problems? We can’t force people not to breed or drink. But on a long enough timeline with this current growth rate, eventually we are going to have to figure stuff like that out. And here we are, whining about Meatless Mondays.

    You mean, what happens when things like the obesity epidemic, the costs of fuel, and climate change come to a head and start really crippling our economy and destroying our way of life?

    Conservatives don’t care! None of that crap matters nearly as much as some oil company or the healthcare industry making a half percentage point more of profit next quarter. Why think about the future? Who cares what scientists say? Nope, nothing is more important than making sure that rich people enjoy unlimited growth. The free market only produces good results, don’t ya know, so obesity is nothing for anybody to worry about.

    Comment by Levi — November 30, 2012 @ 10:41 am - November 30, 2012

  46. Liberals don’t care! None of that crap matters nearly as much as some green energy company or the unions making a half percentage point more of profit next quarter. Why think about the future? Who cares what scientists say? Nope, nothing is more important than making sure that rich people enjoy unlimited growth. The government subsidies only produce good results don’t ya know, so obesity is nothing for anybody to worry about.

    Fixed for Levi, since he chooses to ignor the links between Poverty and Obesity, the restriction of fossil fuel production, and the idiot idea of burning food for less efficient fuel.

    Now hush Levi, the adults are talking.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 30, 2012 @ 10:46 am - November 30, 2012

  47. Oh, and forgot. No global warming for 16 years. Again, facts just don’t matter to fascists. They keep up the big lie.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 30, 2012 @ 10:46 am - November 30, 2012

  48. Levi writes in 42 that conservatives don´t really seem to care about the pathetic state of our country´s health. And notice he said that ¨all the council said which we all know to be true: that eating less meat might be good for you.¨ Notice he or the council used the subjunctive case which means it may or may not be true. I have to wonder if any member of the council is a physician? As for the truth of the fact I do not know it to be true. Meat is healthy for you. It does not cause obesity. It´s in the preparation. A broiled steak is quite healthy, most of the fat has gone into the fire, and the meat is a good source of proteins.

    Do I care about the state of the country´s health? Fiscal health? Yes, and I wish the liberals in government would think more about less spending than less meat or 16 ounce soft drinks. Physical health? No!! It´s none of my business and it´s none of gevernments. Adults should be responsible for their health and the health of their families. Weight problems should be dealt with by a doctor. Shut the computers, video games and tv´s off and get out and exercise.

    Speaking of health, many communities in many states have no smoking allowed in public places and some in private, as well. Those states which now permit recreational smoking of marijuana, does the no smoking zones apply to them or are they exempt?

    Comment by Roberto — November 30, 2012 @ 12:31 pm - November 30, 2012

  49. This was a pretty ridiculous claim that I must respond to. Did you read those 3 articles NDT put up? Let me sum them up for you:

    Comment by Aaron — November 30, 2012 @ 10:22 am – November 30, 2012

    Translation: “I’ll trash your sources without putting up any of my own.”

    That’s typical. Liberals won’t ever cite facts, studies, or links, nor will they do like the authors of those studies did and post their credentials.

    That’s because liberals aren’t making intelligent arguments; they’re just contradicting and screaming that anyone who disagrees with their predetermined notion that the all-powerful government which they worship should give them control over everyone else’s lives.

    Which they freely admit that they want.

    I mean, even if the government forced everyone in the country to not eat meat for one day per week, would that really be grounds to compare them to Soviet Russia?

    Comment by Levi — November 30, 2012 @ 7:29 am – November 30, 2012

    What happens when society has to start making tough decisions? Not BS like Meatless Mondays, I’m talking about real problems like population control. Or water/resource rationing.

    Comment by Aaron — November 30, 2012 @ 10:22 am – November 30, 2012

    Fascists always have excuses. There are always “emergencies” in which they have to take control of resources.

    The reason why is simple. Fascists cannot control people who have the means to survive without them. But if fascists control the food, the water, the resources, and the wealth, they can starve people into submission.

    That is all this is about. Fascist Levi admits that liberals see nothing wrong with the government forcing people not to eat meat. Fascist Aaron insists that we need to impose “rationing” and punish those people who are living “extravagant lifestyles”.

    The hilarity is that these malicious children don’t realize that we know exactly how this game is played and what they’re trying to do.

    Fascists always claim their dictatorial power is necessary for the good of the country. Fascists always claim that their need to strip people of liberty and freedom is justified by “emergencies”. Fascists always insist that anyone who questions them is an enemy of the state.

    Levi is a fascist. Aaron is a fascist.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 30, 2012 @ 1:36 pm - November 30, 2012

  50. And then there’s more, as the desperate fascist Aaron tries to whine and cry and scream for his fascist takeovers.

    Do any of these articles mean a thing about the free market being able to handle community problems? Not even close. They all say the same thing; some people are willing to pay “more”. This all leads to the free-rider problem. If a market for cleaner, healthier products is available, some people will use them, others will not. Those who don’t will continue to contribute to the problem without having to worry about its solution.

    Lie.

    We know full well that Aaron and his ilk fully endorse and support freeloading.

    I]t is now more lucrative – in the form of actual disposable income – to sit, do nothing, and collect various welfare entitlements, than to work. This is graphically, and very painfully confirmed, in the below chart from Gary Alexander, Secretary of Public Welfare, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (a state best known for its broke capital Harrisburg). As quantitied, and explained by Alexander, “the single mom is better off earning gross income of $29,000 with $57,327 in net income & benefits than to earn gross income of $69,000 with net income and benefits of $57,045.“…..

    In today’s America, it is reasonable to conclude that unless you make a great deal of money, you are a sucker if you work hard. And, in fact, a great many Americans have concluded exactly that. Check out these data, again from the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare. Each 1.25 Americans working in the private sector is supporting 1.0 welfare recipients and government employees–mostly welfare recipients:

    So when it comes to screaming about “freeloaders”, Aaron and Levi, both of whom are on welfare, are simply hypocrites.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 30, 2012 @ 1:41 pm - November 30, 2012

  51. And here’s the next ranting lie from the fascist Aaron and his fellow fascist Levi to attempt to rationalize their government takeovers.

    In the meatless monday case it is healthcare costs. If you’re poor and fat, and the cheapest food available is not organically grown, you’re not going to buy it!

    Comment by Aaron — November 30, 2012 @ 10:22 am – November 30, 2012

    You mean, what happens when things like the obesity epidemic, the costs of fuel, and climate change come to a head and start really crippling our economy and destroying our way of life?

    Comment by Levi — November 30, 2012 @ 10:41 am – November 30, 2012

    And yet, what do we see?

    The U.S. Food Stamp Program may help contribute to obesity among its users, according to a new nationwide study that followed participants for 14 years.

    Researchers found that the average user of food stamps had a Body Mass Index (BMI) 1.15 points higher than non-users. The link between food stamps and higher weight was almost entirely based on women users, who averaged 1.24 points higher BMI than those not in the program, the study found. For an average American woman, this would mean an increase in weight of 5.8 pounds.

    The study also found that people’s BMI increased faster when they were on food stamps than when they were not, and increased more the longer they were in the program.

    And what do fascists Levi and Aaron want?

    More than one in seven Americans are on food stamps, but the federal government wants even more people to sign up for the safety net program.

    And where do fascists Aaron and Levi encourage and support people spending their food stamps?

    ATMs, casinos, bail bondspersons, fast-food joints, liquor stores, cigarettes, etc.

    Isn’t that hilarious? Fascists Levi and Aaron are screaming at people who actually are paying for it themselves not to eat meat because of “public health” — while they’re doling out hundreds of dollars every month to people to go buy liquor and cigarettes, feed their gambling addictions, and get fast food.

    You wonder why the fascists who are so concerned about “public health” and insisting that the government should control what people eat aren’t locking down EBT cards to be used to purchase healthy food and healthy food only.

    Until, of course, you realize that fascists Levi and Aaron don’t give a damn about peoples’ health; that’s just the excuse they use to get people hooked on and dependent on government.

    Your lies keep imploding, Levi and Aaron. We can continue to post example after example after example of your lies and hypocrisy. You are pathetic, filthy, malicious fascists.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 30, 2012 @ 1:56 pm - November 30, 2012

  52. Oh, and what else are the screaming fascists Levi and Aaron trying to push?

    There are people starving all over the world, and conservatives are throwing fits about completely imagined plots to have their luxurious and extravagant lifestyles made ever so slightly less luxurious and extravagant.

    Comment by Levi — November 30, 2012 @ 7:29 am – November 30, 2012

    But what do fascists Levi and Aaron do?

    If the US Airforce did all airline food, it would be strawberries dipped in dark chocolate and grilled chicken salads all round.

    Unfortunately this luxury is reserved for top US politicians alone, as new documents detailing Nancy Pelosi’s travel expenses reveal.

    The former House Speaker was showered with a cornucopia of gourmet food and alcohol as she travelled over 90,000 miles around the world in just nine months last year – all courtesy of the US Airforce (USAF).

    On one overseas excursion, her office even wrote to the USAF asking for strawberries dipped in dark chocolate as a birthday treat.

    And:

    Depp greeted guests in the costume he had worn in a film version of the Lewis Carroll story released around the same time by Burton, who was given carte blanche to transform the state dining room into a Mad Hatter’s tea party in “his signature creepy-comic style”.

    A long table was “set with antique-looking linens, enormous stuffed animals in chairs, and tiered serving plates with treats like bone-shaped meringue cookies”, writes New York Times reporter Jodi Kantor in The Obamas, which is released on Tuesday. Fruit punch was served in blood vials at the bar, she adds.

    George Lucas sent Chewbacca from Star Wars to mingle with invited guests, who included the Obamas’ two daughters Malia and Sasha and friends, the children of White House staff members and military families.

    The White House press corps was allowed to report on more modest festivities earlier that day for Washington-area school children, but did not release details of the more glamorous festivities that occurred later for what was the Obamas’ first Halloween in office in 2009.

    And:

    Besides not paying those pesky taxes, Mr. Rangel had other reasons for wanting to hide income. As the tenant of four rent-stabilized apartments in Harlem, the Congressman needed to keep his annual reported income below $175,000, lest he be ineligible as a hardship case for rent control. (He also used one of the apartments as an office in violation of rent-control rules, but that’s another story.)

    Mr. Rangel said last fall that “I never had any idea that I got any income’’ from the villa. Try using that one the next time the IRS comes after you. Equally interesting is his claim that he didn’t know that the developer of the Dominican Republic villa had converted his $52,000 mortgage to an interest-free loan in 1990. That would seem to violate House rules on gifts, which say Members may only accept loans on “terms that are generally available to the public.” Try getting an interest-free loan from your banker.

    The National Legal and Policy Center also says it has confirmed that Mr. Rangel owned a home in Washington from 1971-2000 and during that time claimed a “homestead” exemption that allowed him to save on his District of Columbia property taxes. However, the homestead exemption only applies to a principal residence, and the Washington home could not have qualified as such since Mr. Rangel’s rent-stabilized apartments in New York have the same requirement.

    Three instances, three examples of Obama Party multi-millionaires living lush and extravagant lifestyles on the taxpayer’s dime.

    Your lies and hypocrisy just completely blew up in your face, fascists Levi and Aaron.

    You FULLY supported and endorsed every single one of these examples. You sit there and rant and scream and whine about “the poor” and “public health” as your Obama Party owners dine on lavish food, keep four city apartments, and fly themselves around the country to jet-set with Hollywood stars AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE.

    If you gave a damn about “the poor”, you wouldn’t be wasting money on chocolate-dipped strawberries for an insider-trading multimillionaire who can pay for her own damn food and her own jet.

    You don’t care about “the poor”. All you care about is looting and mooching from everyone else at gunpoint, and we just proved it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 30, 2012 @ 2:07 pm - November 30, 2012

  53. Oh, and last, but CERTAINLY not least:

    What’s really important though, is that conservatives really don’t seem to care about the pathetic state of our country’s health. As supposed economic aficionados, you’d think conservatives would understand that the lost efficiency, the increased healthcare costs, and early death are threatening our competitive advantage.

    Comment by Levi — November 30, 2012 @ 7:29 am – November 30, 2012

    And what does the fascist Levi endorse and push as “healthy behavior”?

    Getting too drunk or forgetting your condoms or allowing yourself to be pressured into it by your horny boyfriend or the kind of everyday, run-of-the-mill bad decisions we all make, like spending 6 dollars on coffee or watching Jersey Shore.

    Comment by Levi — September 24, 2012 @ 1:57 pm – September 24, 2012

    And what does that result in?

    The ASHA panel reviewed published data on the economic costs of individual STDs and estimated the direct medical costs of STD treatment for all estimated cases per year. Direct medical costs are dollars actually spent within the health care system treating STDs and their complications. The direct costs presented here – $8.4 billion – are only one part of the total economic burden of the STD epidemic.

    It gets even better.

    These estimates do not include nonmedical indirect costs (lost wages and productivity due to STD-related illness), out-of-pocket costs, or the costs incurred when STDs are transmitted to infants, which can result in significant lifelong expenditures. In addition, many STD cases result in an office visit but are not diagnosed as STDs. Finally, these estimates do not include the cost of STD prevention and screening.

    But wait, there’s more!

    In addition to the economic impact of STDs, the panel noted that STDs have a high human cost in terms of pain, suffering and grief. Complications of chlamydia and gonorrhea can lead to chronic pain, infertility and tubal pregnancies, which can affect a woman’s health and well-being throughout her lifetime. The harmful impact of STDs on infants leads to long-term emotional suffering and stress for families, which cannot be captured in dollar terms.

    One must not also forget that Levi likes to rant and cry that government needs to hand out abortions and birth control pills, which do absolutely nothing to prevent against STDs, because he finds condoms “inconvenient”.

    Now, watch how fast the desperate fascists Aaron and Levi back away from government making decisions to protect “public health”. Once you realize that they’re disgusting and malicious little perverts who actually ENDORSE making people sicker and then dumping the costs onto the rest of us, their lies explode even faster.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 30, 2012 @ 2:23 pm - November 30, 2012

  54. Translation: “I’ll trash your sources without putting up any of my own.”

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 30, 2012 @ 1:36 pm – November 30, 2012

    Don’t even bother putting them up! Several comments ago this thread was a subjective argument between ILC and I about the appropriate roll of government, and you’d tried to shoot it down with some articles that had nothing to do with anything! Same thing just a minute ago with the weird Romanian dictator memorablia and Chinese driving Bentleys articles…what the hell are you trying to say? I suspect you can’t articulate your arguments very well, so you revert to calling me a Nazi then link stupid articles. You’re 0 for 5 on this thread, hell I might just stop reading them all together!

    Comment by Aaron — November 30, 2012 @ 2:24 pm - November 30, 2012

  55. Never seen anyone so panicky about hyperlinks. One might think exposure to informed opinions and facts would actually allow Libs to make coherent arguments or something.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 30, 2012 @ 2:31 pm - November 30, 2012

  56. Same thing just a minute ago with the weird Romanian dictator memorablia and Chinese driving Bentleys articles…what the hell are you trying to say?

    Comment by Aaron — November 30, 2012 @ 2:24 pm – November 30, 2012

    Easy, Aaron.

    Those communist leaders shrieked and screamed about “luxurious and extravagant lifestyles” and put punishing rationing on their country’s peoples — and then turned around and used the money to fund their own orgies of luxury and gluttony.

    You and your fellow fascist Levi shriek and scream about “luxurious and extravagant lifestyles” and how the government needs to force people not to eat certain things and ration, and then use taxpayer dollars to fund your own orgies of luxury and gluttony.

    Like I said, we’ve seen the game already. If you weren’t a childish imbecile who knows nothing other than government is awesome and everyone should be forced to give me free sh*t, you would know that.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 30, 2012 @ 2:51 pm - November 30, 2012

  57. Don’t even bother putting them up!

    Comment by Aaron — November 30, 2012 @ 2:24 pm – November 30, 2012

    Of course. You don’t want to be informed, you don’t want to be bothered with facts, and you CERTAINLY don’t want to be challenged.

    That’s why you don’t understand, Aaron. We don’t expect you to understand. You’re an ignorant and ideological fascist who comes up with his conclusions and then demands that anyone who disagrees with him is an enemy of the state. Your Levi idiot made that clear when he screamed that anyone who doesn’t agree with his view that the government should control and ration what people eat isn’t “civic-minded”.

    You are easy to destroy because you’re so hypocritical. Your Obama Party screams about “the poor” and then blows billions on taxpayer funding for Pelosi’s jets, Obama’s parties, and Rangel’s apartments. Your stupid Levi is such a moron that he can rant about “public health” one second and then preach the joy of government-subsidized unprotected sex the next. There’s no coherence or objectivity to your argument; all it ever is and all it ever has been is that government needs to take from everyone else and give to you.

    But then again, we already know you came to this site because you thought because we’re gay, we would be easy to bully and manipulate. It’s always fun watching a bigot like you throw a tantrum when he gets his ass kicked by the people he thinks of as his “inferiors”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 30, 2012 @ 2:59 pm - November 30, 2012

  58. What happens when society has to start making tough decisions? Not BS like Meatless Mondays, I’m talking about real problems like population control. Or water/resource rationing.

    I must agree with NDT: Your phrasing of the question makes clear that, in your mind, “society” (meaning the wise governmental elite) is entitled to tell people what size family they can have, entitled to seize control of water and resources, etc. I reject those premises. I find them abhorrent.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 30, 2012 @ 3:03 pm - November 30, 2012

  59. NDT, if you’re going to post links, please make them relative to the argument. I don’t want to spend time reading out of date, misleading articles about organic chicken prices when they are not relevant to the conversation. If you have actual facts, present them. Unfortunately, I don’t think you can because you lack some basic reading comprehension skills. If you really think that those articles are relevant to the discusion, then you’re an idiot.

    And I would like you to repost or reread what I said about my reasons for blogging on this site, because whatever you beleive in your mind is completely different from what I said.

    Comment by Aaron — November 30, 2012 @ 3:41 pm - November 30, 2012

  60. NDT, if you’re going to post links, please make them relative to the argument.

    Comment by Aaron — November 30, 2012 @ 3:41 pm – November 30, 2012

    Which is, of course, based on whether you think them relative or not.

    And amazingly enough, anything that contradicts your predetermined notions is not relevant. You always come up with a reason for why everything posted is wrong and completely irrelevant.

    That’s because you are an incoherent bigot. You have your conclusion already drawn, and anyone who disagrees with you, any fact presented to the contrary, any argument that contradicts yours, is “not relevant”. You want to control the discussion and have only your own statements considered as truth and fact.

    That’s why you threw a tantrum and screamed that it was wrong for me to post links. Now you’re trying to walk it back because you know it made your stupidity and bigotry obvious.

    And I would like you to repost or reread what I said about my reasons for blogging on this site, because whatever you beleive in your mind is completely different from what I said.

    Comment by Aaron — November 30, 2012 @ 3:41 pm – November 30, 2012

    With pleasure.

    First you came in screaming that this site was an “echo chamber” and that it was hypocritical for supposedly practicing “nepotism”.

    And then, when you got your hat handed to you on those, you whined this:

    I thought this site would be a little more center of the road because it is desinged for the gay community, who I thought would be a little more accepting of different ideologies.

    Comment by Aaron — November 28, 2012 @ 3:01 pm – November 28, 2012

    In short, you thought you were going to go beat up the fairies, and are now screaming and crying that they’re mean for hitting you back.

    You’re nothing more than a bully, Aaron. That’s why you are so desperate for government to control us; we can knock you back on your ass in every other respect, so you’re going to get your revenge at gunpoint. Little Nazi boy Aaron is putting on his brownshirt and running to the Obama Party to get rid of those mean people who won’t just hand over their money.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 30, 2012 @ 3:58 pm - November 30, 2012

  61. Shorter Aaron:
    I don’t want to read your facts. They might make me think.

    Always nice to see the facade ripped from the left though “Government worrying about ‘population control’”? Yes, thank you for showing links to China are even more germain to the topic.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 30, 2012 @ 3:59 pm - November 30, 2012

  62. In short, you thought you were going to go beat up the fairies, and are now screaming and crying that they’re mean for hitting you back.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 30, 2012 @ 3:58 pm – November 30, 2012

    Yep, that’s exactly what I meant and what has happened as a result. You also somehow knew about my stash of Nazi memorabilia and Pol Pot memorial!

    I won’t even ask people to see comment #14, I’ll just have to start ignoring him all together.

    Comment by Aaron — November 30, 2012 @ 4:07 pm - November 30, 2012

  63. I won’t even ask people to see comment #14, I’ll just have to start ignoring him all together.

    Comment by Aaron — November 30, 2012 @ 4:07 pm – November 30, 2012

    I hate to ruin Aaron’s day, but I sincerely doubt that anyone here believes Aaron reached his current level of imbecility without ignoring a whole lot of people, facts, and links.

    In short, a liberal’s threat to ignore someone would only be rational if that liberal had ever demonstrated that they pay attention to anything outside their liberal echo chamber, and Aaron clearly does not.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 30, 2012 @ 4:16 pm - November 30, 2012

  64. I must agree with NDT: Your phrasing of the question makes clear that, in your mind, “society” (meaning the wise governmental elite) is entitled to tell people what size family they can have, entitled to seize control of water and resources, etc. I reject those premises. I find them abhorrent.

    Here again is the cognitive dissonance. Republicans prance around telling everyone that the government is horrible because they tell you what to do, but we’ll just gloss right over the fact that if Republicans had their way, they’d be telling people what size family they can have. And if you’re gay, you’re not even allowed to have a family. These are two of the most important premises in Republican politics, and they’re in complete conflict with one another. It’s not hard to figure out why you guys don’t make a whole lot of sense.

    And you know what? If the shit ever hits the fan, I would be most reassured by hearing the news that the government has deployed the National Guard to secure the nation’s reservoirs.

    You would be too, and you know it.

    Comment by Levi — November 30, 2012 @ 4:28 pm - November 30, 2012

  65. Republicans prance around telling everyone that the government is horrible because they tell you what to do, but we’ll just gloss right over the fact that if Republicans had their way, they’d be telling people what size family they can have.

    Comment by Levi — November 30, 2012 @ 4:28 pm – November 30, 2012

    Lie.

    In fact, it’s the exact opposite.

    Following international outrage over a photo of a Chinese woman and her child who was forcibly aborted at seven months, a top pro-life political women’s group is calling on President Obama to condemn the coercive policy that brought the forced abortion about.

    Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser called on the U.S. president to condemn China’s one-child policy and immediately cut off funding for the United Nation’s Population Fund (UNFPA) through an Executive Order.

    Wait, what’s that last part?

    Although the U.N. group denies involvement in the atrocities, private and federal investigations have concluded to the contrary, finding citizens under UNFPA-run population control programs in China suffering from brutal forced abortions and other methods of coercive population control.

    In 2008, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell explained: “UNFPA’s support of, and involvement in, China’s population-planning activities allows the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion. Therefore, it is not permissible to continue funding UNFPA at this time.”

    President Obama abruptly restored funding to the UNFPA upon entering the White House in 2009, a move the administration touted as showing “strong commitment to international family planning, women’s health, and global development,” but without comment on the investigations that had led to the discontinuation of the funds. From 2009 to 2011, $145 million has been appropriated for UNFPA, with another $47 million requested by President Obama for the 2012 budget.

    So Levi and the Obama Party, the liberals and “progressives”, openly support and endorse government forcing women to have abortions and telling people what size family they can have — and send US taxpayer dollars to pay for it.

    Just like Levi openly funds and endorses governments like Hamas, Libya, and Iran that kill gay people.

    And what makes it really funny is how Levi screams and pisses himself about how government should subsidize promiscuous bareback sex and abortions so that he and his fellow sluts who don’t want to wear condoms can run up billions of dollars in STD treatments.

    What’s the matter, boy? Choking on your own words and what your own party embraces?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 30, 2012 @ 4:51 pm - November 30, 2012

  66. Hey Levi!

    Not man enough to come back and face your own words, huh? Got to go spam another thread rather than actually looking at facts?

    That’s typical. Cowards and bigots like you and your friend Aaron just run away when people make it clear what ignorant and insular fools you are, all locked away there in your liberal echo chamber.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 30, 2012 @ 5:05 pm - November 30, 2012

  67. North,

    I am working on a great response to all of your posts. I mean all of them.

    Trust me!

    Comment by Levi — November 30, 2012 @ 5:48 pm - November 30, 2012

  68. No, you’re just running away like the cowardly little liar you are, Levi.

    And today, your idiot Pelosi just screamed and ranted that Obama should dissolve Congress and rule unilaterally.

    You’re now the party of dictatorship, boy. Own it. You want absolute power vested in Barack Obama. You no longer have any claim whatsoever to being in any way “democratic”; you’re now the party of Fascism, with Obama as your Fuhrer.

    The lies are coming unraveled. Everyone now sees that your Obama is a dictator. Everyone now sees that your Obama Party is a fascist organization that wants to strip the power from the legislative branch and give absolute unquestioned ruling authority to Barack Obama.

    I might feel sympathetic for you if you had been duped. But you’re a little Hitler Jugend through and through, a fascist liar who has openly advocated on this page that anyone who holds “provocative” views should be murdered.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 30, 2012 @ 6:08 pm - November 30, 2012

  69. Of course Levi will run. Every time he tries to lie he’s caught. So he promptly ignores the facts and just shouts the big lie louder.

    It’s always amusing the way he tries to ignore when I call him out on his lies for example, because he’s too big a coward to face his being wrong.

    I expect him to get back to NDT’s comments here just like he ‘got back’ to NDT on global warming. i.e. never.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 1, 2012 @ 5:19 pm - December 1, 2012

  70. Look, Levi’s already spouting his lies in newer threads, redeploying over the horizon. Coward.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 3, 2012 @ 10:07 am - December 3, 2012

  71. [...] will meet sometime in the next week and present a list of official nominees sometime after our Meatless Mondays steak dinner next Monday. Comments [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Nominations Open for Grande Conservative Blogress Diva 2012/13 — December 3, 2012 @ 7:18 pm - December 3, 2012

  72. [...] been focusing on other writing projects, so will use this space to remind y’all about our Meatless Mondays Steak Dinner next Monday, December 10 here in [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Just 5 days until our LA Meatless Mondays Steak Dinner — December 5, 2012 @ 7:08 pm - December 5, 2012

  73. [...] not too late to RSVP for our Meatless Mondays Steak Dinner today, Monday, December 10 here in [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Tonight, “Meatless Monday” Steak Dinner in LA — December 10, 2012 @ 4:35 am - December 10, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.