New Margarine Will Cost Double What The Original Type Costs

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


Jesus Christ.

I don't think the corporate cronyism can get any more blatant than that.

That is utterly insane. That is the most outrageous BS I have heard in along time.

Originally posted by RestingInPieces
...while at the same time trying to make us eat healthier.

Facetious statement or not that is the problem. Your use of pronouns is where the belief that we everyday citizens just do not have the capacity to think for ourselves. To not regulate our own situations and make decisions that we feel best for ourselves.

Instead, we are to rely upon the great and all knowing Government to do such. They provide us with such wonders as the Healthy Pyramid, which almost takes a scientist to even decipher. They dictate how much salt we should be eating, how much fats we should be eating, where we go to school, what we learn, who we associate with, how to think, how to breath, and on and on and on.......

Relinquish that natural free will you have to the Government. It is in their best interests.

reply to post by Whyhi


Absolutely it is being akin to a robbery at gun point. What other choice does the business owner have in the manner?

Think about the ways you can go about collecting money that is owed to you. You can legally do it, through a third party (aka court system), you can ask the man to pay the amount or you can forcefully threaten the man with the possibility of closure of the establishment because he did not follow some asinine and crazy regulation that will by no means cure or solve the problem of fat ass lazy kids and parents that just do not care about them.

What the State engaged in was the latter. They went to him, forced him to pay the fine without due process and then took their money and went about their business. That sounds quite like robbery in my mind.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by Whyhi

 

Absolutely it is being akin to a robbery at gun point. What other choice does the business owner have in the manner?

Think about the ways you can go about collecting money that is owed to you. You can legally do it, through a third party (aka court system), you can ask the man to pay the amount or you can forcefully threaten the man with the possibility of closure of the establishment because he did not follow some asinine and crazy regulation that will by no means cure or solve the problem of fat ass lazy kids and parents that just do not care about them.

What the State engaged in was the latter. They went to him, forced him to pay the fine without due process and then took their money and went about their business. That sounds quite like robbery in my mind.

I think we can sum it up by the lack of a victim.

The State robbed the man for its own ends.

The State did not come to the man seeking compensation for a victim, the State came to the man demanding loot for their own nefarious purposes.

reply to post by fraterormus


I couldn't have said it better myself!

And I agree, using the "slippery slope" term now is somewhat of a slippery slope in and of itself.

Morality has always been the property of religion. That's fine, because you can live wherever in the states and choose any religion you like. If the government really wants to take that over, then they should allow people to backslide, lose faith in it, and outright denounce the authority of government based on the First Amendment.

First Lady Michelle Obama has called on Congress to create a $400 million-per-year program to encourage the establishment of supermarkets in places she calls "food deserts."

Um, can someone explain when Mrs. Obama was elected for anything in our government?

Why is the first lady even speaking to congress. She was not elected as a representative.

Has our government now been arranged President, First Lady, Vice President?

Hhhmmm

For the record, I am anti government all the way around. If other first ladies have done this as well, it is equally wrong.

With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by IAMIAM


You need not be a member of Congress to speak on the floor. You need not be a member of Congress to present legislation either.

Focus your argument rather than off on a tangent that pertains to nothing. Would you not use a position of influence to engage in discussion that you find passionate (right or wrong?) I know I would if given the chance.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
You need not be a member of Congress to speak on the floor. You need not be a member of Congress to present legislation either.

Thank you for the clarification my friend.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Focus your argument rather than off on a tangent that pertains to nothing. Would you not use a position of influence to engage in discussion that you find passionate (right or wrong?) I know I would if given the chance.

Perhaps I would. My point was why is a First Lady a position of influence out side the bedroom of the White House?

But, my point is irrelevant. I do not get too involved in Politics. The whole "Ruling over our fellow Man" is an outdated concept in my opinion.

With Love,

Your Brother

If people would just use real butter instead of that earwax they call margarine, this wouldn't be a problem. Butter is healthier, tastes better and cooks better than margarine. We have been brainwashed to think than milk fats are somehow worse than that crap they put in margarine.

/TOA

Originally posted by IAMIAM
Um, can someone explain when Mrs. Obama was elected for anything in our government? Why is the first lady even speaking to congress. She was not elected as a representative. Has our government now been arranged President, First Lady, Vice President?

It is customary for the First Lady of the United States to select a specific cause(s) to promote during the Presidency of their spouse/relative/friend appointed to the position. The First Lady carries no official duties nor do they hold no power that any normal citizen of the United States doesn't already have. However, their unique, and highly visible position in politics gives them the ability to promote their selected special cause.

Rosalynn Carter got her Mental Health System Bill enacted in 1980.

Nancy Reagan founded the Just Say No drug awareness campaign.

Barbara Bush founded the Foundation for Family and the Whitehouse Endowment Trust.

Hillary Rodham Clinton initiated and got enacted the State Children's Health Insurance Program of 1997, the Adoption and Safe Families Act, and the Foster Care Independence Act, as well as help create the Office on Violence Against Women in the DoJ.

Laura Bush helped found the National Book Festival and the National Anthem Project as well as established the Women's Health and Wellness Initiative.

Matter of fact, since Eleanor Roosevelt, many First Ladies sit in on Cabinet Meetings, and even act in an Administrative capacity or as Advisers and Political Liaisons. Rosalynn Carter and Nancy Reagan both took on unprecedented duties as First Lady while their husbands were in office, and which is why Hillary Clinton abdicated the position of First Lady to their daughter Chelsea when she sought election in the U.S. Senate to prevent a "Conflict of Interest".

Michelle Obama is just doing as the many great First Ladies before her. She means well in wanting create a legacy that will help her fellow Americans, even if what it is going about it in the wrong way.

Behind every great man there is a greater woman who nags them...and for those of us who are gluttons for punishment (pun entirely intended) and want more than the recommended daily allowance of nagging (I've got a theme going so I'm sticking with it), we get to be nagged by the First Lady of the United States in addition to the nagging our wives give us. Too bad she is pushing for her nagging to be made into federal law instead of just leaving it at the usual nagging we can conveniently ignore. If she nags like this to the American people it's enough to make even an Obama-hater have some sympathy for the guy!

Hmmm...doesn't anyone like olive oil? it's way more healthier than anything suggested so far.

Originally posted by The Old American
If people would just use real butter instead of that earwax they call margarine, this wouldn't be a problem. Butter is healthier, tastes better and cooks better than margarine. We have been brainwashed to think than milk fats are somehow worse than that crap they put in margarine.

/TOA

People use margarine because it is cheaper.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to find out this ban on trans-fats was lobbied for by the dairy industry.

Margarine has a long history of being attacked by the dairy industry:
www.thefreemanonline.org...#

It is in the dairy industries best interest to see a ban on margarine containing trans-fats.

reply to post by mnemeth1


While that may be true, a free-market does not always mean the 'cheaper' product.

If the use of butter was more cost-effective and sold more goods because of the use of butter, we would see more producers use butter over margarine.

I do though agree with you that it would be no shock if the Dairy Industry seeks regulations in regards to Trans-Fats.

Just look at States that have 3.2% beer. Most likely the big producers such as Coors are lobbying for such a restriction to remain in place to keep the playing field equal for those already able to produce that content while raising the bar for smaller producers to enter the market.

Classic crony-capitalism that is destroying the name of capitalism and the free-markets in which they operate within.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


I agree

I never said the free market means "cheaper" - I said people use margarine because it is cheaper.

The free market means CHOICE, which we no longer have.

reply to post by mnemeth1


You would be one that I was not dissenting against. First, knowing how economic policy is separate from the market is one that I believe you understand.

Capitalism, Socialism, Communism is a means to the end...that being the free market in which every day people engage in on a daily basis. Freely or not, we will find a way to pursue what we want on that market...openly or upon the 'black' market. (majority of black markets I believe are government induced and supported)