PDA

View Full Version : Banned?! NOT In America! What it is, and what it does(to you)!



BoneDaddy
06-21-2013, 01:45 PM
I found this interesting as hell. Why are we so far behind!

8 Foods We Eat In The U.S. That Are Banned In Other Countries (http://www.buzzfeed.com/ashleyperez/8-foods-we-eat-in-the-us-that-are-banned-in-other-countries)

If you want the links and pretty pics, click the link.



8 Foods We Eat In The U.S. That Are Banned In Other Countries

This brings a whole new meaning to the phrase “food poisoning.” Original list found in Dr. Jayson Calton and certified nutritionist Mira Calton’s new book, Rich Food, Poor Food. posted on June 19, 2013 at 5:30pm EDT
Ashley Perez BuzzFeed Fellow

Share
87K
Tweet
10K
Email
Pin it
NEW React with an animated GIF!
React
1. Artificial food dye: Makes your food pretty and inhibits nerve-cell development.
Artificial food dye: Makes your food pretty and inhibits nerve-cell development.

Found in: Practically everything we eat: cake mixes, sports drinks, cheese, candy, and even MACARONI AND CHEESE.

Why it’s dangerous: Artificial dyes are made from chemicals derived from PETROLEUM, which is also used to make gasoline, diesel fuel, asphalt, and TAR! Artificial dyes have been linked to brain cancer, nerve-cell deterioration, and hyperactivity, just to name a few.

Where it’s banned: Norway, Finland, Austria, France, and the United Kingdom.

For more information on artificial dyes, visit 100 Days of Real Food.
Via: shutterstock.com

2. Olestra (or Olean): Lowers calorie counts while causing vitamin depletion and anal leakage.
Olestra (or Olean): Lowers calorie counts while causing vitamin depletion and anal leakage.

Found in: Fat-free potato chips, corn chips, and French fries.

Why it’s dangerous: Created by Procter & Gamble as a substitue for cooking oil, Olestra robs your body of its ability to absorb vitamins. Fun side effects include cramps and leaky bowels.

Where it’s banned: The U.K. and Canada.

For more information on Olestra, visit Time magazine’s “50 Worst Inventions.”
Via: flickriver.com

3. Brominated vegetable oil: Makes food dye stick to liquid, but also may cause birth defects and major organ damage.
Brominated vegetable oil: Makes food dye stick to liquid, but also may cause birth defects and major organ damage.

Found in: Sports drinks and citrus-flavored sodas.

Why it’s dangerous: Bromine is a chemical used to stop CARPETS FROM CATCHING ON FIRE, so you can see why drinking it may not be the best idea. BVO is linked to major organ system damage, birth defects, growth problems, schizophrenia, and hearing loss.

Where it’s banned: In over 100 countries.

For more info on BVO, visit Web MD’s “Brominated Vegetable Oil Q&A.”
Via: mountaindew.wikia.com

4. Potassium bromate (or bromated flour): Great for impatient bakers, bad for your kidneys and nervous system.
Potassium bromate (or bromated flour): Great for impatient bakers, bad for your kidneys and nervous system.

Found in: Wraps, rolls, bread crumbs, bagel chips, flat breads.

Why it’s dangerous: Derived from the same harmful chemical as brominated vegetable oil, brominated flour is used to decrease baking time and reduce costs. Only problem is, it’s linked to kidney damage, cancer, and nervous system damage.

Where it’s banned: Europe, Canada, and China.

For more information on potassium bromate, visit Live Science’s “The Truth About Potassium Bromate.”
Via: shutterstock.com

5. Azodicarbonamide: Bleaches flour, plastic, and induces asthma as an added bonus.
Azodicarbonamide: Bleaches flour, plastic, and induces asthma as an added bonus.

Found in: Breads, frozen dinners, boxed pasta mixes, and packaged baked goods.

Why it’s dangerous: Used to bleach both flour and FOAMED PLASTIC (yoga mats and the soles of sneakers), azodicarbonamide has been known to induce asthma.

Where it’s banned: Australia, the U.K., and most European countries.

For more information on azodicarbonamide, visit Food-u-cate.

6. BHA & BHT: Waxy preservatives linked to cancer and tumors.
BHA & BHT: Waxy preservatives linked to cancer and tumors.

Found in: Cereal, nut mixes, gum, butter, meat, dehydrated potatoes.

Why it’s dangerous: Used to keep food from becoming rancid, butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) are known to cause cancer in rats. And we’re next!

Where it’s banned: England, Japan, and many other European countries.

For more information on BHA and BHT, visit Berkley Wellness’ “Two Preservatives To Avoid?”
Source: amazon.com

7. Synthetic growth hormones rBGH and rBST: Harm cows and can give humans breast, colon, and prostate cancer.
Synthetic growth hormones rBGH and rBST: Harm cows and can give humans breast, colon, and prostate cancer.

Found in: Milk and dairy products.

Why it’s dangerous: Growth hormones are bad for cows and people, causing infertility, weakened muscle growth, and a whole array of cancers.

Where it’s banned: Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, and the EU.

For more information on rBGH and rBST, visit the American Cancer Society’s info page.
Source: shutterstock.com

8. Arsenic: Basically this ish will slowly kill you.
Arsenic: Basically this ish will slowly kill you.

Found in: Poultry.

Why it’s dangerous: Used as chicken feed to make meat appear pinker and fresher, arsenic is POISON, which will kill you if you ingest enough.

Where it’s banned: The European Union.

For more information on arsenic, visit NPR’s “How Trace Amounts Of Arsenic End Up In Grocery Store Meat.”

longBallLima
06-21-2013, 02:10 PM
but, but but... we dont like government regulation in amurrrga!

BoneDaddy
06-21-2013, 02:23 PM
Money talks so much louder in Amurrrga!

Cobalt
06-21-2013, 03:22 PM
Money talks so much louder in Amurrrga!

Or a baseball bat. Some people tend to agree with you if you have one...

O_RYAN_007
06-21-2013, 03:22 PM
Thanks for sharing. This will add to my arsenal of things to tell everyone of my family and friends about.

milehighguy
06-21-2013, 03:49 PM
guys, how else do you think we keep the medical/health industry so rich and robust...come'on

:)

Macdon1588
06-21-2013, 04:01 PM
but, but but... we dont like government regulation in amurrrga!

No LongBall, all of that toxic shit is regulated and approved for use BY the government. As I clean my high capacity clip for my AR-15, it makes me ponder what else this band of thieves and criminals are doing to drive this country into the ground. Comparing the USA to anywhere else in the world is simply a failure of logic due to the unchecked corporatism manipulating the government. What I mean is every regulation you see or don't see is the product of corporate lobbying and manipulation. So believing this puppet government would or could do the right thing is a fool's folly.

Grape Ape
06-21-2013, 09:06 PM
Holly fuck when something is banned in China!

BoneDaddy
06-22-2013, 08:00 AM
Holly fuck when something is banned in China!

China is 'trying' to clean it's self up in several venues. I read a few days ago that they are considering or are about to implement death sentences for people/companies that heavily pollute the air, water, or ground.

Macdon1588
06-22-2013, 09:30 AM
China is 'trying' to clean it's self up in several venues. I read a few days ago that they are considering or are about to implement death sentences for people/companies that heavily pollute the air, water, or ground.

But I presume that government owned factories will be exempt;-).

Eden
06-23-2013, 12:53 PM
I know that there was a case that was either filed, or the people were thinking of filing, basically suing most corporate "food" companies in America for selling Unlabeled poison. A large amount of the additives in food are banned in many other countries because they are considered poison, but not in good ol Merica.

longBallLima
06-23-2013, 09:10 PM
so lads and gents, what would be the solution here? less lobbying? more regulation?

Grape Ape
06-23-2013, 11:33 PM
More self thinking, and better dietary education.

longBallLima
06-24-2013, 12:21 AM
More self thinking, and better dietary education.

so, those foods banned in other countries remain approved in the US, but the government interferes by creating educational programs to teach the population not to eat them?

Macdon1588
06-24-2013, 03:45 AM
so, those foods banned in other countries remain approved in the US, but the government interferes by creating educational programs to teach the population not to eat them?

No, the government doesn't the population to do that. It just keeps pushing the food pyramid.

BoneDaddy
06-24-2013, 05:24 AM
Self awareness, self thinking, and stop being a sheeple.

Fat Bill Dwyer
06-24-2013, 06:54 AM
No, the government doesn't the population to do that. It just keeps pushing the food pyramid.

Pretty sure the Food Pyramid is an illuminati thing. Jay-z, Kanye, and George H.W. Bush want to give you wheat-belly.

longBallLima
06-24-2013, 10:39 AM
No, the government doesn't the population to do that. It just keeps pushing the food pyramid.

So, the government does nothing about the banned floods, it just kills the food pyramid thing? That's be the ideal solution for you?

Grape Ape
06-24-2013, 11:59 AM
We can sit around, cry and wait for the government to do something, or we can educate ourselves.and the children about proper nutrition and healthy living.

Waiting around for someone else to do something, accomplishes very little. That all said, I am not against protest and pressuring the government for change. Plus, I'll admit I knew little about these harmful ingrediants, but here I am learning, and it only furthers my healthy eating habits and knowledge of. Maybe I'll pass on the information to others that show interest.

longBallLima
06-24-2013, 12:16 PM
We can sit around, cry and wait for the government to do something, or we can educate ourselves.and the children about proper nutrition and healthy living.

Waiting around for someone else to do something, accomplishes very little. That all said, I am not against protest and pressuring the government for change. Plus, I'll admit I knew little about these harmful ingrediants, but here I am learning, and it only furthers my healthy eating habits and knowledge of. Maybe I'll pass on the information to others that show interest.

i completely understand and agree, but i guess the nature of my questioning is: should those ingredients be banned or not? if they are to be banned, who'll do the banning?

Cdsnuts
06-24-2013, 12:38 PM
i completely understand and agree, but i guess the nature of my questioning is: should those ingredients be banned or not? if they are to be banned, who'll do the banning?

IMO, they should be banned. There are alot of reasons I believe this, but the number one reason is simply for morality, and the fact that it's just straight chemical poison. People believe that these government agencies are protecting them, when in reality, it's far from the truth. They are supposed to be protecting them, but we all know that you have to follow the money.

That means you have millions upon millions of unsuspecting people who are unknowingly poisoning themselves because they think if it's in what they're eating, it must be okay. That to me, is just not okay at all.

Grape Ape
06-24-2013, 02:13 PM
i completely understand and agree, but i guess the nature of my questioning is: should those ingredients be banned or not? if they are to be banned, who'll do the banning?
They for sure should be banned, but It's obvious that only the US government can do it, and it won't be anytime soon.

A nationwide boycott, and some PSA commercials would have to happen for some change without government regulation. That'll never happen though.

longBallLima
06-24-2013, 03:02 PM
IMO, they should be banned. There are alot of reasons I believe this, but the number one reason is simply for morality, and the fact that it's just straight chemical poison. People believe that these government agencies are protecting them, when in reality, it's far from the truth. They are supposed to be protecting them, but we all know that you have to follow the money.

That means you have millions upon millions of unsuspecting people who are unknowingly poisoning themselves because they think if it's in what they're eating, it must be okay. That to me, is just not okay at all.

i agree with this. i dont have a problem with govt regulation and i really think it should be more present, done more efficiently and without financial interfering, but it seems the newest american zeitgest is "government, get out of our lives!! unless it's to do something i kinda agree with... but other than that, stop taking away our freedoms!!"

getting such a large portion of the public believing that is a majestic job by the lobbying rats in dc, i tell ya.




They for sure should be banned, but It's obvious that only the US government can do it, and it won't be anytime soon.

A nationwide boycott, and some PSA commercials would have to happen for some change without government regulation. That'll never happen though.

agreed with bold.

Cdsnuts
06-24-2013, 03:50 PM
i agree with this. i dont have a problem with govt regulation and i really think it should be more present, done more efficiently and without financial interfering, but it seems the newest american zeitgest is "government, get out of our lives!! unless it's to do something i kinda agree with... but other than that, stop taking away our freedoms!!"

Nothing new about that "zeitgest." At least the first part anyway. Obviously government is necessary. Just not an over regulated hand holding socialist nanny state where you can't shit without someone telling you how many sheets of toilet paper to whipe your ass with. Asking a regulatory agency to simply do it's job would suffice. Keeping untested and un-researched poisons out of our food doesn't seem like asking too much.

longBallLima
06-24-2013, 04:08 PM
Nothing new about that "zeitgest." At least the first part anyway. Obviously government is necessary. Just not an over regulated hand holding socialist nanny state where you can't shit without someone telling you how many sheets of toilet paper to whipe your ass with. Asking a regulatory agency to simply do it's job would suffice. Keeping untested and un-researched poisons out of our food doesn't seem like asking too much.

right, i guess i just dont know which big industry here is over regulated, therefore, no idea where the fear of over regulation comes from.

Cdsnuts
06-24-2013, 04:16 PM
right, i guess i just dont know which big industry here is over regulated, therefore, no idea where the fear of over regulation comes from.

When mayor Bloomberg in NYC tried to limit the size of soda you can buy because he thought people were too fat (and they are), that's over regulation. It may come from a geniune concern, but it's not the governments place to tell me how much soda I can buy and drink. Just one example.

The fear comes from not wanting to be over regulated.

longBallLima
06-24-2013, 04:27 PM
When mayor Bloomberg in NYC tried to limit the size of soda you can buy because he thought people were too fat (and they are), that's over regulation. It may come from a geniune concern, but it's not the governments place to tell me how much soda I can buy and drink. Just one example.

The fear comes from not wanting to be over regulated.

having an obese population causes a series of health concerns, which seems to be the problem with the ingredient list we're discussing here, so what's the difference?

Cdsnuts
06-24-2013, 05:23 PM
having an obese population causes a series of health concerns, which seems to be the problem with the ingredient list we're discussing here, so what's the difference?

Seriously?

The difference is personal choice.

That list is a series of chemicals that has no right to be included in the food supply. Most people are unaware of the dangers of such additives because they assume it's safe. They assume that because the regulatory agencies that are supposed to be watch dogs for this type of thing are asleep at the wheel. Corrupt. Politically and monetarily motivated, etc.

Everyone and their mother knows that if you drink gallons of soda everyday you're gonna turn into a fatass with diabetes. That doesn't mean I need big brother to watch me and tell me I can't buy two gallons of soda when I'm out to eat. If I choose to do that and I know the consequences of my actions, then that's on me.

People don't know the consequences of consuming these chemicals. They don't even know there are consequences for consuming them.

That my friend, is a BIG difference.

Macdon1588
06-24-2013, 06:57 PM
So, the government does nothing about the banned floods, it just kills the food pyramid thing? That's be the ideal solution for you?

My post is unclear. I mean the government won't educate us about proper diet because it is against the special interest groups interest. The government isn't going to rescue us, just ask all those folks too weak and stupid to escape Katrina. They were sure the government was going to take care of them. We see how that worked out for them. This catastrophe is no different.

Bucks
06-24-2013, 10:27 PM
Seems like they are busy busy busy these days!


U.S. Moves to Seize Dietary Supplement From GNC Warehouses

By NATASHA SINGER and PETER LATTMAN



Federal prosecutors have asked judges in two states to authorize the seizure of more than 3,200 cases of controversial workout products from warehouses operated by GNC, the nation?s largest specialty retailer of dietary supplements.



William P. O'Donnell/The New York Times



With names like Jack3d and OxyElitePro, the workout products contain a stimulant called dimethylamylamine, or DMAA for short. In April, the Food and Drug Administration warned consumers that DMAA was an illegal dietary ingredient and that products containing the stimulant could elevate blood pressure, potentially leading to heart attacks.



After the agency?s warning, USPlabs, the maker of Jack3d and OxyElite Pro, said the company for business reasons had decided to stop making DMAA products. Some leading retailers withdrew their remaining stocks of DMAA products from store shelves, but GNC continued to sell its inventory.



Greg Miller, a spokesman for GNC, said in an e-mail on Friday that the company believed DMAA to be a ?safe, legal dietary ingredient.?



But in a challenge to GNC, the Justice Department, acting at the behest of the F.D.A., requested court-ordered seizures this week of both Jack3d and OxyElitePro from GNC warehouses in Leetsdale, Pa., and Anderson, S.C.



According to a complaint filed in Federal District Court in Pittsburgh, the F.D.A. conducted an inspection of the GNC warehouse in Leetsdale this month and collected physical samples, photographed the products and seized shipping records. After the inspection, F.D.A. officials notified GNC that the products were adulterated and being illegally held by the company. On June 11, the F.D.A. ordered GNC to detain the products.



Federal prosecutors filed a similar complaint on Tuesday in Federal District Court in Anderson, S.C., seeking a seizure of the same products at a GNC facility there.



Because the dietary supplement industry tends to voluntarily heed F.D.A. public advisories, the agency rarely feels compelled to take the aggressive tack of seizing products.



Shelly L. Burgess, an F.D.A. spokeswoman, said the agency would not comment.



Mr. Miller, the GNC spokesman, said the company would not distribute the products at its Leetsdale warehouse until the issue with the F.D.A. had been resolved. But, he said, ?GNC will continue to sell through its remaining inventory of the products in its stores.?



Mr. Miller added that it was unclear to the company why the F.D.A. had initiated the seizure request, given that DMAA-containing products were no longer being made and that distributors other than GNC also had inventories of the products.



?Given this situation,? Mr. Miller wrote in his e-mail, ?it is hard to view this action as anything other than a biased agency action against GNC in retaliation for GNC?s stance on DMAA.?



Since early 2008, the F.D.A. has received reports of at least 86 health problems, including at least five deaths, in consumers who used DMAA products. Although such reports do not prove that the stimulant directly caused health problems, agency officials have warned people not to consume the ingredient.



http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/22/business/us-moves-to-seize-dietary-supplement-from-gnc-warehouses.html?_r=1&

longBallLima
06-24-2013, 11:39 PM
Seriously?

The difference is personal choice.

That list is a series of chemicals that has no right to be included in the food supply. Most people are unaware of the dangers of such additives because they assume it's safe. They assume that because the regulatory agencies that are supposed to be watch dogs for this type of thing are asleep at the wheel. Corrupt. Politically and monetarily motivated, etc.

Everyone and their mother knows that if you drink gallons of soda everyday you're gonna turn into a fatass with diabetes. That doesn't mean I need big brother to watch me and tell me I can't buy two gallons of soda when I'm out to eat. If I choose to do that and I know the consequences of my actions, then that's on me.

People don't know the consequences of consuming these chemicals. They don't even know there are consequences for consuming them.

That my friend, is a BIG difference.

one will kill you and "everyone" knows it, the other one will kill you and no one knows it. is that the big difference?

and i'll disagree that the common uneducated public has a full understanding of the consequences of drinking soda, ever been to a walmart? pretty sure almost everyone there thinks soda is not that bad and a just a little treat, as long as you buy the low fat ice cream.

that people will get up in arms like they did in NY because their fatass didn't wanna get up to buy another soda, then something like the NSA thing happens and there's not one NY-er going to the white house to bitch is, to me, a demonstration of how it is not about what they think is good for society, but just how anything affects their fat ass.

now, im not gonna take a big ban-soda stance and i can't say i necessarily agree with a complete ban, but if i'd have my way, they tax the shit out of soda and alcohol, much like it is done to tobacco and have the proceeds go to incentives to small farmers who don't grow corn

longBallLima
06-24-2013, 11:41 PM
My post is unclear. I mean the government won't educate us about proper diet because it is against the special interest groups interest. The government isn't going to rescue us, just ask all those folks too weak and stupid to escape Katrina. They were sure the government was going to take care of them. We see how that worked out for them. This catastrophe is no different.

agreed. my point is close to yours: government is ineffective and run by large interest groups. i just question that the whole solution is less regulation, rather than effective/inteligent regulation. less regulation is exactly how the large interest groups get their way.

Macdon1588
06-25-2013, 07:57 AM
agreed. my point is close to yours: government is ineffective and run by large interest groups. i just question that the whole solution is less regulation, rather than effective/inteligent regulation. less regulation is exactly how the large interest groups get their way.

I agree that smart regulation would help, but this is the worst government in America's history. When you take a long hard look at campaign finance, you'll realize that both parties are financed by, more or less the same large corporate interest. So, even though the clowns may change, the circus remains the same. For this reason, no one is talking about dangerous it is that ADM and ConAgra are monopolies that can single handedly drive the price of grain and other food stocks FOR THE ENTIRE WORLD. You can see their influence in the dangerous homogenization of crops in the Midwest where there is basically nothing but corn. (I'm fairly certain they grow nothing else in Iowa.;-)). Also not talked about is how suspicious it is that old cigarette giants were allowed by up a major portion of the processed food market. (And we wonder why our food has become addictive.)

Cdsnuts
06-25-2013, 08:10 AM
one will kill you and "everyone" knows it, the other one will kill you and no one knows it. is that the big difference?

Seems like a pretty big difference to me. The old adage of what you don't know won't hurt you comes to mind here. It certainly doesn't ring true.

longBallLima
06-25-2013, 09:24 AM
Seems like a pretty big difference to me. The old adage of what you don't know won't hurt you comes to mind here. It certainly doesn't ring true.

i'm just not sure why you wouldn't suggest then awareness of the harmful effects of the ingredients in favor of a complete ban, so they are both on the same level, meaning, harmful and people know about it.

longBallLima
06-25-2013, 09:30 AM
I agree that smart regulation would help, but this is the worst government in America's history. When you take a long hard look at campaign finance, you'll realize that both parties are financed by, more or less the same large corporate interest. So, even though the clowns may change, the circus remains the same. For this reason, no one is talking about dangerous it is that ADM and ConAgra are monopolies that can single handedly drive the price of grain and other food stocks FOR THE ENTIRE WORLD. You can see their influence in the dangerous homogenization of crops in the Midwest where there is basically nothing but corn. (I'm fairly certain they grow nothing else in Iowa.;-)). Also not talked about is how suspicious it is that old cigarette giants were allowed by up a major portion of the processed food market. (And we wonder why our food has become addictive.)

Agreed to much here, other than the worst govt. While this administration is wildly disappointing, i find that the harm caused by its predecessor and another handful of administrations in american past is more everlasting. and bad as it is, i still think the other option we had was even worse. but i get that this specific point is very subjective so all this is obviously IMHO

Cdsnuts
06-25-2013, 09:50 AM
i'm just not sure why you wouldn't suggest then awareness of the harmful effects of the ingredients in favor of a complete ban, so they are both on the same level, meaning, harmful and people know about it.

They're harmful on two totally different levels.

Awareness would work, but do you think it's completely necessary to have poison in the food supply? Soda's ingredients are bad for you, but they aren't straight up poison. That's what those chemicals are. Poison, plain and simple.

Would you be okay if they started putting small amounts of arsenic in the food as a preservative as long as everyone was told about it? To me this is the same exact thing.

It's not food, and it has no place in food.

longBallLima
06-25-2013, 10:34 AM
They're harmful on two totally different levels.

Awareness would work, but do you think it's completely necessary to have poison in the food supply? Soda's ingredients are bad for you, but they aren't straight up poison. That's what those chemicals are. Poison, plain and simple.

Would you be okay if they started putting small amounts of arsenic in the food as a preservative as long as everyone was told about it? To me this is the same exact thing.

It's not food, and it has no place in food.

we might have to agree to disagree here. a number of additives in soda such as coloring are not food. carbonation itself has no place in food, IMO.

IMO both are bad and both should be regulated. since people get extra butthurt over something being taken away, i dont see soda as that harmful that you could just overtax it, but i'm still in favor of "big brother" putting its fingers in there.

Cdsnuts
06-25-2013, 10:51 AM
we might have to agree to disagree here. a number of additives in soda such as coloring are not food. carbonation itself has no place in food, IMO.

IMO both are bad and both should be regulated. since people get extra butthurt over something being taken away, i dont see soda as that harmful that you could just overtax it, but i'm still in favor of "big brother" putting its fingers in there.

Not might...were going to disagree here.

Some things are more harmful then others, period. When you look at that list and the effects of those chemicals and think that's okay to include in the food chain.....well to each their own I guess. To me it's crazy.

What you're in favor of is a slippery slope. First it starts off with telling us how much soda we can buy, and next it's how many kids we can have and how many nights a week we can bang our wives. It starts off small and grows......if they can tell us how much soda to buy, where does the line get drawn?

Slippery slope.

Macdon1588
06-25-2013, 10:56 AM
Agreed to much here, other than the worst govt. While this administration is wildly disappointing, i find that the harm caused by its predecessor and another handful of administrations in american past is more everlasting. and bad as it is, i still think the other option we had was even worse. but i get that this specific point is very subjective so all this is obviously IMHO

The "blame Bush game" is a worn out game, but it is an excellent example of my point. People blame Bush for a variety of things. Some of which I agree with such as the war in Iraq is unjustified. However, the most damaging things to this country started long before Bush.

When you study the housing crisis in depth for example, you'll find that the banks that caused the crisis where empowered to do so in the Clinton administration by a BIPARTISAN effort that overturned bank regulation that had been in place since the Great Depression. It was sold to the American public by telling people that every American deserved to own their own home. Remember how awesome that sounded? There was also Free Trade which has pitted American Labor against the slave labor of the third world. I don't have time to go into that.

The current administration has merely expanded upon all of initiatives of the previous one. I know that's a hard pill to swallow, but from bailing out the mega banks to continuing the war, the circus has remained the same only the clowns have changed. If you doubt me, just read up on the NSA program. It is an Obama expansion of a Bush patriot program put in place because the sheep in this country BEGGED for more false security from the boogie man of terrorism. That terrorism that is most likely caused by our continual forays into shitty foreign policy that is in practice little more than corporate colonialism. (See Halliburton areas of operation and you'll see what I mean.)

longBallLima
06-25-2013, 11:12 AM
The "blame Bush game" is a worn out game, but it is an excellent example of my point. People blame Bush for a variety of things. Some of which I agree with such as the war in Iraq is unjustified. However, the most damaging things to this country started long before Bush.

When you study the housing crisis in depth for example, you'll find that the banks that caused the crisis where empowered to do so in the Clinton administration by a BIPARTISAN effort that overturned bank regulation that had been in place since the Great Depression. It was sold to the American public by telling people that every American deserved to own their own home. Remember how awesome that sounded? There was also Free Trade which has pitted American Labor against the slave labor of the third world. I don't have time to go into that.

The current administration has merely expanded upon all of initiatives of the previous one. I know that's a hard pill to swallow, but from bailing out the mega banks to continuing the war, the circus has remained the same only the clowns have changed. If you doubt me, just read up on the NSA program. It is an Obama expansion of a Bush patriot program put in place because the sheep in this country BEGGED for more false security from the boogie man of terrorism. That terrorism that is most likely caused by our continual forays into shitty foreign policy that is in practice little more than corporate colonialism. (See Halliburton areas of operation and you'll see what I mean.)

oh, i dont disagree that the current administration is very similar to the previous one. like i said, i find it very disappointing. i also don't think everything wrong now is bush's fault, but i can't agree that bush has no blame and that the impact of his "missteps" will be felt for a long time. i feel he is mostly responsible for the current anti-american feeling that takes place throughout the world.

on the "unjustified" iraq war: if a nation with a history of conflict, let's say, congo attacks another nation with a history of conflict, let's say angola, using as justification that angola has WMDs and during the war goes "oops, sorry guys, my bad, but hey, we didnt like the angolan leader anyway cuz we kinda thought he was a dictator", the congolese president and members of his administration would be promptly tried as war criminals. now add to all that, that the US is a UN member and can't go to war without UN approval.

bush literally escaped the hangman because of american power and the UN's cowardice to bring illegal war charges against bush, cheney, rumsfeld, rove and a number of the rats in that administration.

longBallLima
06-25-2013, 11:18 AM
Not might...were going to disagree here.

Some things are more harmful then others, period. When you look at that list and the effects of those chemicals and think that's okay to include in the food chain.....well to each their own I guess. To me it's crazy.

What you're in favor of is a slippery slope. First it starts off with telling us how much soda we can buy, and next it's how many kids we can have and how many nights a week we can bang our wives. It starts off small and grows......if they can tell us how much soda to buy, where does the line get drawn?

Slippery slope.

disagree with bold. there is a number of things that are prohibited despite opinion and we haven't slipped into a police state because of it.

gays not being allowed to marry and pot and lsd being made illegal didn't turn into men in black coming into my house to check whether im banging my wife or not.

to me, the slippery slope lies into how complacent society is to things like the NSA bit. all the effort put into finding the leaker rather than being liable for the illegal invasion of privacy.

Fat Bill Dwyer
06-25-2013, 12:06 PM
The "blame Bush game" is a worn out game...

Oooh, can I play? STOPLOSS, that terrible movie with Ryan Phillipe would've never come out if not for the Iraq war and the wonderful personnel decisions it inspired.

Macdon1588
06-25-2013, 12:41 PM
oh, i dont disagree that the current administration is very similar to the previous one. like i said, i find it very disappointing. i also don't think everything wrong now is bush's fault, but i can't agree that bush has no blame and that the impact of his "missteps" will be felt for a long time. i feel he is mostly responsible for the current anti-american feeling that takes place throughout the world.

on the "unjustified" iraq war: if a nation with a history of conflict, let's say, congo attacks another nation with a history of conflict, let's say angola, using as justification that angola has WMDs and during the war goes "oops, sorry guys, my bad, but hey, we didnt like the angolan leader anyway cuz we kinda thought he was a dictator", the congolese president and members of his administration would be promptly tried as war criminals. now add to all that, that the US is a UN member and can't go to war without UN approval.

bush literally escaped the hangman because of american power and the UN's cowardice to bring illegal war charges against bush, cheney, rumsfeld, rove and a number of the rats in that administration.

So then, shouldn't those same charges be brought against the current president by the U.N. as he has continued the same wars through two terms? Before we carry on in this never ending argument, my point is our government is complete and total shit right now. I know I throw away my vote away in a state as red as Oklahoma, but I vote vote for libertarian candidates and against incumbents. I would get more use out of my ballet if I wiped my ass with it instead, but the idea of voting for either the embodiment of failed neo-conservatism, or a socialist pseudo-intellectual makes me want to fucking expatriate.

longBallLima
06-25-2013, 03:38 PM
So then, shouldn't those same charges be brought against the current president by the U.N. as he has continued the same wars through two terms? Before we carry on in this never ending argument, my point is our government is complete and total shit right now. I know I throw away my vote away in a state as red as Oklahoma, but I vote vote for libertarian candidates and against incumbents. I would get more use out of my ballet if I wiped my ass with it instead, but the idea of voting for either the embodiment of failed neo-conservatism, or a socialist pseudo-intellectual makes me want to fucking expatriate.

yes, i agree the current administration would have implications as well, although on a lesser degree, since it was dealt an ongoing conflict and it had less options than the previous one when it comes to avoiding the conflict in the 1st place.

and as far as the govt being shit, i believe you're right. i just happen to think it's the result of shitty situations, be it set by predecessors or external forces, to begin with, incompetence/unwillingness by the executive power (namely Obama) and the most divided congress mostly due to republican butt hurt and overall sore losing

when you talk about expatriating, and i dont mean to sound patronizing here, this is a legitimate question. have you lived anywhere else other than the US? by american standards, seems most places i've had experiences with are pretty much stalinist.

Cdsnuts
06-25-2013, 03:43 PM
seems most places i've had experiences with are pretty much stalinist.

Yea....they tell you how much soda you're allowed to drink.

Cdsnuts
06-25-2013, 03:46 PM
disagree with bold. there is a number of things that are prohibited despite opinion and we haven't slipped into a police state because of it.

gays not being allowed to marry and pot and lsd being made illegal didn't turn into men in black coming into my house to check whether im banging my wife or not.

to me, the slippery slope lies into how complacent society is to things like the NSA bit. all the effort put into finding the leaker rather than being liable for the illegal invasion of privacy.

So you're comparing LSD, Pot and gay marriage to allowable soda consumption? Interesting. Doesn't even seem comparable to me. You're really reachin there.

It's soda dude. Really. You don't see how ridiculous and over-reaching that is?

longBallLima
06-25-2013, 03:50 PM
Yea....they tell you how much soda you can drink.

most developed nations just tax it. and they regulate health and have a healthier population. and they regulate banking and have a better distribution of wealth than in the US. and they regulate guns and don't have as much gun violence. and they regulate speech and have less violence against minorities... and so on and so forth...

a good portion of the developed world thinks its democratic, but radicals in the US will tell 'em they have no clue what they're talking about. freedom is drinking as much soda as you can and going bankrupt if someone in your family gets seriously ill, while the NSA monitors your steps. as much as there are great things here, there is much the US and its "intellectual" citizens could learn from a few other places around the globe.

Macdon1588
06-25-2013, 03:52 PM
yes, i agree the current administration would have implications as well, although on a lesser degree, since it was dealt an ongoing conflict and it had less options than the previous one when it comes to avoiding the conflict in the 1st place.

and as far as the govt being shit, i believe you're right. i just happen to think it's the result of shitty situations, be it set by predecessors or external forces, to begin with, incompetence/unwillingness by the executive power (namely Obama) and the most divided congress mostly due to republican butt hurt and overall sore losing

when you talk about expatriating, and i dont mean to sound patronizing here, this is a legitimate question. have you lived anywhere else other than the US? by american standards, seems most places i've had experiences with are pretty much stalinist.

It's a good question, I have no idea. I've been in different places in the world. Switzerland looks pretty appealing. But ya, hard to say. I have high hopes the libertarians can steal the Republican Party. A socially liberal domestic policy coupled non aggressive foreign policy and a pragmatic economical philosophy is what this candidate. Then I wouldn't have to find a new country;-).

longBallLima
06-25-2013, 03:55 PM
So you're comparing LSD, Pot and gay marriage to allowable soda consumption? Interesting. Doesn't even seem comparable to me. You're really reachin there.

It's soda dude. Really. You don't see how ridiculous and over-reaching that is?

im reaching? i said in my opinion, i'd tax soda (and unhealthy foods in general if you ask me) in favor of small farmers, if you think that is unthinkable and a reach, that's your problem.

you're the one who said one piece of regulation in soda is a slippery slope to a police state. that seems incredibly exaggerated. slippery slope is actually the name of an informal logical fallacy for when such ridiculous statements are made.

- - - Updated - - -


It's a good question, I have no idea. I've been in different places in the world. Switzerland looks pretty appealing. But ya, hard to say. I have high hopes the libertarians can steal the Republican Party. A socially liberal domestic policy coupled non aggressive foreign policy and a pragmatic economical philosophy is what this candidate.

i can respect that. my main point of contention of most libertarians is how unregulated most seem to want the markets, but hey, to each his own.

Macdon1588
06-25-2013, 04:03 PM
im reaching? i said in my opinion, i'd tax soda (and unhealthy foods in general if you ask me) in favor of small farmers, if you think that is unthinkable and a reach, that's your problem.

you're the one who said one piece of regulation in soda is a slippery slope to a police state. that seems incredibly exaggerated. slippery slope is actually the name of an informal logical fallacy for when such ridiculous statements are made.

- - - Updated - - -



i can respect that. my main point of contention of most libertarians is how unregulated most seem to want the markets, but hey, to each his own.

I am for market freedom, but I don't think that the global market is a fair market. Libertarian non aggression allows for laws that protect people from harm. Also, if the libertarian ideas of tax codes were enacted, we'd be a fucking power house again and a lot of the subsidies that the people that make shit food use would fall by the wayside... With out subsidies, high fructose corn syrup would not exists.

Cdsnuts
06-25-2013, 05:09 PM
disagree with bold. there is a number of things that are prohibited despite opinion and we haven't slipped into a police state because of it.

gays not being allowed to marry and pot and lsd being made illegal didn't turn into men in black coming into my house to check whether im banging my wife or not.


That's reaching brother. THAT's what you're comparing soda too. Ridiculous.

I have no problem taxing soda and other unhealthy things. That's not what you were talking about. It seems you're in favor of having our liberties trampled by Big brother.

And regulating something like soda is how it starts. Not ridiculous at all. My previous comments stand. I'll make it real simple for you.

Tellling us how much soda we can drink = ridiculous

Making sure poison doesn't end up in the food supply = smart.

I dont' see how that's difficult to comprehend.

Banging ugly girls is bad for self esteem. Are you in favor of regulating them too?

longBallLima
06-25-2013, 05:16 PM
That's reaching brother. THAT's what you're comparing soda too. Ridiculous.

I have no problem taxing soda and other unhealthy things. That's not what you were talking about. It seems you're in favor of having our liberties trampled by Big brother.

And regulating something like soda is how it starts. Not ridiculous at all. My previous comments stand. I'll make it real simple for you.

Tellling us how much soda we can drink = ridiculous

Making sure poison doesn't end up in the food supply = smart.

I dont' see how that's difficult to comprehend.

it's not difficult. the fact that i don't agree with what you're saying and think some of the progressions you stated are quite the stretch doesn't mean i don't comprehend what you're saying. that one is called ad hominem, just fyi...


but if we're treating each other like children, here it goes:

regulating the side of a drink being the start of a police state = ridiculous, paranoid and very imaginative.


is that too hard to comprehend or you just happen to disagree?

but whatever, carry on. i have no intentions of changing your mind, but posed questions with the interest of understanding other POVs. i find them interesting, specially the more radical and paranoid ones.

Cdsnuts
06-25-2013, 05:32 PM
it's not difficult. the fact that i don't agree with what you're saying and think some of the progressions you stated are quite the stretch doesn't mean i don't comprehend what you're saying. that one is called ad hominem, just fyi...


but if we're treating each other like children, here it goes:

regulating the side of a drink being the start of a police state = ridiculous, paranoid and very imaginative.


is that too hard to comprehend or you just happen to disagree?

but whatever, carry on. i have no intentions of changing your mind, but posed questions with the interest of understanding other POVs. i find them interesting, specially the more radical and paranoid ones.

So just to clarify, you don't agree that poisons should be taken out of the food supply?

And all I'm saying is you ban the sale of soda, where does it end? Who draws the line? Tell me? It opens up new doors of ridiculous regulation, which you seem to be in favor of.

And ad hominem...thanks for that. I'll most likely use that....never.

burlyman30
06-25-2013, 06:51 PM
two viewpoints... no one will be changing anyone's mind here. Things seem to be heating up... let's keep it short of condescending and inferring. Thanks.

WesleyInman
06-25-2013, 08:22 PM
Good thread.

I personally believe there are too many agenda's to ever untangle the web of deceit that lies over us all.

One one hand they are trying to "protect us" on the other hand they are "allowing us to make our own decisions".

As a past gov't employee I can tell you firsthand they are burning the candle at both ends. Every move they make has money written all over it and they truly don't give a shit about the health of American's. They might care how much money they can save from preventative care, so they can balance a budget...but you won't see them shed a tear or make a move with a child dying from Cancer unless a dollar bill is attached to it. You and I are just a number in their eyes. The gov't is an entity, but the people are the power. Unfortunately many are too fat and lazy and scared to stand up for any thing they might believe in.

BoneDaddy
06-26-2013, 05:01 AM
Banging ugly girls is bad for self esteem. Are you in favor of regulating them too?

Banging any chic, ugly or hot, is great for my self esteem. I've been known to regulate a ho or 2 in my day, though..........

Fat Bill Dwyer
06-26-2013, 06:05 AM
regulating the side of a drink being the start of a police state = ridiculous, paranoid and very imaginative.



I don't know bro, that's how it started in Germany, don't you remember krystallpepsinacht?


Banging any chic, ugly or hot, is great for my self esteem. I've been known to regulate a ho or 2 in my day, though..........

Not me! Some mornings I have come too and wished I had drank more so I could blame the poor decision on the booze.

markam
06-26-2013, 07:31 AM
779

longBallLima
06-26-2013, 10:10 AM
I don't know bro, that's how it started in Germany, don't you remember krystallpepsinacht?


LOL the infamous night where those bastards broke pepsi bottles owned by jewish folks... who can forget? there's people who deny it ever happened, you know...

Fat Bill Dwyer
06-26-2013, 10:58 AM
LOL the infamous night where those bastards broke pepsi bottles owned by jewish folks... who can forget? there's people who deny it ever happened, you know...

Thanks man, I was dying out there. You would thing people on a board with the initials SS would be quicker to pick up an amalgamation of pop culture beveragry and the begining of nazi-genocide.

olddawg
06-26-2013, 11:58 AM
I love yatzee, always get 5 of a kind