Would it be so awful if the government made it mandatory for all citizens to exercise daily? Twice a day you are required to turn on your radio and do a few jumping jacks and stretches.

Why would this be a bad thing?

Would it be so awful if the government made it mandatory for all citizens to exercise daily? Twice a day you are required to turn on your radio and do a few jumping jacks and stretches.

Why would this be a bad thing?

"Government" + "mandatory" is a dangerous mix.

Would it be so awful if the government made it mandatory for all citizens to exercise daily? Twice a day you are required to turn on your radio and do a few jumping jacks and stretches.

Why would this be a bad thing?

Many Americans wouldn't be able to get their blubber under control for an hour or two after the jumping jacks, preventing them from getting back to work.

Would it be so awful if the government made it mandatory for all citizens to exercise daily? Twice a day you are required to turn on your radio and do a few jumping jacks and stretches.

Why would this be a bad thing?

How about being required to pray five times a day?

Or fine people for swearing? Or outlawing salt and unhealthy food?

Or regulating when and how people have sex?

(In case you were wondering - all ideas taken from movies)

The thing about government intrusion is, once they possess the right, they can extend it to anything they want, depending on who's in office.

There's no small losses of liberty, there's just incremental capitulation.

How about being required to pray five times a day? - [Islam] not sure of the movie


Or fine people for swearing? Or outlawing salt and unhealthy food?

[Demolition Man]

dz4HEEiJuGo DyH0mPhh4GA


Or regulating when and how people have sex?

[?]

(In case you were wondering - all ideas taken from movies)

The thing about government intrusion is, once they possess the right, they can extend it to anything they want, depending on who's in office.

There's no small losses of liberty, there's just incremental capitulation.

:popcorn:

Would it be so awful if the government made it mandatory for all citizens to exercise daily? Twice a day you are required to turn on your radio and do a few jumping jacks and stretches.

Why would this be a bad thing?


I like the Idea. :shrug: extra pushups for welfare recipients.

Would it be so awful if the government made it mandatory for all citizens to exercise daily? Twice a day you are required to turn on your radio and do a few jumping jacks and stretches.

Why would this be a bad thing?

Twice a day I have to move and turn on the radio? :cds:

Twice a day I have to move and turn on the radio? :cds:



:killingme


and then exercise!

Would it be so awful if the government made it mandatory for all citizens to exercise daily? Twice a day you are required to turn on your radio and do a few jumping jacks and stretches.

Why would this be a bad thing?


Compulsory exercising, just like in 1984.




You know the nazis made the jews exercise.
True story.

Would it be so awful if the government made it mandatory for all citizens to exercise daily? Twice a day you are required to turn on your radio and do a few jumping jacks and stretches.

Why would this be a bad thing?

Would the government buy radios for those that dont have them?
(Here, a free radio with your welfare check. It has one station WGOV all exercise music and help wanted ads all the time!):killingme

I like the Idea. :shrug: extra pushups for welfare recipients.

See? NOW you're thinking! :yay:

And I love Demolition Man. That would be my dream world. I'm plastic Disney facade at heart.

And I love Demolition Man. That would be my dream world. I'm plastic Disney facade at heart.

I think you don't remember it much.

No smoking. No drinking. No unhealthy food. No swearing. No SALT. No rock and roll - actually, no music of any kind except advertising jingles.

Oh. And no sex. Unless you count the virtual kind.

I am sure I'd be shopping for groceries with Denis Leary.

How about being required to pray five times a day?

Or fine people for swearing? Or outlawing salt and unhealthy food?

Or regulating when and how people have sex?

(In case you were wondering - all ideas taken from movies)

The thing about government intrusion is, once they possess the right, they can extend it to anything they want, depending on who's in office.

There's no small losses of liberty, there's just incremental capitulation.

Ok, but, aren't we already there? Hasn't the government already exerted authority along these lines? I mean, what is Social Security and Medicaid if not government control?

So, I guess Vrai's point is one I've been pushing for awhile now; we're already a socialist country and all our politics these days is debate over who is in charge of the next intrusion. It certainly isn't about more or reducing so, why not some gummint control that actually does some good?

Tells us how much is too much soda because we're too stupid and dependent to decide for ourselves.

Do what you think best with our money.

Tell us what to buy.

Seat belts

Helmet laws

Smoking rules

I think most of us, consciously or not, have learned to rely on government as the arbiter of social and economic right and wrong.

Ok, but, aren't we already there? Hasn't the government already exerted authority along these lines?

And I've made it clear over the years that I hate it. A lot. I think seat belt laws are among the most ridiculous intrusions on private life I've ever seen. I can see that not belting your children might be negligence. But yourself? Next thing they'll be checking if I brush my teeth in the morning.

I sure don't want a world where it gets worse, even if it's something where the outcome is something I'd like. People sometimes like government controlling something when they benefit from it or suffer no loss of freedom.

I've often said when it comes to something like censorship - you might like it as long as the people who agree with you remain in power. The reason I prefer freedom for both sides is, it assures MY freedom won't be infringed come the next change of power in Washington. As long as everyone has freedom, my freedom is intact.

The problem with incremental changes is, you one day wake up in a world that has adjusted around it. Seat belt laws? They start making cars that automatically put them on for you. Medicare? Companies realize they don't have to cover you if you're old. And so on. Once it's in place, other structure build around it. Before long you can't undo it. That's why you have to kill it in the cradle.

I think you don't remember it much.

No smoking. No drinking. No unhealthy food. No swearing. No SALT. No rock and roll - actually, no music of any kind except advertising jingles.

Oh. And no sex. Unless you count the virtual kind.

Fine with me :yay: The only thing I'd have to really work at is quitting smoking. That would be a small sacrifice to not have to put up with people's inane music and uncivilized public behavior anymore. If the crybabies raise hell and get what they want, why shouldn't I get something in return? ESPECIALLY if they don't like it and I can stick my tongue out at them and go ha ha, which is one of my favorite activities?

Polite smiling faces instead of menacing thugs? DeBussy instead of Kelly Clarkson? Fruits and vegetables instead of Taco Bell? Productive citizens instead of welfare sluts with ghetto fake nails? Seriously, what part of that do you not like?

We're heading toward Idiocracy right now. I greatly prefer Leave It To Beaver and Demolition Man.

And I've made it clear over the years that I hate it. A lot. I think seat belt laws are among the most ridiculous intrusions on private life I've ever seen. I can see that not belting your children might be negligence. But yourself? Next thing they'll be checking if I brush my teeth in the morning.

I sure don't want a world where it gets worse, even if it's something where the outcome is something I'd like. People sometimes like government controlling something when they benefit from it or suffer no loss of freedom.

I've often said when it comes to something like censorship - you might like it as long as the people who agree with you remain in power. The reason I prefer freedom for both sides is, it assures MY freedom won't be infringed come the next change of power in Washington. As long as everyone has freedom, my freedom is intact.

The problem with incremental changes is, you one day wake up in a world that has adjusted around it. Seat belt laws? They start making cars that automatically put them on for you. Medicare? Companies realize they don't have to cover you if you're old. And so on. Once it's in place, other structure build around it. Before long you can't undo it. That's why you have to kill it in the cradle.

Who, on the national level, is for killing stuff, saying 'government can't do that!'?

ESPECIALLY if they don't like it and I can stick my tongue out at them and go ha ha, which is one of my favorite activities?


bzzzt! You are fined one credit for the violation of the Be Nice to Others Morality statute.

In Demo World, you don't get to be an ####### to other #######s.

And you can't call them one, either.

I liked that movie. It exposed one of the liberal mind's failings - it's good for you, so we will force you to accept it. And if you don't accept it, we'll punish you.

If you REALLY won't accept it, I guess we'll just have to kill you.

Think Happy Happy thoughts and inspire joy joy feelings all around you.
Or we'll kill you.

Bloomberg's soda thing? "We're not taking away your rights, we're simply forcing you to understand".

Who, on the national level, is for killing stuff, saying 'government can't do that!'?

?? I don't follow you. Clarify.

?? I don't follow you. Clarify.

The incremental-ism, the need to stop this stuff before it stops. That is all correct what you say about it however, we are now in the age of too big to fail and I do not believe there is much national will and, certainly none in a lot of states, to limit government any more. Can you imagine 20 years ago anyone at the level of a Mike Bloomberg suggesting it is the governments business to limit the size of a soda and be taken seriously by any more than a handful of people? His political viability would vanish in that instant.

20-30 years ago no on would have tolerated a TSA or a "Department of Homeland Security". Ron Paul is now labeled a kook for saying 'government shouldn't be able to do this or that' or advocating a trillion in federal spending cuts where the government is borrowing a trillion.

Health care spending has been running wild for something like 20 years as government has become more and more involved in directing care. The TEA party stands up, outraged, at the further expansion of it with Obama care. However, they were not for increased competition to solved the problem. They just wanted the status quo. Same thing on Wall Street. They don't want reform.

The TEA party stands up, outraged, at the further expansion of it with Obama care. However, they were not for increased competition to solved the problem. They just wanted the status quo.

I don't think they wanted the "status quo" (for some reason, a term I hear from just about every Paul supporter). I think they were just protesting Obamacare. You don't have to be some lame ass ninny because you didn't craft a 1000 page solution to our health care's ills - there's nothing wrong with being angry with the FURTHER EROSION of your rights.

If someone wants to switch your evening meal for dog food, it's not wrong for you to ##### about it - you don't have to be Bobby Flay or Emeril and whip up a nutritious gourmet alternative. You just have to not want dog food.

bzzzt! You are fined one credit for the violation of the Be Nice to Others Morality statute.

In Demo World, you don't get to be an ####### to other #######s.

And you can't call them one, either.

I liked that movie. It exposed one of the liberal mind's failings - it's good for you, so we will force you to accept it. And if you don't accept it, we'll punish you.

If you REALLY won't accept it, I guess we'll just have to kill you.

Think Happy Happy thoughts and inspire joy joy feelings all around you.
Or we'll kill you.

Bloomberg's soda thing? "We're not taking away your rights, we're simply forcing you to understand".
Bzzt! There wouldn't be any #######s for me to call #######s, or even get annoyed over in the first place. And if everyone was forced to be cheerful and kind, I wouldn't have any reason to stick out my tongue and say ha ha because the people I'd do it to would be vaporized before I could react to them.

:bann:

See, you're all invested in this freedom stuff that hasn't worked out so well for us. Time to try something else. :yay:

See, you're all invested in this freedom stuff that hasn't worked out so well for us. Time to try something else. :yay:

Well - I tried almost 10 years of happy happy joy joy in a cult. It gets old and fake after a while. You can imagine how miserable you could get being monitored 24/7 to be full of smiles and happiness.

And any society like that would almost certainly have Denis Leary's running amok. I'd be right in line with 'em.

(I kinda thought the no sex thing would be a deal breaker).

And nobody has answered my question:

If stuff I like can be taken away because other people don't like it - "I should be able to go anywhere in the world, even a truck stop bar, and never ever have to smell smoke!" "My little angel is allergic to peanuts, so I want them banned from all public places!" - why can't I take away something other people like that I don't? Are those "others" the only ones with any rights to happiness and comfort in this country?

I remember plenty of people on here being very much in favor of the smoking ban. You all ready to give up that sugar and fat for me? It's unhealthy and costs me money, you know. :smile:

I don't think they wanted the "status quo" (for some reason, a term I hear from just about every Paul supporter). I think they were just protesting Obamacare. You don't have to be some lame ass ninny because you didn't craft a 1000 page solution to our health care's ills - there's nothing wrong with being angry with the FURTHER EROSION of your rights.

If someone wants to switch your evening meal for dog food, it's not wrong for you to ##### about it - you don't have to be Bobby Flay or Emeril and whip up a nutritious gourmet alternative. You just have to not want dog food.

If your evening meal is already crap, what's the point of getting all upset when someone wants to add poo sauce? That's what I don't get about the TEA party, at all. What's the point of protesting UNLESS you have an answer, a better idea????? I hate to think of TEA party types as simple minded who were just reacting and had nothing more than "Wanh!" to say.

(I kinda thought the no sex thing would be a deal breaker).

Why? I'm not seeing anyone so don't care. And if I'm not getting any butt, nobody should be able to. It's discrimination.

:dye:

But I'd be willing to make a trade. Smoke Nazis and asthmatics can go get laid if I can smoke a cigarette in a restaurant after my meal.

Smoke Nazis and asthmatics can go get laid if I can smoke a cigarette in a restaurant after my meal.

What happens if they want a smoke afterwards????? :jameo:

What happens if they want a smoke afterwards????? :jameo:

That will cost them another privilege on my behalf. Maybe a 64 oz. soda or something.

And that's another thing! I haven't had a sugar soda in....I can't even remember the last time. So why can I not have as big a diet soda as I want? They made McDonald's do away with the Super Size sodas, but I don't eat there anyway so it didn't affect me. I get my soda fix at the Sheetz or WaWa. Yet they don't do anything about those disgusting "milk" shakes that have not only sugar, but fat as well.

I want milkshakes banned. I'll settle for that and forget the mandatory exercise.

Fine with me :yay: ... Seriously, what part of that do you not like?.

The part where it is government mandated.

I want milkshakes banned. I'll settle for that and forget the mandatory exercise.

A number of pundits and personalities have commented - why pick on soda? Seriously, why are we supposed to think that BIG sodas cause obesity, but chile dogs with cheese and beer are ok? Or for that matter, all those sugary coffees that Starbucks sells? Why not shut down Dunkin' Donuts? Or, God forbid, Baskin-Robbins and Dairy Queen?

Does any bar actually serve anything reasonably healthy? No beer, no cigs, and no greasy cheeseburgers, fries and buffalo wings.

I mean, why SODA?

A number of pundits and personalities have commented - why pick on soda? Seriously, why are we supposed to think that BIG sodas cause obesity, but chile dogs with cheese and beer are ok? Or for that matter, all those sugary coffees that Starbucks sells? Why not shut down Dunkin' Donuts? Or, God forbid, Baskin-Robbins and Dairy Queen?

Does any bar actually serve anything reasonably healthy? No beer, no cigs, and no greasy cheeseburgers, fries and buffalo wings.

I mean, why SODA?

That's an excellent question but I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer. I suspect Bloomberg doesn't even know and just thought it sounded good. Maybe some lady with a Big Gulp cut his limo off in traffic?

A number of pundits and personalities have commented - why pick on soda? Seriously, why are we supposed to think that BIG sodas cause obesity, but chile dogs with cheese and beer are ok? Or for that matter, all those sugary coffees that Starbucks sells? Why not shut down Dunkin' Donuts? Or, God forbid, Baskin-Robbins and Dairy Queen?

Does any bar actually serve anything reasonably healthy? No beer, no cigs, and no greasy cheeseburgers, fries and buffalo wings.

I mean, why SODA?

Pizza is out, especially that greasy New Your style where the grease just drips off.

That's an excellent question but I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer. I suspect Bloomberg doesn't even know and just thought it sounded good. Maybe some lady with a Big Gulp cut his limo off in traffic?

Maybe someone threw a double big gulp in his face. That was just too much. Only single big gulps allowed.

Would it be so awful if the government made it mandatory for all citizens to exercise daily? Twice a day you are required to turn on your radio and do a few jumping jacks and stretches.

Why would this be a bad thing?

I think it's a great idea! :yahoo: because I already exercise. :lol:

I think it's an especially great idea for people on welfare, because it seems to me the majority of them are fat. I don't know why or how this is, but they must be doing real well on the welfare!

Would it be so awful if the government made it mandatory for all citizens to exercise daily? Twice a day you are required to turn on your radio and do a few jumping jacks and stretches.

Why would this be a bad thing?

Spent a month in Beijing - very weird to look out the window in the morning and see 50 people on the lawn doing tai chi - in silence. It was kind of surreal/strange/eery. I don't think I saw one obese person in China the whole time I was there, but then, soooo many people there also ride bikes as their only form of transportation and their diet is so different than ours, I don't know how a comparison could be drawn. I've read that as Chinese become more affluent, their obesity levels rise - exactly the opposite of Americans.

An YES, it would be awful to have the government require me to do daily exercise. They'd need to hire 2 people to monitor me, 1 person to do some sort of paperwork to record the exercise, 4 people to write up my exercise program and 3 officers to come arrest me when I tell them all to fark off.

I don't need or want this level of intrusion into my life. I'm an American, not an oppressed Chinese. And if you think that the only thing that China mandates on its people is their level of physical activity, you're very wrong. Every aspect of their life is dictated to them.

Every government intrusion into our lives is a liberty lost.

I think it's a great idea! :yahoo: because I already exercise. :lol:

I think it's an especially great idea for people on welfare, because it seems to me the majority of them are fat. I don't know why or how this is, but they must be doing real well on the welfare!

I've noticed the same and I thought a great deal about this, so just something for you to think about. It seems to me they can't afford to eat healthy. Eating healthy is costly. Have you seen the price of fresh fruits and veggies or those low-fat crackers lately? Of course you have. It's not cheap, hotdogs are.

I know someone on disability who receives food stamps. He gets round about 100 bucks a month for food. You figure at $25 a week/person one isn't going to be eating lean steak but ground beef instead, no fresh fish but processed fish sticks instead, no fat-free crackers but basic Saltines instead, and no fresh asparagus but canned corn instead, etc, and so forth. See what I mean?

Sometimes it certainly does SEEM like someone lives well enough on welfare, but realisitically I don't think they do. It's just hard not to get pissed when you see perfectly capable people abusing the system is all.

I think it's a great idea! :yahoo: because I already exercise. :lol:

I think it's an especially great idea for people on welfare, because it seems to me the majority of them are fat. I don't know why or how this is, but they must be doing real well on the welfare!

Really? Really? You are for government control of the lives of the citizens? What we eat, say, pray, ..., the list goes on.

You carry a copy of the Constitution in your purse. You do realize that there is no provision for most of what government already does much less an extension of power like discussed in this thread anywhere in the Constitution?

Remember, the writers stated that there are no powers granted by the "welfare clause."

I've noticed the same and I thought a great deal about this, so just something for you to think about. It seems to me they can't afford to eat healthy. Eating healthy is costly. Have you seen the price of fresh fruits and veggies or those low-fat crackers lately? Of course you have. It's not cheap, hotdogs are.

I know someone on disability who receives food stamps. He gets round about 100 bucks a month for food. You figure at $25 a week/person one isn't going to be eating lean steak but ground beef instead, no fresh fish but processed fish sticks instead, no fat-free crackers but basic Saltines instead, and no fresh asparagus but canned corn instead, etc, and so forth. See what I mean?

Sometimes it certainly does SEEM like someone lives well enough on welfare, but realisitically I don't think they do. It's just hard not to get pissed when you see perfectly capable people abusing the system is all.
I'd say your friend is the exception and not the rule.

I was behind a woman in BJs. She had two carts loaded to the brim. Steaks, roasts, chips, soft drinks, all sorts of both good for you food and junk food. I think the bill was in excess of $500. She paid with an Independence Card.

The system is broken and should not exits anyway.

I'd say your friend is the exception and not the rule.

I was behind a woman in BJs. She had two carts loaded to the brim. Steaks, roasts, chips, soft drinks, all sorts of both good for you food and junk food. I think the bill was in excess of $500. She paid with an Independence Card.

The system is broken and should not exits anyway.


Perhaps so.

Really? Really? You are for government control of the lives of the citizens? What we eat, say, pray, ..., the list goes on.

You carry a copy of the Constitution in your purse. You do realize that there is no provision for most of what government already does much less an extension of power like discussed in this thread anywhere in the Constitution?

Remember, the writers stated that there are no powers granted by the "welfare clause."

Oh lighten up 2A. There is nothing unConstitutional about getting something in return for the investment WE, the taxpaying citizens make in the people on welfare. We let them have free money - where is that in the Constitution?

Oh lighten up 2A. There is nothing unConstitutional about getting something in return for the investment WE, the taxpaying citizens make in the people on welfare. We let them have free money - where is that in the Constitution?
So you want to double down on unconstitutional?

Oh lighten up 2A. There is nothing unConstitutional about getting something in return for the investment WE, the taxpaying citizens make in the people on welfare. We let them have free money - where is that in the Constitution?

That's the problem. The goal should NOT be to get 'something in return' but, to NOT have the government doing stuff, 'investing' in unconstitutional things in the first place.

I mean, this is how it works and FDR started it. Upon passing Social Security, he apparently said "Now, let some politician try and undo that!' So, government does something it shouldn't do, start to provide, not promote, provide the general welfare and, pretty soon, it's institutionalized and expected. Then, when it inevitably becomes a mess because the government doesn't do as well providing as it does promoting, calls for reform start flying and, before too long, the mayor of New York thinks it's a proper role for government to be involved in your beverage choices.

More government is the problem. Some think more of the problem is the solution. Some, few, seem to think less of the problem might be a good idea. But, of course, we can't do that. That would be kooky.

That's the problem. The goal should NOT be to get 'something in return' but, to NOT have the government doing stuff, 'investing' in unconstitutional things in the first place.

I mean, this is how it works and FDR started it. Upon passing Social Security, he apparently said "Now, let some politician try and undo that!' So, government does something it shouldn't do, start to provide, not promote, provide the general welfare and, pretty soon, it's institutionalized and expected. Then, when it inevitably becomes a mess because the government doesn't do as well providing as it does promoting, calls for reform start flying and, before too long, the mayor of New York thinks it's a proper role for government to be involved in your beverage choices.

More government is the problem. Some think more of the problem is the solution. Some, few, seem to think less of the problem might be a good idea. But, of course, we can't do that. That would be kooky.

Yes, of course. But we are already doling out dollars - so yeah - We should be getting something for our money. :shrug:

There are disabled people who are receiving government assistance in this county. THEY even volunteer (voluntarily, I might add) which in turn gives back to the community.

Oh lighten up 2A. There is nothing unConstitutional about getting something in return for the investment WE, the taxpaying citizens make in the people on welfare. We let them have free money - where is that in the Constitution?

Where is welfare in the Constitution? I mean the current definition which has nothing to do with which the founders were espousing. More than one writer of the Constitution spoke out about the overstepping by Congress in granting money to individuals and groups.

When it come to my liberty and use of my earnings by the government, I will not lighten up.

Where is welfare in the Constitution? I mean the current definition which has nothing to do with which the founders were espousing. More than one writer of the Constitution spoke out about the overstepping by Congress in granting money to individuals and groups.

When it come to my liberty and use of my earnings by the government, I will not lighten up.

That's what I thought I said. That welfare (free money) is not in the Constitution. :shrug:

That's what I thought I said. That welfare (free money) is not in the Constitution. :shrug:

You did, but you also said we could expect something from those receiving it. I am pointing out, maybe not well, that we should not expect something for our money, we should stop giving the money.

You did, but you also said we could expect something from those receiving it. I am pointing out, maybe not well, that we should not expect something for our money, we should stop giving the money.

:huggy: 2A- I agree. But fat chance of that happening!