What.the.Hell.New York?
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=160097
Printed Date: 07 January 2026 at 11:16pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: What.the.Hell.New York?
Posted By: BARREL BREAK
Subject: What.the.Hell.New York?
Date Posted: 27 September 2006 at 3:41pm
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/nyregion/27fat.html - NYtimes
Basically, Ney York wants to ban the use of Trans-fats in returaunts. This is even more retarded than the smoking ban. Whether or not the trans fats are bad for you shouldn't even be an issue, it's whether the government ought to be able to dictate behavior like this. EDIT: Please, Digg this story up: http://digg.com/politics/New_York_moving_to_Ban_trans_fats_in_resturaunts/blog - Digg |
Replies:
Posted By: Bolt3
Date Posted: 27 September 2006 at 3:42pm
|
If it makes all the fat people, less fat. Then I'm game.
------------- <Removed sig for violation of Clause 4 of the New Sig Rules> |
Posted By: MilSimBaller
Date Posted: 27 September 2006 at 3:44pm
|
umm...yea thats the most rediculous thing I've ever heard. Goverment regulating our fat intake? HA. America's more fat then I thought. ------------- 
|
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 27 September 2006 at 3:45pm
|
rofl, cranio-rectally-inverted fo sho
------------- 
|
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 27 September 2006 at 3:50pm
|
While I'm definitely not a proponent of gubmint telling me everything I can and cannot do... I do feel something really needs to be done about it.
Whether tobacco or trans-fat, it affects you and me. In the wallet. Even if it doesn't pass into law... I'm hoping at the very least it starts pressing the public to demand restaurants volunarily swap it out. My health insurance premiums are frikken ridiculous. And I'd bet a major contributor of the high costs are all the unhealthy (by lifestyle) folks and their subsequent problems and expense. If you aren't paying health insurance premiums right now, my take on it means nothing to you. I personally feel smokers and the obese (and lawyers - sorry Rambino  ) are much of the reason why I'm paying so much. And as of 2007, my rates go up another 33%. Ridiculous.
If not passed as a law, at the very least use it as a platform for [forced via public pressure] voluntary measures. |
Posted By: *Stealth*
Date Posted: 27 September 2006 at 3:50pm
|
Libertarian party FTW damnet.
------------- |
Posted By: BARREL BREAK
Date Posted: 27 September 2006 at 3:50pm
EDIT: Shorty - Exactly, public will, market forces, that is what ought to be making the decision here. You don't want it? Don't eat it. |
Bolt3 wrote:Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 27 September 2006 at 4:01pm
Actually... I'd like one step beyond that. While I do like the freedom of choice... if you leave it up to Joe [Ignorant] Public, it'll never get done. It's a non-issue to Joe Public. Beyond simply choosing not to purchase from a restaurant... I'd prefer to see public pressure make those restaurants CHANGE. So not a simple decision process of eat or not eat... a pro-active movement to remove the trans-fat, without having an actual law dictate it. Mind you... this is not a matter of taking food off the market. It's simply changing an ingredient. You'd still get your fatty foods... they just would have a different fat content. You and I would still get our beloved fries and deep battered [fill in blank] |
Posted By: *Stealth*
Date Posted: 27 September 2006 at 4:06pm
What if I want deep battered trans fat!? ------------- |
Posted By: 636andy636.
Date Posted: 27 September 2006 at 4:39pm
|
Wow, NY will not have any fast food restaraunts anymore.
------------- [IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v291/anthonymartinez/402cdjo-1.gif"> |
Posted By: Brian Fellows
Date Posted: 27 September 2006 at 4:56pm
Boo Libertarians! Hooray for the US becoming Singapore! |
Posted By: pbdude985
Date Posted: 27 September 2006 at 6:41pm
|
yea i saw that in our paper today ------------- 
|
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 27 September 2006 at 7:14pm
|
Posted By: TEHGANGSTER
Date Posted: 27 September 2006 at 7:23pm
|
its a good idea, people will be a lot less fat,,,,,, ------------- 
I am a leaf on the wind, watch how i soar. |
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 27 September 2006 at 7:24pm
I dont like the idea of the government telling me what I can and cannot eat. ------------- 
|
Posted By: blackdog144
Date Posted: 27 September 2006 at 8:13pm
|
America is slowly changing...why should they care if i eat 20 boxes of oreos a day?
------------- http://imageshack.us">  
|
Posted By: Pate
Date Posted: 27 September 2006 at 10:54pm
|
Already a law in most European Countries. Smart if you think about it. There banning fattening food.
------------- 
It feels good to be a gangster |
Posted By: BARREL BREAK
Date Posted: 27 September 2006 at 10:58pm
More to what you just said, then why not ban all food that is fattening/non healthy, and enforce subsistence diets? |
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 27 September 2006 at 10:59pm
|
It hurts people. It should be regulated.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Pate
Date Posted: 27 September 2006 at 11:01pm
|
Why
not ban all fattening food? beacause its not possible. We would be
eatting salad all damn day. What im saying is its not a bad idea to try
and make fast food a little bit more healthier since so many people eat
it so often.
And any age person can buy fast food. Little kids eat happy means and stuff, starting young on that fat. Atleast with tobacco and alcohol you have to legally wait til a certain age to use/purchase. -------------
It feels good to be a gangster |
Posted By: BARREL BREAK
Date Posted: 27 September 2006 at 11:04pm
Pate - People of all ages can choose not to exercise, and THAT is the leading cause of obesity, people being goddamn lazy. |
Posted By: Mehs
Date Posted: 27 September 2006 at 11:50pm
|
Eh doesn't bother me at all, I don't eat that type of food anymore, makes me feel sick after eating it.
------------- [IMG]http://i27.tinypic.com/1538fbc.jpg"> Squeeze Box ☣ |
Posted By: Apotheosis
Date Posted: 27 September 2006 at 11:54pm
I'm usually a huge supporter of Libertarianism, but this is an exception. It is getting rediculous now days. Recently the Atlanta Journal-Constitution they featured an article that stated GA was the 12th fattest state with a high 20% rate of obesity. The number one rank was just under 29.something%. Most obese people aren't going to stop eating unhealthily on their own so it is time we give them a hand and take away a leg. |
Posted By: BARREL BREAK
Date Posted: 28 September 2006 at 12:58am
| Most people are stupid, what should we do about that? |
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 28 September 2006 at 1:07am
|
Eh, I'm pretty libertarien on most social freedoms but when they think that the free market can make up for pretty much everything they are just a bunch of idiots. The goverment needs to step in with some welfare or market regulations here and there. Pure libertarianism is the purest form of capitalism and it just won't work if you go 100% with it. ------------- 
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: Justice
Date Posted: 28 September 2006 at 10:19am
|
These people are crazy! Next will be sugar, caffine etc. Soon the
government will have you and your life decisions in there control. All these freaks need to be sent away to some small island off the coast of the south pole. ------------- 
-JUSTICE http://www.myspace.com/outkastpaintball - Outkast Myspace |
Posted By: Apotheosis
Date Posted: 28 September 2006 at 10:23am
|
Good. Maybe then we won't have obese 4 and 5 year olds running around. Edit* Actually, I can't see them running anywhere... |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 28 September 2006 at 10:31am
|
Along similar lines, My father was telling me that at the shool where he teaches there was talk about them removing soda machines from schools.....which I don't see a problem with, until that rule covered teachers lounges as well. They weren't allowed to have soda machines in there. What I want to know, is if I'm a 23 year old teacher, I think I've earned the right to have a soda if I want.... I think that these health crazes are a mixed blessing. On one hand, health risks are sure to drop, (ie smoking ban in public buildings, as a non-smoker I was pretty damn happy about that.) On the other hand, for cryin out loud, how about you pick out my clothes for me tomorrow, since the colors I choose could be unhealthy for me.
------------- ? |
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 28 September 2006 at 10:44am
Indeed. These are tricky balancing questions. Not sure yet where I fall on this one. Need - more - data. |
Posted By: .Ryan
Date Posted: 28 September 2006 at 12:32pm
|
I got a twinge of excessive government regulation of people's lives when I heard about this but, just like with smoking bans, I think it's almost necessary at this point. 'Course, there's no second hand fat, unless you count the increased health costs, which hit us all, and you definately can...so I don't know. At least they're just making the resturants cook better food, rather than trying to make people stop buying donuts...
-------------  |
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 28 September 2006 at 2:13pm
|
Unless I'm not quite grasping the whole thing...
This isn't about eliminating types of food from the market. I don't think there is anything out there that is made using trans-fat that cannot be made using a similar product that does not contain trans-fat. I argue not for taking away fatty foods. I argue not for taking away french fries or any of the "fast", "convenient" or "comfort" foods out there. This isn't about that. It's not taking anything away. It's simply making it so that they produced differently. It isn't a consumer issue as much as it is a corporate issue. The cost of swapping out cooking oils is probably the main reason this hasn't already been voluntarily implemented widespread. I'm not asking you to drop the large fries. I'm simply asking that companies switch cooking oils. Nothing more. It may not seem like that big of a deal, or worthy of action... but it really is. And again... you start having a different perspective on this matter when umpty-percent of your paycheck gets taken away to take care of someone else's heart disease and diabetes. |
Posted By: Brian Fellows
Date Posted: 28 September 2006 at 2:52pm
| If the companies themselves decided not to use trans-fats, I wouldn't have such a problem with it. It's the fact that the government is stepping in and telling the restaurants that they HAVE to stop using trans-fats. |
Posted By: oreomann33
Date Posted: 28 September 2006 at 2:54pm
|
They should banish all food that isn't soylent green.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Boss_DJ
Date Posted: 28 September 2006 at 3:18pm
|
i live in new york and don't care...more power to slightly less unhealthy food
------------- 
|
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 28 September 2006 at 3:43pm
 SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!! -------------
|
Posted By: Dye Playa
Date Posted: 30 September 2006 at 11:53pm
|
meh. they shouldnt be able to regulate what kind of food you eat. they do it at my school, which i sort of understand, but public resteraunts that is bogus. so much for freedom, that went right down the toilet. if america is free, i should be able to go to mcdonalds, get 4 triple supersized big macs, with extra cheese, 3 supersized fries and a gallon of bacon grease. ------------- 
|
Posted By: the_blade
Date Posted: 01 October 2006 at 11:16am
neuter! neuter! neuter! ------------- 95 base neon 3.0 cai, knifedged crankshaft 60 mill throttle body,14 crane cam crane springs/retainers eagle rods port matched/ polished intake p&p head shaved .015 phantom grip diff dohc exuast |
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 01 October 2006 at 12:06pm
|
Umm, rather than completely regulating nearly every facet of the
subject at hand, why not just place a sin tax on the food? Or place a
government subsidy on the healthier alternatives?
------------- 
|