RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were.

RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

sleazy -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/3/2007 2:52:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent General reply based on the Daily Mail article: We have a growing obesity issue in this country i.e. an obesity issue that needs some attention. The Foods Standard Agency are recommending foods to be classified as a risk to young children. Now, whether or not you believe cheese is junk food is neither here nor there. Ultimately, it is sound logic to attempt to tackle a major issue in our society by warning children of the dangers of fatty food. The PARENTS should have that responsibilty, if the parents had not all the rights and repsonsibilities of parenting removed from them. If the parents are uneducated then I would suggest that could be related to the fall in literacy levels and the fact that what I passed as "basic" examiniations upon leaving school 20 years ago would now actually get me a good part of the way through a BSc. Lets add the almost virtual ban on competetive sports and physical education for the young for at least 4 spurious reasons 1. the sale of school playing fields 2. the fear that if little Billy dont win the sack race he could be emotionally scarred for life 3. even worse Billy may fall over, graze his knee and sue 4. and of course let us not forget that any adult that wants to be involved with children is actually some sort of predator quote: Some parents are certainly fully equipped to make the right decisions for their children. However, not all parents are doing such a good job and this is shown by the levels of obesity in Britain and the US. The last 20 years have proven that if you leave some parents to their own devices then their kids will eat shit food and unnecessarily endanger their health through obesity. Because its OK to not give a shit, after all there are all those wonderful social workers, 5 a day advisors, teachers, hospital staff etc to look after your kid, its what they get paid for after all. quote: I suppose some will argue it's their call if they want to knock so many years off their lives but where do you draw the line - are you going to argue it's a person's call if they want to drink themselves into oblivion?, or a person's call if they want to commit suicide? or a child's call if he/she wants to go and meet sexual predators from the internet?. Surely there are certain areas where people need help and when families aren't doing the job (and we know some aren't because obesity is a very real and growing problem), or/and when families need outside help, then the government should step into support parents. The best help that can be given is often no help. If the choice is sink or swim one or the other will happen, but as long as there is somebody with a lifebelt and full support network nothing will really change quote: Also, the government has a responsibility to society to ensure a large minority of society are not a burden on the rest of society through using tax payers money to fund treatment for obesity. It would be interesting to know what the cost of treating obesity is to taxpayers because if it's high (and it's a possibility) then there would be uproar if it was publicised that treatment for obesity is basically pissing tax payers money up against the wall.. The public would want answers and they'd be wanting the government to step in and do something about obesity. How does removing a persons right to free choice, make anybodies life better? If I want to get kill myself by smoking and eating in McTucky KingHut everyday think of all that extra tax I am pumping into the economy, the people I am employing, the world economy usually benefits too, and of course being lazy etc I am not going to walk anyfurther than absoloutely necessary so yet more taxes, jobs, etcc from transportation. I remember when the "cost to the health service" argument was used for smokers, and it turned out that smokers are actually a damn good profit for the govt, all those taxes, a young death requiring less pension, often a quicker death rather than 15 years of slow alzheimers requiring lots of expensive care. Anyone got any hard numbers? Im on a restricted terminal at the moment quote: Yes, the government can be a pain in the arse and there are some areas of intrusion, such as the proposed DNA scheme, which leave me cold. However, supporting kids in a campaign to raise awareness of fatty foods and help them on their way to a healthy diet? I'm just not seeing the problem. Slippery slope, its just another area of control, another little liberty nibbled away at, another frog gently simmering away rather than being just dropped in the hot soup. How is it possible to objectively say intrusion x is bad, intrusion y not that bad really, its for your own good? A government should be little more than a scaffold for society, not a reason for the society to exist. When in some major cities the largest employer in town, is the town, it really be asked just whom is working for whom? Edited for formatting

meatcleaver -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/3/2007 3:53:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Also, the government has a responsibility to society to ensure a large minority of society are not a burden on the rest of society through using tax payers money to fund treatment for obesity. It would be interesting to know what the cost of treating obesity is to taxpayers because if it's high (and it's a possibility) then there would be uproar if it was publicised that treatment for obesity is basically pissing tax payers money up against the wall.. The public would want answers and they'd be wanting the government to step in and do something about obesity. There is a whole stink of hypocrisy about governments in these sort of cases. They are concerned about the cost of the unhealthy living on the exchequer but they refuse to hit the companies that pedal shit because they contribute to political parties. Now whatever you say, quality cheese is not an unhealthy food in a balanced diet, it is rather wholesome. So rather than hit quality food they should hit the processed food industry but do they? Hell no, they take their money and let them carry on pedalling shit.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/3/2007 4:03:55 PM)
quote: This is to Merc. You keep saying "submissive" as if this has anything to do with freedom, as if being submissive is a bad thing. I am submissive in my relationships, but not in how I comport myself within the law. I am willing to break laws I feel are immoral, are you? Actually I have broken laws I felt infringed on my right to make decisions also, have you? I would do so again if I saw an immoral law. I am a great believer in civil disobedience. Submitting to an irrational law is out of context to submission as it relates to this website - but you know that. Civil disobedience is your prerogative. Accepting (aka-submitting) to new laws and regulations just to be civilly disobedient just seems silly. It would seem more productive to point out the hypocrisy and the impropriety of the law before it becomes law. quote: the government has a responsibility to society to ensure a large minority of society are not a burden on the rest of society through using tax payers money to fund treatment for obesity. NG - Large minority? What's the critical threshold to qualify 48%? The issue is having the ability to choose and the ability of a country's citizens to affect their own lives. In the context of this situation, TV advertisement, removing access to information contrary to results the government wants appears to me as Fascist . Your position is that the government should control the information available to its citizens. Is that correct? I posted this previously but as an edit and it may have bee missed. Every election period we have conflicting ads from the sides meant to "help" our vote decision. We are allowed to make a decision based upon these conflicting ads. You are saying, unlike our political choices, we can't make a rational decision after viewing conflicting commercials regarding cheese and therefore we shouldn't see them? Okay, forget the 'submissive' reference - do you agree with the government that we/you are that stupid? What has a bigger impact a cheese ad or lying candidate?

HatesParisHilton -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/3/2007 4:06:27 PM)
considering the context and demographic of this site, I'd be more worried that Brit Parl has been looking at making any kink activity that involves physical impact (such as spanking and caning) illegal, even between consenting adults. Which is loonybins since let's face it, Rule Britannia is MONARCH ABOVE ALL for all spanking fetish. So cheese? Hey, fuck cheese, even though I love it. But making SPANKING illegal between people in their 30's/40's/50's? That's a line that's sad to see crossed.

juliaoceania -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/3/2007 4:08:56 PM)
quote: Civil disobedience is your prerogative. Accepting (aka-submitting) to new laws and regulations just to be civilly disobedient just seems silly. It would seem more productive to point out the hypocrisy and the impropriety of the law before it becomes law So the people that refused to exit lunch counters and move to the back of the bus are silly? That is the sort of civil disobedience I have had in mind. I would be willing to be arrested for refusing to move for my peace activism also. I have not been as of yet though.

meatcleaver -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/3/2007 4:17:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HatesParisHilton considering the context and demographic of this site, I'd be more worried that Brit Parl has been looking at making any kink activity that involves physical impact (such as spanking and caning) illegal, even between consenting adults. Which is loonybins since let's face it, Rule Britannia is MONARCH ABOVE ALL for all spanking fetish. This just about sums up Blair's government, though he wouldn't be worried about banning spanking, that's more an activity of the opposition and the judiciary. His party is more into financial scandal than sexual scandal.

cjenny -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/3/2007 4:28:47 PM)
I've stated my views on this once & I'm not brave enough to do it again lol...... BUT IF ANYONE TRIES TO TAKE AWAY CHOCOLATE I AM READY FOR WAR.

Zensee -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/3/2007 4:34:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen You rebels just dont get it, do you? Look, the Lord God in Heaven appointeth the Monarch to rule in His place, with the full authority, majesty and wisdom of the Lord. Due to a misunderstanding of this principle, which ended mainly badly for those who produced the misunderstanding, the people getteth to vote for a Government, which the Monarch using the authority, majesty and wisdom of the Lord, approveth, and unto which the Monarch lendeth the authority, majesty and wisdom of the Lord. Therefore, to question, debate, disobey or rebel against that which the Government ordaineth, is identical in nature and motive, with blasphemy. Thus, all good citizens adhere to any and every piece of nonsense which the Government produceth. Well, not really. E Well said! You'd think the D/s lifestylers around here would just get that without having to have it explained. Z. Wait a bit... What do you mean, "not really"?

caitlyn -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/3/2007 4:39:58 PM)
But lets cut the the chase on this issue Merc ... [;)] Sure, it would be great if we had a world where parents could be counted on to take care of their children, and act in their best interest. A world where everyone is personally accountable, would be a great place. Until you can show us that world, the discussion point is just a dream. We have to stop digging in on each side of this issue. It cripples us into inactivity ... while our cities are full of homeless children - our people don't have proper healthcare - the land of opportunity, only offers opportunity for some. If you are bothered by government control, the answer isn't fighting against that. The government responds to what is seen as a problem. The answer is to work solutions to the problem, so the government need not get involved.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/4/2007 10:33:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn But lets cut the the chase on this issue Merc ... [;)] Sure, it would be great if we had a world where parents could be counted on to take care of their children, and act in their best interest. A world where everyone is personally accountable, would be a great place. Until you can show us that world, the discussion point is just a dream. Surrendering at your age isn't a good habit. [;)] Show you the world? I expect you to create it as opposed to submissively agreeing to carry on the same way as my generation. It begins with you and your ability to be personally accountable and then expecting and requiring the same from those with whom you interact. For example, your generation has, or should have, no expectation of ever seeing a dollar of the money you are paying in today to Social Security. You want to continue to live in a country where that is fact or change it? quote: We have to stop digging in on each side of this issue. It cripples us into inactivity ... while our cities are full of homeless children - our people don't have proper healthcare - the land of opportunity, only offers opportunity for some. At its core the issue is simple. Are you better served and expect government to provide cradle to grave care or want the ability to have self determination? Regardless of any issue or polarizing rhetoric, the answer to that question is what separates us. Opportunity is something you seek not something that comes to you. It's there. The evidence is the long line of immigrants both legal and illegal trying to take advantage of it. Entitlement programs initiated in the 1960's created a generation where seeking opportunity was no longer necessary to survive. BTW - "...cities full of homeless children"? I think the media, in particularly CNN, would be covering this on a daily basis if it was a fact. You need to define "proper health-care". I find it interesting to note that the homeless here in LA aren't complaining about not having health-care, but are complaining that they aren't being dropped off at their former street address. No hospital in the USA is allowed to deny coverage. People with insurance or who pay their bills should be complaining the loudest. Consideration for the non-paying clients is the reason why a hospital issued aspirin costs $8.75 per bill when itemized on a bill. quote: If you are bothered by government control, the answer isn't fighting against that. The government responds to what is seen as a problem. The answer is to work solutions to the problem, so the government need not get involved. In this case the government involvement into areas they should not is the problem. Their attempt to control basic decisions in my life. They aren't solving problems they are creating them. In this case, why did the government need to get involved? What will they determine to get involved in next week? Are you really sure you want to wait and react only when the issue effects you directly?

juliaoceania -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/4/2007 10:42:28 AM)
quote: You need to define "proper health-care". I find it interesting to note that the homeless here in LA aren't complaining about not having health-care, but are complaining that they aren't being dropped off at their former street address. No hospital in the USA is allowed to deny coverage. People with insurance or who pay their bills should be complaining the loudest. Consideration for the non-paying clients is the reason why a hospital issued aspirin costs $8.75 per bill when itemized on a bill. I thought it might be useful to look at the number of children that lack health insurance. Now we can bash their working poor parents, but that does not seem very productive to me quote: *Who are the uninsured?* Approximately 46 million Americans, or 15.7 percent of the population, were without health insurance in 2004 (the latest government data available). The number of uninsured rose 800,000 between 2003 and 2004 and has increased by 6 million since 2000 (1). The increase in the number of uninsured in 2004 was focused among working age adults. The percentage of working adults (18 to 64) who had no health coverage climbed from 18.6 percent in 2003 to 19.0 percent in 2004. An increase of over 750,000 in 2004 (1). Nearly 82 million people - about one-third of the population below the age of 65 spent a portion of either 2002 or 2003 without health coverage (1). The percentage of people with employment-based health insurance has dropped from 70 percent in 1987 to 59.8 percent in 2004. This is the lowest level of employment-based insurance coverage in more than a decade (2, 3). In 2004, 27 million workers were uninsured because not all businesses offer health benefits, not all workers qualify for coverage and many employees cannot afford their share of the health insurance premium even when coverage is at their fingertips(4). The number of uninsured children in 2004 was 8.3 million - or 11.2 percent of all children in the U.S. (1). Young adults (18-to-24 years old) remained the least likely of any age group to have health insurance in 2004 - 31.4 percent of this group did not have health insurance (1). Based on a three year average (2002-2004), people of Hispanic origin were the least likely to have health insurance. An average of 32.7 percent of Hispanics were without health insurance during that period (1) http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml

NorthernGent -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/4/2007 10:49:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: the government has a responsibility to society to ensure a large minority of society are not a burden on the rest of society through using tax payers money to fund treatment for obesity. NG - Large minority? What's the critical threshold to qualify 48%? Merc, I'm not getting your point. If I was to say 10% what would your reaction be? Ditto 20%, ditto 30%. The issue is having the ability to choose and the ability of a country's citizens to affect their own lives. In the context of this situation, TV advertisement, removing access to information contrary to results the government wants appears to me as Fascist . Your position is that the government should control the information available to its citizens. Is that correct? We have a difference of opinion here. In my opinion, the government has a role to play in our lives by intervening for our benefit in areas where society is not resolving its issues. Obesity is an area. If we were resolving our own problems then keep the government out of it - no arguments here. Unfortunately we're not (the we being parents and teachers). Feel free to answer this: we know we have a problem with obesity, we know it is increasing, we know some parents and teachers aren't resolving it - thus, why do you feel the government stepping in and attempting to steer kids towards a healthy diet is an unnecessary intrusion into our lives? This isn't aimed at you in particular Merc but I get the feeling that some people just want to say fuck the government in any situation and with some there's about as much chance of them agreeing with any sort of government intrusion as there is me having a solid gold shit next time I go to the bog. My opinion is they have a role to play providing that role is driven by a need to satisfy us (as opposed to their own self-interest). They're our servants. Feel free to answer this one too, do you feel the government has a role to play in the defence of the US? If not, then I take it you do not agree with any form of military action ever undertaken by the US? If you do agree, then where we really have a difference of opinion is on the practical aspect of where and why do you draw the line rather than the principle of government intervention in our lives. The key point for me is the government are our servants and they work for us. Where they are acting in our interests then I have no problem with it. For my money, attempting to tackle obesity is in our interest.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/4/2007 10:52:18 AM)
quote: I thought it might be useful to look at the number of children that lack health insurance. Now we can bash their working poor parents, but that does not seem very productive to me You can bash them if you find it necessary. Quesiton: What State does not have in some form or fashion a child heath care program? Answer: NONE But you are excluding that fact from consideration because its not "insurance"? Is the objective universal health insurance or universal access to care?

juliaoceania -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/4/2007 10:58:37 AM)
quote: For my money, attempting to tackle obesity is in our interest. Obesity does drive up health costs and premature death, I think you are right, it is money well spent by all of us to combat it. It will save money in the long run. My Daddy gets annoyed when people will save money up front by being cheap, and then they have to spend the money to fix it later that they should have originally spent to make it right in the first place. Take Iraq for instance, they had a CEO plan that war and he planned it on the cheap, and now we have to spend billions more to fix the problem. To me an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We need to target the things that are making us fat. Some of them are due to the fault of the individual, some of them are due to bad advice. You know for decades everyone was eating low fat diets, replacing fats with sugars and flour. This just made us fatter and fatter. People thought they were doing the things that would make them healthy. It is the government's job to spread the word that this was erroneous information. We expect government to protect us from something like the bird flu, why not give us information about obesity? It will save us a bunch of money to pay a little now. Look at cigarettes, people are smoking less than they used to.... public service campaigns helped with that in this country.

NorthernGent -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/4/2007 11:00:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn But lets cut the the chase on this issue Merc ... [;)] Sure, it would be great if we had a world where parents could be counted on to take care of their children, and act in their best interest. A world where everyone is personally accountable, would be a great place. Until you can show us that world, the discussion point is just a dream. Surrendering at your age isn't a good habit. [;)] Show you the world? I expect you to create it as opposed to submissively agreeing to carry on the same way as my generation. It begins with you and your ability to be personally accountable and then expecting and requiring the same from those with whom you interact. Merc, I'm going to but in here in your conversation with caityln because the above has me curious. If surrending is measured by government intrusion in a person's life then I take it you do not agree with any military action ever undertaken by the US government?

NorthernGent -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/4/2007 11:16:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth It begins with you and your ability to be personally accountable and then expecting and requiring the same from those with whom you interact. Merc, this is another comment I'd like to take issue with. I personally am fully accountable for myself. I have never been on welfare and never will be unless I'm unable to work though disability. I'll eat cheese until the stuff comes out of my nose. I have my own mind, I make my decisions. Then again, I do not have a weight problem. The reason I believe the government should intervene in many areas is because it is in our interests as a society. In Britain and the US we have problems with serious crime, obesity, substance abuse, poverty, mental health etc. We are not tackling these issues. If the government step in and resolve these issues then I will see a huge personal benefit. Not because I have a problem with any of the aforementioned issues but because I don't live in a vaccum. It will reduce the taxes I have to pay to fund treatment and welfare and will reduce my chances of being a victim of crime. Now, I think those who can't see this are short-sighted and by labelling those who do as submissive to the government I think they're missing the point. The point being, they government are supposed to be our servants and where they're not acting as our servants then we step in and say it's not on. The government spend our money fighting illegal invasions in Iraq = not good for our society and we should not be putting up with it. The government steering kids towards a healthy diet = where is the problem?

sleazy -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/4/2007 11:21:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HatesParisHilton considering the context and demographic of this site, I'd be more worried that Brit Parl has been looking at making any kink activity that involves physical impact (such as spanking and caning) illegal, even between consenting adults. Which is loonybins since let's face it, Rule Britannia is MONARCH ABOVE ALL for all spanking fetish. So cheese? Hey, fuck cheese, even though I love it. But making SPANKING illegal between people in their 30's/40's/50's? That's a line that's sad to see crossed. I hate to say it, such acts are already illegal, have been ruled so in the past by the courts (google "spanner case"). The new laws that are under discussion are intended to make merely possesing pictures of such acts unlawful. An exception was granted only to married couples, no other form of relationship was granted any excuse.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/4/2007 11:26:08 AM)
NG, Being a semantic detail-ist, most critical and amused at personal (because I'm guilty of the same often) as well as observed conflicting modifiers I just wanted to note that the term "large minority" although perhaps accurate, generated the qualifier question? What is the total sampling? If 100,000 people showed up in NYC for a rally in a city of 7 Million that's a large crowd, but a very small minority. If the same number of people showed up in city with a population of 201,000 that would be a minority but a "large minority". Determination of the size of the minority and its significance requires the reader to ascertain from what larger set the subset was derived. But I digress... quote: Feel free to answer this: we know we have a problem with obesity, we know it is increasing, we know some parents and teachers aren't resolving it - thus, why do you feel the government stepping in and attempting to steer kids towards a healthy diet is an unnecessary intrusion into our lives? NG, I'm in no way against "steering" kids or adults for that matter. As previously documented the food labeling program has my full support and endorsement. I also believe that regular and ongoing ad campaigns are a very good thing. Making advertisement illegal is another issue. The difference in my mind is huge. Government control of the airways is a Fascist concept regardless if the underlying issue is 'conservative' or 'liberal'. quote: Feel free to answer this one too, do you feel the government has a role to play in the defence of the US? If not, then I take it you do not agree with any form of military action ever undertaken by the US? If you do agree, then where we really have a difference of opinion is on the practical aspect of where and why do you draw the line rather than the principle of government intervention in our lives. Don't know if you'll be surprised by this answer or not, but I agree with you. I point to "...provide for the common defense" clause of the Constitution's Preamble. The government role in the defense of the nation should stop at its borders. Broadening the interpretation of "defense" involved us in wars on your continent in the past and was used to rationalize our involvement in Iraq. Preemptive defense has been the position of many US administrations. Philosophically I may or may not have personally agreed with the historic reasoning for doing so. Pragmatically and especially in context of 2007 reality, there is no need to spill any USA blood for any 'Arthurian' type quest to bring "democracy" to to any part of the world. quote: The key point for me is the government are our servants and they work for us. Where they are acting in our interests then I have no problem with it. For my money, attempting to tackle obesity is in our interest. I take this to mean you feel the government has cradle to grave responsibility for everyone of its citizens? The problem then becomes who's "interests" are "our interests". You isolate on obesity to rationalize the need for government intervention in this case. What line will the government need to cross for their intersession to be not in your interest? If there isn't one than I respect you position as not being personally biased. However, the same "acting in our interests" was used by Mr Blair to involve you in Iraq. Putting this back into political context, supposed the Mr. Blair's administration determined that, like pro-cheese advertisement, anti-Iraq information was prohibited from broadcast. Would you support that too? Or again, are cheese ads more subversive than anti-war, or pro-war for that matter, censorship?

NorthernGent -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/4/2007 11:26:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: For my money, attempting to tackle obesity is in our interest. Obesity does drive up health costs and premature death, I think you are right, it is money well spent by all of us to combat it. It will save money in the long run. My Daddy gets annoyed when people will save money up front by being cheap, and then they have to spend the money to fix it later that they should have originally spent to make it right in the first place. Agreed and I mentioned something similar to Merc my above post. Get to the root of the problem and it can be massively reduce and everyone will benefit (including those who believe they live in a vaccum). Otherwise, we'll go on paying the economic and social costs we have done for centuries (relating to all sorts from crime, substance abuse, anti-social behaviour, obesity etc). Unless a person lives in a bunker he/she will benefit from reducing the risk of crime, anti-social behaviour and reducing the economic costs associated with obesity.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/4/2007 11:40:07 AM)
quote: We need to target the things that are making us fat. Some of them are due to the fault of the individual, some of them are due to bad advice. You know for decades everyone was eating low fat diets, replacing fats with sugars and flour. This just made us fatter and fatter. People thought they were doing the things that would make them healthy. It is the government's job to spread the word that this was erroneous information. We expect government to protect us from something like the bird flu, why not give us information about obesity? Ignoring the argument in an answer doesn't make it an answer. There is no reference in any of my posts that the government should stop informing or correcting previously given bad advise. You are supporting the restriction of contrary positions. I know you may want that to occur, but someday on some issue you many not. If personal obesity is the governments problem to correct in all to facilitate cheaper health care where in your mind should government intervention end? Why wouldn't you support government mandated 'fat camps'? There is a "large minority" of people who would refuse to take a government mandated 'bird-flu' vaccine. By the same logic would you hold them down and give it to them anyway? There are plenty of adults and children now walking among us who, for many personal reasons, refuse to be vaccinated for measles, polio, and mumps. I don't believe you would be in favor of a mass government round up and vaccination program even though the reasoning for doing so would be the same as yours on the issue of obesity.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625