LeviF Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 (serving size: 2 cookies. Right. ) I think this is a more pressing issue in today's world. Who the !@#$ can eat only two oreos? I'll crack open a package and next thing I know I'm through an entire row of cookies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 Telling the same bad joke over and over doesn't keep it from being a bad joke. Consider the dead horse beaten already. No. Sure it is bad joke... But it is one bad joke that keeps on giving. I am sure weeping for your plight being one of the downtrodden LA... This year dinner will be on me! How do you feel about us thin conservatives yabbering on about personal accountability? Everybody knows that hardcore lushes ALWAYS tend to be skinny. Give up the booze and bloat like whale. Booze alone is a pretty good diet pill. It is is the cheeseburger along with that occasional beer that does people in... Not the beer. I think this is a more pressing issue in today's world. Who the !@#$ can eat only two oreos? I'll crack open a package and next thing I know I'm through an entire row of cookies. Not if you are hammered. Less room for the booze. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 Everybody knows that hardcore lushes ALWAYS tend to be skinny. Give up the booze and bloat like whale. Booze alone is a pretty good diet pill. It is is the cheeseburger along with that occasional beer that does people in... Not the beer. And what does this have to do with me? And what harms people are their personal choices, that's the point we're making. If I made a choice to eat too much and get fat that was my choice. And just as I made that choice to eat the wrong things and too much of them I was also the one that make the choice to change my habits and tha't the reason I'm thin now. Trying to legislate that only pisses people off, harms certain industries and mainly the food industry that hires the lower class that you "progressives" are always trying to help. Perfect example is the progressive capital of the country San Francisco trying to ban prizes in happy meals because it promotes unhealthy eating to children. What about mom and dad saying no to their kids? Oh that's right it's that personal responsibility that you liberals seem to have a problem with. You can't legislate good behavior. People are idiots regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted December 15, 2010 Author Share Posted December 15, 2010 And what does this have to do with me? And what harms people are their personal choices, that's the point we're making. If I made a choice to eat too much and get fat that was my choice. And just as I made that choice to eat the wrong things and too much of them I was also the one that make the choice to change my habits and tha't the reason I'm thin now. Trying to legislate that only pisses people off, harms certain industries and mainly the food industry that hires the lower class that you "progressives" are always trying to help. Perfect example is the progressive capital of the country San Francisco trying to ban prizes in happy meals because it promotes unhealthy eating to children. What about mom and dad saying no to their kids? Oh that's right it's that personal responsibility that you liberals seem to have a problem with. You can't legislate good behavior. People are idiots regardless. It's funny how they selectively pick and choose token items and issues to fill the "DO SOMETHING" void and pretend they're accomplishing something. Does anyone for half a second believe that banning happy meal toys is going to do dick **** to stop childhood obesity? Really? It seems the only way they can justify their right to intrude is on the basis of indirect expense to them (which by that logic can justify intrusion into absolutely everything)by way of health care costs. Seems to me, an active person who has an otherwise balanced diet with fast food thrown in a few times a week is in a lot better shape than the sedentary fatass sitting around eating Chef Boy R Dee, taking bong hits, and playing Halo. I wonder how they'll tax those guys. I wouldn't be surprised if in 20 years we have politicians suggesting mandatory gym memberships and documented participation. It'll start as a tax credit which is a defacto tax on those who don't get with the program. It sounds ridiculous now, but 20 years ago it sounded ridiculous to ban a happy meal toy, or add health taxes on fast food. As someone once said, You can't use reductio ad absurdum on libs because whatever you reduce to, one of them just proposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 It's funny how they selectively pick and choose token items and issues to fill the "DO SOMETHING" void and pretend they're accomplishing something. Does anyone for half a second believe that banning happy meal toys is going to do dick **** to stop childhood obesity? Really? It seems the only way they can justify their right to intrude is on the basis of indirect expense to them (which by that logic can justify intrusion into absolutely everything)by way of health care costs. Seems to me, an active person who has an otherwise balanced diet with fast food thrown in a few times a week is in a lot better shape than the sedentary fatass sitting around eating Chef Boy R Dee, taking bong hits, and playing Halo. I wonder how they'll tax those guys. I wouldn't be surprised if in 20 years we have politicians suggesting mandatory gym memberships and documented participation. It'll start as a tax credit which is a defacto tax on those who don't get with the program. It sounds ridiculous now, but 20 years ago it sounded ridiculous to ban a happy meal toy, or add health taxes on fast food. As someone once said, You can't use reductio ad absurdum on libs because whatever you reduce to, one of them just proposed. The scary thing up here is that the Happy Meal toy ban was vetoed by our outgoing Mayor Gavin Newsome who was elected CA Lt. Gov. It's scary because this uber-progressive was sometimes the voice of reason in this city. His replacement will not be as reasonable. I'll keep you all posted on what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 How do you feel about us thin conservatives yabbering on about personal accountability? I'll just say that rich, thin conservatives are less hypocritical than fat, poor ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 The scary thing up here is that the Happy Meal toy ban was vetoed by our outgoing Mayor Gavin Newsome who was elected CA Lt. Gov. It's scary because this uber-progressive was sometimes the voice of reason in this city. His replacement will not be as reasonable. I'll keep you all posted on what happens. Gavin !@#$ing Newsome vetoed that law. GAVIN !@#$ING NEWSOME!!!! Thats like Hitler vetoing bad moustaches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46303.html#ixzz186lgDPI4 I know first ladies are largely insignificant figures who tend to latch on to a token cause for PR concers, but for Christ sake, can we all simmer down on the hyperbole please? Is everything a !@#$ing crisis? Maybe we need to declare war on obesity. Next comes the fast food tax to suck revenue out of poor people, but you can bet your ass the equally fattening gourmet food at the types of resstaurants where Michelle sits her fat pusssy down to stuff her pig face won't be effected. Is this really necessary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted December 15, 2010 Author Share Posted December 15, 2010 Is this really necessary? Necessary? probably not. Funny? :shrug: Did I go too far? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 (edited) And what does this have to do with me? And what harms people are their personal choices, that's the point we're making. If I made a choice to eat too much and get fat that was my choice. And just as I made that choice to eat the wrong things and too much of them I was also the one that make the choice to change my habits and tha't the reason I'm thin now. Trying to legislate that only pisses people off, harms certain industries and mainly the food industry that hires the lower class that you "progressives" are always trying to help. Perfect example is the progressive capital of the country San Francisco trying to ban prizes in happy meals because it promotes unhealthy eating to children. What about mom and dad saying no to their kids? Oh that's right it's that personal responsibility that you liberals seem to have a problem with. You can't legislate good behavior. People are idiots regardless. I am fine with that... But let's make it fair accross the board and bring back stuff like cig ads on TV. Edited December 15, 2010 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 Necessary? probably not. Funny? :shrug: Did I go too far? I have a pretty high tolerance and find a lot of toilet humor pretty funny. That? No so much on either count. There's more than a little hypocrisy in Mrs. Obama taking on this particular subject given the size of her posterior but I'm not a fan of the way you handled it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 I'll just say that rich, thin conservatives are less hypocritical than fat, poor ones. Thank you. However just because a conservative is fat and poor doesn't mean they don't believe in personal responsibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsidethebox Posted December 16, 2010 Share Posted December 16, 2010 I have a pretty high tolerance and find a lot of toilet humor pretty funny. That? No so much on either count. There's more than a little hypocrisy in Mrs. Obama taking on this particular subject given the size of her posterior but I'm not a fan of the way you handled it. HaHA! This is the funniest thing I read all day! You chastising someone for being insulting! pot meet kettle! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted December 16, 2010 Share Posted December 16, 2010 Thank you. However just because a conservative is fat and poor doesn't mean they don't believe in personal responsibility. It also means that they tend to vote against their own direct economic interests. It's a good thing for rich conservatives that they have adapted to lean on religion and fear of government or they might never win another election, considering the relatively small number of rich voters in this country. Republicans never want anyone telling them what to do until it comes to abortion, stem cells and general "morality". I have little problem with rich Republicans because at least they're not being used like pawns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 16, 2010 Share Posted December 16, 2010 It also means that they tend to vote against their own direct economic interests. It's a good thing for rich conservatives that they have adapted to lean on religion and fear of government or they might never win another election, considering the relatively small number of rich voters in this country. Republicans never want anyone telling them what to do until it comes to abortion, stem cells and general "morality". I have little problem with rich Republicans because at least they're not being used like pawns. You forgot patriotism/nationalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted December 16, 2010 Share Posted December 16, 2010 It also means that they tend to vote against their own direct economic interests. It's a good thing for rich conservatives that they have adapted to lean on religion and fear of government or they might never win another election, considering the relatively small number of rich voters in this country. Republicans never want anyone telling them what to do until it comes to abortion, stem cells and general "morality". I have little problem with rich Republicans because at least they're not being used like pawns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 16, 2010 Share Posted December 16, 2010 HaHA! This is the funniest thing I read all day! You chastising someone for being insulting! pot meet kettle! First, I'm not chastising anyone. Look up the definition of the word, drama queen. Second, I'm not surprised you can't see the not so subtle difference between calling someone an idiot (which most of the time is done directly to the person, though politicians, celebrities and news makers get it when they deserve it), and saying the first lady has a fat pusssy and a pig face (which I somehow doubt he'd have the stones to do in her company). This is why you're an idiot. It's a good thing for liberals that they have adapted to lean on handouts and fear of big business or they might never win another election, considering the relatively small number of smart voters in this country. Democrats never want anyone telling them what to do unless it comes from unions, the welfare tricks that are passed on from generation to generation, and general "election fixing". I have little problem with low income liberals because they're not smart enough to know they're being used like pawns. Fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted December 16, 2010 Author Share Posted December 16, 2010 (edited) First, I'm not chastising anyone. Look up the definition of the word, drama queen. Second, I'm not surprised you can't see the not so subtle difference between calling someone an idiot (which most of the time is done directly to the person, though politicians, celebrities and news makers get it when they deserve it), and saying the first lady has a fat pusssy and a pig face (which I somehow doubt he'd have the stones to do in her company). I get why the fat kitty line would be offensive. As far as the Pig face B word part I'm at a loss. Michelle actually does have a piggish grill, and I'm not sure if you got wind of her early in the primary before her handlers made her over, but she really is an angry pissed off B word, so I'm not sure why that's out of bounds. Perhaps you could shed some light on this. As to your "stones" comment, I can only assume you're projecting. Edited December 16, 2010 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted December 16, 2010 Share Posted December 16, 2010 (edited) Fixed. I'm sure you can do better than that...you've failed to hit all the usual talking points or even make much sense. You forgot patriotism/nationalism. You're right, that's a big one too. It's basically the same line of thinking as religion. Edited December 16, 2010 by Gene Frenkle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted December 16, 2010 Share Posted December 16, 2010 I'm sure you can do better than that...you've failed to hit all the usual talking points or even make much sense. Actually I believe he pretty much nailed it, with the same sweeping stereotypical generalizations that you had done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts