Page 11 of 19 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 188

Thread: FDA Proposes Trans Fat Ban.....

  1. #101
    Guru
    soot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    04-25-17 @ 03:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,308

    Re: FDA Proposes Trans Fat Ban.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Perhaps you can clarify for me. To which post are you refering to?
    #62

    I initially mentioned general welfare in post #12, last night at 5:12 pm just as I was turning off my computer and heading home for the night. It was almost a "drive by" comment.

    As I've been pressed on that comment this morning, primarily by you, I've expanded on what I meant.

    I would actually suggest that you go back to post #12 and reread everything that you and I have said to each other so that we're on the same page here.
    “Now it is not good for the Christian’s health to hustle the Aryan brown,
    For the Christian riles, and the Aryan smiles and he weareth the Christian down;
    And the end of the fight is a tombstone white with the name of the late deceased,
    And the epitaph drear: “A Fool lies here who tried to hustle the East.”

  2. #102
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,857
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: FDA Proposes Trans Fat Ban.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Mach View Post
    Fats, sodium, cholesterol, from what I understand, are essential to human health. In a healthy diet, they are all present in discernible quantities.
    Human engineered trans fat, aside from trace amounts that occur naturally, are not. And they have a well documented negative heath impact.

    Do you really want to use the "everything is a poison" argument? It results in the inability of you (using that reasoning), to differentiate between ingesting mercury frosting from smart balance frosting.
    Several years ago those "experts" agreed that whole milk was bad for you. A few years after they said that they turned around and said whole milk was essential to a healthy diet. At another point in time they said that eggs were also bad for you. Awhile after they they started saying that it was good for you due to the high protein in it. (which ironically iirc correctly it having "too much" protein was why they first said it was bad for you). And all of it with "documented proof".

    All this reminds me of that commercial where it talks about "High fructose corn syrup" and how people thought it was bad for you...and then the commercial saying that it actually wasn't. Ironically experts had at one time said that it was bad for you also. And now.... They can't make up their minds worth crap.

    In reality though, EVERYTHING is bad for you if you have it in excess. Its all about having things in moderation.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  3. #103
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    9,920

    Re: FDA Proposes Trans Fat Ban.....

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    For instance, the 2nd amendment is a great place to look:
    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
    Some interpret this as all citizens may bear arms as long as they are a member of a "militia" ie National Guard.
    Some interpret this as all citizens may bear arms.
    Some interpret this as all citizens may bear arms in the event of national defense.

    If I asked 100 members of DP which interpretation they agreed with, it would probably break down to 30/30/30 with another 10 voting "other". That doesn't seem to be a rule book to me. In addition, it depends on which Supreme Court you have as to which way they interpret it. I believe the Founders intended for us to be able to interpret the Constitution to a point. However, there is a limit and I don't believe they anticipated our gov't becoming as large and out of control as it is. Back then, the will of the people outweighed the will of the gov't. That's not the case anymore. If the Federal gov't wants to do something, most of the lemmings in this country bend over and take it. At least some of us still fight it.
    The second amendment isn't for us its for the government as is the rest of the constitution, the second amendment is quite clear, the government may not infringe on the right of people to bear or keep arms. The limit isn't on the people, its on the government as it has always has been. It forbids government from taking action which infringes upon the right to keep and bear arms. As I said before I believe it is quite specific it what the government may do and even more so what it may not. The Constitution only applies to people in ancillary way.
    Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.
    I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.
    Stolen fair and square from the Capt. Courtesey himself.

  4. #104
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: FDA Proposes Trans Fat Ban.....

    Quote Originally Posted by soot View Post
    Actually, you've responded already to the post in which I mentioned two clauses so it's clear that you read what I wrote.

    You go ahead and try again.
    Was it the necessary and proper clause?

  5. #105
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: FDA Proposes Trans Fat Ban.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Are you seriously comparing Arsenic to transfats?

    That's like saying someone convincing you to stay in and play video games instead of going outside to exercise is equivilent to shooting someone in the face, because both have the POTENTIAL to contribute to their death.

    Just utterly and completely retarded. how can anyone actually hope to debate with you when it's obvious that you're being ridiculous and hyperbolic to a ridiculous and idiotic extreme with your arguments?
    Yes, there is a bit of hyperbole there, but the fact remains that regular consumption of non-massive amounts of trans fats will affect your health and greatly increase your odds of dying from heart disease.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  6. #106
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: FDA Proposes Trans Fat Ban.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    It's no more of a "poison" than any other form of fat, sodium, all forms of sugar, cholesterol, etc.

    Let me use the brilliant debate tactics that you've employed all thread...

    The Government can't keep someone from lacing your food with Arsenic, so it's perfectly acceptable for government to ban any foods containing cholesterol, fat, sugar, or sodium because those things have the POTENTIAL to kill you just like arsenic, just that they're "slower acting".

    Nonsense. The things you mention all provide nutrition for the body while trans fats (at least the type that are added to food products) do not. Instead, they harm people and can lead to death
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  7. #107
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: FDA Proposes Trans Fat Ban.....

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Yes, there is a bit of hyperbole there, but the fact remains that regular consumption of non-massive amounts of trans fats will affect your health and greatly increase your odds of dying from heart disease.
    Your hyperbole example is all over the Internet at the moment. Where did you get it from?

  8. #108
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: FDA Proposes Trans Fat Ban.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Arsenic is not a naturally occuring substance within food.
    Actually, it sometimes such as when an animal eats something that has been contaminated with arsenic. It happens in nature

    Trans fat is. Yes, much of the transfat in various food is artificially created...but it's artificial creation of a naturally occuring nutrional substance of food.
    The trans fats added to food are qualitatively different than the ones found in nature. They are harmful to humans, unlike the natural forms of trans fats.

    Fat is a necessary portion of a nutrional diet, Arsenic is not. Comparing a fat to arsenic is non-sensical and is a poor and pathetic debate technique attempting to take an argument to an extreme and starwmanning peoples points to suggest that they MUST agree with the extreme end.
    The man-made trans fats are not a necessary portion of a nutritional diet. Quite the opposite

    Trans Fat is more comparable to any other form of fat, to sodium, to various sugars, to cholesterol....than it is to arsenic.
    Nope. Without sodium, carbs or cholesterol, you die
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  9. #109
    Guru
    soot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    04-25-17 @ 03:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,308

    Re: FDA Proposes Trans Fat Ban.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Was it the necessary and proper clause?
    Read the Constitution.

    When you get to the words, "necessary and proper", you'll know you've found it!!!
    “Now it is not good for the Christian’s health to hustle the Aryan brown,
    For the Christian riles, and the Aryan smiles and he weareth the Christian down;
    And the end of the fight is a tombstone white with the name of the late deceased,
    And the epitaph drear: “A Fool lies here who tried to hustle the East.”

  10. #110
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: FDA Proposes Trans Fat Ban.....

    Quote Originally Posted by soot View Post
    Read the Constitution.

    When you get to the words, "necessary and proper", you'll know you've found it!!!
    So you think the necessary and proper clause is a catch all clause?

Page 11 of 19 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •