« Separated at Birth? | Main | Is Holder's Justice Dept. Doing Something... *ssshhhh* Illegal? »

Yea candy andy makes me violent.

What? OHHHHHH.......candy! I thought you were talking about that socialist prick candy andy.

My bad.

Is that Al Franken in the picture?

Is that Al Franken in the picture?

D#mmit!!! I'm seein' DOUBLE!!!

Posted by: TonyD95B at October 8, 2009 5:30 PM

LOL!

From what I understand DiHydrogen Monoxide is in cancer, vomit, industrial waste and even in the sewers. If moonbats where really smart they'd want to ban it since it's in so many bad things and far thinking moonbats would definitely be helping us mere mortals out a lot if they banned dihydrogen monoxide from use and manufacture.

What's with these dopes and the studies? Can't they come up with something interesting for all the government grant money they get.
I bet violent criminals all crapped their pants until they were two. Go study it.

Moonbattery:

Candy Eaters = Violent criminals in the making who must be strictly controlled by government.

Crackheads = Disenfranchised individuals in need of social services, disability payments, health care, and nine voter registrations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzLs60ZaNW4

Trend following hippie morons sign up to ban water.

Love the ban water petition. Try doing the same thing with a guy, instead of a cute blond, doing the signature gathering. Funny all the same.

RE: Posted by: Lao at October 8, 2009 5:58 PM

It's been done, with the same results.

How many of those 69% were force-fed Ritalin when they were tykes?

About 69 percent of those who reported having committed violent acts also reported eating candy daily at age 10, compared to 42 percent of those who did not have a violent criminal past, the study authors noted.

The study is flawed since they have a sampling of 111% of 17,415 people or 19,331. Must be a Government study.

Tom, it goes without saying the study was government funded. What business would waste their resources on such dipsh*t study? Businesses hope to stay in business, and won't doing dopey things like this.

The puppet taking candy from the baby looks familiar. Is it Robot Chicken's version of Al Franken?

Also, they have a problem with proving causality. Does eating candy prevent children from learning to delay gratification, or does the inability to delay gratification increase the likelihood you will eat a lot of candy? I tend to think the latter is more likely.

what do you expect from the lollipop guild?

They're just proving the Twinkie Defense 30 years after the fact.

Don't forget that this study comes from the same class of bureaucrats that brought us the failed "gateway drug" theory which has done little but misallocate police resources away from serious crime, to focus on more petty crime in a way that supports expanding the rolls of government workers, while simultaneously delivering less benefit to society.

These are the bureaucrats who told us it makes sense to prioritize busting kids for dimebags of grass, when entire communities are under siege by crackheads raping and robbing at will; the theory being that arresting the lazy pothead prevents the creation of a violent crackhead (as if there were no crackheads to focus on).

So, instead of allocating law enforcement resources to combat kids joining gangs, we will be left with sugar police.

Nice work, moonbats.

Just wait for the CSPI,PCRM to get this these wackos will want candy control laws they,ll demand a 15 day waiting period to buy a HERSHEY BAR or bag of M & Ms and with HALLOWEEN comming up just wait for MICHEAL JACOBSEN,NEAL BERNARD,MARION NESTLY,MORGAN SPURLOCK to start writting dumb diet guidlines and declare WILLY WONKA a dangerous man

Does anyone think it's just a little strange that this "study" came out right BEFORE Halloween?

I guess it's Odumbo and his communist friends way of ruining another holiday and trying to negatively impact candy sales to hurt more buisnesses.

Communist idiocy really does know no bounds....

So this means, in the future, we'll have to give all Trick-or-Treaters tofu jerky sticks, dried sulfated fruit, or bags of sunflower seed...but NO MORE CANDY!

Oh this USA is going to be so fun.

P.S.

Why, pray tell, would the Gubmint want to send candy company sales into the crapper and then take THEM over too? I guess to add Ritalin® to candy bars and have a whole Nation of zombie children.

All together now class: "Barack Hussein Obama, mmmm, mmmm, mmmm"

SPURWING PLOVER at October 8, 2009 9:11 PM

Ooooo... Myself - I always thought Willy WAS kinda dangerous. I mean, the look in his eye; and all the stuff he did to the grumps and jerks when they visited his factory.

Not pretty, my feathered friend... not pretty.

Now... I have to go. I ate a Snickers bar about a half an hour ago - now I feel the urge to walk down to the beach and kick a tourist's ass.

*snicker*

There's something to this. I've worked out sugar reduction plans with groups of kids, and I've only seen good effects from cutting out the candy.

Of course, linking this to adult behaviour is tenuous at best.

So none of these scientists even thought that maybe parents who gave their children handfuls of sweets every day may not be the greatest parents? My science professor used to say that when your theory is overly complex, you're probably wrong!

I agree with Judith M. This is another one of those silly studies that confuses correlation with causation.

Agreed- there is no problem with getting kids to consume less sugar (adults as well). As a matter of fact it should be encouraged. But I do have a hard time believing that a sugary diet somehow transforms children into violent criminal sociopaths.

Exactly, Murff. Sugar causes all sorts of health problems, but then again, so does promiscuity, and you don't see liberals wanting to investigate that, do you?

That's an excellent point, Judith.

Where does Great Britain come up with the money for all these goofball studies? Haven't they already taxed everybody and his business to death, to pay for their own death panels?

Oh and BTW, if Moonbattery is collecting a separated at birth compilation (a great end-of-year idea), this would be GREAT up against Al Franken. They have the same lips, eyes, hair, glasses, everything!

I haven't reviewed the study and its methods yet. But my first reaction is: did they account for level of parental involvement in a child's life? Think about it, if a parent is not fully available to a child and taking the time to feed and appropriately discipline a child, what will the child do? As a kid, they'd eat all the candy they wanted. As an undisciplined adult, they'd be more likely to be a criminal.



What they may have found was a range of behaviors that stem from poor parenting. Correlation does not mean causality.



An example: in the United States, it is found that as the consumption of ice cream increases, so do violent crimes such as rape. So, does eating ice cream *cause* the rapes? No. It just so happens that both increase with the temperature outside. Correlation does not mean causality.

Let's replace milk with candy in that study. Or, how about water dihydrogen monoxide?

I'm betting the results are the same.

obama AND HIS IDIOTS ARE THE MOST IDIOTIC MORONS ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH--MY GOD WHERE DO THESE JACKASSES COME FROM -- AND CAN WE SEND THEM BACK. WAKE UP ALL OF YOU WHO SUPPORT THIS JACKASS OR ONE DAY YOU WILL AWAKEN IN RUSSIA. ALTHOUGH A LOT OF YOU LIBS WOULD PROABLEY BE MORE HAPPY IN A STATE SUCH AS THAT--THAT IS IF YOU COULD STAY ALIVE--WHAT YOU LEFTEST DON'T CONSIDER IS THAT PEOPLE SUCH AS THE COMMIES/MUSLIMS/ AND OTHER WHACK JOBS --LOOK AT YOU AS WEAK--AND THEY ARE CORRECT--YOU LIBS ARE WEAK --YOU ARE COWORADS--AND YOU CAN GO STRAIGHT TO HELL--teddy is lonely. SINCERELY, T.A. TATE