« Massive Turnout for Tea Party in Houston | Main | Oh, The Ironing! »

Everybody always asked me why, as a non-smoker, I was opposed to using cigarette taxes as a means of social engineering. I explained the slippery slope, and they laughed.

Now that these policies have friends in high places, and soda and beef are next on the list, I get to laugh.

Well, not really, because I happen to enjoy soda or beef occasionally, and I refuse to voluntarily subject myself to any social engineering sin tax.

If we werent supposed to eat animals they wouldnt be made out of tasty meat.

They can have my cheeseburger when they pry it from my cold dead (grease covered) hands.
When a good set of ribs are outlawed only outlaws will have ribs (with KC BBQ sauce).
I know what is in a hot dog, and I still find them delicious.

I made myself hungry, think I will go get a bacon wrapped taco burger with chili fries.

We are all witness to the second American Revolution that is occurring at this very moment! These radical leftist idiots are ensuring, with insane ideology, such as this, that their insane values will be rejected, and in their place will be a return to the great American tenets that have made this country the amazing place that we all know it is. The question then is: when we call them on their bullshit (i.e. voting them out of office) and they have an "epiphany", will we accept them as being sincere? Personally, I believe that once a person has shown their true colors that they should be treated, indefinitely, as the pieces of crap that they are. I will forgive them, but that does not mean that I will accept them.

Well hells bells. If we can't eat "meat", we'll have to eat leftists instead.

Well, its a New York Strip for dinner tonight.

Well, meat is bad for you except in relatively small amounts. It's like fat; our desire for it is out of synch with our actual need. Also, the fertilizers is often less of a concern then the amount of feces produced by high-density pen farms.

I agree with education efforts here; cutting out a large amount (but not all) meat and replacing it with lentils and such would help people be healthier and live longer. I guess I'm liberal enough to also include a "stop killing yourself with heart disease you idiots" tax to help things along.

Healthy this, unhealthy that. Good grief, get a grip, get off your ass, jog a few miles a week, lift some weights even if it's your fat ass girlfriend / boyfriend / whatever and you can eat anything in moderation you want. And that includes smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol as well. None the less, anybody that won't eat meat has OBVIOUSLY never had a good meaty rack of pork ribs cooked on a spit with cherry barbeque sauce slathered and caramelized on them washed down with a nice ice cold Sam Adams cherry wheat beer or 4.....YUM YUM!! Now it's time for that after meal smoke....

To.....hey you guys .......Fine, live your own life and leave the rest of us alone. That's the whole concept behind liberty. I have right to not have to listen to your opinion about what I eat or don't. Piss off!

Furthermore, meat is essential especially in survival situations. Ask a marine.Maybe certain people don't want us to have a well rounded diet?

No wonder people are out of shape, weak, fat, and have medical problems.

OAN I wonder if Bawney Fwank would have to pay extra for his meat?

Almost every adult knows that red meat in excess is not healthy. People choose to eat it in excess anyway.

No additional education is necessary. Every standard public school health course teaches this. The news media repeats it over and over. Social communication reinforces the message.

By education, you must mean either:

1. Ineffective ad campaigns that are nothing more than pork projects for the benefit of ad agencies. This country has spent tens of billions on anti-drug TV ads, and scientific analysis has yet to prove these ads reduce drug use. Some studies even suggest that these ads increase drug use, by linking drug use to rebellion against authority, and reinforcing the notion that others are doing it.
2. Thinly-veiled vegan moonbat propaganda distributed to young and impressionable minds.

If someone wants to gorge on red meat, preferring a life of culinary freedom to a life of beans and cabbage, then who are you to try and socially engineer them into adopting your diet?

Before you bring up the weak "it costs the public money" argument, I will mention that this problem exists with all Big Government social programs that allow poor personal decisions to become a drain on working taxpayers. The solution is to eliminate programs that allow poor decision makers to burden others with the cost of their irresponsibility, not implement more sin taxes and social engineering to try and eliminate the drain on the treasury.

As much as I'd like to see patchouli oil and Phish CDs hit with crippling taxes, it is not my place to engineer public attitudes with punitive taxation.

I believe Peter Singer is the same one who wanted to go around pulling the plug on old people because they were a drain on society or something. Naturally, he didn't want to apply the same logic to his own mother.

I would would take this fellow with a grain of salt. He does not have a lot of respect for human life to start with.

For lunch, I'm going to go to Popeyes to see if that new crawfish meal they've been advertising is any good.
For dinner, probably some leftover Cincinnati chili.

This is part of Communism known as "DEMAND DESTRUCTION"

Soon our choices will dry up and we will be forced to fight or accept our new lives as slaves. Communism is not a "governmental system" but actually a "population control system" that still needs an operational government. That system is an oligarchy.

In my mind’s eye, this has moved so far along that bloodshed is unavoidable.

Lets prepose a tax on all these idiots who push stupid taxes on us all like a HOT AIR TAX to be payed by AL GORE,GREENPEACE,PETA, and all the producers of HOT AIR

Someone should shove a bowlingball in that PETER SINGER jerks big fat piehole so we dont have to listen to his stupid ideas SQUAWK SQUAWK SQUAWK HYUK,HYUK,HYUK

HEY-----hey you guys

Take your lentils and stick the up your ass.

I do not need the government telling me what isn't good for me. My wife is quite capable, yet not very effective.

I will owe a lot of money if they tax my meat.. if you know what I mean....

Posted by: Anonymous Countermoonbat at November 4, 2009 12:36 PM

Yep, you've pinned what I mean. I support existing efforts to provide accurate information. I love how your absolutist thinking immediately jumps to "he doesn't agree with me, so he must mean CRAZY EXTREME THINGS", despite our rather reasonable disagreements thus far. I don't care about public money; I guess as an educator it's impossible for me to simply shrug it off when I see people doing idiotic, self-destructive things to themselves. I wouldn't be liberal-leaning if I didn't think that government could help people do things they are too stupid to do on their own.

I'll also note that many programs, especially ads, fail in part because they are rife with inaccuracies. The whole "Food Pyramid" of the 90s was an idiotic embarrassment.

Posted by: Had it up to here :/

I agree on everything but the tobacco.

Yes Singer is the guy who wants all defective babies aborted, or killed if they are born, Yes, he would want Sarah Palin's son to be killed so someone else can be "happier" - google him and you will easily find his thoughts on infantcide. He's an ethicist.

Then again, maybe a far simpler solution is possible.

Quit with the talk of taxing unhealthy food, and simply stop with public funding of healthcare needs that results from said food.

Let people live their lives and make their choices, but don't force others to pay for it. That's what I mean to say.

I'm liberal-leaning not because I think the government can help people, but rather because I'm on-board with its agenda of grabbing more power and money away from ordinary citizens.

hey you guys (henceforth known as "he's so high")-
"grabbing more power and money away from ordinary citizens"
We've all seen what happens when we go down that road. When people work to earn their money, they should be allowed to spend it. And power? We are a nation based on liberty. If anything, the common man needs more power.

Anon Countermoonbat said "Almost every adult knows that red meat in excess is not healthy. People choose to eat it in excess anyway."

Bull puckey. Repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it. That doesn't make it true. There is a growing movement now and plenty of research that refutes this lie with good science and a revisiting of nutritional anthropology. Neither animal fat or meat is bad for us in any amount except the excess that applies to ALL foods.

Sin taxes are about control and oppression and well...an excuse to collect more taxes and get people fighting each other. Dive and conquer. It works. It has nothing to do with human health or the environment. Every sensible adult *should* know that. It really is quite obvious.

Did ya'll know that dietary cholesterol and animal fats are vital for human brain function. OH yes. This is directly connected to the ability to use critical thinking skills. Explain a lot doesn't it! Hmm. Maybe that is the real reason the authorities do not want us to eat meat and fat. (Fat doesn't make us fat btw but that is obvious from the fact that the more (we) as a culture turn from meat and animal fats to starches and vegetable oils, the fatter and sicker we become. Everyone here who is over 40, do you remember there being so many fat sick people around back in the day. No.

Posted by: Some Guy at November 4, 2009 2:59 PM

Once again proving there's no sarcasm so obvious that some idiot won't fall for it. The guy you responded to was some guy trolling me.

Posted by: Auntie Sam at November 4, 2009 3:07 PM

Oh, you wacky conspiracy theorist, you.

My counter: Crete. Before red meat became widely available, Crete had one of the lowest instances of heart disease on record. Once a beef-heavy Western diet became more common, heart disease shot up considerably. Even if you control for activity level.

Bull puckey. Repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it. That doesn't make it true. There is a growing movement now and plenty of research that refutes this lie with good science and a revisiting of nutritional anthropology. Neither animal fat or meat is bad for us in any amount except the excess that applies to ALL foods.

Didn't I just say that it is bad in excess. Excess means "too much" and too much implies bad, by definition.

Not one study has shown that meat, in all amounts, is necessarily bad. Like many things that are bad for you, there is a large range of exposure levels at which no increased morbidity or mortality is observed. This is one reason not to tax these products in the name of offsetting government "costs", since the tax ends up extracting money from those who: a) do not consume said product in enough of a quantity to drain the public treasury, or b) do not need handouts, regardless of health.

If the liberals want to discourage consumption of meat, there is one policy they can adopt on which they and conservatives will agree: end the hundreds of billions of dollars in yearly farm subsidies that keep meat cheap by keeping the market flooded with grain priced far below the cost of production.

I think that most of us would agree that people who choose to eat meat should pay the real cost of producing that meat, without getting a "free lunch" on the taxpayers' dime.

Allowing meat to reach a market price makes sense for fiscal policy and health policy. Why on Earth would the government impose a tax on a product that is subsidized? Welcome to bureaucracy - government funds the production of meat, and under Singer's plan, would then skew the market again with a tax on top of the skew already produced by the subsidy.

That makes about as much sense as subsidizing tobacco and funding anti-smoking programs at the same time.

The Jews did 9/11 along with the Bush Administration.

Maybe it is a 'conspiracy theory' but at least there is more proof for this than Auntie Sam's nonsense.

You guys need to get on board with this movement or be branded traitors and ignoramuses when the truth finally comes out.

Posted by: hey you guys at November 4, 2009 3:43 PM

Drink some more of that kool ade there skippy.

he's so high-
Doubt it. I have no trouble at all believing you actually said that. But really, use those tips for your own sake. Anyway, Auntie Sam's on to something. Too much of anything can kill you. Why should red meat, an excellent source of protein, iron, omega 3s, etc., be a scapegoat? If anything that hash you're obviously smoking right now is bad for you.

Posted by: Anonymous Countermoonbat at November 4, 2009 3:36 PM

Well, obviously, any meat-based tax would need to be a consumption tax directly tacked on to the product.

Well, yes, I would love to see farm subsidies eliminated. The problem is, whenever somebody tries that, conservatives gnash their teeth about the traditional American small farmer getting shafted by China or some such. Never mind that most farm subsidies end up going to corporations. (I don't mind corporate farms, just corporations depending on redirected welfare for their profits.)

Posted by: Dave at November 4, 2009 4:02 PM

And we have another person outing themselves as an idiot who will fall for anything! Who else wants to play?

he's so high-
Nobody else wants to play. You already won.

First clear sign of a weak argument, call someone a wacky conspiracy theorist. Actually guys, my so called non-sense is just good old fashioned common sense. That's reversals for ya. ;)

And another moonbat troll falls. Score one for the boys back home!

It has been established that overconsumption of red meat is not healthy; overconsumption of anything is not healthy. It's possible to die from drinking too much water. That being said, if I decide to have a deep fried bacon cheeseburger, a large order of chili fries, and a chocolate milkshake 6 times a day while I do nothing but sit on a couch, that is my right; a natural right, not a right afforded to me by the current regime. Instead of "sin" taxes, howzabout sending a bill to Mexico for all the illegals that we are supporting?

And we have another person outing themselves as an idiot who will fall for anything! Who else wants to play?

Posted by: hey I'm gay at November 4, 2009 4:17 PM

Yep you pretty much summed yourself up, idiot.

Keep drinking that kool ade, sheep like leftist.

HYG is just another racist, antisemitic Leftist troll.

It would be passe were it not so insulting.

I wonder if they'll begin adding that tax to Deer Tags come hunting season.

Likewise, if I grow my own red meat for my own consumption - how are the silly liberal thieving dipwad taxaholics going to squeeze/steal more money from me for that?

*sigh* But I guess the FDA is already trying to make backyard veggie gardens illegal. I guess they'll just make it illegal to grow beef without a federal license which will carry an exorbitant fee.

Bastards.

Well, yes, I would love to see farm subsidies eliminated. The problem is, whenever somebody tries that, conservatives gnash their teeth about the traditional American small farmer getting shafted by China or some such. Never mind that most farm subsidies end up going to corporations. (I don't mind corporate farms, just corporations depending on redirected welfare for their profits.)

Don't spin. Farm subsidies are a bipartisan problem. Some Republicans and Democrats screech whenever plans to reduce or eliminate them is brought forward. The common thread between all the politicians so vocally opposed to subsidy reform is heavy campaign contributions from farmers and agribusiness.

Farm subsidies are little different than pork projects. Entrenched politicians don't want them reformed, because those politicians would find it harder to get re-elected without quid-pro-quo campaign contributions. Continuing the subsidy gravy train is just another way of bringing pork back home.

Now fiscal conservatives, on the other hand, recognize that the subsidies range from wasteful and misguided transfer payments to completely corrupt corporate welfare. These conservatives have been yelling for years about this abuse of the taxpayers, but the Beltway political class will not listen.

Absolutely. We need some fresh new fiscal conservatives in power right away. Unfortunately, what you guys don't seem to realize is that means you'll have to go easy on the social conservatism, at least for a while.

Of course they want to punish meat consumption, so they have people eating estrogen filled soy products instead. What better way to feminize and fatten our boys and young men of fighting age. Then they can recruit foreigners and mercenaries to serve in our military. (and to use against us eventually)
See this article in USA Today: "Pentagon: AThird of US Youth Too Fat, Sickly To Serve"
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2009/11/pentagon-a-third-of-us-youth-are-too-fat-sickly-to-serve/1

PETER SINGER is aradical extremists who is allowed to go to schools and brainwash them with his radical ideas no different then other extremists like KARL MARX,VLADIMIR LENNIN,ADOLPH HITLER,JOE STALIN and other evil men of their kind

I'm hoping that this kind of overreaching by the gov't and the left will end up with pretty much all the rest of us really, really angry with them.

I have faith that people are hard-wired to want various things that given our current lifestyles, may not always be the best thing for us ... fats, sugar, caffiene, nicotine,... but we can get a little crazy when deprived of them. And if we can get the left targeted for being the great deprivers, well, heck, let's put it to work.

And for the record, I don't think it's anyone's business whether we indulge in things that may not be healthy, or things that are, or things that have no impact. It's a personal decision, and so long as everyone has full access to whatever we know medically, that should be enough. Singer seems to think that social engineering is ethical, but the basis of social engineering is that we are all slaves to the state, and that when we damage ourselves, we are destroying state property.

So, it really shouldn't matter whether meat is healthy or not. It none of their damn business.

Muse, Uprising

Paranoia is in bloom,
The PR transmissions will resume,
They'll try to push drugs that keep us all dumbed down,
And hope that we will never see the truth around
(So come on)

Another promise, another scene,
Another packaged lie to keep us trapped in greed,
And all the green belts wrapped around our minds,
And endless red tape to keep the truth confined
(So come on)

They will not force us,
They will stop degrading us,
They will not control us,
We will be victorious

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioG2jR-obac

As far as I can read here, Hey you guys is being a far more mature member of this discussion, come on people, ad homiem attacks aren't necessary, just prove him wrong!

As for the tax itself, it's unconstitutional, and should never be passed. I love my red meat, and I love seafood even more-- it's a staple of the diet, one portion per meal, like clockwork. I'm not the healthiest person in the world, but that's more because I don't move much, rather than my diet.

Either way, the gov. shouldn't be able to try and control what I eat via taxation-- especially one that will hit people like me, who are rather poor-- a gov. that kept saying it would help me (sadly, I was right when I thought they were liars.) A tax like this will strike at the heart of our lower classes, for the simple reason that few people want to acknowledge-- healthy vegetarian diets are incredibly expensive. You won't be getting a kid to eat tofu, so they're going to have to have something else, vitamins or the dreaded "meat" lest they begin having protein deficiency. Not only that, but tofu is hardly the perfect replacement.
For a gov. that is "for the people," this bill stinks of rotten class warfare-- instead of ferraris, and televisions being the line-- unnecessary things that aren't worth it most of the time, it'll be down to steak or hamburgers, something even I with a minimum wage job, can set down on the table with my wife and enjoy, so long as I'm smart on where to buy it from.

Thank you for being level headed, Guy. Now let me completely undercut you.

The image you paint is completely false. You're presenting an image of a Russian-esque state, where the maniacal government is making the people less healthy by taking away that little bit of meat they have access to. No... one portion of meat per meal is actually a bit lower then average for Americans (even the poorer ones) and is still way too high. Unless you're doing tough manual labor for hours a day, meat should be limited to about one portion per day.

Like most of the guys here, you're guilty of extreme or absolutist thinking. Noone is talking about forcing people to become vegetarian, just influencing them to make a healthier choice by limiting (not removing) the amount of meat they consume.

In blunt terms, to help people to make the right choice that they are too stupid to make for themselves.

Posted by: ruralcounsel at November 5, 2009 6:11 AM

Ok, given what you just said, either agree that using the same logic you favor the legalization of narcotics or explain why you don't without completely contradicting yourself.