On 2012-11-27 23:23:28 +0000, Sqwertz said:

> But it is interesting to see the insurance lobbies go after the little
> guys regarding salt and fat consumption, helmet laws, anti-smoking,
> and numerous other activities that should be personal choice.

Which "little guys" are you talking about?

> Yet they don't dare go after the even bigger agriculture lobbies, which
> put plenty of people in the hospital each year and cause the insurance
> companies billions.

I can see why nobody goes after the "big lobbies": They're have more
money and will kick your ass!

On 2012-11-28 04:40:51 +0000, Sqwertz said:

> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:12:23 -0800, gtr wrote:
>
>> On 2012-11-27 23:23:28 +0000, Sqwertz said:
>>
>>> But it is interesting to see the insurance lobbies go after the little
>>> guys regarding salt and fat consumption, helmet laws, anti-smoking,
>>> and numerous other activities that should be personal choice.
>>
>> Which "little guys" are you talking about?
>
> You and I and everybody else reading this. Restaurants and smaller
> manufacturers are often victim as well (no more soft drinks over 16oz,

That's in ONE city, right?

> no more salt, no more candy over 200 calories, etc..)

I haven't heard about these laws. Are they laws, or shriek-radio
talking points?

gtr wrote:

> Relative to the sudden perspective that money doesn't always win: I
> remember when Michael Huffington (the "husband") ran for the senate out
> here. He spent the largest amount ever for a non-Presidential
> election: 28 million. And lost by 2%. Everyone was flabbergasted that
> the price of a senate seat couldn't be bought for 28 million.

Heh. Remember when Meg Whitman lost in the governor race? "But I made
the highest bid!"

On 2012-11-29 04:28:30 +0000, Sqwertz said:

>>>> no more salt, no more candy over 200 calories, etc..)
>>>
>>> I haven't heard about these laws. Are they laws, or shriek-radio
>>> talking points?
>>
>> Those are the only two possibilities?
>>
>> The "or" limitation in the question is a convenient construction intended to
>> control or restrict the answer. Probably won't work though.
>
> She can look them up if she wants, but the examples I gave were just
> that - examples used to demonstrate the larger picture that was the
> point I was expressing.

Oh I see. Well they were sure handy examples of restrictions that
aren't happening. They chit-chat about death camps and "re-education
camps" and President's born in Kenya. So chit-chat is cheap and hardly
worth citing as "examples" of something.

> I'm not going to fall for nitpicking and play semantics on the four
> examples I chose, two of which she now wants me to "prove".

Not asking you to prove: I thought you were talking about realities.
You've cleared that up.

On 2012-11-29 07:26:04 +0000, Sqwertz said:

> On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 22:40:38 -0800, gtr wrote:
>
>> On 2012-11-29 04:28:30 +0000, Sqwertz said:
>>
>>>>>> no more salt, no more candy over 200 calories, etc..)
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't heard about these laws. Are they laws, or shriek-radio
>>>>> talking points?

[snip]

> They *are* realities.
>
> See, this is turning into that ugly **** fest that you so desired.

Wow--dramatic! I only asked where this was happening? The answer is
some kinda big ****ing "mystery". Okay. **** fest concluded.

On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 05:15:02 -0500, Andy > wrote:

>This finally made my local Fox TV morning news, with a talkng
>heads spin that it only infectedd pork chops and pork loin!???
>
>So our pulled pork and bacon are saved! Whew!!! Not!
>
>How depressing!
>
>Fine job, FDA and USDA!!!
>
>What else is f*cked up in the food supply that we don't know
>about???
>
Ask Monsanto..
--
Mr.E