ChefWide said:
You win this weeks "Head so far up his ass you can tell what he had for breakfast from his ring around the collar" Award.
We have ZERO homeless, ZERO uninsured, ZERO kids shooting each other in school, 100% literacy, every product imaginable, and very robust economy with sustained (and may i say SUSTAINABLE) 6-7% growth.
OK, since I am amazed at your grasp of statistics (zero, huh? How is this determined statistically, pray tell?) I can tell that I am dealing with a genius here.
Seems to me personal success would be taking care of your HEALTHY family, past and present and future generations included, as opposed to the incredibly stupid "how many SUV's you dont need, how much McCrap you can eat and how many new inches you can add to your waistline" barometer that you use for measurement.
You summed it up, "seems to me". That is all you can say, since personal success is by definition "personal", so it matters not what your opinion on this is, it is up to the individual to decide what they value. This was the basis of my post, that subjective matters of life are not to be regulated as desired by the control freaks on this board, who feel that people should not have a choice in what car they drive, in what foods they eat, in their appearance, etc. It matters not that the appearance of another offends you, get over it and fast, for you have no control over the life of your neighbor. The amusing part is that many who have this opinion consider themselves "socially liberal" and use the label "fascist" in describing certain groups, yet feel perfectly OK to demonize and accept regulations on things they don't condone.
Not to mention, the very idea that the US somehow corners the market on stupidity and rudeness, is once more, ludicrous. You can find morons and assholes everywhere.
Stick that in your corncob pipe and smoke it, Buford.
Sorry, my pipe is already filled with a Twinkie and 10W 40 motor oil, that leaks from my SUV.
On a side note, but still related, because America has more choices than other countries, immigrants show the results of personal choice. Japanese women, who have traditionally low breast cancer rates, show increases in breast cancer rates once migrating to the US. Explanations tend to surround the protective effect of the traditional Japanese diet vs. the Westernized diet they adopt when they come to the US. While this is a personal harm, it shows that given a choice, since no one prevents a Japanese immigrant from eating their traditional diet, people will choose actions which may not promote a long life.
So, you have a decision to make, do you force people to live long lives, by restricting access to what can be shown to be healthy to them or allow them the pursuit of personal happiness, even if it means a reduced lifespan? What is more important, a long life with little opportunity or a shorter one with lots of choices, some of which are not beneficial long term?