The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central GOP - the party of the rich

I agree that his use of "nanny state" is inaccurate but the overarching idea behind his post is not the state of governance world wide in 1776 but what the intent was of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence and the folks who ratified the constitution.

No, "nanny state" was core oh his argument, as in constitution was written to save us from the nanny state. Exact opposite was the case, constitution was written to empower us and to protect us. At the time, constitution and declaration of independence was civil rights movement and constitutionalists were civil rights advocates.

Yes I know the Constitution was written to protect and empower us. I was simply trying to convey the point that no other country had done what our founders did. I shouldn't have used to term nanny state, more like Monarchies. Again my point was that nobody else had empowered the people, in fact it was opposite Governments were empowered.

Now that he has clarified his point and made mine, would you care to respond?

You will have to restate your question, "clarification" was to core meaning of the argument.

Its not worth my effort.

You really should meditate on the absurdity of this statement. Multiple levels of absurdity.

Eatinghealthy costs more.

Lots of flaws in that article, not the least of which is it doesnt include farmer markets - just 3 supermarkets. Also, it gives no guidelines on how they chose to achieve the "higher nutrients" listed - potassium, vitamin D and dietary fiber.

In fact anyone can debunk this article by going to their local supermarket. I know, because I do all my own shopping and am quite informed on nutrition and cost. Also, I have to avoid a couple common things found in processed foods like excessive MSG - so I always read labels and nutritional info.

Additionally, you mentioned fast food - but even your article mentioned that fast food is in fact more expensive.

Finally, its obvious that cheap calories mean that people can get more calories for less money. The fact that people eat to much says something about the choices these people make. Its the silliest thing ever to say that people are fat because they are poor. They are fat because they eat too much. 1000 calories is 1000 calories, period.

I would say the more likely correlation between healthy eating and money is tied to education and imperative. It has nothing to do with the fact that there is less money to spend.

People are fat because they ether a) eat too much b) eat wrong stuff. Ignoring b) is grossly oversimplifying the problem.

I will try to dig for the article I am basing my opinions on, but transportation costs also should be factored into this discussion. Some poor (projects) communities are under-served, where going to a grocery store vie public transportation adds substantial overhead to a limited budget.

Remember, we are not talking about you and me, where we can simply drive to a grocery store of our choice, buy fresh food and cook it the same day.