Don’t be angry, all of you tobacco using libertarians who are yelling about contraception and other issues we settled decades ago. This is the free market at work.
Oh, I’ve heard Glenn complaining non-stop about the contraception and he’s starting his own Libertarian amusement park for crying out loud. And, that half-wit Rand Paul has been complaining about the same thing. He considers himself a Libertarain as well.
I’m sorry Planet, you don’t get to use vagues. You have to use specifics.
Birth control was settled decades ago. It’s something that is not to be provided publicly. Obama signed off on this same bill that has been passed again and again while he was senator of Illinois. The government will not fund birth control is the message they all send.
So nothing has changed there.
To do with businesses: We are not going to start telling a business they have to pay for someone’s birth control. It’s wrong. It’s not an issue that was settled decades ago, quite clearly.
The article is about smokers & non-smokers. Planet was trying to be funny (sorry CP-you failed), but that doesn’t mean you get to hijack this discussion board and get back on your birth control schtick.
Don’t be angry, all of you tobacco using libertarians who are yelling about “contraception” and other issues we settled decades ago. This is the free market at work.
Excuse me JW, I hijacked it on my birth control schtick?
Shut the hell up. Note the are I put ” “. He labeled people, again, to do with Birth control.
Not appropriate.
And if you want an argument with me and don’t even know how to come into it balanced,…Well, I’ll kick you into next week.
Just because I disagree with you, doesn’t mean I’m one of the “tobacco using libertarians who are yelling about “contraception” and other issues”.
I am not a tabacco user or a libertarian, nor am I yelling about contraception. I am, however, not impressed by your vehemence.
February 26, 2013 at 4:33 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
JW:
READ THE LINES.
I took Captain Planet’s quote!
Idiot!
That was what I RESPONDED TO. A post regarding contraception. Then you tell me not to continue my war on contraception? This moron has been talking about republican’s war with women to do with this contraceptive issue, as has Obama, and all current democrats, wrongfully, in bigotry, and shamefully too long!
You WILL stop attacking us. Or I’ll fight back, and it won’t be pretty.
February 26, 2013 at 4:35 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Just in case your pea brain mind missed it:
“Don’t be angry, all of you tobacco using libertarians who are yelling about “contraception” and other issues we settled decades ago. This is the free market at work.”
Is PLANET’S post. I was showing you what I REPLIED to.
Did you catch it this time? Did you actually read this time? If you’re going to talk to me and insult me, you’ll see me tear you to pieces if you don’t even know how to @%!%ing read my posts that you’re replying to.
February 26, 2013 at 12:29 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bottom line:
I didn’t turn it into birth control. I REPLIED to his comment about birth control being a settled issue.
With facts I might add. Obama signed a bill in his state prohibiting the use of state funds for birth control. Almost all state senators do. So if some guy walks in and says how these darn libratarians are fighting over settled issues, and need to stop about birth control,
And then makes a second comment about it, debating with someone else about the same issue to do with Glen Beck, they are not just “joking”. They are being idiotic.
First of all, senators don’t ‘sign’ bills. They create/vote on them. Governors/Presidents sign them.
And exactly which contraception bill are you referencing? Considering as a US Senator, he sponsored bills specifically for funding contraception, I have a VERY hard time believing he voted against it in the state senate.
Just a quick googling, shows that he sponsored the following while in the US Senate:
2007-HR819 on Feb 5, 2007
Bill Sponsorship: ensuring access to and funding for contraception
Source: Prevention First Act (S.21/H.R.819)
A bill to expand access to preventive health care services that help reduce unintended pregnancy, reduce abortions, and improve access to women’s health care.
06-S2916 on May 19, 2006
Legislation by 2008 Presidential Candidates: expanding contraceptive services for low-income women
Source: Unintended Pregnancy Reduction Act (S.2916/H.R.5795)
See Obama in the fact that he did not include the birth control as part of Obamacare. He took it out. That’s all I really have to say to make my point. And that’s one you can google. Say he did it for republicans all you want, he did it for the public, since the public overall does not agree with the public funding of birth control.
Third of all, I don’t get why this is a hot issue.
Fourth of all:
“Obama voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, saying “On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I’ve said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn’t have that.”
So…The guy is ignoring the fact that this has been inside of EVERY bill in the last 10 years regarding partial birth abortion, and that it’s been a hot issue since the bills used the wording for rape as well, the exception was rape incest, and in cases where the health of the mother is at risk. It used the words forcable rape. A ringin a bell?
The guy is dishonest, On every aspect of his career, and every aspect of this birth control issue. To have that pushed back in our faces as republicans, is insulting.
And bluntly BS, if you’re going to engage in such tactics, and then try to jump in when you’ve think in your puny brain you’ve got me cornered, I’ll to you to screw off until the cows come off. You’re pretending that we are dominating women? Not ok. And Planet going around saying that and bringing up the contraceptives and rubbing it in our faces like it’s our @%@% is getting on my nerves.
February 26, 2013 at 5:26 pm
BS says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob, YOU said he was involved with a bill in Illinois that forbid the use of government funds for contraception. Which bill? Please provide details. Otherwise I’m going to assume you made it up.
The partial-birth abortion ban has absolutely nothing to do with birth control as related to the Affordable Care Act. They are two completely separate things. Federal funds ARE prohibited from financing abortion. But, nowhere is funding for contraception banned.
And we are discussing contraception. Not abortion. Stick to the topic.
Seriously, Bob? Such tactics as calling you out on your crap? You spew out random, many times incoherent statements as if they are facts, and then get huffy when someone dares to contradict you. You don’t stick to the topic being discussed. You throw out completely unrelated, straw man arguments when someone challenges you, and if they don’t back down, you insult them.
You want to talk engaging in crappy tactics, Bob, just look in your mirror.
February 26, 2013 at 4:42 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
And I am not impressed by your liberal labeling crap.
You guys push us around.
Label us.
Assault the “religions”. Make an enemy of them.
Make a victim of women.
Make an enemy of corporations, and call us cronyists, yet don’t state how we are.
Do you know what QE is? Buying debt from select corporations, so that corporation can take on more debt. Essentially, this means the government is giving money to select people. More importantly, it is intended to allow the banks to buy houses and inflate the market. This is being in bed with banks. This is cronyism, then you all have the nerve to claim us republicans are doing this, and blame us for a recession and inflated housing costs. Do you have any idea the hypocricy there? You guys are inflating a second bubble, and are blaming us for the first. When it clearly, was the democrats faults.
As Marco Rubio said: Anytime we question your policies, you question our motives, our character.
Religion isn’t a wedge. It’s not supposed to be.
Taxes are not a method of leveling a playing field. If it were, we should never be making some businesses pay more or less than others. It allows favortism and cronyism in our government.
Right now you guys are in the wrong, and are labeling us worse than has ever been done in history. You HAVE to go. End of story, and I’ll fight and bash your faces in unti you realize your dominance you have tried to push over on republicans ever since FDR when you rode in like a high horse using a recession to dominate a people. I don’t just think lowly of democrats, I think they are dominating, lying, trash, and I can point out exactly how, without crying about religion all the time. It’s policies.
Unnecessary discrimination not to mention a violation of individual rights. Let’s add a few more requirements: don’t hire anyone who gossips, lies or eats too much.
Gossips wouldn’t affect the cost of hiring the employee.
Lies same thing.
To do with the costs, it’s perfectly fair to have them share in the cost. But most these people refuse to even do that, and raise an army there.
They should not get more than someone who takes care of themselves. As you will find, people don’t try to take care of themselves if they don’t have reason to.
With the mountains of information that show cigarettes are a carcinogen and severely reduce a person’s lifespan, smokers shouldn’t be hired due to their general stupidity.
I’m wondering if this is discrimination. But, then again, if the employer is required to provide health care and it costs more for smokers, then, at a minimum, that cost should be passed along. Problem is, we all do things that affect our health. What about heavy drinkers?
They became fat because they didn’t have access to healthcare?
Are you insane?
They became fat because they eat too much and work out too little. There are very few people who cannot lose weight, so don’t go onto that argument. Your knees are shot? Use a row machine, or go in a pool. 30 mins in a pool, you couldn’t possibly be fat, and there’s no person who can’t do it. Thyroid? Nope. That could push you into larger, but not obese.
Some of them go so far as to become even worse when society says anything about it.
Now as to the solution, well, healthcare cannot be the solution for that. I’m sorry planet, it can’t.
As for people being told that they have to hire someone who costs them money, I’m sorry, but that’s a no go. Maybe if the person has to handle the slight higher costs when hired that would be fair. Hiring them at the same rate? Absolutely not. That’s dicriminating against people who do take care of themselves.
And if they then choose to get skinnier, and thus not have to pay as much for their insurance share, then they will have a benefit from it.
It’s called middle ground. And you don’t know jack about it.
Bob, I think you missed the sarcasm. It seems to me Planet was making a joke about the “heavy drinkers” comment above his. Lighten up! Or, should I say light up, in which case, don’t be looking for healthcare with this university.
He is not joking. And don’t tell me to lighten up.
The little prick is going around making “jokes” about how the republicans and business are leaving people to die, and are not providing support.
If “Perhaps that is exactly how they became so heavy. And skinny drinkers, what do we do with them?”
Is a Joke, it’s in terrible taste.
I’m sorry, that’s pure bull. Planet needs to learn either how to make jokes, or to stop stating that people became heavy due to being discriminated against.
February 26, 2013 at 2:10 pm
jw says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
When you have to explain the joke….
February 26, 2013 at 3:37 pm
jw says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob,
You need to find a sense of humor. Again, lighten up. You’re wound tighter than a 95 year old virgin. I don’t think Planet was doing anything other than making jokes here. Making fun of Libertarians first and then making a play on words about “heavy drinkers”. Katie didn’t mean fat drinkers. She meant those who drink a lot. Planet played on those words.
Learn to read and quit replying with your panties in a bunch!
February 25, 2013 at 9:33 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Actually, Bob…swimming is not that good for you.
I mean, it’s absolutely a aerobic exercise.
But the pool temperature tricks your body into thinking it’s hungry (to preserve core body temp) so you actually tend to overeat after swimming.
Only the hardcore swimmers tend to have that “swimmer’s look.” because it doesn’t matter how much they eat. They’re spending so much time in the pool they’re burning thousands of calories extra per day.
Tread water for 15 minutes, or do 20 laps. Get back to me.
Swimming does make you lose weight. When I was in highschool I swam for 20 minutes like I would do a jog. I threw up and passed out. It’s harder to stay afloat for 20 minutes straight than to run.
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
February 26, 2013 at 12:22 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
And Jon:
I should show you a picture of me in highschool.
I ran 5 minute miles. I ran consecutive 5 minute miles. I could run 4 miles in 20 minutes.
I’m older now, still in shape. Still running 5 minute miles. Lifting over 500 lbs on the squat.
I still prefer to run over swim. But if my knees were going, I’d do it for 20 minutes, tops, and do laps.
February 26, 2013 at 4:27 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob,
I’m guessing you don’t read well. Either that, or you just want to point at yourself with pride.
I never said swimming wasn’t good exercise. I said that swimming tricks the body into thinking you’re hungrier than you actually are and people tend to overeat after swimming–mitigating the positive effects of the exercise.
Additionally, there have been scientific studies that show swimming is actually less beneficial for weight loss than walking or other aerobic exercise.
So perhaps–do your research?
Personally, I’ve been swimming since I was 2. By the time I was 13, 20 laps was our warm up, and treading water was (annoyingly boring) something we did every day. I’m absolutely aware of the energy expense in swimming.
“It’s harder to stay afloat?” Floating’s easy, Bob. Ridiculously so. Well, unless you have the muscular density of a gorilla…
Treading water is not the same as floating.
Are you sure you swam?
Because any swimmer can tell you the difference between the two…
February 26, 2013 at 4:49 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“Actually, Bob…swimming is not that good for you”
Jon,
Playing a word game are we?
People get hungry often, that doesn’t mean swimming will make you fat if you need to use it to lose weight due to the inability based on your body being broken down. Swimming is more or less referenced as a real world scenario by me as a method to lose weight if you are breaking down.
And moreover: 20 minutes of swimming will far offset the “over eating” (are you serious) caused by swimming.
The fact that you are actually arguing that swimming would cause over eating and therefore is not a good method to lose weight, is insane. And anyone would have ascertained, or assumed, that you had common sense and therefore would have replied with the assumption that you were saying it was not a good exercise (which you did, but are now back petaling, but I’ll give you this new route, and tell you that you are wrong there as well).
If I swam vigourosly for 2o minutes, I could eat a meal that was huge. Heck, I could eat at burger king, and I would lose a slight amount of weight.
I’m a body builder, I help people with this all the time. And if you think I’m kidding I’ll give the pictures. One girl I lift with had this very problem. Over 300 lbs in size. She lost it through pool until her joints worked, and then she went to deadlifting, now competes.
February 26, 2013 at 4:55 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Jon:
Also worth mentioning:
Why the question of difference between treading and floating?
Obviously, floating takes no effort. Did I use the word floating or treading?
And I have to say that if you’re claiming that 20 minutes of treading water is easy, and you’re a swimmer, you are a liar. Whether you’re doing a bicycle kick or a frog kick, treading in place exherts a large amount of energy.
Also worth noting having swam, and something you notice when you go to wild waves: If you’re swimming a full day you can forget to eat at the beach, why?
The hunger you’re talking about is far outweighed by what happens. Lactose is released when you burn calories. Immediately following a swim, even if the lower temperature caused you to be hungry, there is not even a remote chance, that someone who was not used to this feeling, would eat. Not even remote. I’m a body builder, I feel it every day. And when you burn a large amount of calories, you wait to eat until that stomach acid dies down. Which would be oh say, after your body warmed back up. So I call b.s. there as well.
February 27, 2013 at 9:17 am
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Also worth noting: Oh, you are a swimmer, you say? That would explain it…you were in the pool. Oh well, it’s the motion in the ocean anyhow, right Bob? Just keep telling yourself that. You seem to believe just about anything when you scream about it enough.
February 27, 2013 at 2:36 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
First note: This “Jon” (Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0Also worth noting: Oh, you are a swimmer, you say? That would explain it…you were in the pool. Oh well, it’s the motion in the ocean anyhow, right Bob? Just keep telling yourself that. You seem to believe just about anything when you scream about it enough.)
Is not me.
Now, to you:
1) Picking one sentence and ignoring the very next sentence (stating that swimming is aerobic exercise) doesn’t make your point.
2) There are scientific studies, which I mentioned before, that specifically state that swimmers experience an artificial spike in hunger after swimming, that tends to encourage people to over eat.
3) Those same studies (remember, do your research!) state that there is no proof that swimming is an effective activity for weight loss, and show that walking–just walking, is more effective in weight loss than swimming.
4) Actually, swimming for 20 minutes (1/3 of an hour) would net you maybe 300 calories burned according to http://www.nutristrategy.com/caloriesburnedswimming.htm And that’s if you’re over 200 lbs. Hardly a full meal at burger king…not even a kids meal, actually.
5) You’re a self-admitted body builder. And there’s where your argument falters. Weightlifting, in conjunction with aerobic exercise is THE best way to lose weight.
6) You specifically used the words “stay afloat” which is ambiguous at best and can easily be accomplished by either technique. Treading is more about staying in one place than just floating. Treading water is also much less strenuous than 20 minutes of non-stop swimming.
February 26, 2013 at 11:41 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Katie,
It is definitely NOT discrimination because people choose to smoke. It is not part of your genetic makeup.
Your probably right. But this is America and we can sue for anything we want. We can make the case that it was genetic because my mom smoked when she was pregant or some other stupid bs therory that any match book law school graduate can make up.
So, now that I was going to apply and didnt bother, count me in!
To: Stephen Tallinghasternathy With the mountains of information that show cigarettes are a carcinogen and severely reduce a person’s lifespan, smokers shouldn’t be hired due to their general stupidity.
How about obese people? They gorge themselves and they too have a greater health risk and shorter life span.
Wow…..we can do this!!?? Great!! This will save me a ton of money!! In my business, I am going to stop hiring smokers (its a choice), overweight people (its a choice), gay and lesbian people (cause we all know that is a choice and is not healthy…right?), people of certin religious backrounds (another choice) and people who drink alcohol (and yet another personal choice).
Lets face it……these can all be classified as DISCRIMINATION and once Pandoras box is open….it’s very hard to close again.
Goes both ways. Once it’s open for lawsuits, we have lawsuits all the time.
Remind me, and I’ll assume you’ve had classes on this:
Discrimination lawsuits, up or down? What has happened with the costs? How much money is being wasted here? Who has to pay this money? What is the net benefit? Who gets the net benefit?
How many cases of actual discrimination are there?
I get your ideal. I want the net benefit or the net negative to allowing people to make their own choices in hiring.
Got Insurance?,
I loved your joke about being gay as a choice and not being healthy. I am guessing most conservatives would think you were being serious, though. Note, I say most. I have some conservative friends who could care less about the gay and lesbian thing. In my business, I’d much rather have a guy smoking hog than cigarettes, though. Unlike those who are trying to suppress marriage equality think, you can’t get second-hand gayness. That, and who really cares what happens in someone else’s bedroom. Besides, plenty of straight couples are using the same orifices as gay ones in very similar ways, if not identical even. It seems most of the people who are afraid of gays are the ones who may be a little curious themselves…right Rick Santorum and Bob Van Der Plaats?
Don’t be angry, all of you tobacco using libertarians who are yelling about contraception and other issues we settled decades ago. This is the free market at work.
Dude.
Libertarians don’t care about contraception, or the other stuff.
Hell, vast numbers of Libertarians are pro-legalizing marijuana and other “illegal” drugs.
You need to get your political orientations straight. It’ll help you with delivering those snappy zingers.
Oh, I’ve heard Glenn complaining non-stop about the contraception and he’s starting his own Libertarian amusement park for crying out loud. And, that half-wit Rand Paul has been complaining about the same thing. He considers himself a Libertarain as well.
Which “issues”.
I’m sorry Planet, you don’t get to use vagues. You have to use specifics.
Birth control was settled decades ago. It’s something that is not to be provided publicly. Obama signed off on this same bill that has been passed again and again while he was senator of Illinois. The government will not fund birth control is the message they all send.
So nothing has changed there.
To do with businesses: We are not going to start telling a business they have to pay for someone’s birth control. It’s wrong. It’s not an issue that was settled decades ago, quite clearly.
The article is about smokers & non-smokers. Planet was trying to be funny (sorry CP-you failed), but that doesn’t mean you get to hijack this discussion board and get back on your birth control schtick.
JW:
Don’t be angry, all of you tobacco using libertarians who are yelling about “contraception” and other issues we settled decades ago. This is the free market at work.
Excuse me JW, I hijacked it on my birth control schtick?
Shut the hell up. Note the are I put ” “. He labeled people, again, to do with Birth control.
Not appropriate.
And if you want an argument with me and don’t even know how to come into it balanced,…Well, I’ll kick you into next week.
Just because I disagree with you, doesn’t mean I’m one of the “tobacco using libertarians who are yelling about “contraception” and other issues”.
I am not a tabacco user or a libertarian, nor am I yelling about contraception. I am, however, not impressed by your vehemence.
JW:
READ THE LINES.
I took Captain Planet’s quote!
Idiot!
That was what I RESPONDED TO. A post regarding contraception. Then you tell me not to continue my war on contraception? This moron has been talking about republican’s war with women to do with this contraceptive issue, as has Obama, and all current democrats, wrongfully, in bigotry, and shamefully too long!
You WILL stop attacking us. Or I’ll fight back, and it won’t be pretty.
Just in case your pea brain mind missed it:
“Don’t be angry, all of you tobacco using libertarians who are yelling about “contraception” and other issues we settled decades ago. This is the free market at work.”
Is PLANET’S post. I was showing you what I REPLIED to.
Did you catch it this time? Did you actually read this time? If you’re going to talk to me and insult me, you’ll see me tear you to pieces if you don’t even know how to @%!%ing read my posts that you’re replying to.
Bottom line:
I didn’t turn it into birth control. I REPLIED to his comment about birth control being a settled issue.
With facts I might add. Obama signed a bill in his state prohibiting the use of state funds for birth control. Almost all state senators do. So if some guy walks in and says how these darn libratarians are fighting over settled issues, and need to stop about birth control,
And then makes a second comment about it, debating with someone else about the same issue to do with Glen Beck, they are not just “joking”. They are being idiotic.
First of all, senators don’t ‘sign’ bills. They create/vote on them. Governors/Presidents sign them.
And exactly which contraception bill are you referencing? Considering as a US Senator, he sponsored bills specifically for funding contraception, I have a VERY hard time believing he voted against it in the state senate.
Just a quick googling, shows that he sponsored the following while in the US Senate:
2007-HR819 on Feb 5, 2007
Bill Sponsorship: ensuring access to and funding for contraception
Source: Prevention First Act (S.21/H.R.819)
A bill to expand access to preventive health care services that help reduce unintended pregnancy, reduce abortions, and improve access to women’s health care.
06-S2916 on May 19, 2006
Legislation by 2008 Presidential Candidates: expanding contraceptive services for low-income women
Source: Unintended Pregnancy Reduction Act (S.2916/H.R.5795)
http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm
First of all, you know what I meant.
Second of all:
See Obama in the fact that he did not include the birth control as part of Obamacare. He took it out. That’s all I really have to say to make my point. And that’s one you can google. Say he did it for republicans all you want, he did it for the public, since the public overall does not agree with the public funding of birth control.
Third of all, I don’t get why this is a hot issue.
Fourth of all:
“Obama voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, saying “On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I’ve said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn’t have that.”
So…The guy is ignoring the fact that this has been inside of EVERY bill in the last 10 years regarding partial birth abortion, and that it’s been a hot issue since the bills used the wording for rape as well, the exception was rape incest, and in cases where the health of the mother is at risk. It used the words forcable rape. A ringin a bell?
The guy is dishonest, On every aspect of his career, and every aspect of this birth control issue. To have that pushed back in our faces as republicans, is insulting.
And bluntly BS, if you’re going to engage in such tactics, and then try to jump in when you’ve think in your puny brain you’ve got me cornered, I’ll to you to screw off until the cows come off. You’re pretending that we are dominating women? Not ok. And Planet going around saying that and bringing up the contraceptives and rubbing it in our faces like it’s our @%@% is getting on my nerves.
Bob, YOU said he was involved with a bill in Illinois that forbid the use of government funds for contraception. Which bill? Please provide details. Otherwise I’m going to assume you made it up.
Contraception may not have initially been addressed in the ACA, but it was added in 2012. So, I don’t see how you can claim that he was for prohibiting funds for contraception. (http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2011/08/womensprevention08012011a.html)
The partial-birth abortion ban has absolutely nothing to do with birth control as related to the Affordable Care Act. They are two completely separate things. Federal funds ARE prohibited from financing abortion. But, nowhere is funding for contraception banned.
And we are discussing contraception. Not abortion. Stick to the topic.
Seriously, Bob? Such tactics as calling you out on your crap? You spew out random, many times incoherent statements as if they are facts, and then get huffy when someone dares to contradict you. You don’t stick to the topic being discussed. You throw out completely unrelated, straw man arguments when someone challenges you, and if they don’t back down, you insult them.
You want to talk engaging in crappy tactics, Bob, just look in your mirror.
And I am not impressed by your liberal labeling crap.
You guys push us around.
Label us.
Assault the “religions”. Make an enemy of them.
Make a victim of women.
Make an enemy of corporations, and call us cronyists, yet don’t state how we are.
Do you know what QE is? Buying debt from select corporations, so that corporation can take on more debt. Essentially, this means the government is giving money to select people. More importantly, it is intended to allow the banks to buy houses and inflate the market. This is being in bed with banks. This is cronyism, then you all have the nerve to claim us republicans are doing this, and blame us for a recession and inflated housing costs. Do you have any idea the hypocricy there? You guys are inflating a second bubble, and are blaming us for the first. When it clearly, was the democrats faults.
As Marco Rubio said: Anytime we question your policies, you question our motives, our character.
Religion isn’t a wedge. It’s not supposed to be.
Taxes are not a method of leveling a playing field. If it were, we should never be making some businesses pay more or less than others. It allows favortism and cronyism in our government.
Right now you guys are in the wrong, and are labeling us worse than has ever been done in history. You HAVE to go. End of story, and I’ll fight and bash your faces in unti you realize your dominance you have tried to push over on republicans ever since FDR when you rode in like a high horse using a recession to dominate a people. I don’t just think lowly of democrats, I think they are dominating, lying, trash, and I can point out exactly how, without crying about religion all the time. It’s policies.
Unnecessary discrimination not to mention a violation of individual rights. Let’s add a few more requirements: don’t hire anyone who gossips, lies or eats too much.
Gossips wouldn’t affect the cost of hiring the employee.
Lies same thing.
To do with the costs, it’s perfectly fair to have them share in the cost. But most these people refuse to even do that, and raise an army there.
They should not get more than someone who takes care of themselves. As you will find, people don’t try to take care of themselves if they don’t have reason to.
With the mountains of information that show cigarettes are a carcinogen and severely reduce a person’s lifespan, smokers shouldn’t be hired due to their general stupidity.
I’m wondering if this is discrimination. But, then again, if the employer is required to provide health care and it costs more for smokers, then, at a minimum, that cost should be passed along. Problem is, we all do things that affect our health. What about heavy drinkers?
Perhaps that is exactly how they became so heavy. And skinny drinkers, what do we do with them?
They became fat because they didn’t have access to healthcare?
Are you insane?
They became fat because they eat too much and work out too little. There are very few people who cannot lose weight, so don’t go onto that argument. Your knees are shot? Use a row machine, or go in a pool. 30 mins in a pool, you couldn’t possibly be fat, and there’s no person who can’t do it. Thyroid? Nope. That could push you into larger, but not obese.
Some of them go so far as to become even worse when society says anything about it.
Now as to the solution, well, healthcare cannot be the solution for that. I’m sorry planet, it can’t.
As for people being told that they have to hire someone who costs them money, I’m sorry, but that’s a no go. Maybe if the person has to handle the slight higher costs when hired that would be fair. Hiring them at the same rate? Absolutely not. That’s dicriminating against people who do take care of themselves.
And if they then choose to get skinnier, and thus not have to pay as much for their insurance share, then they will have a benefit from it.
It’s called middle ground. And you don’t know jack about it.
Bob, I think you missed the sarcasm. It seems to me Planet was making a joke about the “heavy drinkers” comment above his. Lighten up! Or, should I say light up, in which case, don’t be looking for healthcare with this university.
JW:
He is not joking. And don’t tell me to lighten up.
The little prick is going around making “jokes” about how the republicans and business are leaving people to die, and are not providing support.
If “Perhaps that is exactly how they became so heavy. And skinny drinkers, what do we do with them?”
Is a Joke, it’s in terrible taste.
I’m sorry, that’s pure bull. Planet needs to learn either how to make jokes, or to stop stating that people became heavy due to being discriminated against.
When you have to explain the joke….
Bob,
You need to find a sense of humor. Again, lighten up. You’re wound tighter than a 95 year old virgin. I don’t think Planet was doing anything other than making jokes here. Making fun of Libertarians first and then making a play on words about “heavy drinkers”. Katie didn’t mean fat drinkers. She meant those who drink a lot. Planet played on those words.
Learn to read and quit replying with your panties in a bunch!
Actually, Bob…swimming is not that good for you.
I mean, it’s absolutely a aerobic exercise.
But the pool temperature tricks your body into thinking it’s hungry (to preserve core body temp) so you actually tend to overeat after swimming.
Only the hardcore swimmers tend to have that “swimmer’s look.” because it doesn’t matter how much they eat. They’re spending so much time in the pool they’re burning thousands of calories extra per day.
Jon,
Tread water for 15 minutes, or do 20 laps. Get back to me.
Swimming does make you lose weight. When I was in highschool I swam for 20 minutes like I would do a jog. I threw up and passed out. It’s harder to stay afloat for 20 minutes straight than to run.
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
And Jon:
I should show you a picture of me in highschool.
I ran 5 minute miles. I ran consecutive 5 minute miles. I could run 4 miles in 20 minutes.
I’m older now, still in shape. Still running 5 minute miles. Lifting over 500 lbs on the squat.
I still prefer to run over swim. But if my knees were going, I’d do it for 20 minutes, tops, and do laps.
Bob,
I’m guessing you don’t read well. Either that, or you just want to point at yourself with pride.
I never said swimming wasn’t good exercise. I said that swimming tricks the body into thinking you’re hungrier than you actually are and people tend to overeat after swimming–mitigating the positive effects of the exercise.
Additionally, there have been scientific studies that show swimming is actually less beneficial for weight loss than walking or other aerobic exercise.
So perhaps–do your research?
Personally, I’ve been swimming since I was 2. By the time I was 13, 20 laps was our warm up, and treading water was (annoyingly boring) something we did every day. I’m absolutely aware of the energy expense in swimming.
“It’s harder to stay afloat?” Floating’s easy, Bob. Ridiculously so. Well, unless you have the muscular density of a gorilla…
Treading water is not the same as floating.
Are you sure you swam?
Because any swimmer can tell you the difference between the two…
“Actually, Bob…swimming is not that good for you”
Jon,
Playing a word game are we?
People get hungry often, that doesn’t mean swimming will make you fat if you need to use it to lose weight due to the inability based on your body being broken down. Swimming is more or less referenced as a real world scenario by me as a method to lose weight if you are breaking down.
And moreover: 20 minutes of swimming will far offset the “over eating” (are you serious) caused by swimming.
The fact that you are actually arguing that swimming would cause over eating and therefore is not a good method to lose weight, is insane. And anyone would have ascertained, or assumed, that you had common sense and therefore would have replied with the assumption that you were saying it was not a good exercise (which you did, but are now back petaling, but I’ll give you this new route, and tell you that you are wrong there as well).
If I swam vigourosly for 2o minutes, I could eat a meal that was huge. Heck, I could eat at burger king, and I would lose a slight amount of weight.
I’m a body builder, I help people with this all the time. And if you think I’m kidding I’ll give the pictures. One girl I lift with had this very problem. Over 300 lbs in size. She lost it through pool until her joints worked, and then she went to deadlifting, now competes.
Jon:
Also worth mentioning:
Why the question of difference between treading and floating?
Obviously, floating takes no effort. Did I use the word floating or treading?
And I have to say that if you’re claiming that 20 minutes of treading water is easy, and you’re a swimmer, you are a liar. Whether you’re doing a bicycle kick or a frog kick, treading in place exherts a large amount of energy.
Also worth noting having swam, and something you notice when you go to wild waves: If you’re swimming a full day you can forget to eat at the beach, why?
The hunger you’re talking about is far outweighed by what happens. Lactose is released when you burn calories. Immediately following a swim, even if the lower temperature caused you to be hungry, there is not even a remote chance, that someone who was not used to this feeling, would eat. Not even remote. I’m a body builder, I feel it every day. And when you burn a large amount of calories, you wait to eat until that stomach acid dies down. Which would be oh say, after your body warmed back up. So I call b.s. there as well.
Also worth noting: Oh, you are a swimmer, you say? That would explain it…you were in the pool. Oh well, it’s the motion in the ocean anyhow, right Bob? Just keep telling yourself that. You seem to believe just about anything when you scream about it enough.
First note: This “Jon” (Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0Also worth noting: Oh, you are a swimmer, you say? That would explain it…you were in the pool. Oh well, it’s the motion in the ocean anyhow, right Bob? Just keep telling yourself that. You seem to believe just about anything when you scream about it enough.)
Is not me.
Now, to you:
1) Picking one sentence and ignoring the very next sentence (stating that swimming is aerobic exercise) doesn’t make your point.
2) There are scientific studies, which I mentioned before, that specifically state that swimmers experience an artificial spike in hunger after swimming, that tends to encourage people to over eat.
3) Those same studies (remember, do your research!) state that there is no proof that swimming is an effective activity for weight loss, and show that walking–just walking, is more effective in weight loss than swimming.
4) Actually, swimming for 20 minutes (1/3 of an hour) would net you maybe 300 calories burned according to http://www.nutristrategy.com/caloriesburnedswimming.htm And that’s if you’re over 200 lbs. Hardly a full meal at burger king…not even a kids meal, actually.
5) You’re a self-admitted body builder. And there’s where your argument falters. Weightlifting, in conjunction with aerobic exercise is THE best way to lose weight.
6) You specifically used the words “stay afloat” which is ambiguous at best and can easily be accomplished by either technique. Treading is more about staying in one place than just floating. Treading water is also much less strenuous than 20 minutes of non-stop swimming.
Katie,
It is definitely NOT discrimination because people choose to smoke. It is not part of your genetic makeup.
Your probably right. But this is America and we can sue for anything we want. We can make the case that it was genetic because my mom smoked when she was pregant or some other stupid bs therory that any match book law school graduate can make up.
So, now that I was going to apply and didnt bother, count me in!
To: Stephen Tallinghasternathy With the mountains of information that show cigarettes are a carcinogen and severely reduce a person’s lifespan, smokers shouldn’t be hired due to their general stupidity.
How about obese people? They gorge themselves and they too have a greater health risk and shorter life span.
draetish, are you one of those stupid smokers?
There is absolutely no excuse except personal weakness for not quitting smoking.
Call me what you want, I didn’t ask for your opinion or your rudness Mr. Perfect. Mind your own business aXXhole.
You did ask for my opinion. You asked on Feb. 25 at 12:24 pm. It’s time stamped above.
I didn’t engage you, you engaged me.
Calm down and have a Marlboro, genius.
Wow…..we can do this!!?? Great!! This will save me a ton of money!! In my business, I am going to stop hiring smokers (its a choice), overweight people (its a choice), gay and lesbian people (cause we all know that is a choice and is not healthy…right?), people of certin religious backrounds (another choice) and people who drink alcohol (and yet another personal choice).
Lets face it……these can all be classified as DISCRIMINATION and once Pandoras box is open….it’s very hard to close again.
Shame on this business!!
Goes both ways. Once it’s open for lawsuits, we have lawsuits all the time.
Remind me, and I’ll assume you’ve had classes on this:
Discrimination lawsuits, up or down? What has happened with the costs? How much money is being wasted here? Who has to pay this money? What is the net benefit? Who gets the net benefit?
How many cases of actual discrimination are there?
I get your ideal. I want the net benefit or the net negative to allowing people to make their own choices in hiring.
Got Insurance?,
I loved your joke about being gay as a choice and not being healthy. I am guessing most conservatives would think you were being serious, though. Note, I say most. I have some conservative friends who could care less about the gay and lesbian thing. In my business, I’d much rather have a guy smoking hog than cigarettes, though. Unlike those who are trying to suppress marriage equality think, you can’t get second-hand gayness. That, and who really cares what happens in someone else’s bedroom. Besides, plenty of straight couples are using the same orifices as gay ones in very similar ways, if not identical even. It seems most of the people who are afraid of gays are the ones who may be a little curious themselves…right Rick Santorum and Bob Van Der Plaats?
Time for the ACLU to step in and protect the minority (smoker) rights.
Lets Sue!