Popular National Acquisition - Covid

[BCauley]

Originally Posted by irv

I know it must be tough knowing you're in the age group that is currently having the majority of these vaccine related heart attacks, but all this anger, rage and stress certainly isn't helping either I wouldn't think?
Try to relax, breath deep and maybe, since it seems you're on board with them despite the side affect info regarding them, maybe get another booster if you think that would help?
Oh, and your unprovoked attack about me is somewhere in those other 2 threads but if you think I'm going to take the time to go find them now to appease you, you're crazier than I thought.

So what you’re saying is, you can’t cite this “other post” you mentioned. Nor can you cite the “other two” people by name?

Also, what is my “age range?”

Can you cite these vaccine related heart attacks?

Color me surprised when you can’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BCauley]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

I cant fathom how anyone with a mind, yes there is the caveat, can believe IF THEY have the vaccine, someone else not getting it is a risk TO THEM. Aside from destroying their own narrative.

Do what you want to your body in your home, dont tell me what to do with mine for "the good of the people" who mostly made poor life choice and bad decisions to end up where they are. Want to take away years of my retirement life by shutting down the economy? That's something I feel that's worth fighting for and I'd like to understand why.

In (likely) less than 20 years, more studies will be done, and we will see exactly how covid and its measures affected the people and economy. It will be curious to watch.

I’m curious. How pathetic is your life that your user name begins with a party affiliation that you align with? No identity of your own?

Just curious of course.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BCauley]

Originally Posted by G1911

Apparently, if there is no evidence for X we should believe X anyways instead of not believing it, because one cannot prove a negative.

Yep. That’s how Jan 6 happened. Vast voter fraud! Stolen election!

You’d likely find that many people in that crowd also thought COVID was a hoax, cited tweets as facts, YouTube clips as facts, and other forms of media that fit their narrative as facts.

Oh, also believed COVID would be gone by Easter of 2020.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[G1911]

Originally Posted by BCauley

“As any rational person knows”

Please, go back to your left v right rhetoric again. Then explain how you’re rational enough to tell us about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes. Read the statement. "It is impossible to prove a negative, as any rational person knows." The lack of any evidence (which was my entire point) is the rational method by which one arrives at disbelief. You cannot prove that something does not exist, you can only conclude the claim is untrue or should be treated as such because there is no evidence, which was my exact point and worded correctly. Logic has worked this way since even before Aristotle. I am sorry this really, really upsets you for some reason.

Originally Posted by BCauley

Yep. That’s how Jan 6 happened. Vast voter fraud! Stolen election!

You’d likely find that many people in that crowd also thought COVID was a hoax, cited tweets as facts, YouTube clips as facts, and other forms of media that fit their narrative as facts.

Oh, also believed COVID would be gone by Easter of 2020.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What are you talking about? When have I ever said anything about January 6, vote rigging, or a stolen election? I have never said a word about any of this. Are you okay?

[irv]

Originally Posted by BCauley

So what you’re saying is, you can’t cite this “other post” you mentioned. Nor can you cite the “other two” people by name?

Also, what is my “age range?”

Can you cite these vaccine related heart attacks?

Color me surprised when you can’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So much hostility and so much rage.
What was it, exactly, that set you off, Dick?

Was it me deciding to identify as being vaxxed, and since you didn't know that was an option nor thought of that yourself, that sent you into a tailspin?

Well, since it seems facts don't matter much anymore and emotions rule the day according to this Liberal woke insanity, today I've decided I am going to identify as being a Conspiracy Theorist and my pronouns are going to be TOLD/YOU/SO.

How's that work? Hopefully fine, but if not, please try to understand trying to fit in with this new to me woke, imaginary, where facts don't matter anymore society, is taking some getting use to.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Carter08

So you’ll take YouTube and Twitter over a group of medical doctors -
got it. Like I’ve said before, I think the best advice is to listen to your doctor and follow his or her advice. My doctor is my nephew’s baseball coach and a great guy. I trust him. He could care less about making more money and has refused to sell his practice to the medical groups that are gobbling the solos up. He has what he think is a smart move healthwise and I’ll take that advice over conspiracy theorists any day of the week.

The vaccines stop infection: That was a lie.
The vaccines stop the spread: That was a lie.
The vaccines stop one from being hospitalized: That was a lie.
The vaccines stop one from being placed in the ICU: That was a lie.
The vaccines stop one from being placed on a ventilator: That was a lie.
The vaccines stop one from dying: That was a lie.
The vaccines are "Safe and Affective" That was a lie.
The need for boosters is a conspiracy theory: That was a lie.
These vaccines will not cause any side affects: That was a lie.
The implementation of covid passports is a conspiracy theory: That was a lie.
The implementation of vaccine mandates is a conspiracy theory: That was a lie.

Tell me, Cater, if Fauci himself told you/admitted the covid pandemic, the vaccines, all of it, were all nothing but a big lie, could you admit you were duped, or, because you've been brainwashed so badly and are totally incapable of connecting the dots, thinking for yourself, would you not believe him?

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by BCauley

I’m curious. How pathetic is your life that your user name begins with a party affiliation that you align with? No identity of your own?

Just curious of course.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not pathetic all, quite cheerful and exciting actually. I was poking fun/relating to people being conservative in an overtly blue state. Funny though, when I asked people why the vote the way they do, usually Democrats tell me because their parents voted that way.

Fiscally conservative and social liberal in case you cared. Which is more of an independent. Just because youd identify me as a white middle aged man, I'm not a "trumper" , "anti-vaxxer", etc. I think people should do them, just dont make me pay for it, or tell me what to do. Seems pretty basic IMO

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by irv

The vaccines stop infection: That was a lie.
The vaccines stop the spread: That was a lie.
The vaccines stop one from being hospitalized: That was a lie.
The vaccines stop one from being placed in the ICU: That was a lie.
The vaccines stop one from being placed on a ventilator: That was a lie.
The vaccines stop one from dying: That was a lie.
The vaccines are "Safe and Affective" That was a lie.
The need for boosters is a conspiracy theory: That was a lie.
These vaccines will not cause any side affects: That was a lie.
The implementation of covid passports is a conspiracy theory: That was a lie.
The implementation of vaccine mandates is a conspiracy theory: That was a lie.

Tell me, Cater, if Fauci himself told you/admitted the covid pandemic, the vaccines, all of it, were all nothing but a big lie, could you admit you were duped, or, because you've been brainwashed so badly and are totally incapable of connecting the dots, thinking for yourself, would you not believe him?

I will listen to my medical doctor over you and what you “learn” on YouTube and Twitter. You disagree with that. Moving on…

[irv]

Before I lose all hope with mankind and society, please tell me no one here actually believes this?

Just when you think the funded Main Stream Media (MSM) couldn't get any worse, they outdo themselves yet again.

And to think this is where many still get and believe their news is truthful, factual and unbiased.

People who skipped their COVID vaccine are at higher risk of traffic accidents, according to a new study
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/peopl...183148392.html

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by irv

Before I lose all hope with mankind and society, please tell me no one here actually believes this?

Just when you think the funded Main Stream Media (MSM) couldn't get any worse, they outdo themselves yet again.

And to think this is where many still get and believe their news is truthful, factual and unbiased.

People who skipped their COVID vaccine are at higher risk of traffic accidents, according to a new study
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/peopl...183148392.html

No I don't believe a single thing you post in this thread. Honestly I hope you are really bored and just love trolling this thread. I seriously couldn't imagine anyone actually believing the things you have posted links to.

[Kzoo]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I seriously couldn't imagine anyone actually believing the things you have posted links to.

With the amount of fake media propaganda spewed across airwaves over the past several decades, I think you might be surprised.

[jethrod3]

Originally Posted by irv

Do you know what peer reviewed means, Carter?
It means the funded selected peer reviewer(s), if they don't agree with what you present to them (because it doesn't follow the narrative), means you are told to try again or are ousted, black balled, criticized and shamed and shown the door.
Why some of you believe that peer review is from some divine source is beyond me? It is just another fancy word to fool the sheep, that is all.

As someone that has published over 50 papers (based on work funded at least in part by federal agencies) in peer-reviewed journals AND is also an associate editor of a scientific journal, let me address the above comment. Usually, only the editors and those working on the actual editing/publication of scientific articles get paid for their effort. But for most journals (e.g., non-predatory journals), neither associate editors (who usually make the final decisions about acceptance of the data and papers, with the Editor rubber-stamping the decision) nor the reviewers (who provide reviews and rank the papers based largely on significance, scientific rigor and innovation/contribution to the field) receive any compensation, and reviewers are ethically obligated to review without bias. In fact, many of the top tier journals employ a double-blind system where neither the reviewer nor the authors know the identities of the other. Again, unless the journal is a bottom-feeder or predatory in nature, the peer review process is quite rigorous and performed predominantly by well-known experts in the field, and being "funded" is not a prerequisite to review a paper (many may be receiving federal funding for doing research of some sort or another in their own labs, but in fact many are not funded in any way by external funding sources). Peer review is not perfect, and there are a few unscrupulous unethical individuals in science as there are everywhere else that may seek to torpedo your work because they want to publish the same results in a different journal before you do, but by and large it works, and even the single-blind system works for most journals very well. And if you feel that you, as an author, did not get a fair review or if you think the reviewers didn't "get it" you are free to submit to another journal of your choice. From divine source? Nope. But journal articles from reputable journals are for the most part very carefully vetted, to the point that even years after an error in judgement is made or an author is exposed to have "fudged" data, there are opportunities for journals to print retractions of the data or papers. So the peer review process is pretty sound.

[jethrod3]

Originally Posted by G1911

Yes I'm very glad I've never taken welfare too.

They DO have a choice. Again, people are not being force fed. You can drink water over a soda. It's cheaper. You can eat a smaller serving, that costs the same or less. Every single city in America has vegetables available for the same price as junk food or less. You absolutely, factually do make choices. Lower income people do not have no choice. That is a blatant lie no matter how much you want to repeat it. You are responsible for what you shove down every day.

Lower income people often do not have good choices. They are already often drinking water over soda. They are eating high fat content meals because that is what is available close to where they live and it is all they can afford. Low income people have choices in their healthcare decisions do, but are you going to blame we are talking about a diabetic that was prescribed insulin and could not take it, because to buy it would mean spending money that they must instead spend on housing or food instead? Medical students repeatedly seeing such patients on follow-up visits after diagnosis who don't know what it's like to be poor would label these patients as "non-compliant" and would blame them for failing to take an active role in their healthcare, when in reality, the patients are stuck between a rock and a hardplace, and having to make a financial decision that may help their own illness but would leave their family without shelter or food. I'm hoping this analogy starts to make some lightbulbs go off.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jethrod3

Lower income people often do not have good choices. They are already often drinking water over soda. They are eating high fat content meals because that is what is available close to where they live and it is all they can afford.

For the fiftieth time, there is no city in America where you can't get fairly healthy food for cheap as well. A smaller serving (if you are obese you are obviously consuming more than your body needs) does not cost more money. I am sure some obese people only consume water, but it's not most of them.

Originally Posted by jethrod3

Low income people have choices in their healthcare decisions do, but are you going to blame we are talking about a diabetic that was prescribed insulin and could not take it, because to buy it would mean spending money that they must instead spend on housing or food instead?

This is the second time you've tried to go this bizarre route. I am in favor of diabetics getting their insulin. I don't think it should cost a penny, it is a life saving treatment. I think it is a travesty that our system makes it expensive and people's class and job status is a factor in whether they are able to take care of their diabetes. My brother is a type 1 and relies on insulin to stay alive, I don't think whether or not he is employed or has money should dictate his survival, or for anyone else who has this disease. I am very liberal on healthcare. I am also aware of basic biology.

To be cognizant of the undeniable biological fact that obesity requires you to eat far more than you need does not mean I don't think diabetics should be given insulin or that they should have to go without if they are poor. How would it? Can we at least pretend to be reasonable? Are you just going to keep making things up?

Originally Posted by jethrod3

Medical students repeatedly seeing such patients on follow-up visits after diagnosis who don't know what it's like to be poor would label these patients as "non-compliant" and would blame them for failing to take an active role in their healthcare, when in reality, the patients are stuck between a rock and a hardplace, and having to make a financial decision that may help their own illness but would leave their family without shelter or food. I'm hoping this analogy starts to make some lightbulbs go off.

Again, it is not more expensive to eat less. Vegetables are widely available and cheap. If you pound down unhealthy food in large quantity and get obese, which is how the vast majority of the obese get obese, that is their choice. Hopefully the lightbulb of basic human biology goes off. Eat too much, you get obese. Duh.

[jethrod3]

Originally Posted by G1911

For the fiftieth time, there is no city in America where you can't get fairly healthy food for cheap as well. A smaller serving (if you are obese you are obviously consuming more than your body needs) does not cost more money. I am sure some obese people only consume water, but it's not most of them.



This is the second time you've tried to go this bizarre route. I am in favor of diabetics getting their insulin. I don't think it should cost a penny, it is a life saving treatment. I think it is a travesty that our system makes it expensive and people's class and job status is a factor in whether they are able to take care of their diabetes. My brother is a type 1 and relies on insulin to stay alive, I don't think whether or not he is employed or has money should dictate his survival, or for anyone else who has this disease. I am very liberal on healthcare. I am also aware of basic biology.

To be cognizant of the undeniable biological fact that obesity requires you to eat far more than you need does not mean I don't think diabetics should be given insulin or that they should have to go without if they are poor. How would it? Can we at least pretend to be reasonable? Are you just going to keep making things up?



Again, it is not more expensive to eat less. Vegetables are widely available and cheap. If you pound down unhealthy food in large quantity and get obese, which is how the vast majority of the obese get obese, that is their choice. Hopefully the lightbulb of basic human biology goes off. Eat too much, you get obese. Duh.

You're still not getting it. Many low income people are eating less food already, but it's absolutely more expensive to eat less good food than less bad food, and the bad food can lead to obesity. And an assortment of vegetables are NOT widely available in many stores accessible to the poor. But there are plenty of bad foods. Obesity is not always correlated to how much food you eat. Are you going to acknowledge this? I don't dispute some of the general things you say, but again, it's generalizing, and applies to people that can make choices based on socioeconomic or other factors. Some don't have a choice. Don't lecture me about human biology. I've forgotten more biology than you will probably ever know, but it's way more complicated than biology anyway, and if you don't realize it, then there really is no purpose in discussing the issue further. I hoped you'd get the analogy about insulin. Too bad. If I thought you had an open mind I might continue the discussion. I may be wrong, but I don't think that you do.

[BobC]

No comment!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/med...es/ar-AA15hTt3

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

For the fiftieth time, there is no city in America where you can't get fairly healthy food for cheap as well. A smaller serving (if you are obese you are obviously consuming more than your body needs) does not cost more money. I am sure some obese people only consume water, but it's not most of them.



This is the second time you've tried to go this bizarre route. I am in favor of diabetics getting their insulin. I don't think it should cost a penny, it is a life saving treatment. I think it is a travesty that our system makes it expensive and people's class and job status is a factor in whether they are able to take care of their diabetes. My brother is a type 1 and relies on insulin to stay alive, I don't think whether or not he is employed or has money should dictate his survival, or for anyone else who has this disease. I am very liberal on healthcare. I am also aware of basic biology.

To be cognizant of the undeniable biological fact that obesity requires you to eat far more than you need does not mean I don't think diabetics should be given insulin or that they should have to go without if they are poor. How would it? Can we at least pretend to be reasonable? Are you just going to keep making things up?



Again, it is not more expensive to eat less. Vegetables are widely available and cheap. If you pound down unhealthy food in large quantity and get obese, which is how the vast majority of the obese get obese, that is their choice. Hopefully the lightbulb of basic human biology goes off. Eat too much, you get obese. Duh.

I live near Washington DC and there are known "food deserts" in low-income areas, specially in the Southeast quadrant. These are areas without grocery stores and access to healthy affordable food is few and far between.

But this is not just an urban problem, and it is a problem that affects a large swath of the American population.

Check out this map:
https://ubique.americangeo.org/map-o...-food-deserts/

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jethrod3

You're still not getting it. Many low income people are eating less food already, but it's absolutely more expensive to eat less good food than less bad food, and the bad food can lead to obesity. And an assortment of vegetables are NOT widely available in many stores accessible to the poor. But there are plenty of bad foods. Obesity is not always correlated to how much food you eat. Are you going to acknowledge this? I don't dispute some of the general things you say, but again, it's generalizing, and applies to people that can make choices based on socioeconomic or other factors. Some don't have a choice. Don't lecture me about human biology. I've forgotten more biology than you will probably ever know, but it's way more complicated than biology anyway, and if you don't realize it, then there really is no purpose in discussing the issue further. I hoped you'd get the analogy about insulin. Too bad. If I thought you had an open mind I might continue the discussion. I may be wrong, but I don't think that you do.

I said in post 1 of this sidetrack that there are some actual medical conditions and exceptions, but I’m not talking about the 1%. Obviously we are going to make some generalizations when we are talking about tens or hundreds of millions of people. Obviously. I have been to every major city in this country, never once have I managed to not find cheap vegetables readily available. If my dumb ass can do it, so can others.

If you are such an expert on human biology, you shouldn’t be doing this routine every time I say that if you eat more than you need you get obese, and that people can control eating less. No one is force feeding people more. A poor person does not spend more money to eat less. If you are getting obese you need to consume less (or don’t if you don’t seek health). Duh. Even in some fantasy where they are too poor to afford food and don’t have food stamps, they can easily eat less. Clearly they can afford to eat too much to get obese. If you consume more than you burn you gain weight; that is actual science. If you’re an expert, stop getting triggered over it. My mind is open to actual science, not your social narrative where groups you like have no responsibility for their actions whatsoever. That’s social political bunk I have no interest in from either side.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

I said in post 1 of this sidetrack that there are some actual medical conditions and exceptions, but I’m not talking about the 1%. Obviously we are going to make some generalizations when we are talking about tens or hundreds of millions of people. Obviously. I have been to every major city in this country, never once have I managed to not find cheap vegetables readily available. If my dumb ass can do it, so can others.

If you are such an expert on human biology, you shouldn’t be doing this routine every time I say that if you eat more than you need you get obese, and that people can control eating less. No one is force feeding people more. A poor person does not spend more money to eat less. If you are getting obese you need to consume less (or don’t if you don’t seek health). Duh. Even in some fantasy where they are too poor to afford food and don’t have food stamps, they can easily eat less. Clearly they can afford to eat too much to get obese. If you consume more than you burn you gain weight; that is actual science. If you’re an expert, stop getting triggered over it. My mind is open to actual science, not your social narrative where groups you like have no responsibility for their actions whatsoever. That’s social political bunk I have no interest in from either side.

Ever try to find a grocery store in the Southeast of Washington DC?

And there is growing evidence showing that there is more to weight gain than the basic caloric intake vs. calories burned math formula.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...-calories-fat/

https://www.health.harvard.edu/stayi...nting-calories

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Ever try to find a grocery store in the Southeast of Washington DC?

And there is growing evidence showing that there is more to weight gain than the basic caloric intake vs. calories burned math formula.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...-calories-fat/

https://www.health.harvard.edu/stayi...nting-calories

Give me a southeast DC address and let’s look at the map.

Yes, I don’t doubt other things have some impact. Some foods do lead to weight gain more than others (hence my argument that one should eat more veggies and less carb and fat trash). Calories in Vs. Calories out is the domianant factor. If you eat 5,000 calories of healthy food while living a sedentary life, you will almost certainly become obese. If you eat 1,000 calories of trash you will almost certainly lose weight, but will probably suffer other consequences of an unhealthy diet. If one is obese and desires not to be obese, then one should eat less. I’m amazed anyone wants to object to that.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

Give me a southeast DC address and let’s look at the map.

Yes, I don’t doubt other things have some impact. Some foods do lead to weight gain more than others (hence my argument that one should eat more veggies and less carb and fat trash). Calories in Vs. Calories out is the domianant factor. If you eat 5,000 calories of healthy food while living a sedentary life, you will almost certainly become obese. If you eat 1,000 calories of trash you will almost certainly lose weight, but will probably suffer other consequences of an unhealthy diet. If one is obese and desires not to be obese, then one should eat less. I’m amazed anyone wants to object to that.

"Currently, Lidl is one of four full-service grocery stores in wards 7 and 8. According to Mayor Bowser's office, in January, there were 76 full-service grocery stores west of the Anacostia River.

That means there is roughly one grocery store for every 39,000 people in wards 7 and 8, while there is one grocery store for every 7,000 people in the rest of the District, according to 2020 US Census numbers."

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/l...e-ecd3661242c4

But again, its not just urban areas:
https://ubique.americangeo.org/map-o...-food-deserts/

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

"Currently, Lidl is one of four full-service grocery stores in wards 7 and 8. According to Mayor Bowser's office, in January, there were 76 full-service grocery stores west of the Anacostia River.

That means there is roughly one grocery store for every 39,000 people in wards 7 and 8, while there is one grocery store for every 7,000 people in the rest of the District, according to 2020 US Census numbers."

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/l...e-ecd3661242c4

But again, its not just urban areas:
https://ubique.americangeo.org/map-o...-food-deserts/

Okay. People cannot purchase vegetables at the 4 grocery stores? Seems like the lines might be long lines sometimes but I’m not seeing how it’s not doable to buy foods that are not unhealthy? Do these stores only stock junk food?

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

Okay. People cannot purchase vegetables at the 4 grocery stores? Seems like the lines might be long lines sometimes but I’m not seeing how it’s not doable to buy foods that are not unhealthy? Do these stores only stock junk food?

Wards 7 and 8 are sizable. Many people don't live very close to the 4 grocery stores that serve those two Wards. 39K people per grocery store is very high.

And this is with the addition of grocery stores thanks to the current mayor prioritizing it. It used to be way worse.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Wards 7 and 8 are sizable. Many people don't live very close to the 4 grocery stores that serve those two Wards. 39K people per grocery store is very high.

And this is with the addition of grocery stores thanks to the current mayor prioritizing it. It used to be way worse.

I agree that is a lot of people per store. But it’s been insisted to me that our obesity problem (which apparently is poor people, even though it factually has been going up up and away among all classes for many years now, I have no idea why this obesity sidetrack is only poverty and we are completely ignoring that every group is fat now) is not people eating fast food because our obese are too poor for fast food. If they can’t afford fast food, they aren’t going to nicer restaurants. They must be getting food (anybody want to argue that not eating makes one obese?) from somewhere. Presumably they must then be going to grocery stores. Do these stores not sell healthy food? I mean I can call them tomorrow and ask about their produce section but it seems very unlikely they don’t have one or sell out immediately every morning. Plenty of poor people manage to not be obese. Plenty of rich people are obese (for the third time, to check out an affluent card show and see those gigantic waist lines). It’s almost like people control how much they stuff down. If people did not have access to food they would be dangerously thin.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

I agree that is a lot of people per store. But it’s been insisted to me that our obesity problem (which apparently is poor people, even though it factually has been going up up and away among all classes for many years now, I have no idea why this obesity sidetrack is only poverty and we are completely ignoring that every group is fat now) is not people eating fast food because our obese are too poor for fast food. If they can’t afford fast food, they aren’t going to nicer restaurants. They must be getting food (anybody want to argue that not eating makes one obese?) from somewhere. Presumably they must then be going to grocery stores. Do these stores not sell healthy food? I mean I can call them tomorrow and ask about their produce section but it seems very unlikely they don’t have one or sell out immediately every morning. Plenty of poor people manage to not be obese. Plenty of rich people are obese (for the third time, to check out an affluent card show and see those gigantic waist lines). It’s almost like people control how much they stuff down. If people did not have access to food they would be dangerously thin.

A lot of people don't live near a grocery store.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

A lot of people don't live near a grocery store.

Okay. They are too poor to eat fast food, they also cannot go to a grocery store at all because they don’t live near one.

Makes me wonder how these people are even alive, much less obese! It’s a miracle.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

Okay. They are too poor to eat fast food, they also cannot go to a grocery store at all because they don’t live near one.

Makes me wonder how these people are even alive, much less obese! It’s a miracle.

A lot of people get their groceries from 7-11 and Dollar stores because that is what is near them.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

A lot of people get their groceries from 7-11 and Dollar stores because that is what is near them.

So our argument is now that America is obese because people are too poor to eat fast food, cannot locate or get to any grocery store, and do their groceries at 7/11 with no other viable choice, and this is the only thing available to them?

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

So our argument is now that America is obese because people are too poor to eat fast food, cannot locate or get to any grocery store, and do their groceries at 7/11 with no other viable choice, and this is the only thing available to them?

Lack of access to grocery stores is certainly a contributing factor.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Lack of access to grocery stores is certainly a contributing factor.

Okay, so you reject that formulation. If we're objecting to the basic science that eating more calories and bad food gains weight and that eating less and healthier produces weight loss, and we also object to my take that people choose what they eat as vegetables are readily and cheaply available in every city, what exactly is the specific argument? And how does this explain that obesity is factually not just a poor people thing?

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

Okay, so you reject that formulation. If we're objecting to the basic science that eating more calories and bad food gains weight and that eating less and healthier produces weight loss, and we also object to my take that people choose what they eat as vegetables are readily and cheaply available in every city, what exactly is the specific argument? And how does this explain that obesity is factually not just a poor people thing?

Uh oh, you're all worked up again. I'll come back when you are a little less frothy.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Uh oh, you're all worked up again. I'll come back when you are a little less frothy.

Mhm. You can't even state the argument.

[jethrod3]

Originally Posted by G1911

Okay. They are too poor to eat fast food, they also cannot go to a grocery store at all because they don’t live near one.

Makes me wonder how these people are even alive, much less obese! It’s a miracle.

Good lord man, look around this country. Take a good look because it's hard to believe you have been to enough places to say some of the things you are saying. Have you been to low income housing districts? And did you read the earlier post about food deserts? You claim "there is no city in America where you can't get fairly healthy food for cheap as well." While you need to define what the terms "fairly healthy food" and "cheap" mean, because they darn well mean different things to people of different socioeconomic backgrounds, it's a claim by you that cannot be proven. I'm not talking about an occasional sale on carrots and beets at the local bodega. I'm talking a consistently low-priced variety of items including protein, suitable for low income heads of households to bring home for their families for breakfast, lunch and dinner, 365 days a year.

[jethrod3]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

And there is growing evidence showing that there is more to weight gain than the basic caloric intake vs. calories burned math formula.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...-calories-fat/

https://www.health.harvard.edu/stayi...nting-calories

These are a couple of nice articles one of which is based on scientific papers that I have read before. To which our friend's response is that people should eat less "bad food." Which ignores the things pointed out previously: Many people do not have access to inexpensive "good food," and many people could not afford to buy "good food" even if they lived next store to the store. Thanks for pointing out those articles. Hidden in them is also an argument as to why obesity is not just a "poor people thing." But round and round we still go. Time for me to get off this crazy merry-go-round.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Not pathetic all, quite cheerful and exciting actually. I was poking fun/relating to people being conservative in an overtly blue state. Funny though, when I asked people why the vote the way they do, usually Democrats tell me because their parents voted that way.

Fiscally conservative and social liberal in case you cared. Which is more of an independent. Just because youd identify me as a white middle aged man, I'm not a "trumper" , "anti-vaxxer", etc. I think people should do them, just dont make me pay for it, or tell me what to do. Seems pretty basic IMO

fiscally conservative and social liberal is pretty much conversative. its not like democrats have monopoly of social causes. If you for transgendered former men swimming as woman and competing against woman than i would agree thats in the social liberal camp... if for reperations for former slaves..than dem camp on social liberal....but if you are not in the extreme social causes side..i think most reps agree with most dems on 'social causes'

censorship can be argued a social cause issue preventing speech on issues and that not socially liberal etc.. Also a lot of spending has to do with social causes and if you are fiscally conservative that could conflict with some social causes......just saying

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by G1911

What are you talking about? When have I ever said anything about January 6?

I wish I had a dollar for every time BCauley has brought up January 6 on Net54.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Uh oh, you're all worked up again. I'll come back when you are a little less frothy.

Ha stop citing facts and making valid arguments! It ruffles feathers.

[ALR-bishop]

For Cliff

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrE...eJCXO7l44dnvE-

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

For Cliff

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrE...eJCXO7l44dnvE-

Haha, January 6th 1920 was a much better day than January 6th 2021 (coming from someone from NY and not Boston).

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jethrod3

Good lord man, look around this country. Take a good look because it's hard to believe you have been to enough places to say some of the things you are saying. Have you been to low income housing districts? And did you read the earlier post about food deserts? You claim "there is no city in America where you can't get fairly healthy food for cheap as well." While you need to define what the terms "fairly healthy food" and "cheap" mean, because they darn well mean different things to people of different socioeconomic backgrounds, it's a claim by you that cannot be proven. I'm not talking about an occasional sale on carrots and beets at the local bodega. I'm talking a consistently low-priced variety of items including protein, suitable for low income heads of households to bring home for their families for breakfast, lunch and dinner, 365 days a year.

If I'm making it up, then name the US city in which you can't find vegetables at cheap prices. Need to call the grocery stores and inquire on produce prices? Good lord man, look around this country, all economic classes have a ton of obese people these days. You get fat by eating more than you need. It does not cost more money to eat less. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant. There are many true things I do not like. The basic facts people will deny if it doesn't fit their victim narrative is astounding.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

I wish I had a dollar for every time BCauley has brought up January 6 on Net54.

Its relation to this topic will forever remain a mystery.

[jethrod3]

Originally Posted by G1911

If I'm making it up, then name the US city in which you can't find vegetables at cheap prices. Need to call the grocery stores and inquire on produce prices? Good lord man, look around this country, all economic classes have a ton of obese people these days. You get fat by eating more than you need. It does not cost more money to eat less. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant. There are many true things I do not like. The basic facts people will deny if it doesn't fit their victim narrative is astounding.

I just looked online at stores in cities in Indiana for common vegetables and fruits. Just bought one last week so I can attest that one red delicious apple will cost you ~$1.36 today on average. See if you can buy broccoli for a family of 4 for a cheap price per serving. And tomatoes. How much will it cost to make a decent salad for a family of four even if you skip the croutons and salad dressing? Then, subtract that as part of one meal, figure out the occasional protein source and beverage with fruit added for desert, project it over 30 days, then subtract it from a person's monthly income level for those at or just slightly higher than the poverty line and tell me that those vegetables and fruits are cheap to them once you subtract reasonable funds for rent and clothing. "Cheap" is a relative term any way you slice it, isn't it? I never argued the point that obesity can cut across all socio-economic classes by the way. I indicated reasons why the poor can be more susceptible to obesity issues for different reasons. Poverty and accessibility to healthy foods in sufficient quantity are reasons.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by jethrod3

I just looked online at stores in cities in Indiana for common vegetables and fruits. Just bought one last week so I can attest that one red delicious apple will cost you ~$1.36 today on average. See if you can buy broccoli for a family of 4 for a cheap price per serving. And tomatoes. How much will it cost to make a decent salad for a family of four even if you skip the croutons and salad dressing? Then, subtract that as part of one meal, figure out the occasional protein source and beverage with fruit added for desert, project it over 30 days, then subtract it from a person's monthly income level for those at or just slightly higher than the poverty line and tell me that those vegetables and fruits are cheap to them once you subtract reasonable funds for rent and clothing. "Cheap" is a relative term any way you slice it, isn't it? I never argued the point that obesity can cut across all socio-economic classes by the way. I indicated reasons why the poor can be more susceptible to obesity issues for different reasons. Poverty and accessibility to healthy foods in sufficient quantity are reasons.

thats anecdotal and its all comparable...what is the poor family spending their money on versus healtier food and veggies..you can buy a bag of non red delcious apples for a lot less.....to think of croutons and dressing on a salad that takes away all the healthy benefits and should not even be considered.....clothes are actually very cheap..ther are goodwills everywhere and clothing drives.. you can buy 10+ outfits for less than 100 bucks..plus ther are many free clothes places..for you to mention clothings costs shows you out of touch as clothes are really not much of an expense. shoes a bit more challenging...however there are tons of ways to get cheap clothes if you are poor.....if i was poor i would not care if i wore a shirt that there as a spelling mistake so its less than a dollar versus spelled correctly and costing 15 dollars..

i actually have had to live on many things i am discussing.... i noticed that others that complained in my situation were not honest in how they were spending their limited money,

how much are eggs and tuna...you can also buy veggies and fruit in the mail that are a little old but still just as nutritious / below are some links

https://www.misfitsmarket.com
https://thekrazycouponlady.com/tips/...oduce-delivery

you can buy a 10 pound box of produce for about 15-20 bucks......you cant pick whats in it but is fruit and veggies and healthy things. and its mailed to you and doesnt matter where you live. ..please stop with the lack of access in areas like washington dc when you can just get it mailed to you.. much better than buying bacon and doritos for 5 dollars

to quote an apple costing more than a dollar where you can get 4 of them for that price with same nutrition...

[jethrod3]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

to quote an apple costing more than a dollar where you can get 4 of them for that price with same nutrition...

I cannot buy 4 apples for $1.36 here in my large midwestern city. Actually I looked at bags of apples if you are talking about cheaper apples and buying them in bulk. The cheapest bag of apples, a 5 lb bag, was $4.99, about the same price as a slightly smaller red delicious I quoted. Yes, you do get more apples but generally they are smaller. Also, and this is not meant to be an argumentative comment but rather an observation: many lower income and poverty-level families will not be able to buy in bulk either because they cannot afford to, or because they don't have the room to store all the fruits and veggies in bags.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by jethrod3

I cannot buy 4 apples for $1.36 here in my large midwestern city. Actually I looked at bags of apples if you are talking about cheaper apples and buying them in bulk. The cheapest bag of apples, a 5 lb bag, was $4.99, about the same price as a slightly smaller red delicious I quoted. Yes, you do get more apples but generally they are smaller. Also, and this is not meant to be an argumentative comment but rather an observation: many lower income and poverty-level families will not be able to buy in bulk either because they cannot afford to, or because they don't have the room to store all the fruits and veggies in bags.

Its still far less that buying a bag of doritos.....the apples you were looking at are not the same as the less pricier apples plus there are carrots/bananas etc far less a pound...saying you cant store products is a housing issue..one issue at a time..the point is healthy food is far cheaper then people said.i already gave links where you can buy older fruit for very cheap...same nutrition and you can have it mailed to you....food stamps will pay for them as well..

[Republicaninmass]

Tostitos are now 5 bucks a bag!

Eggs 5 bucks a dozen!

Inflation is transitory!

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Tostitos are now 5 bucks a bag!

Eggs 5 bucks a dozen!

Inflation is transitory!

$5.99 before taxes here. I am independently wealthy so I made omelets for the wife and myself Saturday and Sunday morning.

[BobC]

Surging prices on things like eggs may not just be entirely inflation related. Thought I read about the recent desecration of poultry flocks due to a type of avian flu that had hit American poultry farmers, and how tens of millions of birds were culled to try and stop any further spread. Will take a while for the poultry industry to get back to normal, and then it is still plagued by increased distribution and processing costs due to continuing supply chain issues and so on. It seems to be getting better, but we are certainly not back to where we were a year ago.

Same thing with some other meats. The drought over a large portion of the country this past year, especially in areas known for cattle ranching, caused many ranchers to send more of their herds to market than ever before, rather than losing them to drought conditions. The supply chain and other production issues contributed to the still high prices though. But the significant herd reductions will have a longer lasting effect going forward on beef supply and costs, as it will take much longer for the American cattle herds to replenish and grow back to where they were. And that is only if these terrible drought conditions start to abate. Poultry/chickens have significantly shorter gestation periods than cows, and can have flocks replenished a lot faster and easier than cattle herds. Even if inflation were to suddenly disappear, we are probably going to be experiencing some continued beef industry costs issues due to these reduced herds.

Inflation may be a part of the problem, but you also have to include disease and climate issues as major contributing factors as well, at least for some foods.

And where are you guys buying your eggs from? I just bought a dozen large, grade A eggs last Thursday for $3.44.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by BobC

Surging prices on things like eggs may not just be entirely inflation related. Thought I read about the recent desecration of poultry flocks due to a type of avian flu that had hit American poultry farmers, and how tens of millions of birds were culled to try and stop any further spread. Will take a while for the poultry industry to get back to normal, and then it is still plagued by increased distribution and processing costs due to continuing supply chain issues and so on. It seems to be getting better, but we are certainly not back to where we were a year ago.

Same thing with some other meats. The drought over a large portion of the country this past year, especially in areas known for cattle ranching, caused many ranchers to send more of their herds to market than ever before, rather than losing them to drought conditions. The supply chain and other production issues contributed to the still high prices though. But the significant herd reductions will have a longer lasting effect going forward on beef supply and costs, as it will take much longer for the American cattle herds to replenish and grow back to where they were. And that is only if these terrible drought conditions start to abate. Poultry/chickens have significantly shorter gestation periods than cows, and can have flocks replenished a lot faster and easier than cattle herds. Even if inflation were to suddenly disappear, we are probably going to be experiencing some continued beef industry costs issues due to these reduced herds.

Inflation may be a part of the problem, but you also have to include disease and climate issues as major contributing factors as well, at least for some foods.

And where are you guys buying your eggs from? I just bought a dozen large, grade A eggs last Thursday for $3.44.

There are a lot of reasons for lots of things. However, when critics say too much govt spending causes inflation and inflation does happen, yeah there can be some others things 'putins price hike' but it looks like just pivoting when point to other things. You can agree that inflation is a huge cause of the high prices and the critics were right and also say there are also some other things that are bring prices up, otherwise it looks like an agenda is at play in general....not directed to the poster here....i just talking generally..

[BobC]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

There are a lot of reasons for lots of things. However, when critics say too much govt spending causes inflation and inflation does happen, yeah there can be some others things 'putins price hike' but it looks like just pivoting when point to other things. You can agree that inflation is a huge cause of the high prices and the critics were right and also say there are also some other things that are bring prices up, otherwise it looks like an agenda is at play in general....not directed to the poster here....i just talking generally..

Right you are Jake. There are a lot of different factors that play a part in inflation and prices we face. I was just pointing out that generalizing putting things under inflation alone isn't always the full or most significant reason(s) that we are facing rising prices. This latest bout has a lot of different things that have contributed to what we are experiencing. Spending, government policies, and such are most definitely factors, just as the Covid pandemic, supply chain issues, and the war in Ukraine, are not helping things at all either.