VRWC,
I agree with everything you've said. I'm all for putting a stop to all of the behavior you've listed above.
no more duis
no more divorce
no more abortions
no more unprotected sex
etc. etc. etc.
Everyone in their right minds agrees with everything I've said above. Everyone knows that all these behaviors are wrong.
But fat is different. People think it's ok to be fat. Then, what happens is more people get fat, so more people think it's ok. And so on, and so on, through the generations, until you have entire families of fat people living in communities filled with families of fat people, breathing heavy, sweating profusely, taking up too much earth space, inconveniencing everyone around them, and then dying young. It spreads like a disease. No joke.
Thank god it's not contagious.
There are so maaaany fat people proportionally in America. It's ridiculous. It's a real life joke. And everyone that accepts it is guilty of allowing their country to get slovenly and lazy.
All that other stuff is accounted for. We already have an outcry from a sizable portion of our population concerning every item you've listed above. We're taught to never engage in those behaviors. But many, many Americans aren't taught the wrongness of fat.
Now it's time to add fat to the top of the list. Because the simple truth is that if you're fat, it just means you're lazy.
Now march! One, two, one, two.
*cue triumphant music*
Comments Policy
Leon
October 2, 2007 - 22:23 ET by Free StinkerLeon - I would mock you, but the challenge is gone.
No kidding, Free.
October 2, 2007 - 22:28 ET by BlondeLeon's "Fat Rant" is totally, totally pathetic.
What a self-absorbed little twit.
We need a better class of troll, here.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
We need a better class of
October 2, 2007 - 22:30 ET by Free StinkerWe need a better class of troll, here.
That line's a keeper. May I quote you? :-)
Come on Free
October 3, 2007 - 08:37 ET by LeonCome on Free Stinker,
Sling those Croakies back on, pop that collar, and let's dance.
Yesterday was a sensitive day. I suspect that a fair number of the newsbusters either have fat spouses, fat children, or are fat themselves.
I can see why my anti-fat crusade has touched some nerves.
Listen, the sooner we accept that fat is wrong, the sooner we can go about remedying the situation. Stop abusing the children of America by reinforcing bad behaviors.
Of course, if you're fine living in a country full of fried food eating slobs, then do nothing.
I'm fully "for" doing something...
October 3, 2007 - 09:00 ET by sarcasmoBut my "something" involves less government, and I suspect yours involves more-government, even though people around here don't tend to admit that when it's true...
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Sarc, I don't want the
October 3, 2007 - 09:11 ET by LeonSarc,
I don't want the government to do anything.
This is a family level crisis.
If we can do the right things at the family level, we won't have to have government intervention.
People simply need to start caring about themselves and each other.
Leon's Shrinking Village
October 3, 2007 - 09:15 ET by Cool ArrowGood idea Leon, keeping it at the family level. So you are in favor of shrinking government and forcing families to pay their own way when their members choose lifestyles that result in high illness and death.
Maybe there's hope for you yet.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Cool Arrow, This has
October 3, 2007 - 09:20 ET by LeonCool Arrow,
This has nothing to do with paying anything.
Getting healthy and shedding the fat is free.
It's nothing more than simple behavior modification.
}}---> Right Leon
October 3, 2007 - 09:27 ET by Cool ArrowAnd if it costs the individual rather than the state for personal risky behavior, the incentive is increased. I'm agreeing with you Leon.
People should be paying for their own behavior. You're progressing nicely.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Cool, You're getting a
October 3, 2007 - 09:35 ET by LeonCool,
You're getting a little general though. I'm only speaking about fat.
Have to keep my aim narrow or this conversation could get out of hand.
One thing I'd change about your post though is this, being fat isn't risky behavior. Risk involves chance.
Being fat is not a risky behavior, it's a guaranteed behavior. You will get sick/die young if you are fat. There is no other outcome.
Smoking is risky behavior. Being fat is not.
I'm progressing nicely? I've held this view since I've joined this site. I'd argue that finally the Newsbusters are beginning to progress. Finally accepting that FAT is dangerous and wrong.
}}---> Thanks, Leon
October 3, 2007 - 09:40 ET by Cool ArrowAnd since AIDS is a result of risky rather than guaranteed behavior, you can demand the Government pick up the tab?
How about I find one 90 year old fat person? Does your distinction between risky and guaranteed still hold?
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Cool, Depends on when
October 3, 2007 - 09:44 ET by LeonCool,
Depends on when they got fat.
I'm talking about people that live their lives fat. From childhood throughout adulthood.
Again, I'm not talking about AIDS, and I you're putting words in my mouth. This thread is about fat and only fat. Nothing else.
}}---> Wrong Leon
October 3, 2007 - 09:54 ET by Cool ArrowYour thread extrapolates nicely with all types of risky behavior. I continue to say "risky" as you have shown no proof that all fat people die young, as you've stated.
I couldn't care less how fat your family chooses to be as long as I don't have to pay for their risky behavior with my tax dollars.
Should I have to pay for the healthcare of a diabetic who's addicted to sugar? (and can't stop consuming it) The Meth addict? The alcoholic?
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Cool, Again, I'm keeping
October 3, 2007 - 13:03 ET by LeonCool,
Again, I'm keeping this thread to fat. Feel free to start a related chain about drugs, sex, and diabetes (which you can get from being a fat slob).
Please, being fat is a guarantee of chronic illness and premature death. Causality is clear.
Regardless, I want to focus on this statement:
I couldn't care less how fat your family chooses to be as long as I don't have to pay for their risky behavior with my tax dollars.
This is the problem. It's not just about tax dollars. The fat invasion affects all aspects of life. The negatives are not just economic.
Think of all the situations you face daily where fat people are an inconvenience. Walking down the street. Navigating a store. Riding the elevator. On the subway. On the airplane.
Every little thing.
They're everywhere, taking up space. Making life harder for everyone around them.
Not to mention the visual/auditory pollution they cause. Having to endure their heavy breathing and exorbitant sweating. I don't want to have to look at that. I shouldn't have to look at that.
The daily negatives of the fatties is much more far reaching than healthcare costs.
They ruin all facets of life.
Eerie
October 4, 2007 - 01:50 ET by UnsaneThis sounds eerily like things I have read out of Central Europe in the 1920s.
Anyone disagree?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Unsane, The difference
October 4, 2007 - 08:49 ET by LeonUnsane,
The difference being, of course, you can choose to change your weight.
You can't choose to change your ethnicity.
Disingenuous comparison. How lame. Keep supporting fat people. Keep condemning fat children to lives of hell.
Freewill
October 6, 2007 - 15:52 ET by UnsaneIt was a very genius comparison. If it bothers you so much, I recommend changing your tone.
Unlike you, I support freewill. But then, I am no Leftist.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
I care plenty about myself
October 3, 2007 - 09:17 ET by sarcasmoI just have trouble "caring" with any of my tax money about people who deliberately get un-healthy. It's one of the main reasons I fear Hillary, whose odds are currently a dismal one to two (but at least Dr. Paul's improving at 6 to 1 -- despite the fact that the "mainstream" media's ignoring it!).
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Agreed Sarc, I was
October 3, 2007 - 09:21 ET by LeonAgreed Sarc,
I was referring more to parents caring for their children, children caring for their parents.
But your point is well taken.
}}---> Bingo sarc
October 3, 2007 - 09:25 ET by Cool ArrowWhen you get Whoopi Goldberg offering Nancy Pelosi and her husband a 3-way, you get a sense of just how much risky the Libs will condone. Their open mindedness about who pays is apparent.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
One of the problems Leon,
October 3, 2007 - 09:20 ET by Karmais that with abortion, divorce, un-protected sex, liberalism etc.... is that you have people who publicly support and advocate for these behaviors. Please point out to me the vocal advocates of obesity.
Although I find him slightly annoying, I have nothing but respect for Richard Simmons. His methods of reaching out to overweight people seem to be more compassionate than yours. In fact, I would bet his methods have enriched more lives, both monetarily and emotionaly, than yours. Have you approached him to volunteer your services?
Karma, Vocal advocates of
October 3, 2007 - 09:24 ET by LeonKarma,
Vocal advocates of obesity?
Every single female tv show host that says big is beautiful.
Furthermore, it's not something that you need to vocally advocate.
By being fat, you're advocating the fat lifestyle. Similarly, by accepting fat people, you are silently advocating the fat lifestyle.
It may be a good cause Leon,
October 3, 2007 - 09:59 ET by Karmabut it's not mine. I believe the liberal destruction of the core values of faith, family and freedom to be infinitely more destructive than weight issues.
By being (x, y or z), you're advocating the (x, y or z) lifestyle. Similarly, by
accepting (x, y or z) people, you are silently advocating the (x, y or z) lifestyle.
x, y or z = liberal, gay, chemical dependant, snobbish, murderous, etc....
Your reasoning on these lines just does'nt make sense to me Leon.
Karma, I agree, but fat is
October 3, 2007 - 13:05 ET by LeonKarma,
I agree, but fat is a much more pressing issue.
If you add up all the chemical dependants, gays, and murderers, you still won't even come close the proportion of Americans that are FAT.
Fat far outnumbers all of these groups and, unlike the things you mentioned, fat is socially acceptable.
It's prevalance and acceptance are what makes it more dangerous than anything you're listed above.
have NPR donate 200mil, leon
October 3, 2007 - 13:10 ET by TruthMongerleon, have your NPR friends donate this $200,000,000 to your anti-fat groups then please
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1495774
it's all tainted "fat money"
The evil "anorexic look..."
October 3, 2007 - 09:32 ET by TruthMongerFat is not thought to be OK in our pop culture...check out the fitness craze and problems with anorexia...
Another problem going against leon here is that the MSM has really been complaining about the super-model anorexic look, and campaigning against it...essentially encouraging fat...the BBW or beautiful full-figured look, etc...
Wrong TM, Both extremes
October 3, 2007 - 09:37 ET by LeonWrong TM,
Both extremes are dangerous and wrong.
But many more people are headed towards the fat extreme than the thin extreme.
The MSM isn't encouraging people to be fat by campaigning against anorexia, they're encouraging people to be healthy, an appropriate weight.
Leon
October 3, 2007 - 10:07 ET by sarcasmoThis article seems to say that fat + exercise is healthier than thin + sedentary. Maybe this means that in addition to monitoring peoples' diets (to save healthcare money for taxpayers, right?) big mother should assign us all calisthenics classes? See my problems with all of this?
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
}}---> Leon Jeffs
October 3, 2007 - 10:10 ET by Cool ArrowPerhaps this prophet could lead us in all areas of our personal life, sarc.
What a wonderful world.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
No Sarc, I don't see your
October 3, 2007 - 13:07 ET by LeonNo Sarc,
I don't see your problem.
Of course there are many aspects of healthy living.
But one sure fire way to ensure poor health is to be fat.
So drop the fat first, then worry about maintaining the healthy lifestyle.
Once you get thin, of course you have to stay healthy, stay active. But you gotta be thin/appropriately sized first.
Ok, I'll simplify for you, Leon.
October 3, 2007 - 13:15 ET by sarcasmoMy problem is that right now, even if I smoke cigarettes & weigh about 25 pounds too much (which I do, but at least I also exercise!!) people mostly want to leave me the hell alone. I really want to be left the hell alone, even to the point that I might suffer for it someday.
In our Hillary-future, such "bad" habits as mine -- which now only affect me -- will be seen by other taxpayers (the ones who currently tend to leave me the hell alone) as costing them something. Then, they'll be infected with the Hillary-busybody virus, and they'll NOT want to leave me the hell alone, because suddenly it looks like I cost them tax-money instead of just-costing-me my-own money. Get it?? This medical socialism increases overall control-freakery beyond even the current levels of control freakery, which are way-too-high.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Ok Sarc, Clearly you're
October 3, 2007 - 13:35 ET by LeonOk Sarc,
Clearly you're interested in the future, while I'm trying to discuss the present.
I'm interested in being left the hell alone
October 3, 2007 - 13:43 ET by sarcasmoSomething I doubt will be possible in most politicians' futures, especially Hillary's. I don't see how people like you don't find this a threat to freedom, even if Republicans (well, most of 'em) aren't doing it.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Sarc, I'm
October 3, 2007 - 13:45 ET by LeonSarc,
I'm anti-Hillary.
The US will never have Universal Healthcare no matter what anyone says.
So no, I'm not scared.
She's one to two with the offshore bookies...
October 3, 2007 - 13:48 ET by sarcasmoWhich is far-ahead of all the Republicans, so I'm terrified. She tried for it before, and she has NOT given up on the idea.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Off-shore
October 3, 2007 - 19:59 ET by Free StinkerOff-shore bookies?
President Hillary is a bad idea, not matter what the odds.
anti-Hillary
October 4, 2007 - 13:23 ET by AgnosticIn my hospital the idea of univeral healthcare is kind of a joke. We feel like we already have universal health care it is just that the politicians are trying to find a way for it to cost the tax payers even more money.
leon, have your NPR
October 3, 2007 - 13:20 ET by TruthMongerleon, have your NPR friends donate this $200,000,000 to your anti-fat groups then please
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1495774
it's all tainted "fat money"
TM, We got it the first
October 3, 2007 - 13:34 ET by LeonTM,
We got it the first time you posted it.
I don't blame McDonald's for people being fat.
You can eat fast food occassionally and not get fat.
I blame the people that choose to get fat. That choose to eat fast food every day. That lack the self-control to say no to that sausage biscuit every morning.
It's not McDonald's fault Americans are fat.
Just saying your cause
October 4, 2007 - 13:15 ET by TruthMongerJust saying your cause could probably use some money - don't you think? Send PBS a note or two...
A service of the new NB respect police
TM, My cause requires 0
October 4, 2007 - 13:21 ET by LeonTM,
My cause requires 0 dollars.
Shaming people into action is free.
Trust me, any fat people that have read my rants in the past couple of days will think twice next time they go to eat straight from the tub of ice cream.
those anti-smoking ads
October 4, 2007 - 13:24 ET by TruthMongerthose anti-smoking ads for teens was a complete waste of money then?
A service of the new NB respect police
Huh? It's hard to shame
October 4, 2007 - 13:28 ET by LeonHuh?
It's hard to shame someone into not smoking.
It's not hard to shame someone into realizing they are gross and need to change.
just saying you could use
October 4, 2007 - 13:32 ET by TruthMongerjust saying you could use "anti-fat" ads to shame people - get one on the super bowl if you can!
do you think shame is a healthy motivator by the way? The Catholic church gets alot of pregressive flack for it...
Did Jesus use shame? I don't think so...
A service of the new NB respect police
TM, Shame seems to work
October 4, 2007 - 13:53 ET by LeonTM,
Shame seems to work for Chris Hansen.
Shame seemed to work in the middle ages.
Shame is a powerful motivator and I'm all for using it.
For example, I like the idea of making shop lifters stand in front of the store they robbed with a sign around their necks proclaiming their misdeed.
I think shame is effective in many cases. Espcially for fatties.
Shame is a big problem in
October 4, 2007 - 14:02 ET by TruthMongerShame is a big problem in anger management - not considered the best route for problem solving or behavior modification...
Touting the benefits of health might be better - carrot not stick
A service of the new NB respect police
Leon's Fat Story of the Day
October 4, 2007 - 08:48 ET by LeonChildhood usage of heartburn drugs up 56%.
Who uses heartburn medication? Obese people.
Greeeaaaat. Fat children are a sign of child abuse.
Leon, your Fatuous Fat Forum needs this from the other thread
October 4, 2007 - 10:48 ET by RJ"Der schlechte Affe basst seinen eigen Geruch"
Loosely translated: "people are most deeply offended by moral failings that somehow mirror their own." (from Bad Monkeys, by Matt Ruff)
I've been watching your obsessive fat rants with amusement, and have suspected for some time the truth lies somewhere in the quote above. ;^)
RJ, Being FAT isn't a
October 4, 2007 - 12:59 ET by LeonRJ,
Being FAT isn't a moral failing.
It's simply being lazy.
Morality isn't involved.
It's a physical failing.
NEXT!
Hey at least you got a fair amount of mileage from your silly German quote. Do you get 5 cents in Michigan everytime you recycle that post?
Like a good work out Leon?
October 4, 2007 - 13:02 ET by bassndudeLike a good work out. You 90% of Americans need to hit the weights at least 3 times a week, some of you weakling girlymen need to hit them 5 times. Build some man on you. Get em leon! Tell them weak girlymen how lazy they are.
BTW, you do bench 300 dont you?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Bass, I work out every
October 4, 2007 - 13:06 ET by LeonBass,
I work out every day thank you very much. Furthermore, you have no idea how much I can bench press, so assume on my good man.
Ugh, you sound like such a meathead. ha. Where are we the highschool weight room?
I still don't understand what you're 300 lbs bench press rants are about.
How is that similar to being a fat slob? Could you explain? Or are you just sharing your personal belief?
And are people that can't bench 300 pounds costing you money somehow? Are they dying young? Are they teaching their children abusive lifestyle choices?
Your comparison is weak and a massive stretch, even for someone like you.
Ha Ha Leon...You dont get
October 4, 2007 - 13:11 ET by bassndudeHa Ha Leon...You dont get the connection? You are a slow one arnt you? It is a group of people that do not fit into a slected group. The weak ones do not fit the standard set by someone else. Just their appearence is enough to place them into a sub-goup of sub-standard humans. I take it you are a member of that group. The sub-300 group.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Wow. Bass. Wow. Ha.
October 4, 2007 - 13:14 ET by LeonWow. Bass. Wow.
Ha. That sort of makes sense. Well, at least enough so I know what you meant.
I'm not demanding that FAT people fit MY standards. I'm demanding the fit the standards of NOT BEING OBESE.
I didn't set them. God set them when he created the human body. OUr joints, bones, and organs are set to functional optimally at an appropriate weight level.
So I didn't set any standards. Nature did.
According to your obsessive rants it's a moral failing, Leon
October 4, 2007 - 13:06 ET by RJmoral: of or concerned with the goodness or badness of human action and character.
(First definition, American Heritage Dictionary)
RJ, Way too deep. It's
October 4, 2007 - 13:08 ET by LeonRJ,
Way too deep. It's simply about people being lazy.
I don't think fatties are consciously choosing to behave badly (aka get fatter), I just think they're being lazy.
They know what they should do, they just don't want to do it.
Born fat - and gay!
October 4, 2007 - 13:13 ET by TruthMongerWell unfortunately some people are "born fat" like homosexuals are born gay:(
A service of the new NB respect police
No TM, A tiny percentage
October 4, 2007 - 13:16 ET by LeonNo TM,
A tiny percentage of people are doomed to lives of fatness, such as those suffering from Prader Willie (but even though they can't control their hunger, they can control their eating habits and thus aren't doomed to fatness)
Sexual orientation and fatness aren't related at all. A comparison can not be drawn between the two.
they are both medical
October 4, 2007 - 13:23 ET by TruthMongerthey are both medical conditions are they not?
A service of the new NB respect police
TM, Do you happen to have
October 4, 2007 - 13:26 ET by LeonTM,
Do you happen to have the technical term for being 'born fat' as you say.
Do you know the actual medical condition?
I belive it's called
October 4, 2007 - 14:21 ET by TruthMongerI belive it's called "obesity" - or do you think fat is not a medical condition - like being gay?
A service of the new NB respect police
TM, People are born
October 4, 2007 - 14:28 ET by LeonTM,
People are born obese?
Are you sure about that?
Ha.
born sinful
October 4, 2007 - 14:34 ET by TruthMongerwell in a sense - we are all born sinful - with propensities towards particular sins...like eathing too much or homosexual behavior...
A service of the new NB respect police
Ok Hobbes.You've veered
October 4, 2007 - 14:36 ET by LeonOk Hobbes.
You've veered into the land of irrelevance, yet again.
You claimed people are born fat, now you're backpeddling to say that people are born with the chance of being fat?
That's a completely different argument.
And, Leon, what I keep (without success) trying to find out is..
October 4, 2007 - 13:13 ET by sarcasmoDoes this obesity-problem require:
1. More taxes/spending/big government, or
2. Less taxes/spending/big government.
Might you be able to simply & honestly answer either "1" (Hillary/Democrats) or "2" (Ron Paul/Republicans) for me? Thanks.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Sarc, 3. Responsible,
October 4, 2007 - 13:17 ET by LeonSarc,
3. Responsible, self-respecting individuals
4. Responsible, self-respecting parents
It's costs nothing. To love yourself is free.
Um, those weren't choices...
October 4, 2007 - 13:29 ET by sarcasmoWhy are you trying to avoid my choices? You either want more government control or less, and your unwillingness to give a straight answer as to which suggests the answer is "more," so why not just say it??? Who, in politics, is against being "responsible" anyway?? The question is who pays the taxes, and I don't want to pay for others' stupidity, or make them pay for mine.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Sarc, You can't force
October 4, 2007 - 13:34 ET by LeonSarc,
You can't force every debate into your narrow window of interest.
Again, what I've been saying has nothing to do with the government. It's about the individual.
I'm pushing for each individual to make a change in the their own lives of their own volition.
Government control has nothing to do with it.
Narrow??
October 4, 2007 - 13:38 ET by sarcasmo"More government" or "Less government" is about as wide a variation of choice as I can give. Why not choose one, unless you're trying to hide a choice that's already-made?? If you want individuals to quit acting stupid, I'm all for it ideologically, but my money's against it.
The fact is, this board is about politics. How you vote. Do you vote for more government control or less government control isn't "forcing" a debate anywhere, it's a legitimate question you're desperately trying to dodge, and then camoflage the dodge with some very fine "individual responsibility" rhetoric with which everyone knows I agree. Why?
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Sarc, Explain to me how
October 4, 2007 - 13:51 ET by LeonSarc,
Explain to me how government control affects whether or not my fat neighbor chooses to eat McDonalds for three meals a day while never exercising.
It currently doesn't.
October 4, 2007 - 13:53 ET by sarcasmoIt might, with increased control, in the future. Which is what I'm worried about. There. I answered your question, so will you FINALLY answer mine? Choice 1 above, or choice 2???
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Sorry Sarc, I can't
October 4, 2007 - 13:59 ET by LeonSorry Sarc,
I can't answer questions based on hypotheticals.
However, since you're clearly not going to go away, I will choose what I always choose, less government.
Although I fail to see what this has to do with the personal responsibility involved in being fat.
If you always choose that way, please VOTE that way this time.
October 4, 2007 - 14:16 ET by sarcasmoAnd while correlation does not mean causation, it seems that America's average butt-growth has (in general, with the notable exception of folks like NB's lamentably-absent t-shirt model) tracked the growth in our lard-assed government. Perhaps an actual (not just promised) shrinking of of the federal government, for once in my life, would result in positive things for individual responsibility in areas as varied as ass-size to saving-habits. Stranger things have happened.
We've certainly tried bigger government, under BOTH "major" political parties, for all of my life. Now that I'm trying to influence a small-government change in one of those parties, I've encountered lots of name-calling and virulent hate (but little coherent debate...) right here on NB for the attempt. Think about it...
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Thin people unite!
October 4, 2007 - 14:26 ET by TruthMongerAgain I would say this is similar to the anti-smoking crusade - was that a government program? Or a non-profit?
Leon could set up the "National Association for the Abolishment of Fat People" for example, get some grants and go to it!
A service of the new NB respect police
TM, They are similar, but
October 4, 2007 - 14:33 ET by LeonTM,
They are similar, but the major difference is the problem.
Everyone knows smoking is wrong.
Many people think being fat is ok.
That's the difference and that's the problem. Big is not Beautiful. Fat is not ok.
Pro-smokers
October 4, 2007 - 14:36 ET by TruthMongerI guess I would say that many also belive smoking is great, not unhealthy at all - George Burns smoked cigars everyday and lived to be 100.
I've met many like this on my own...
A service of the new NB respect police
Maybe, just maybe...
October 4, 2007 - 14:40 ET by sarcasmoBeing a few pounds overweight or smoking a few cigarettes & cigars is worth a few years of my life. "My body, my choice," as they say when it's arguably, at least at some point, more than one body being affected/chosen-for, ironically...
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Leon the ignorant
October 4, 2007 - 13:13 ET by Sergeant ROCKTeaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
Laziness is a BEHAVIOR! Idiot!
"I believe in staring into the face of reality and denying it"
- Leon
Indoctrinate-U
Our Education. Their Politics.
Contact American Heritage, Leon, to tell them of their mistake
October 4, 2007 - 13:15 ET by RJHowever, since your repeated descriptions fit their definition, you'll probably have a hard time convincing them....but, until then, please keep up your religious crusade against immoral fatties. :^)
Ok RJ, So what's your
October 4, 2007 - 13:19 ET by LeonOk RJ,
So what's your point?
Are you supporting the spread of fatness?
Glad you asked, Leon
October 4, 2007 - 13:23 ET by RJ...because I get to repeat the point that
"people are most deeply offended by moral failings that somehow mirror their own." :^)
Right, I saw that
October 4, 2007 - 13:26 ET by LeonRight,
I saw that already.
So what's your point?
Repeating that line to a complete stranger is an exercise in futility.
Ha, Leon, I agree that your obsession is stranger and stranger
October 4, 2007 - 13:31 ET by RJ...but the line needed repeating because you attempted to avoid the issue with your claim that your religious crusade has nothing to do with your perception of morality....or that it might reflect something in your own background. :^)
RJ, I don't view it as a
October 4, 2007 - 13:36 ET by LeonRJ,
I don't view it as a moral issue regardless of the definition.
Anyone can post some stupid quote. I just find it funny that you have no idea what it means or really, why you posted it.
Yes, leon, we've established you disagree with the dictionary
October 4, 2007 - 13:46 ET by RJ...definition of "moral", and we know you believe you're infallible.
So, since I've told you what it means and you obviously think I'm wrong, please, please, please tell me what the "stupid" quote really means. :^)
RJ, To me your quote is
October 4, 2007 - 13:57 ET by LeonRJ,
To me your quote is simple and pathetic. All you're quote is saying is that many things that people despise, they despise because it reflects a personal failing.
I'm not fat, none of my family is fat, none of my friends are fat, so I can't quite figure out what the personal failing is.
Tell me what your point of using that quote is.
What are you trying to say about me?
What is the point when you consider that you actually know nothing about me and will never know anything about me.
So what argument are you advancing with this quote with regards to MY forum topic that you've chosen to participate in.
Where do you stand on fatties? Are you fine with your fat country? Are you pro-fat? Do you wish more people were fat?
Are you fat? is your spouse fat? If not, then why support fatties?
And in closing, answer, what are you arguing against me about?
Do you disagree with my assertion that our country would be better off if less people were obese?
"MY forum topic"...sorry if I broke YOUR rules, leon
October 4, 2007 - 14:09 ET by RJWell, if, leon, that infallible preacher of morality says it's "simple and pathetic", it must be so, right? After all, he also tells us when the Dicionary is incorrect...the gospel according to leon... :^)
What I said is that the truth probably lies somewhere in that quote. Maybe your Mama was fat and it embarrassed you. Maybe you were rejected by a fat girl at some point. Maybe a fat girl laughed at your "performance." Maybe you were bullied by a fat guy. Who knows? What is obvious, though, is your obsession about the subject.
The quote stands.....
So then RJ, What does
October 4, 2007 - 14:31 ET by LeonSo then RJ,
What does your quote say about all of the Newsbusters and their hatred of others?
I.E. the clintons, kerry, murtha, rosie, sean penn, tim robbins, al franken, harry reid, soros, etc etc etc.?
And I'm not obsessed with the topic, it's just something I feel is important. Is that not allowed?
Just b/c you like people to be fat and die young, doesn't mean I have to accept it.
"hatred" is your description hater, er, leon
October 4, 2007 - 14:43 ET by RJUnlike you, though, I can only speak for myself, and I don't "hate" any of those people.
"not allowed?" Hey, leon, preach whatever you want, but your preoccupation makes it an obsession.
RJ, Preoccupation doesn't
October 4, 2007 - 16:07 ET by LeonRJ,
Preoccupation doesn't make obsession.
It has to be compulsvie preoccupation.
That hasn't happened for me yet. If you look at all of my posts on this site and then look at all of my fat posts, proportionally they make up minute percentage.
Hardly an obsession.
Deny it all you want, leon
October 5, 2007 - 12:52 ET by RJObsession synonyms: "...preoccupation..."
Preoccupation: "excessively concerned with something"
;^)
RJ< What percentage of my
October 5, 2007 - 12:54 ET by LeonRJ<
What percentage of my overall posts are about Fatties?
Insist all you want, but the data denies your claims.
lol leon
October 5, 2007 - 12:58 ET by RJuh-huh ;^)
Glad we can agree. Does
October 5, 2007 - 13:00 ET by LeonGlad we can agree.
Does your husband know you sit around on the computer all day while he's at work?
I don't know about him but I'd be pretty salty if that's how my woman was spending her time and my $$$.
My my
October 5, 2007 - 13:07 ET by RJlooks like I've gotten on leon's nerves...that's pretty sad, leon... ;^>
Nah RJ, Just keeping
October 5, 2007 - 13:11 ET by LeonNah RJ,
Just keeping things in perspective for all of those readers out there.
You run around here trying to exert some kind of authority, but in your real life you have none.
Just want to make sure those reading your posts understand the context of your comments.
So to reiterate, you don't work and you sit on the internet all day spending someone else's money.
We need context. You felt free to put my situation in context when you unabashedly called me an effete northeastern liberal, so I'm doing the same for you.
Now everyone can see where we're coming from! Isn't that great!
Woo woo! Rant on, leon!
October 5, 2007 - 13:15 ET by RJ;^>
RJ, No rants here. Just
October 5, 2007 - 13:20 ET by LeonRJ,
No rants here. Just reality.
I can tell by your snide remarks that I've gotten to you. The truth hurts eh? Your opinion loses some authority when the truth that you don't even has a job comes to the table.
As a working man, I couldn't care less what someone that doesn't work has to say. I have a feeling most men are the same as me. Now that your secret's out, what are you going to do?
It's not too late. Hop on craigslist. You can get a job. You don't have to be entirely dependant upon your man.
It's 2007. There's plenty of women in the work place. I mean, as we all know, affirmative action has helped white women the most of any group.
You should take advantage.
Going for the skinny thread record, leon?
October 5, 2007 - 13:25 ET by RJ...and on your own forum, too... ;^>
New Record
October 5, 2007 - 13:29 ET by Sergeant ROCKY
e
s
,
h
e
i
s
!
RJ, You've been attacking
October 4, 2007 - 13:10 ET by LeonRJ,
You've been attacking me personally but you haven't yet commented on the topic at hand.
Since you seem to be defending the ever expanding waist line of your fellow americans, am I to assume that you are fine with the ever increasing number of obese Americans?
You're fine with all the negatives that come with this? You're fine with fat parents abusing their children by forcing their unhealthy lifestyle upon them?
Are you a fat supporter? If yes, what's your goal? 50% of Americans obese? 60%? 80%? 100%?
RJ, I'm going to use your
October 4, 2007 - 16:10 ET by LeonRJ,
I'm going to use your tactic now.
Stillll waiting. No reply? What's the matter, you don't have an answer?
You support the idea of all Americans getting fat? B/c that's where we're headed.
Can someone please explain to me why they defend fat people. Instead of personally attacking me, can someone really tell me why I'm wrong to want people to stop being fat. Someone. Anyone. Please. I can't seem to figure out what the platform is for the PRO-FAT crowd.
}}---> What Leon wants
October 4, 2007 - 16:16 ET by Cool ArrowWhat difference does it make what you want from individuals over whom you have no authority?
I want everybody in America to be just $1 poorer at my expense. I'm not going to obsess over this little sacrifice I want them to make.
It's unrealistic for you to expect obese people to slim down just because you want them to.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Um, wrong poster, leon
October 5, 2007 - 13:13 ET by RJ....that dog don't hunt, 'cause I don't use that "tactic." ;^>
And while we're exposing your misrepresentations, please show me where I've been "personally attacking" you.
And while you're at it, please show me where I've defended or supported the obese in America.
Defintions
October 4, 2007 - 13:05 ET by Sergeant ROCKmor·al / Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mawr-uhl, mor-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2.
expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3.
founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4.
capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5.
conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral): a moral man.
6.
virtuous in sexual matters; chaste.
7.
of, pertaining to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character: moral support.
8.
resting upon convincing grounds of probability; virtual: a moral certainty.
–noun
9.
the moral teaching or practical lesson contained in a fable, tale, experience, etc.
10.
the embodiment or type of something.
11.
morals, principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.
mor·al (môr'əl, mŏr'-) Pronunciation Key
adj.
n.
mo·ral·i·ty / Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[muh-ral-i-tee, maw-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ties for 4–6.
1.
conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
2.
moral quality or character.
3.
virtue in sexual matters; chastity.
4.
a doctrine or system of morals.
5.
moral instruction; a moral lesson, precept, discourse, or utterance.
6.
morality play.
Indoctrinate-U
Our Education. Their Politics.
Hey Hey, Looks like
October 4, 2007 - 13:07 ET by LeonHey Hey,
Looks like someone finally found the right mouse button.
Hey look!
October 4, 2007 - 13:09 ET by Sergeant ROCKLeon los