Coke Didn't Make America Fat

The Wall Street Journal ^ | 10-07-09 | MUHTAR KENT

[GOP_Lady]

Americans need more exercise, not another tax.

Obesity is a complex issue, and addressing it is important for all Americans. We at the Coca-Cola company are committed to working with government and health organizations to implement effective solutions to address this problem.

But a number of public-health advocates have already come up with what they think is the solution: heavy taxes on some routine foods and beverages that they have decided are high in calories. The taxes, the advocates acknowledge, are intended to limit consumption of targeted foods and help you to accept the diet that they have determined is best.

[Grunthor]

“Fat people are prodigous eaters. That is why they are fat.”

I am fat. I consume less than 1000 calories per day. I am fat because I am a lazy bass turd.

[Toddsterpatriot]

It was used as as foundation to pile on and refer to.

They built on the ozone issue so they could ban Freon as a greenhouse gas?

You take one paid for false premise and you build from there.

Or you confuse the issues and don't fess up?

Any luck proving your silly patent claim?

Or is it something your dad (the inventor of Freon maybe?) told you in secret?

[Mase]

There are two forms of HFCS being used today. The first is HFCS 55(% fructose) which would offer a minute increase in the amount of fructose someone consumes vs. sucrose. However, there are a whole lot of products that use HFCS 42(% fructose) as a substitute for sucrose. Does that mean using this particular formulation of HFCS is better for you than sucrose?

To suggest that a meager increase in fructose consumption, that HFCS may or may not be responsible for, causes all sorts of afflictions from obesity to cancer is absurdity on parade and is nothing more than people trying to blame problems on something other than the cause.

[SparkyBass]

"Coke Didn't Make America Fat"

No, but I did hear it kept Obama slim...!

[fooman]

Best of luck to you and hope you find a new groove...

[Mase]

Welcome to bizarro world. I walked right into it. I should have warned you to bring the foil......and Thorazine.

[Eroteme]

This tax is a hard one to oppose intellectually

Only if you believe that the constitution allows for selective, punitive taxation.

[Old Professer]

prodigious

[GOP_Lady]

Oh, you’re welcome, dear BunnySlippers. :-)

[Old Professer]

You left out the closet breatharians...

[Old Professer]

You show me the dog that can digest that load and I’ll excuse the homework and give you an “A”

[sickoflibs]

So lets see, we cant raise income and business taxes because they suppress activity, and we cant raise sin taxes because they are punitive (even though by rule # 1 they suppress the sin) BUT we can spend lots of money on everything, on top of social spending, war , nation rebuilding, homeland security, etc. If we can never raise taxes on anything then GWB/republicans had no business even passing a budget,.

[Eroteme]

You buy into the libs’ rationale that they’re entitled to spend on every freaking program that strikes em. I don’t.

Only liberals think it’s a choice between raise taxes and keep spending, or don’t raise taxes and keep spending—and yes, that includes people with putative R’s after their names who vote for that crap. They’re de facto liberals by virtue of the votes they cast.

You’re trying to justify the out of control gov’t spending with the tired whine that “George Bush did it.” Yeah, he did, and it was wrong-headed then, too. Conservatives are sick about it, and sick and tired of it, no matter who does it.

I notice you ignored the constitutional aspect in favor of the straw man argument.

[Old Professer]

That was the ozone hole

[sickoflibs]

My point isnt that I would personally support Obama’s raising any taxes. I would not, mainly because he promised not to raise them so screw him. My point is that ‘so called’ conservatives want their cake and eat it too, OK for them to run debts, but bad for democrats, using all types of silly kids arguments. At least when they raise our taxes, it forces them to make sure we want the spending the taxes are funding or they get thrown out. If fatso is getting free health care, then you have to reduce his sugar consumption.

I dont know what you mean by constitution, seems running up huge debts for future generations should not be defended by meaningless phrases blaming the constitution. Seems like if there was any threat of being stopped by courts, you wouldnt care. And I am sure you are getting some benefit from government, someone could call unconstitutional,

[Old Professer]

The patents were running out and China was set to be the major producer; R-12 was the best gas for the type of refrigeration we commonly use as its safety level is unequaled.

Dupont was a happy camper but the madness reigned and now the hole comes and goes, just as it has all along.

Its chief replacement, HFC-134 was just made a GHG by Jackson, Browner et al this year and here we go again.

[brytlea]

LOL yes, that’s what my kids said. I also did not feed them much sugar either. To this day they are not sweet eaters. I mean they will eat some, but they don’t consume mass quantities.

[Toddsterpatriot]

The patents were running out and China was set to be the major producer

When did they get the patent? When was it set to expire?

[brytlea]

LOL I like that! I hope so too, I’m too young to feel so old! :)

[Old Professer]

It wasn’t so much that the patent would run out or that duPont was the sole vendor, it was the fact that the die had been cast and R-12 was about to be banned and that dupont was one of the first to develop an acceptable replacement, R-134A; the history of the invention, patenting and widespread use is covered well by the historic background part of the ozone story released by NOAA:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/hats/publictn/elkins/cfcs.html