Mommy Government: May I Have A Soda?

Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Mommy Government: May I Have A Soda?

 

 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/01/us-usa-sugarban-newyork-idUSBRE85012N20120601  Mayor Bloomberg of NYC thinks that the poor are too stupid to figure out how much soda they should be drinking. When is this insanity going to end? These fucking control freaks are everywhere, why do people keep electing them?  

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
 Fortunately, there are so

 Fortunately, there are so many exemptions to the ban that it is unenforceable and ineffective.

Bloomberg is creating the illusion of taking a stand without actually taking one.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
I wouldn't be in favor of

I wouldn't be in favor of that law but only because there's a serious problem they're trying to address and that's not a serious solution. Of course people should be able to eat and drink whatever they want even if it's bad for them. Apparently though people have made their choice and they choose to be fat asses who put twice the daily allowance of sugar into one cup and drink it, which is a public health issue.

Governments have to figure out whether there are ways to address that and how to do it without impinging too much on people's individual liberties, whether that is by adopting some sort of harm reduction policies, public awareness campaigns, taxation or incentivising healthier behavior, etc. 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
 Actually, the poor may

The poor may actually be too "stupid" to figure out how much soda they should be drinking. There are Christian missionaires from here who go to help in Africa. In areas of relatively developed south Africa the poor live in urban sprawl communities. Among their many problems there is a complete ignorance on what to do with money when they get some. They tend to buy Coca Cola and radios, instead of investing into... I don't know, maybe vegetable seeds, flowerpots, fertilizer and so on? White charity workers have to take black women to the market and show them what kinds of vegetables to buy, how to prepare them and generally run a household to make the ends meet. 

"New Yorkers expect and deserve better than this,'' the Coca-Cola statement said. "They can make their own choices about beverages they purchase."

Bullshit. Coca Cola has some best advertising brain massage out there. It's so strong that it bests Pepsi any time, even though Pepsi was proven to taste better in independent blindfolded tests. Just the awareness and sight of Coca Cola convinces people that it tastes better than Pepsi. I doubt they customers have any free choice in this matter. If they had any, they would drink tap water instead and use Coca Cola to clean the toilet, for which it is very effective thanks to the content of phosphoric acid. But when it comes to fat, salt, sugars and endorphins, people get irrational. Even worse, the power of food addiction may get as powerful as morphine or heroin. We can not talk about a free choice here. Nobody chooses to be a grotesquely bloated fat-assed hambeast.

So what we have here, a big corporation uses psychologic mind control to make money, promoting the epidemia of fatness among America's children and poorer citizens. Which is of course complemented by cheap burgers from McDonald, a staple food among these social circles. The rich ones can afford better food and personal trainers, apparently.

I have no problem with the government controlling standards of food production towards healthier ends. Food is one of basic needs and the government is responsible of what kind of stuff gets imported, produced and sold and at what prices. It necessarily reflects on people's health and healthcare expenses and on state budget also. We can not vote with our wallets if the price of votes is unequal, if healthy or high quality votes are too expensive for a large percentage of population. 

I find it perfectly acceptable for governments to set healthier standard of all production and import in the country and then - let the people choose. 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13835
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
MOMMY GOVERNMENT CAN I HAVE

MOMMY GOVERNMENT CAN I HAVE A SEATBELT! FUCK MOTORCYCLE HELMET LAWS. WE NEED MORE DIABETES AND OBESITY!

Please tell me jackass, how this will ban soda? And name me one establishment that carried the smaller drink would not be willing to sell you several of the smaller ones?

The tabacco companies were forced to put warning labels on their packs, BUT GUESS WHAT, you can still buy smokes!

This WILL NOT put soda out of business. Grow the fuck up. I am so fucking sick of your fear mongering of government.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I am so

Brian37 wrote:
I am so fucking sick of your fear mongering of government.

 

 

   Right, the government of the United States has never in its long history given any indication that it could actively pursue policies that completely crush the rights of individuals.  Just ask the Native Americans, the African Slaves who were brought here against their will, the American citizens of Japanese ancestry who were forced into interment camps by FDR, the Tuskagee syphyllis experiment which was perpetrated by a government organization which is now referred to as the Department of Health and Human Services.   Of course we should all just look upon those examples ( and others ) as simply insignificant little blemishes that in the long run simply don't matter.  

 

  The lifestyle police who are out to save us from ourselves always move at a slow pace, so as not elicit strong opposition.  They take their time and test the waters.  The anti-smoking movement is a perfect example.  Baby steps...baby steps......

www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/misanthropy

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." Rudyard Kipling


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:MOMMY

Brian37 wrote:

MOMMY GOVERNMENT CAN I HAVE A SEATBELT! FUCK MOTORCYCLE HELMET LAWS. WE NEED MORE DIABETES AND OBESITY!

Please tell me jackass, how this will ban soda? And name me one establishment that carried the smaller drink would not be willing to sell you several of the smaller ones?

The tabacco companies were forced to put warning labels on their packs, BUT GUESS WHAT, you can still buy smokes!

This WILL NOT put soda out of business. Grow the fuck up. I am so fucking sick of your fear mongering of government.

I never claimed it would ban soda, or put them out of business. But if I want a 42 oz soda, why should I be forced to purchase it in 2 1/2 cups? Thereby causing more garbage to be produced, more global warming, costing me more money and most importantly if someone else is with me how the fuck do I fit 5 cups in the cupholders in my car? I drive a Buick Lacrosse, a decent sized car but I only have two convenient cupholders. I guess I could have my passenger hold a couple and drive one handed myself... All for what?

 

Why is it any of the governments business if I want a 42 oz soda? I am not obese- 6 ft even and 170 pounds. If I lift weights every day I can get myself up to 185 but I gave that up years ago. I am what Penn Jillette refers to as a "skinny fuck". I don't have diabetes and if I did, the alcohol I consume would do far more damage than the soda since I pretty much only drink soda when I am on a long road trip in which case I order the largest size so I don't have to stop as often or when it is mixed with my rum in which case I order extra rum with only a splash of soda. And even if I was 400 pounds, what fucking business is it of yours or Mayor Bloombergs? As if anyone is 400 pounds because of soda alone, if you are that overweight you have other issues you should be addressing the fucking soda is insignificant. 

 

If you have a weight problem or diabetes- DEAL WITH IT. Watch "The Biggest Loser" and do what they do. Manage your diet, exercise etc. Why should the rest of us have to adjust our lives for your problem? I am extremely sensitive to the sun. I can't go to the beach, if I do I get severe sun burn and am extremely high risk for skin cancer. I don't go around trying to get the government to ban beaches and swimsuits. I just don't go to the beach myself and wear long sleeves and hats year round. 

 

If you think it is a great thing for the government to control what you eat or drink, then I really am speechless. You are the one who needs to grow the fuck up and learn how to make your own big boy decisions without government telling you what to do. I am an adult, I don't need mommy government telling me what is healthy and what isn't.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
But they're making marijuana

But they're making marijuana legal:

http://blog.norml.org/2011/09/27/new-york-city-police-commissioner-calls-on-officers-to-curb-marijuana-arrests/

The cynical side of me says this soda law is really about collecting more taxes. If people have to order two sodas it's double the tax revenue. Same with marijuana legalization, soon it will be a bit revenue bonanza for government. It's not about "protecting the public." Follow the money, that's always the way to understand things. Bloomberg got rich by figuring out how to squeeze every cent he can out of people. Now he feels powerful by squeezing every cent of tax he can.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10725
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
If there were to be a

If there were to be a serious effort by government to restrict diet, then all kinds of trade laws would go into effect, and those foods which were restricted would be banned outright or sold in government retail locations like alcohol is in many places.

However, if the government provides your sustenance, you shouldn't get to buy pop and gummy bears instead of meat and vegetables.

That said, no government I'm aware of provides sufficient sustenance to survive on, and therefore has no right to make demands on what qualifies as acceptable eating. Pop and gummy bears are much cheaper than real food, and will keep you alive, more or less.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13835
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Vastet wrote:If there were

Vastet wrote:
If there were to be a serious effort by government to restrict diet, then all kinds of trade laws would go into effect, and those foods which were restricted would be banned outright or sold in government retail locations like alcohol is in many places. However, if the government provides your sustenance, you shouldn't get to buy pop and gummy bears instead of meat and vegetables. That said, no government I'm aware of provides sufficient sustenance to survive on, and therefore has no right to make demands on what qualifies as acceptable eating. Pop and gummy bears are much cheaper than real food, and will keep you alive, more or less.

I defy anyone here to show me where soda has been banned? This is like accusing the government of being anti car because they post speed limits.

I have worked in food service most of my life. And having seen what workers do with food, anyone who wants to claim "no rules" as a default position is lying their ass off.

Otherwise selling outdated food is "acceptable" eating. Dropping food on the floor and then putting it on the plate is "acceptable" eating.

This really cuts to the core of money equaling power, and how much of a role should government protect the right to make money, vs the harm a product may cause the society as a whole. In this case it is bullshit to say that the government is punishing soda makers. Otherwise drinking and driving should be legal because the more beer a bar sells the more money they make.

If it were an outright ban on soda, I would agree, but it is not anymore than speed limits are anti car.

Seriously, if all the advocates of NO REGULATION love it so much, then live in Tijuana and drink the water on a daily basis.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


hbmbc30
hbmbc30's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2012-06-16
User is offlineOffline
i agr

these govt nannies are morons they are trying to tell us what we can and cant drink which is pure BS in every sense of the word... i dont understand it... michelle obama was rumored to have tried to start the portion size regulation... do they honestly think that prohibiting portion or drink sizes that itll make ANY difference what so ever? my knowlege on this subject is growing but theres still some things i dont know.. whats next censoring free speech OH WAIT they tried that if im not mistaken lol

Chris


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10725
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Michelle never tried to make

Michelle never tried to make a law. She did what many first ladies have done and decided to support a cause, that cause being healthy eating. It's a suggestion, not a command.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I defy anyone

Brian37 wrote:

I defy anyone here to show me where soda has been banned? This is like accusing the government of being anti car because they post speed limits.

I have worked in food service most of my life. And having seen what workers do with food, anyone who wants to claim "no rules" as a default position is lying their ass off.

Otherwise selling outdated food is "acceptable" eating. Dropping food on the floor and then putting it on the plate is "acceptable" eating.

This really cuts to the core of money equaling power, and how much of a role should government protect the right to make money, vs the harm a product may cause the society as a whole. In this case it is bullshit to say that the government is punishing soda makers. Otherwise drinking and driving should be legal because the more beer a bar sells the more money they make.

If it were an outright ban on soda, I would agree, but it is not anymore than speed limits are anti car.

Seriously, if all the advocates of NO REGULATION love it so much, then live in Tijuana and drink the water on a daily basis.

So if the government decided that only a 2 oz drink was acceptable you would be ok with that?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Vastet

Brian37 wrote:

Vastet wrote:
If there were to be a serious effort by government to restrict diet, then all kinds of trade laws would go into effect, and those foods which were restricted would be banned outright or sold in government retail locations like alcohol is in many places. However, if the government provides your sustenance, you shouldn't get to buy pop and gummy bears instead of meat and vegetables. That said, no government I'm aware of provides sufficient sustenance to survive on, and therefore has no right to make demands on what qualifies as acceptable eating. Pop and gummy bears are much cheaper than real food, and will keep you alive, more or less.

I defy anyone here to show me where soda has been banned? This is like accusing the government of being anti car because they post speed limits.

I have worked in food service most of my life. And having seen what workers do with food, anyone who wants to claim "no rules" as a default position is lying their ass off.

Otherwise selling outdated food is "acceptable" eating. Dropping food on the floor and then putting it on the plate is "acceptable" eating.

This really cuts to the core of money equaling power, and how much of a role should government protect the right to make money, vs the harm a product may cause the society as a whole. In this case it is bullshit to say that the government is punishing soda makers. Otherwise drinking and driving should be legal because the more beer a bar sells the more money they make.

If it were an outright ban on soda, I would agree, but it is not anymore than speed limits are anti car.

Seriously, if all the advocates of NO REGULATION love it so much, then live in Tijuana and drink the water on a daily basis.

 

How does contaminated water and meat have anything to do with soda? Those things can kill you or make you miserable with any use of them. Soda only harms with carbonation which can damage teeth and weaken your bones if taken in to great amounts and the sugar can cause issues as well obviously. These are issues with quantity, and individual misuse of the products. These are NOT issues with the beverage itself being deadly.

Why should the government say whether or not you get to put soda into your body? Why is it any of their business what you drink? As long as you do no harm to others than why the fuck should it be banned?

You are confusing malicious product contamination and quality control issues with an unhealthy life choice.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 614
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:The poor may

Luminon wrote:

The poor may actually be too "stupid" to figure out how much soda they should be drinking. 

Of course they are. People keep drinking too much and smoking too much. I know many stupid people, some by voluntary ignorance other's by involuntary ignorance.

I've heard this story on the Daily show some time ago. Jon was also upset. I personally have difficulty having a position about this. But I think this is trivial because all that is being regulated here is the size of the soda and not how many you can sell. So you can always buy 2 sodas and it's the same thing.

Now you have to options about stupid people. You can say: "let them eat cake!" and you will retain your apparent freedom by letting the market have the power. Eventually turning the world into a bleak, unforgiving blade runner world. Where market forces purposely stupify you and control what you need to know.

Or you can let the goverment be your Big brother and decide what you eat, what you drink, what you do... and what you know.

Obviously none of these options is good.

I kind of find myself looking outside into the street and wondering that if everyone was like me, no police, no army and no laws were necessary... But no, the world cannot be an utopia.

It seems obvious that we need to protect some things above all other considerations. Above goverment, above market forces, above armies. We need to protect in the highest regard impartiality of education, information and justice. Essentially making Education, Justice, and Media independent from institutions with agendas. Making them inalienable pillars of democracy, fairness and freedom. No group of interest should control them. And they should regard everyone as being equal. Education, Justice and Information, should be communist.

In the growing complex world such as the one we live in some things are way above the understanding of even the educated person. So special groups of study have to come ahead and implement regulations when the risk to the consumer is complicated to manage or control.

Is democracy based on this principles? Yes. Are they in danger? Yes.

About the size of the sodas? It's not that important. In fact it's a stupid regulation. You don't forbid, you educate. You don't control, you regulate: decreasing the % of sugar or demanding the use of sweeteners. But education has to come first.

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Teralek wrote:Luminon

Teralek wrote:

Luminon wrote:

The poor may actually be too "stupid" to figure out how much soda they should be drinking. 

Of course they are. People keep drinking too much and smoking too much. I know many stupid people, some by voluntary ignorance other's by involuntary ignorance.

I've heard this story on the Daily show some time ago. Jon was also upset. I personally have difficulty having a position about this. But I think this is trivial because all that is being regulated here is the size of the soda and not how many you can sell. So you can always buy 2 sodas and it's the same thing.

Now you have to options about stupid people. You can say: "let them eat cake!" and you will retain your apparent freedom by letting the market have the power. Eventually turning the world into a bleak, unforgiving blade runner world. Where market forces purposely stupify you and control what you need to know.

Or you can let the goverment be your Big brother and decide what you eat, what you drink, what you do... and what you know.

Obviously none of these options is good.

I kind of find myself looking outside into the street and wondering that if everyone was like me, no police, no army and no laws were necessary... But no, the world cannot be an utopia.

It seems obvious that we need to protect some things above all other considerations. Above goverment, above market forces, above armies. We need to protect in the highest regard impartiality of education, information and justice. Essentially making Education, Justice, and Media independent from institutions with agendas. Making them inalienable pillars of democracy, fairness and freedom. No group of interest should control them. And they should regard everyone as being equal. Education, Justice and Information, should be communist.

In the growing complex world such as the one we live in some things are way above the understanding of even the educated person. So special groups of study have to come ahead and implement regulations when the risk to the consumer is complicated to manage or control.

Is democracy based on this principles? Yes. Are they in danger? Yes.

About the size of the sodas? It's not that important. In fact it's a stupid regulation. You don't forbid, you educate. You don't control, you regulate: decreasing the % of sugar or demanding the use of sweeteners. But education has to come first.

 

...Or you can let people how aren't harming others live how they want to live. People may be ignorant and foolish, but they are not children. They can decide for themselves what they want to put in their bodies. Or in the case that they are literally children, than the parents need to make decisions and figure out what they want for their child, and not just because they saw some sensationalist news report. Mistake police = bad idea. People need to make mistakes, and live with the consequences.

It's not limited to the two futures you describe. There is a middle ground from big brother life regulation and a true-capitalist free-for-all.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 614
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
ThunderJones wrote: There

ThunderJones wrote:

 There is a middle ground from big brother life regulation and a true-capitalist free-for-all.

that's what I said... maybe I was too elaborate...

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 http://www.nypost.com/p/new

 http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/soda_ban_to_sap_your_4t5pEK0hvo3PoNZEBOdZ2L

 

The soda ban goes into effect on March 12th and as the regulatory rules were written it turns out the ban is stricter than initially thought and including containers intended to be consumed by more than one person. Pizza delivery places will no longer be able to deliver 2 liter bottles, pitchers of soda will be illegal (although pitchers of beer are still ok), any restaurant with 20 oz glasses is forced to purchase smaller glasses, and even if you order bottle service it is illegal for them to provide you with more than 16 oz. of soda, cranberry juice or tonic water. You will have to purchase all of the mixers separate.

I wonder why people put up with this shit?  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10725
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I've come to the conclusion

I've come to the conclusion that too much shit is going on. It's not hard to hear someone yelling in an empty factory. But turn on the machines and get a work crew going and you'll need to be within a few metres of someone yelling to hear them.
And it's worse than that. As if every machine and every employee represented a specific idea or problem that needs to be addressed. So not only is it deafening, it's extremely distracting. Too many problems to deal with. Too many people bitching about too many things.
I think it burns most people out to the point they stop caring. The only way I can think of that will make people care is if their basic needs are threatened.
Most people don't care enough about pop to stand against this in the face of illegal wars, corporate and government corruption, trying to put food on the table, etc. that are all more significant issues than sugar water.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3474
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
my general political

my general political philosophy comes to mind here: lots of motherfuckers need to be shot.  publicly.  i'm dead serious: NOTHING significant will ever change until a lot of motherfuckers get shot.  history bears this out.

i've always agreed with jefferson that a revolution needs to happen every so often.  i think he said every 20 years.  i don't agree with that, but maybe every time a new generation comes of age.  at least every 50 years.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:my general

iwbiek wrote:

my general political philosophy comes to mind here: lots of motherfuckers need to be shot.  publicly.  i'm dead serious: NOTHING significant will ever change until a lot of motherfuckers get shot.  history bears this out.

 

    Nah, Obama will declare terrorist status upon the American rebels and unleash drones upon them.  Either that or he will arrest the offenders before they can do anything and keep them perpetually incarcerated with the Indefinite Detention law.

 

iwbiek wrote:
i've always agreed with jefferson that a revolution needs to happen every so often.  i think he said every 20 years.  i don't agree with that, but maybe every time a new generation comes of age.  at least every 50 years.

 

   That would never happen.  Modern Americans are extremely soft and addicted to their comfortable lives.  I would be very surprised if it actually happened in any significant numbers.  Most people of this political ilk are all talk and nothing more...

www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/misanthropy

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." Rudyard Kipling