MovieChat Forums > Fat Head (2009) Discussion > This is decidedly right wing...

This is decidedly right wing...

posted 13 years ago by distant-skies
20 replies | jump to latest

...but still very accurate overall. Although the political issue is not black or white. The movie was right about it being about money, both from the government bureaucracies and private industries trying to survive or expand. But I don't agree that everything this movie criticizes is worthless, such as the food labels standardized years ago. If they don't want to print them on packages due to costs, then think of a more efficient way, preferably not forcing consumers with 1000 book sessions at the library. Maybe an internet compromise and making specific food lookups easy. Doesn't seem like that big of a deal. I mean, we have to know from somewhere what's in the food, right? It's not black or white and the little snipes in this movie against government made me lower the score one notch for this movie. Because if 'government can't do anything right', then privatize police, fire and military. Shut down the fda, epa and all regulation then let private industry regulate itself and see what happens. Worked like a charm for the economy in 2008.

Why can't you be a non-conformist like everyone else?

[–] liutenantsalt 13 years ago

>>Because if 'government can't do anything right', then privatize police, fire and military. Shut down the fda, epa and all regulation then let private industry regulate itself and see what happens. Worked like a charm for the economy in 2008.<<

Ahhh, the ever-dependable, "The Failure of everything in the absence of Government justifies the ineptititude and corruption of the Government" argument.

[–] DrWhen 13 years ago

A bad argument at that, since it was the government's "everyone should own a home" policies that artificially pushed the demand side and caused the market inflation. Of course they've been desperately trying to blame evil banks but anyone that took Econ 101 knows better.

[–] distant-skies 13 years ago

A bad argument at that, since it was the government's "everyone should own a home" policies that artificially pushed the demand side and caused the market inflation. Of course they've been desperately trying to blame evil banks but anyone that took Econ 101 knows better.

That might be true, but it was all linked to the same corrupt business-government link and money grab. The motivator and power behind the bubble was a few people knowingly investing in junk to get rich elsewhere. The minority party at the time didn't dictate to companies they should give out free houses. That's like saying a rapist can sue an aids victim for giving him aids.

Why can't you be a non-conformist like everyone else?

[–] DrWhen 13 years ago

That is the standard politician dodge rhetoric. The fact is government forcing interest rates and creating the sub-prime mortgage market is the cause. The only reason they continue to do that is because short term economic numbers help the incumbent. If the policy was long term then we would have had a drop in employment after the dot-bombs followed by a solid recovery. Since a lot politicians would have got canned during that drop, they try to force it.

[–] distant-skies 13 years ago

You can believe it was some specific, isolated, partisan event that led to it all, but I'm not buying that one. It was the system as a whole that created that because it is corrupt and the government is up for purchase. The whole two party thing is theater to begin with, and the lobbyists just shop around. The investors who orchestrated it and demonstrably took the money away from this are the real culprits. Of course, it's a lot neater to construe events to blame it all on those you already ideologically demonize. I doubt anyone can change your mind from that. I hope you don't take it as preaching because I'm just speaking my mind. I don't appreciate preaching nor do I pay much heed to it.

Why can't you be a non-conformist like everyone else?

[–] DrWhen 13 years ago

Not partisan at all. Using the federal reserve system to force economic numbers has been going on for decades. Using Freddie/Fannie to force the mortgage demand side is also not new. It's a bipartisan screw up.

[–] Zenkai76 13 years ago

You're a moron, it was idiots who bought houses they couldn't afford that crashed the market. If someone came up to me and said hey I will loan you money to buy this Lamborghini, I wouldn't because I am intelligent enough to know I can't afford it. But when you have people buying high end homes and barley making their payments on adj mortgage rate sand the feds raise interest to slow growth, combined with the sudden inflation of gas prices (which raises the price of everything!) of course the market will crash! So tired of idiots blaming government for stupid people making stupid decisions.

YOU FAIL

[–] blyeinprogress 13 years ago

I don’t think he ever said that food labels should be removed. In fact, I believe they said something along the lines of “the more information, the better.” His problem was with the portion of the nutritional value label that indicates “% Daily Value” because he believes it’s based off of an unhealthy balance of fat/carbs. Personally, I don’t think I’ve ever used that value to determine what I would or would not eat – not directly, anyway.

[–] ohmypotter 13 years ago

You're right, he never said to remove the food labels. He just pointed out that smacking you in the face with nutrition labels on packaging isn't going to stop people from eating it, or change their minds once they've bought it.
------
"It's huge to finally embrace the life you never planned on." --Greenberg

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DrWhen 13 years ago

FAIL: Inability to make a point without name calling. Try again.

[–] liutenantsalt 12 years ago

"The reason government is so inept and corrupt (as lieutenantSalt mentioned above) is because its agencies/bureaucrats are bought and sold by the billionaire friends of the right wing (with our money).
"

Not even close. You're just scapegoating the actions of government onto business to villify the latter and absolve the former of all wrongdoing. You're just a sollipsistic idiot who wants Leftist Nomenklatura to tell everyone what they can and cannot do based on your self-righteous narcissism. You've done more to prove Naughton's point than to discredit it.

[–] punxgurrl 13 years ago

Not everyone, but for me, yes.

I recently went to El Torrito because I had a coupon, and after looking at the nutritional information that comes with the menu, my husband and I decided not to eat there because there simply weren't good nutritious options for us. So we left, and haven't been back, and don't plan on going back.

To someone who is cautious and wants to be cautious of what they eat, nutrition labels do wonders. But to someone who honestly doesn't give a crap, nothing will change their mind. People are fat because, for the most part, they want to be. They're going to eat bad food because they want to. But taking away food labels or no longer requiring them is absurd, because they're there to help people who want that information. Taking them away because fat people don't care is poor reasoning.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DrWhen 13 years ago

FAIL 2 - Evasion. There wasn't any logic in the first place.

[–] tanster-1 12 years ago

Excellent point punxgurrl.

[–] lefaren2002 13 years ago

I'd say this is decidedly LIBERTARIAN. There are plenty of right-wingers who favor the "Nanny-State". Not libertarians.

[–] distant-skies 13 years ago

Too true. A lot, if not most conservatives seem to support the failed drug war, for instance.

Why can't you be a non-conformist like everyone else?

[–] SunCanyonRoad 13 years ago

The Government, no matter how big or small, no matter how right or left wing it may seem, is not making a person stuff sugary types of foods down their throats. I happen to think he debunked Spurlock's documentary (which I enjoyed watching when it came out) pretty convincingly. As this doc eludes, had Spurlock ate 5000 calories of pretty much anything he would probably felt like crap and gained weight. The fact that the filmmaker lost weight and had better over-all health should tell you everything and it's not quantum physics... he ate 3 portion controlled meals a day, high in protein, low in starch, did not snack between meals, moderately exercised 6 days a week and LOST WEIGHT... go figure!

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]