Perhaps, something about MAGA sure seems to cause more brain damage than a full blown meth addiction in once intelligent people, but even with functioning brains 80 year olds are not as in touch with current events, morals, or norms, nor do they have skin in the game.

It’s easy to vote for programs or projects that won’t have to be paid for, or whose deleterious effects won’t be felt until long after their death….like denying climate change. They can gamble recklessly with the future to see monetary benefits today because they won’t be here when their gamble fails disastrously in 20 years to pay the piper themselves.
I think people making the rules and laws should be expected to live under them for a minimum of 20 years, maybe more, making the age cutoff for election below 60. Nobody is getting smarter or more up to date and in tune with current events and new advanced methods of problem solving after 60.
Once upon a time experience was a valuable feature in a politician, but today the best you could say is they have lots of experience at failure and partisan gridlock no matter which party they’re in. 2 terms is enough for presidents, it should be plenty for senators, representatives, and Supreme Court justices. Professional politicians are an anathema to America, as is a political ruling class or politicians getting rich while in office, and we now have all 3 as the norm.

That shit's "funny" online, but dealing with meth addicts in real life sucks more than you can ever possibly know. Potheads can be annoying, acid casualties are scary, cokeheads are cunts, drunks are a fight waiting to happen, but meth addicts are their own level of the abyss. Take raving paranoia, mix in terrifying levels of potential violence and remove any semblance of sanity and you've got your average meth addict going off the rails. I never used to carry a gun when I was on about my business ventures back in the 80s, but once meth showed up, I changed my tune on that matter. The pot business was handshakes and smiles, but the assholes dealing meth were always trouble and the more meth they were dealing, the more likely violence was. The only time I was ever involved in murder was because of a meth dealer. These assholes are ALWAYS trouble. They're trouble, their customers are more trouble than that and the guys who supply them are worse than the first two combined. I fucking hate meth and everyone involved with it.

Your video, Meth addict syncs up perfectly to the beat of "Stayin' Alive, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Meth Addict.

Jesus, Bob.
The Russians, a hostile foreign power and our adversaries calling him their enemy to you makes this hyper patriot, heroic American veteran and lifelong elected civil servant, the enemy.

And I live in an alternate reality?!

I think your tin foil hat has a hole and your brain fell out. You are metaphorically cheerfully eating a shit sandwich and smearing it all over, grinning like a moron the whole time.
You honestly have a mental problem you should get treated if that's your honest argument, because that's meth addict level nonsense.

Lol....no you aren't, you admitted you don't get information from news sources, only talking heads and conspiracy cabals....Rush, Dore, and Q to quote you. You're just buying what the propagandists and conspiracy theorists are selling.

That is simply not true. Trump was never a "great nation figure" (whatever that means, I'm guessing you mean great national figure, which is still not true). Trump was a joke in the 90's and 2000's except to those who knew him personally, to them he was an unmitigated douchbag that tried to buy sex from their wives, and late 2000's till now he's been a destructive cancer eating the brain of gullible America, starting in earnest with the birther/Kenyan Muslim nonsense and ramping up from there with meth addict level insanity.
The only thing odd is your complete lack of memory and willingness to let a known liar rewrite what happened 1984 style.

Then they can release the meth addicted gorillas to kill the owls.
The poisoned tree snakes we release will make short work of the gorillas, then they die off in winter. It's perfect.

Aw shucks, I guess I'm the only Sifter to not hate Sizzler and America. And, I just ate at Sizzler's last week. Steak and all you can eat shrimp. At the very least, don't hate on the cheesy bread!!!!!

Do I get an America badge or a Sizzler badge or both? Because I deserve it.

If it wasn't for old people and meth addicts, I would not have had the pleasure of visiting this dying breed of restaurant. (At least it's dying over in socal.) And, yes, I am the reigning Duke of Sizzler on Yelp. 5 stars.

Also, I'm pretty sure every company in America had a video like this.

(Whispers: Sizzler)

Well... this turned me into a meth addict.

His T-shirt says "Tweaker Hunter" (i.e., meth-addict hunter)
Not Twerker Hunter (i.e., what's-her-face Cyrus hunter)

If God made us in His image He's a meth-addicted sociopath.

>> ^scannex:

So your counter to the point of it being a behavior, is that it is term applied as the result of a series of behaviors which is a combination of over-eating and lack of exercise?
You must be kidding.
And sorry I have to put words in your mouth above, because aside from divine intervention I am not sure what mysterious factors cause one to be obese unless you are referring to genetic disorders/thyroid problems. Have fun finding a source on what % of obese Americans that covers.
It is behavioral, and its remedy is behavioral. I certainly will not say its an EASY behavior to modify (see previous arguments on leptin/dopamine), but you need to deal with it.
Also regarding what is impressionable you are simply incorrect. If you believe a child with two overweight parents that is the result of those parents having an idle lifestyle and providing garbage food for their kids isnt impactful youre dead wrong.
But here you go, some backup for that concept. From the AACAP
No one is advocating mocking is the right thing to do. And if you think this guys letter came from a place of hate or mockery I suggest you reread it. There really is no indication of that to me. It comes from a place of concern, even if that is misguided. You want to crucify this guy for trying to (perhaps poorly) encourage this woman to lose weight and that really isn't the right ethic either.

_{I realised why your comments annoyed me so much: they remind me of those MRA-holes who try to defend the missteps and/or bile of privileged/sexist people and then see them as being persecuted or "witchhunted". I can only hope I am wrong in seeing a connection.}

To the substance: you completely miss my point, go after strawmen, and then try to defend the unethical while falsely accusing the anchor and myself of persecuting a person (instead of criticising a... you guessed it, behaviour).

Yes, certain behaviour causes and/or aggravates obesity, but do you see her glamourously binge-eating junkfood while telling the news? Unlike a meth addict, there are plenty of overweight people who are overweight of no fault of their own. In fact, the example you give about obese parents having a higher chance of having obese children supports my point, not yours. Children of obese parents have a higher risk of being obese genetically, as well as environmentally, and that has nothing to do with imitating the parents' behaviour (but it's their fault, right? They should just exercise and not eat what their parents feed them, right?). Of course the parents who feed their children junkfood are responsible for their child's obesity, but what does that have to do with an overweight woman being on TV? Not to mention that even that can be more complex, since there are socio-economic factors, what with the US's terrible education system and the fact that its cheapest high-calorie food (i.e. what poor/hungry people will buy) is 98% corn-syrup (yes, I made that stat up, but the point remains). Finally, obesity can be a side-product of mental health issues / eating disorders (but then maybe you're the kind of ignorant douche who'd tell people with depression to just stop wallowing in self-pity and be happy; I hope not).

You go on in your second comment to, on your own admission, redefine what a behaviour is so it can suit your argument. Say the following phrase, out loud if need be, to realise how ridiculous your argument is:

"The woman on the TV is behaving/being overweight/fat/obese". See what I mean?

Finally, you accuse her of "wanting to crucify the guy". Did you even read my points 1) & 2) above (you know, the ones you ignored in your answer)? The "guy" is not being attacked (you'll note he has been left anonymous), what he is saying/doing is. His letter is being taken as an example to call out a certain kind of behaviour, one which is rampant in our society, and doing much harm. Whether his letter is a well-intentioned yet ignorant expression of misplaced concern (at best, and highly unlikely) or a surreptitious piece of condescending shaming (much more likely*) is irrelevant. It's anti-bullying month, and she's saying "people, don't do this, and here's why".

Your more recent comment is a perfect example of why what she's doing is of utmost importance:

the spectacle this woman made of herself for someone writing her a private communique over the internet does not warrant ANYWHERE near this attention.
She chose to shine a spotlight on something perfectly hidden, for the purpose of, I don't know... you tell me? To stop imaginary bullying (in her case explicitly here)? To not feel bad about being overweight? I really don't know anymore. Its a bizarre reaction to wantonly make a spectacle of someone suggesting you lose weight.

If what he said was not reprehensible, who cares if it's made public (note once again that no names are named)? Shaming people or projecting one's narrowmindedness on them is all fine, but shhh, don't shed light on it! It's just a private message on the internet, it does no harm! (because we all know that there is no bullying, shaming, sexism, etc. on the internet. Nuh-uh)

When only one side of an exchange says "shhh, don't tell anyone about this, it's private" you usually have a bad situation; and the fact that you would defend the letter-writer and his "right" to not have his error called out does not suggest anything good about your own mindset, either.

In conclusion, it is all the more to this woman's (and her husband's/colleagues') credit that she/they took a "seemingly" (to the thickest out there) innocent letter to expose this form of abuse; a harmful remark need not be shocking or particularly vulgar to leave its mark, and it can even come from good intentions. Maybe some people watching will realise that the words they themselves speak/write are harmful, even if not intentionally, and will be more aware of it in future, while others might realise that the words they heard/read were not so innocent after all, and that they should stop beating themselves up for feeling guilt/shame/self-hate when in fact they've been being worn down by ignorant and/or hurtful attacks.

_{*It would be quite easy to analyse just how ignorant and condescending this letter is, not to mention borderline sexist (try imagining this person writing the same letter to Chris Christie, for example, replacing "girls" with "boys"). Analysis starter kit for you: "choice/habit/lifestyle", and the cornerstone phrase "Surely you don't..."}

You pretend to care for the health of others yet there is a perverse nihilistic undertone to your entire argument. The only thing in this for you is to point out that "people" should fit a mold that you and your constituents have deemed appropriate. Which furthers strengthens the overall bizarre and inconsistent view you're slinging. Shouldn't your dismissal of common morals/ sensibilities completely free you up from trying to impress or coincide with a particular group? The thing that bugs me the most is that you seem to completely ignore this person's feelings. It's as if, for the purposes of your argument having a body you have obfuscated her feelings or anyone else's for that matter. >> ^scannex:

To be fair and clarify, I want to directly address your comparison too.
You say obesity is not like smoking because, unlike smoking you cannot simply inhibit being obese in an instant.
That is not a reasonable qualification for a behavior.
By that logic, a person with a meth addiction who simply doesn't smoke meth while on camera, but exhibits all the tell tale physical signs of smoking meth would be exempt from ridicule because he cannot 'stop looking like a meth addict'. That is not reasonable.
Smoking meth in this case is a behavior. One he does not do in the public eye. The behavior of smoking has a repercussion on his appearance after he stops smoking. Similarly the behavior of overeating/being idle (I have coined this state as a behavior leading to obesity in my argument) is similar in that way.
Hopefully that clears up my analogy for you.
The ability to stop doing, or being, a given way in an instant is not a measure of what constitutes a behavior.
>> ^hpqp:
3) Obesity is not like smoking. Yes, they are both health problems, but unlike smoking, being obese is not a behaviour. It can be caused/aggravated by certain behaviour, among many other factors. But while a behaviour can be inhibited while in front of others (e.g. not smoking in front of kids/a camera), you cannot "stop being obese". This brings out another distinction, namely that, while seeing people smoke can entice impressionable minds to do the same, seeing someone who is fat will not make one want to be fat as well. Seeing an overweight person on TV having a job or living a normal life might, on the other hand, give hope to people who are mocked and discriminated against for their weight issues, something which does not undermine in the slightest the struggle against obesity.
/rant

To be fair and clarify, I want to directly address your comparison too.
You say obesity is not like smoking because, unlike smoking you cannot simply inhibit being obese in an instant.

That is not a reasonable qualification for a behavior.
By that logic, a person with a meth addiction who simply doesn't smoke meth while on camera, but exhibits all the tell tale physical signs of smoking meth would be exempt from ridicule because he cannot 'stop looking like a meth addict'. That is not reasonable.
Smoking meth in this case is a behavior. One he does not do in the public eye. The behavior of smoking has a repercussion on his appearance after he stops smoking. Similarly the behavior of overeating/being idle (I have coined this state as a behavior leading to obesity in my argument) is similar in that way.

Hopefully that clears up my analogy for you.
The ability to stop doing, or being, a given way in an instant is not a measure of what constitutes a behavior.

>> ^hpqp:

3) Obesity is not like smoking. Yes, they are both health problems, but unlike smoking, being obese is not a behaviour. It can be caused/aggravated by certain behaviour, among many other factors. But while a behaviour can be inhibited while in front of others (e.g. not smoking in front of kids/a camera), you cannot "stop being obese". This brings out another distinction, namely that, while seeing people smoke can entice impressionable minds to do the same, seeing someone who is fat will not make one want to be fat as well. Seeing an overweight person on TV having a job or living a normal life might, on the other hand, give hope to people who are mocked and discriminated against for their weight issues, something which does not undermine in the slightest the struggle against obesity.
/rant