zlacker

In my experience the reason Republicans are so interested in what people can buy with food stamps is that they want very much to punish people who are on food stamps. If they truly cared about the health of needy Americans there are a lot of other things they could do, or even a lot of things they could stop doing like making it more difficult to access health care, quackifying vaccine recommendations, holding press conferences in which they say nobody should take Tylenol under any circumstances, making dubious assertions about AIDS; the list goes on and on.

>>hairof+(OP)
What if we just don't want to subsidize giving people lifelong obesity and metabolic disorders? Why does that necessarily imply we have to agree with you on other issues? Do we need to make it tribal and ascribe ulterior motives?

>>modusp+qq
> giving people lifelong obesity and metabolic disorders

Is that a given? People can drink soda without getting fat. And plenty of people get quite large without ever drinking soda. This seems more personal, like intentionally causing suffering as a moral imperative.

>>rootus+gG3
People smoke cigarettes without getting lung cancer. I guess I’m all for inflicting the suffering of non-smoking by not subsidizing cigarettes, too.

And obviously having to use one’s own money to buy Mountain Dew is a far cry from “inflicting suffering,” but we’re way past that point.