Nanny/Police State: NYC Ban On Large Sugared Drinks...

[Dr.Drock]

The problem is not the drink itself, it's that once they control "this", they will go after "that". And it will be a never ending cycle until "those who know best" are feeding you what "they" think YOU should eat.

What's more delicious than gov't cheese?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Who wants to carry multiple containers?

People who want to buy that many ounces of soda.

If americans want to eat and drink themselves to death they should have that liberty, again not that this p-r move will have any impact on obesity.

But once they realize they have to use two hands to carry it around they may not do it. I agree, from what I see no one is stopping anyone from eating and drinking themselves to death. This law, if I'm right, would limit the access to larger amounts of beverages. You can still drink your life away you just have to go the grocery store.

Funny thing is I also believe in decriminalizing weed.

Big Macs are far more dangerous than weed, remember that when next time so you're not so easily duped into believing government is doing what's best for your health.

Gov't wants your money, doesn't matter if it comes out of a fat or skinny guys wallet.

What? I said limiting the sugary drinks is a good thing and you reply about Big Macs? Whats the correlation?

Banning sugary drinks is a bad thing? Or is banning sugary drinks a bad thing because govt is doing it?

I say again, I think its a good thing. Anyone pretending that they would be just fine totting around multiple cups is either lying or a skilled juggler

 

[ClosedCaption]

So buying large cup sugary drink is a bad thing?

Yet, you can still buy two drinks to get the same size. Thus, more cups in the garbage afterwards and filling up landfills. Why don't the environmentalists have a problem with this?

And isnt the entire argument of the pro abortion lobby that the government can't tell us what you can do with your body? So how come the government can tell us how much sugar we can put in our body and yet can't stop us from killing our offspring?

Do these policies make any sense whatsoever?

Who is stopping you from putting large amounts of sugar in your body? This is the part where you dont answer

 

[ClosedCaption]

I havent heard one reason why this is not a good idea. No one wants to walk around with 2 or more drinks since we only have two hands.

It's just not right to do Closed Caption....we are suppose to live in the land of the free, and be able to make our own choices in life, legal and even illegal if we are willing to face the consequences...and things like having the gvt telling us what we can order to drink is WAYYYYYYYYYY too much gvt over reach and certainly not what our founding fathers had planned.

I agree and I've said time after time that if that happened that would be fucked up, but that is not happening and is not even being proposed. So, yeah someone makign the choice for you is bad, except that's not happening

And this really really really is a slippery slope that leads to taking away more and more freedom of CHOICE from ourselves and handing it over to some illusive government control....that's simply ridiculous and pretty stupid, cuz next will be hamburgers and ice cream, and candy, and biscuits, and cookies, and coffee with cream and sugar or chuck roast....

I agree with that..

If anything the money spent to enforce these type of laws could be used to inform the citizens on better health habits and do things that make an impact on communities that make them change their bad habits on their own....instead of just setting up the situation for a healthy and strong "Black Market" of the future on all the things they told us citizens we could not have...

They are not banning the drinks, you can buy them on the black market called the Grocery Store.

It is NOT good. Right now, it may seem logical, but that's the problem....no one really spends the time to see things through....to envision all the pros and cons long term before they make knee jerk reactionary legislation with no consideration of long term effects of the future domino type restraints that are written on the wall as we speak, if you try to open your eyes on this....please reconsider.... some of us may be here on this earth another 50 plus years and will have to live with the future laws and restraints put upon us that could have the beginnings with this one simple act of Mayor Bloombergs.

I understand the slippery slope arguement but Americans are the fattest in the world and I dont have a problem with it. It kills me to say it because I believe in the slippery slope arguement but right now the cheapest stuff is the stuff that is bad for you. Guess who likes cheap stuff....Americans

 

[Dr.Drock]

But once they realize they have to use two hands to carry it around they may not do it. I agree, from what I see no one is stopping anyone from eating and drinking themselves to death. This law, if I'm right, would limit the access to larger amounts of beverages. You can still drink your life away you just have to go the grocery store.

Funny thing is I also believe in decriminalizing weed.

Big Macs are far more dangerous than weed, remember that when next time so you're not so easily duped into believing government is doing what's best for your health.

Gov't wants your money, doesn't matter if it comes out of a fat or skinny guys wallet.

What? I said limiting the sugary drinks is a good thing and you reply about Big Macs? Whats the correlation?

Banning sugary drinks is a bad thing? Or is banning sugary drinks a bad thing because govt is doing it?

I say again, I think its a good thing. Anyone pretending that they would be just fine totting around multiple cups is either lying or a skilled juggler

I'm saying gov't wants to keep Big Macs (very very unhealthy) legal but weed (not that unhealthy) illegal. Hence gov't doesn't give a damn about your health. Hell they even want it to be illegal if it can help you.

If someone wants more soda they can just dine in and keep getting refills, or they can buy extra soda, or they can get their large amount of soda at another store before going to a fast food place.

The point is people should have the liberty to destroy themselves if they want to. I'd be living much safer if I moved back in with my parents and lived off them rather than the risk of driving to work every day. If I want to eat a triple cheeseburger I should be able to, if I want to never get on a treadmill it should be my choice, if I want to smoke weed or cigs or drink beer or shoot heroin I should be able to, if I want to put a gun in my mouth I should be able to.

But people like you and scum politicians like Bloomberg want gov't regulation of what they deem to be healthy or not. Keep in mind I never buy large quantities of soda, but I'm not anti-liberty or pro-authoritarian like yourself.

 

[Mr. Jones]

I agree that the size of soft drinks is out of control, that is why I order small sizes, and that is IF I order the soft drink, usually I like water.
Funny how I, without the help of government, control what I eat and drink.

No shit....this is ridiculous, next thing you know you'll need a Dr.'s note or special ID stamp that says you're healthy enough to buy certain junk foods once a month, or something along those lines.
This is just another attempt to push more police state rules and regulations down our throats to see if we are ready for whatever else they have down the pipeline...

Can those that wave off the disintegration of Americans freedoms see the hypocrisy many others have been pointing out now?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Uh-oh. I own several guns. Does that mean I have to give up my liberal card?

You still want to take them away from your neighbors though, right?

As long as you want to reserve arms for only party members, you'll fit right in with Obama supporters everywhere!

 

[paulitician]

Uh-oh. I own several guns. Does that mean I have to give up my liberal card?

You still want to take them away from your neighbors though, right?

As long as you want to reserve arms for only party members, you'll fit right in with Obama supporters everywhere!

Excellent point. Well said.

 

[BlindBoo]

Uh-oh. I own several guns. Does that mean I have to give up my liberal card?

You still want to take them away from your neighbors though, right?

As long as you want to reserve arms for only party members, you'll fit right in with Obama supporters everywhere!

Liar. Bold face liar. Tell you what, you find a post of mine that is pro gun control and I'll say you are no longer a liar. Until then you're nothing but a liar.

 

[BlindBoo]

Uh-oh. I own several guns. Does that mean I have to give up my liberal card?

You still want to take them away from your neighbors though, right?

As long as you want to reserve arms for only party members, you'll fit right in with Obama supporters everywhere!

Excellent point. Well said.

He is of course a liar. But you knew that.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Uh-oh. I own several guns. Does that mean I have to give up my liberal card?

You still want to take them away from your neighbors though, right?

As long as you want to reserve arms for only party members, you'll fit right in with Obama supporters everywhere!

Liar. Bold face liar. Tell you what, you find a post of mine that is pro gun control and I'll say you are no longer a liar. Until then you're nothing but a liar.

He was probably talking about liberties in general.

Do you want someone to have the liberty to choose to own a gun?

Do you want someone to have the liberty to choose to own health insurance or not?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Liar. Bold face liar. Tell you what, you find a post of mine that is pro gun control and I'll say you are no longer a liar. Until then you're nothing but a liar.

Two things;

First off, the phrase is "bald faced liar." It refers to the practice of lawyers to shave, leaving the face bald.

Secondly, that little button hook thingy - it represents interrogative. I asked you a question, moron, I did not make an assertion.

 

[BlindBoo]

You still want to take them away from your neighbors though, right?

As long as you want to reserve arms for only party members, you'll fit right in with Obama supporters everywhere!

Liar. Bold face liar. Tell you what, you find a post of mine that is pro gun control and I'll say you are no longer a liar. Until then you're nothing but a liar.

He was probably talking about liberties in general.

Do you want someone to have the liberty to choose to own a gun?

Do you want someone to have the liberty to choose to own health insurance or not?

Same answer. Find a post where I advocate taking liberties, especially ones in the Bill of rights, from anyone.

I was not a proponant of the individual insurance mandate.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Liar. Bold face liar. Tell you what, you find a post of mine that is pro gun control and I'll say you are no longer a liar. Until then you're nothing but a liar.

He was probably talking about liberties in general.

Do you want someone to have the liberty to choose to own a gun?

Do you want someone to have the liberty to choose to own health insurance or not?

Same answer. Find a post where I advocate taking liberties, especially ones in the Bill of rights, from anyone.

I was not a proponant of the individual insurance mandate.

I was asking a question, I didn't know if you supported it or not.

 

[BlindBoo]

He was probably talking about liberties in general.

Do you want someone to have the liberty to choose to own a gun?

Do you want someone to have the liberty to choose to own health insurance or not?

Same answer. Find a post where I advocate taking liberties, especially ones in the Bill of rights, from anyone.

I was not a proponant of the individual insurance mandate.

I was asking a question, I didn't know if you supported it or not.

Taking away peoples constitutional right to bear arms?

I understand the reasoning behind the mandate.

 

[MuadDib]

A government that is impotent to deal with serious problems makes itself look effective by dealing strenuously with matters of little or no concern to them.

 

[paulitician]

You still want to take them away from your neighbors though, right?

As long as you want to reserve arms for only party members, you'll fit right in with Obama supporters everywhere!

Excellent point. Well said.

He is of course a liar. But you knew that.

No, i didn't know that. I really did think that was your position on guns. My bad, if i'm wrong.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Same answer. Find a post where I advocate taking liberties, especially ones in the Bill of rights, from anyone.

I was not a proponant of the individual insurance mandate.

I was asking a question, I didn't know if you supported it or not.

Taking away peoples constitutional right to bear arms?

I understand the reasoning behind the mandate.

Well both require the removal of a liberty.

Forcing someone to own insurance is probably even worse than forcing someone to give away their guns. At least there's a black market for guns, there isn't one for insurance (yet).

 

[Care4all]

I havent heard one reason why this is not a good idea. No one wants to walk around with 2 or more drinks since we only have two hands.

It's just not right to do Closed Caption....we are suppose to live in the land of the free, and be able to make our own choices in life, legal and even illegal if we are willing to face the consequences...and things like having the gvt telling us what we can order to drink is WAYYYYYYYYYY too much gvt over reach and certainly not what our founding fathers had planned.

I agree and I've said time after time that if that happened that would be fucked up, but that is not happening and is not even being proposed. So, yeah someone makign the choice for you is bad, except that's not happening



I agree with that..

If anything the money spent to enforce these type of laws could be used to inform the citizens on better health habits and do things that make an impact on communities that make them change their bad habits on their own....instead of just setting up the situation for a healthy and strong "Black Market" of the future on all the things they told us citizens we could not have...

They are not banning the drinks, you can buy them on the black market called the Grocery Store.

It is NOT good. Right now, it may seem logical, but that's the problem....no one really spends the time to see things through....to envision all the pros and cons long term before they make knee jerk reactionary legislation with no consideration of long term effects of the future domino type restraints that are written on the wall as we speak, if you try to open your eyes on this....please reconsider.... some of us may be here on this earth another 50 plus years and will have to live with the future laws and restraints put upon us that could have the beginnings with this one simple act of Mayor Bloombergs.

I understand the slippery slope arguement but Americans are the fattest in the world and I dont have a problem with it. It kills me to say it because I believe in the slippery slope arguement but right now the cheapest stuff is the stuff that is bad for you. Guess who likes cheap stuff....Americans

CC,

Americans are fat, NOT because of what they eat or drink, NOT because of their calorie intake, but because of their lack of exercise.

Did you know that the average Pilgrim or person in Early Colonial Times ate 4500 Calories a day! I just learned that yesterday on a History Channel documentary. We humans of today would be the size of Alaska if we ate 4500 calories a day!

And yes, they are not banning these drinks, but Bloomberg is getting in to the nitty gritty of every day citizen's lives by telling them that they can not order a sugary drink larger than 16 oz....at a time. A person in a restaurant could drink his 16 oz drink and order a refill of the sweetened ice tea and be permitted to do such....yet, this guy only wanted a few more ounces of a drink to finish his meal....if he were allowed to order the 20 oz drink from the beginning then that would have sufficed, instead you have the guy with the potential of drinking 32 ounces now, by him having to order a refill.

It's just plain stupid CC, the whole thing is stupid and it is a waste of money on their tax payers cuz the paper it is written on is worthless, and enforcement is ridiculous....

There are so many other things so much more important for Bloomberg to do than to start down this slippery slope.....truly, there is....

Care

 

[BlindBoo]

I was asking a question, I didn't know if you supported it or not.

Taking away peoples constitutional right to bear arms?

I understand the reasoning behind the mandate.

Well both require the removal of a liberty.

Forcing someone to own insurance is probably even worse than forcing someone to give away their guns. At least there's a black market for guns, there isn't one for insurance (yet).

Should we turn children away from emergency rooms whose parents can't pay or do you force the responsible citizens to continue to pay for their care (not to mention cost of care for the illegals and their children)?