Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Reply To Thread

NY Soda ProhibitionFollow

#1 Sep 14 2012 at 6:43 AM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,057 posts
Awesome: just.. wow.
and the greatest thing is that it doesn't apply to diet sodas.. with poison like aspartame!!
Are you people OK with this? A ban on soda.. a reinforcement of the Kool-Aid.
One more brick in the wall of civil liberties pulled down.

Thoughts? Are you going to make up little excuses like "well it's for the best!!" and "Ooo it's only over 16oz".
GIVE ME A @#%^ING BREAK.
This is your country; being taken over by psychopathic control freaks... like frog slowly being boiled.. blissfully unaware.
Next it's Milk: Popcorn:...VITAMIN C!! DON'T get me wrong. I hate soda.. this isn't about health. It's about liberty.
War on Obesity? I'm sure it will prove as profitable as the War on Drugs.. quite literally.
What kind of excuses are you liberal YES-MEN going to cough up for this one?

baaahhhh baaaaaaahhhhh

Smiley: nod






Edited, Sep 14th 2012 8:44am by Kelvyquayo
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#2 Sep 14 2012 at 6:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,379 posts
It's ********* They city council where I live has tossed this idea out as well and I'm not happy about it. If they want tor regulate something, regulate the default size that comes with a combo, but don't dictate how large of a drink people can order.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#3 Sep 14 2012 at 6:52 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Isn't it only in banning soda in giant cups?

I can't see where it's going to impact much of anything.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#4 Sep 14 2012 at 6:54 AM Rating: Excellent
******
21,720 posts
Elinda wrote:
Isn't it only in banning soda in giant cups?

I can't see where it's going to impact much of anything.

Whether it has an impact is irrelevant. It's stupid and blatant overreach of government authority.

Edited, Sep 14th 2012 7:54am by BrownDuck
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#5 Sep 14 2012 at 6:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah, it's dumb. It also doesn't affect me at all so it doesn't really keep me up at night. If the idea came to town, I'd write a strongly worded letter, I suppose.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#6 Sep 14 2012 at 6:58 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,821 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
GIVE ME A @#%^ING BREAK.
Overdramatic much, fatty?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#7 Sep 14 2012 at 6:59 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Isn't it only in banning soda in giant cups?

I can't see where it's going to impact much of anything.

Whether it has an impact is irrelevant. It's stupid and blatant overreach of government authority.

Edited, Sep 14th 2012 7:54am by BrownDuck
Sure, but what's the harm? NYC is squashing the rights of it's citizens to drink their sodas in gallon sized containers. Big fucking deal.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#8 Sep 14 2012 at 7:00 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Yeah, it's dumb. It also doesn't affect me at all so it doesn't really keep me up at night. If the idea came to town, I'd write a strongly worded letter, I suppose.

A 20oz cup should hold lots of strongly worded letters.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#9 Sep 14 2012 at 7:02 AM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
I cut out soda from my diet years ago, and it's not enough of an infringement on anyone else's rights for me to give a fuck otherwise.
#10 Sep 14 2012 at 7:02 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,821 posts
Jophiel wrote:
If the idea came to town, I'd write a strongly worded letter, I suppose.
If it sticks here, it'll become nationwide policy.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#11 Sep 14 2012 at 7:04 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,720 posts
Elinda wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Isn't it only in banning soda in giant cups?

I can't see where it's going to impact much of anything.

Whether it has an impact is irrelevant. It's stupid and blatant overreach of government authority.

Edited, Sep 14th 2012 7:54am by BrownDuck
Sure, but what's the harm? NYC is squashing the rights of it's citizens to drink their sodas in gallon sized containers. Big fucking deal.


Like Joph said, it doesn't affect me because I don't live there, but complacency in general allowed this to happen.

"Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me."
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#12 Sep 14 2012 at 7:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Zero to Godwins over soft drink sizes in 11 posts!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#13 Sep 14 2012 at 7:07 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Elinda wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Isn't it only in banning soda in giant cups?

I can't see where it's going to impact much of anything.

Whether it has an impact is irrelevant. It's stupid and blatant overreach of government authority.

Edited, Sep 14th 2012 7:54am by BrownDuck
Sure, but what's the harm? NYC is squashing the rights of it's citizens to drink their sodas in gallon sized containers. Big fucking deal.


Like Joph said, it doesn't affect me because I don't live there, but complacency in general allowed this to happen.

"Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me."

Complacency?

The whole health board agreed on this?

Seems to me if the citizens of NYC REALLY didnt want to lose their right to drink soda from a big container they could have stopped it.

Perhaps they choose to pick more important battles to fight.

When they come to take your big cups away, I'll stand by ya man.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#14 Sep 14 2012 at 7:10 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
The beverage industry was out in force here trying to drum up resistance to it, but it never really got a foothold.
#15 Sep 14 2012 at 7:11 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,821 posts
Elinda wrote:
Perhaps they choose to pick more important battles to fight.
Do you not understand how many people died to let people sit a little longer before getting up to get a refill?!
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#16 Sep 14 2012 at 7:16 AM Rating: Good
******
21,720 posts
Elinda wrote:
Complacency?

The whole health board agreed on this?

Seems to me if the citizens of NYC REALLY didnt want to lose their right to drink soda from a big container they could have stopped it.

Perhaps they choose to pick more important battles to fight.

When they come to take your big cups away, I'll stand by ya man.


I'm not sure who ****** in your cheerios this morning. My objection to the law is the nature of the law, rather than it's subject. You can make the argument explicitly about soda all you want, but the precedent that the law establishes is far more noteworthy.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#17 Sep 14 2012 at 7:18 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,821 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
You can make the argument explicitly about soda all you want, but the precedent that the law establishes is far more noteworthy.
Your outrage is almost ten years late, then.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#18 Sep 14 2012 at 7:24 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,720 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
You can make the argument explicitly about soda all you want, but the precedent that the law establishes is far more noteworthy.
Your outrage is almost ten years late, then.

More malcontent, less outrage. Also, I'm just responding to the OP. Wouldn't have made mention of it otherwise.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#19Kelvyquayo, Posted: Sep 14 2012 at 7:37 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) SODA POLICE!!! LOOK OUT
#20 Sep 14 2012 at 7:41 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
BrownDuck wrote:


I'm not sure who ****** in your cheerios this morning. My objection to the law is the nature of the law, rather than it's subject. You can make the argument explicitly about soda all you want, but the precedent that the law establishes is far more noteworthy.
Friday's useless fact #1: In 2011 Honey Nut Cheerios (created by my Dad) was America's Favorite Breakfast Cereal.

What precedent is this law establishing?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#21 Sep 14 2012 at 7:43 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,720 posts
Elinda wrote:
What precedent is this law establishing?


Are you really that @#%^ing dense?

Edited, Sep 14th 2012 8:43am by BrownDuck
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#22 Sep 14 2012 at 7:44 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Elinda wrote:
What precedent is this law establishing?


Are you really that @#%^ing dense?

Edited, Sep 14th 2012 8:43am by BrownDuck
Yes, enlighten me.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#23 Sep 14 2012 at 7:52 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,720 posts
Elinda wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Elinda wrote:
What precedent is this law establishing?


Are you really that @#%^ing dense?

Edited, Sep 14th 2012 8:43am by BrownDuck
Yes, enlighten me.

It establishes the precedent that it's perfectly OK for the government to regulate personal choices (and business service offerings) based strictly on an indirect link to government subsidies. It doesn't matter whether it's soda, candy, red meat, geneticly modified corn, etc. The government has no business regulating anybody's eating habits until such time as that person comes to collect on government health benefits. Blanket legislation prohibiting personal choice is not the answer.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#24 Sep 14 2012 at 7:54 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
Elinda wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Elinda wrote:
What precedent is this law establishing?


Are you really that @#%^ing dense?

Edited, Sep 14th 2012 8:43am by BrownDuck
Yes, enlighten me.


Wow.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#25 Sep 14 2012 at 8:04 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Elinda wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Elinda wrote:
What precedent is this law establishing?


Are you really that @#%^ing dense?

Edited, Sep 14th 2012 8:43am by BrownDuck
Yes, enlighten me.

It establishes the precedent that it's perfectly OK for the government to regulate personal choices (and business service offerings) based strictly on an indirect link to government subsidies. It doesn't matter whether it's soda, candy, red meat, geneticly modified corn, etc. The government has no business regulating anybody's eating habits until such time as that person comes to collect on government health benefits. Blanket legislation prohibiting personal choice is not the answer.
The government regulates personal choice all the time if it's beneficial to the constituency as a whole to modify a behavior.

Milk has to be homogenized, cigarettes are taxed, dope is banned. One city disallowing extra large cups for soda consumption is extremely trivial in both it's direct impact and indirectly as symbolic of governments reach or over-reach as it might be.

It does give gbaji a good example of 'big government' though.

If I was a citizen of NYC I could probably get a bit worked up about the extra monies that will have to be spent to enforce this law. That's as far as my outrage would go.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#26 Sep 14 2012 at 8:06 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Elinda wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Elinda wrote:
What precedent is this law establishing?


Are you really that @#%^ing dense?

Edited, Sep 14th 2012 8:43am by BrownDuck
Yes, enlighten me.


Wow.

Advertising the game, or simply amazed that I'd ask someone to clarify their meaning before commenting on it?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)