Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

NY Soda ProhibitionFollow

#102 Mar 12 2013 at 7:51 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,302 posts
Chris Gindlesperger, spokesman for the American Beverage Association wrote:
The court ruling provides a sigh of relief to New Yorkers
Smiley: dubious
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#103 Mar 12 2013 at 7:41 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Elinda wrote:
Quote:
New York City's soft drink sellers celebrated a sweet victory Monday
There's a Blues Travelers Song rolling around in my head.

gbaji will tell you, the right to purchase a 20oz soda in NYC is not enumerated in the constitution.


And he'll also remind you of the 9th amendment. As I've said numerous times, we have the "right" to do anything which we could do absent some authority telling us we may not. The decision to infringe any right should only be made if the exercise of that right would infringe some other right to a greater degree, or which is considered of greater importance (which often involves those enumerated rights, but not always). Thus, we infringe the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater because doing so might deprive someone else of their right to life, which is considered more important in this case.

What right of others is being infringed if someone purchases a 20oz soda? None? Then we should not infringe the right to do so.

Edited, Mar 12th 2013 6:42pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#104 Mar 12 2013 at 8:07 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,302 posts
gbaji wrote:
And he'll also remind you of the 9th amendment.
He will because that's this month's talking point.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#105 Mar 12 2013 at 8:16 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And he'll also remind you of the 9th amendment.
He will because that's this month's talking point.


And that's only because this is "forget that not all rights are enumerated" month. Smiley: schooled
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#106 Mar 12 2013 at 8:53 PM Rating: Good
******
44,302 posts
Is it? I don't get the clunky prewritten conservative talking points newsletter anymore.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#107 Mar 12 2013 at 9:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Is it? I don't get the clunky prewritten conservative talking points newsletter anymore.


Don't need a conservative talking points newsletter. Just need to read what liberals write on this forum.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#108 Mar 12 2013 at 9:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Ooohhh... burn! Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#109 Mar 13 2013 at 12:40 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
I think all schoolchildren, public or private, at all levels, should wear school uniforms, address all their teachers as Mr/Ms/Dr Surname, and rise to their feet and and say "Good Morning/Afternoon Mr/Ms/Dr So-and-So" whenever a teacher enters the classroom, before sitting down again promptly.

I think this because there is a theory that all children, especially teenagers, WILL push and defy boundaries at times during their lives. If the boundaries are strict, arbitrary in a harmless way, and rigorously policed, going over the boundaries will be relatively harmless. You'll get teens loosening their ties, dying their hair an unnatrual shade, or wearing a ring on their finger. Those are safe and harmless assertions of individuality, and to keep it that way, teachers have to enforce students tightening their ties, re-dying their hair to a natural hair color, and removing rings from their fingers and dangly earrings from their ears, and keeping them off.

If the school rules allow students to wear anything they like, and to treat their teachers casually, asserting individuality at school and pushing boundaries requires secretly carrying dangerous items, and being disrespectful and disobedient to teachers, and general anti-social behavior.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#110 Mar 13 2013 at 7:26 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,302 posts
gbaji wrote:
Just need to read what liberals write on this forum.
How else would you know which argument to copy from the newsletter if you didn't skim over what was posted?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#111 Mar 13 2013 at 8:28 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts
Don't need

Very Buddhist of you. Rock that 2nd Noble Truth, comrade!
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#112 Mar 13 2013 at 8:50 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,718 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
I think all schoolchildren, public or private, at all levels, should wear school uniforms, address all their teachers as Mr/Ms/Dr Surname, and rise to their feet and and say "Good Morning/Afternoon Mr/Ms/Dr So-and-So" whenever a teacher enters the classroom, before sitting down again promptly.

I think this because there is a theory that all children, especially teenagers, WILL push and defy boundaries at times during their lives. If the boundaries are strict, arbitrary in a harmless way, and rigorously policed, going over the boundaries will be relatively harmless. You'll get teens loosening their ties, dying their hair an unnatrual shade, or wearing a ring on their finger. Those are safe and harmless assertions of individuality, and to keep it that way, teachers have to enforce students tightening their ties, re-dying their hair to a natural hair color, and removing rings from their fingers and dangly earrings from their ears, and keeping them off.

If the school rules allow students to wear anything they like, and to treat their teachers casually, asserting individuality at school and pushing boundaries requires secretly carrying dangerous items, and being disrespectful and disobedient to teachers, and general anti-social behavior.


I can understand your point here, but I think one of the most common problems with required uniforms is the added expense it burdens the parents with. In schools most affected by such policies (read: urban environments), it's hard enough to get kids in the seats. The last thing an absent parent needs is a monetary obligation to complicate the matter.

And before you go there, it's hard enough to get educational funding for disadvantaged students as is. Don't even dream about public funding for uniforms
____________________________
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.


#113 Mar 13 2013 at 8:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I've always heard of uniforms as a cost-saving factor for parents. Rather than being expected to provide five sets of school clothes per week (with kids often demanding expensive, designer label stuff), you just need a couple pairs of slacks and a couple plain dress shirts. Even cheaper for the girls since I assume they just make one skirt work for the week. At least I'm pretty sure my sister did back in the day; can't say I kept a laundry log.

While I wouldn't necessarily see public funding for school uniforms, I wouldn't be surprised to see businesses offer inexpensive clothes with the expectation to make it up in quantity. Gym uniforms work that way and school uniforms, assuming we're talking plain shirts and slacks, don't even require the printing you see on the gym shorts/tops.

Edited, Mar 13th 2013 10:00am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#114 Mar 13 2013 at 9:01 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts
I've always heard of uniforms as a cost-saving factor for parents. Rather than being expected to provide five sets of school clothes per week (with kids often demanding expensive, designer label stuff), you just need a couple pairs of slacks and a couple plain dress shirts. Even cheaper for the girls since I assume they just make one skirt work for the week. At least I'm pretty sure my sister did back in the day; can't say I kept a laundry log.

It'd be a good argument if kids had to wear the uniforms 24/7. In practice my anecdotal experience with the poors is that the kids change into expensive clothes after school. So, rather than saving money, it just adds one more thing to buy. Along with, frequently these days, $100 worth of "school supplies" you'd sort of expect classrooms to have. Or I would, anyway. Like glue.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#115 Mar 13 2013 at 9:02 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
I understand the burden of a uniform fully, as my parents had to pay for a summer and winter version. We got second-hand skirts but most of it had to be bought new, and it was a painful one-off cost whenever I grew half a foot. On the other hand, in practise all I needed elsewise were some weekend clothes, that stretched over the summer break. Overall, my clothing cost was the same, or even cheaper, than if I was wearing civvies every day. The uniform was extremely sturdy wearing, and pretty comfortable. The added safety boundary of a uniform is worth the painful cost to low income families. For the families who are starving because of the inadequacy of the USA safety nets for the "deserving poor", I guess private charity is going to have to stretch to second-hand uniforms.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#116 Mar 13 2013 at 9:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
11,982 posts
Uniforms are an equalizing factor so that poor and better off alike are not distinguished based upon the expensiveness of their clothing. It's a good idea. There are other ways that children can express their individuality.

I would appreciate not fighting with my daughter about what she wears to school, but we don't have uniforms (well, I guess I could send her to boarding school...hmmm...) so that's not an option. She's shown time and again that she's completely unable to choose her own clothing...mostly because she's incredibly lazy and will just put on whatever is on the top or on the floor and ends up dressed like Cyndi Lauper heading up a pride parade in the bahamas even in the dead of winter here.

As an aside, I've no idea what this has to do with soda, but I skipped to the end and I don't want to go back to see how you people go here.

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#117 Mar 13 2013 at 9:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
It'd be a good argument if kids had to wear the uniforms 24/7. In practice my anecdotal experience with the poors is that the kids change into expensive clothes after school.

It's nothing I'll put a lot of energy into debating since it's a pure "I've heard..." thing.

Of course, back in my day, you'd get home and change out of your school clothes into some inexpensive play clothes and run outside to play a pick-up game of stick ball. These days, the kids all need to put on their $500 designer clothes and grab their iPods filled with the hippity-hop before going to their ******** crack rock parties.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#118 Mar 13 2013 at 9:08 AM Rating: Good
******
44,302 posts
Nexa wrote:
There are other ways that children can express their individuality.
They all dress the same as their selected cliques anyway.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#119 Mar 13 2013 at 9:09 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts
I would appreciate not fighting with my daughter about what she wears to school, but we don't have uniforms (well, I guess I could send her to boarding school...hmmm...) so that's not an option. She's shown time and again that she's completely unable to choose her own clothing...mostly because she's incredibly lazy and will just put on whatever is on the top or on the floor and ends up dressed like Cyndi Lauper heading up a pride parade in the bahamas even in the dead of winter here.

I'm totally ok with buying her a Swiss Guard uniform to wear to school. She's really interested in them, lately.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#120 Mar 13 2013 at 11:37 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,010 posts
gbaji wrote:

What right of others is being infringed if someone purchases a 20oz soda? None? Then we should not infringe the right to do so.


Or you could look at it as government reigning in businesses that are pushing us to consume more because they want to make more profit and don't think people will pay without that "added value".

I don't care if someone wants to refill their cup 5 times at the fountain, but the day I stopped even going to fast food was the day I went through Wendy's (i think) and ordered a medium sized meal and realized that the "medium" was the new "small", and the cup they gave me wouldn't even fit in my car's cup holder because now it was a "large". That was ******* ridiculous. I had to give it back and ask that they pour it into the new "small" size.
#121 Mar 13 2013 at 11:45 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
gbaji wrote:
What right of others is being infringed if someone purchases a 20oz soda?


My right to not have to look at fatties?
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#122 Mar 13 2013 at 11:51 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,241 posts
Regulating container size of stuff is done all the time - oil, chemicals, booze, etc. The judge apparently didn't agree this time around. I suspect there was some Super-Sized pressure from some Super-sized soda manufacturers, but meh, it's not the end of the world, nor was this make or break legislation in the war against fat kids.

I appreciate Bloomberg's willingness to trust his experts and make the attempt.

On the issue of school uniform - as long as each kid can pick his/her own school uniform I'm good with it. I like the jockey uniform - the boots are both stylish and practical.





Edited, Mar 13th 2013 7:56pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#123gbaji, Posted: Mar 15 2013 at 7:09 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Yup. You made a choice. That's what freedom is all about.
#124 Mar 15 2013 at 7:34 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
It's what Capitalism is all about too.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#125 Mar 15 2013 at 7:42 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,302 posts
gbaji wrote:
Government really has no business making that decision for us, much less passing a law forcing that decision on us.
It's not about the food. It's about the stated reason for making the change. They're doing it to save health care costs.

Oh, and the whole "gubment takin' mah sody away" argument is amusing though. The only place it really would have negatively affected would have been movie theaters, since everywhere else had Free Refills. Smiley: laugh So really the more accurate argument should be "Gubment made me have to interact with the wait staff more often!" or "Gubment made me walk to the sody masheen more often!"

Edited, Mar 15th 2013 10:02pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#126gbaji, Posted: Mar 15 2013 at 8:29 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Not the point. Not surprising you missed it though. It's not about soda.
#127 Mar 15 2013 at 8:31 PM Rating: Good
******
44,302 posts
gbaji wrote:
Not the point.
Yeah I know, you were grossly off. I was putting you back on track like usual. You're welcome.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#128 Mar 15 2013 at 8:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
It's amusing that gbaji seems to think that relying solely on private companies to insure patients and pay hospitals, the government is suddenly not responsible for healthcare.
#129 Mar 16 2013 at 2:28 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,050 posts
I
Smasharoo wrote:
I would appreciate not fighting with my daughter about what she wears to school, but we don't have uniforms (well, I guess I could send her to boarding school...hmmm...) so that's not an option. She's shown time and again that she's completely unable to choose her own clothing...mostly because she's incredibly lazy and will just put on whatever is on the top or on the floor and ends up dressed like Cyndi Lauper heading up a pride parade in the bahamas even in the dead of winter here.

I'm totally ok with buying her a Swiss Guard uniform to wear to school. She's really interested in them, lately.


Will you still be ok with it when she realizes her true calling is to protect the Curia?
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#130 Mar 16 2013 at 10:10 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts
Will you still be ok with it when she realizes her true calling is to protect the Curia?

Of course, although, she currently prefers her own myth of a man with a zebra's head who guards the castle of the underworld to any existing mythos. So, I'd assume the Church of Zeebruce would be in control of the Holy See by then.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#131 Mar 17 2013 at 12:08 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,050 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Will you still be ok with it when she realizes her true calling is to protect the Curia?

Of course, although, she currently prefers her own myth of a man with a zebra's head who guards the castle of the underworld to any existing mythos. So, I'd assume the Church of Zeebruce would be in control of the Holy See by then.


Is not the pope is entrusted with keeping the chained Zebra-Anubis sated with the souls of good Catholics? My bible knowledge might be a little rusty.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#132 Mar 17 2013 at 12:10 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,084 posts
What about the giant spider queen?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#133 Mar 17 2013 at 12:11 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,302 posts
Parker took her out during Spider Island.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#134 Mar 17 2013 at 12:17 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,084 posts
I was going for the South Park reference, and Father Maxi going beneath the Vatican and the Pope summoning the Queen Spider... Smiley: oyvey

Edit:
I should be sound asleep right now, but for some reason decided to put my copy of Dark Knight Rises into my PS3 at 11pm and start watching it for the first time. Even though I knew it was almost 3 hours long.

Edited, Mar 17th 2013 2:18am by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#135 Mar 17 2013 at 12:36 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,050 posts
TirithRR wrote:
What about the giant spider queen?


You can't reveal the secrets of Lloth on a public message board.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#136 Mar 17 2013 at 7:30 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
Evidently it's Empirically possible.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#137 Mar 18 2013 at 7:39 AM Rating: Good
******
44,302 posts
I still haven't seen Dark Knight Rises.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#138 Mar 18 2013 at 9:19 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
Me either. Robot and Frank turned out to be good.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#139 Mar 18 2013 at 4:29 PM Rating: Good
****
7,817 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I still haven't seen Dark Knight Rises.

It's good, but I found The Dark Knight, the best of the three.
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#140 Mar 19 2013 at 2:58 AM Rating: Good
Gbaji wrote:
What right of others is being infringed if someone purchases a 20oz soda? None? Then we should not infringe the right to do so.


Drinkers of large soda drinks are at a much higher risk for diabetes & obesity, which leads to my tax dollars paying for fat people to not work, continue to consume large amounts of soda, which leads to further health issues.

Is this a ploy for pubbies to get the fat fuck vote?
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#141 Mar 19 2013 at 7:08 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,010 posts
gbaji wrote:

Heaven forbid we allow the consumers to make their own choices! Government really has no business making that decision for us, much less passing a law forcing that decision on us. Freedom doesn't end at good choices, otherwise it's not really freedom.......
Yup. You made a choice. That's what freedom is all about.


The government didn't take a choice away from me, though - that company did. I chose to have a medium sized drink based on the information I had at the time, which was a decade previous of ordering a medium sized drink and that medium sized drink being an actual specific size. Why did the company suddenly think that I needed more soda? Isn't that my choice to order the large if I want the large? Apparently not.

The corporation had decided to take my size choice away from me and instead substitute a considerably larger drink, which I did not want and did not even know about. Yes, I chose to ask them to pour it into the cup that fit into my cup holder, but in even that, what choice did I have? Either throw away the drink I paid for because I couldn't fit it in my car and I am not going to even attempt to work the gearbox with a freaking massive soda in my hand, or spend more time at the window making the poor clerk give me a smaller cup. That's not a "choice". That's a stupid company doing a stupid thing that cost them the business of someone who was fairly regular.

Regulating the size of soda a company can sell isn't taking away your rights. It's forcing companies, and by extension the public, to be more responsible about the choices they make. If NY tried to pass a law banning soda I'd be with you, but you are just grasping at straws with this one. If your wonderful free market hadn't made it a problem to begin with, this would never have seen the light of day.
#142 Mar 19 2013 at 7:30 AM Rating: Good
******
44,302 posts
Kastigir wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
I still haven't seen Dark Knight Rises.
It's good, but I found The Dark Knight, the best of the three.
It's certainly been the best of all the Batman movies, though I can't imagine any comic movie I laughed at more than Batman & Robin.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#143 Mar 19 2013 at 8:06 AM Rating: Decent
******
27,272 posts
I watched Iron Man 1 and 2 for the first time a few days ago. They were pretty bad, entertaining but the story is terrible at best.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#144 Mar 19 2013 at 11:12 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts
It's certainly been the best of all the Batman movie

Batman begins is better as a movie. It hangs together better. TDK is a horrible movie with a great performance by Ledger. The plot may as well be from a "Transformers" movie.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#145 Mar 19 2013 at 11:28 AM Rating: Good
******
44,302 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
The plot may as well be from a "Transformers" movie.
It's a Batman movie. What were you expecting, Shakespeare?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#146 Mar 19 2013 at 11:37 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts
The plot may as well be from a "Transformers" movie.
It's a Batman movie. What were you expecting, Shakespeare?


No, but I also didn't mistake it for the best batman movie.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#147 Mar 19 2013 at 11:38 AM Rating: Good
******
44,302 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
No, but I also didn't mistake it for the best batman movie.
It's very mature of you to admit your error so quickly.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#148 Mar 19 2013 at 11:55 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
It's certainly been the best of all the Batman movie

Batman begins is better as a movie. It hangs together better. TDK is a horrible movie with a great performance by Ledger. The plot may as well be from a "Transformers" movie.


I vacillate between the two for this reason. The first is a better screenplay with more consistent performances, the second is a shaky screenplay with uneven performances, bolstered by one stellar acting job.

My current line of thinking is that I prefer the first. Really like that origin story - it really helps to guide the whole movie.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#149 Mar 19 2013 at 4:15 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
What right of others is being infringed if someone purchases a 20oz soda? None? Then we should not infringe the right to do so.


Drinkers of large soda drinks are at a much higher risk for diabetes & obesity, which leads to my tax dollars paying for fat people to not work, continue to consume large amounts of soda, which leads to further health issues.


If the problem is that your tax dollars will pay for their health problems, then the solution is to not have tax dollars pay for their health problems. Again, we create the need for government regulation of our day to day activities when we put the government in charge of paying for our health care. It's a predictable outcome, but it's shocking how consistently some people just fail to see it even when it's pointed out to them.


BTW, this is why conservatives oppose things like publicly funded health care. Not because we want people to be sick, or die, or suffer, but because we recognize the infringement of liberty that will inevitably result if the government is put in the position of paying for our health. Anything we do can be defined within the context of health, so by putting the government in the position of paying for our health we're basically giving the government unlimited power to control our activities on the grounds of reducing health care costs borne by all of us.

The correct answer, no matter how much you might thing it's cruel or uncaring, is to *not* make the government responsible for our health care.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#150 Mar 19 2013 at 4:26 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Torrence wrote:
gbaji wrote:

Heaven forbid we allow the consumers to make their own choices! Government really has no business making that decision for us, much less passing a law forcing that decision on us. Freedom doesn't end at good choices, otherwise it's not really freedom.......
Yup. You made a choice. That's what freedom is all about.


The government didn't take a choice away from me, though - that company did.


Huh? No it didn't. You were free to order any size soda you wanted. You were free to inquire as to the actual ounces in each "size" of drink and get the one you wanted. You were free to get a smaller or larger drink, as you pleased. What do you want? Someone else to make your choice for you? Or a government to impose your choice on everyone else?


Quote:
Regulating the size of soda a company can sell isn't taking away your rights.


Of course it is. It's taking away the right to choose to buy a larger soda if you want. When did rights become defined in either/or terms? So since the company gives you the option of a larger drink, and you don't want one, instead of just asking for a smaller drink, you want the government to force the company to not be able to sell larger drinks at all, thus taking that choice away from all the consumers who might want larger drinks?

How the **** does that make any sense?

Quote:
It's forcing companies, and by extension the public, to be more responsible about the choices they make.


No. It's forcing companies, and by extension the public, to make the choices they want it to make. Which is the opposite of freedom.

Quote:
If NY tried to pass a law banning soda I'd be with you, but you are just grasping at straws with this one. If your wonderful free market hadn't made it a problem to begin with, this would never have seen the light of day.


The free market didn't make this a problem and I'm not sure why you'd think it did. The market offers larger drinks because customers want larger drinks. That and larger drinks are cheap, but make people think they're getting a better value. But at the end of the day, there's no law requiring companies to sell large drinks, nor consumers to buy large drinks. Thus, there is no problem which needs to be addressed.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#151 Mar 19 2013 at 5:20 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts

The free market didn't make this a problem and I'm not sure why you'd think it did. The market offers larger drinks because customers want larger drinks. That and larger drinks are cheap, but make people think they're getting a better value.


Sort of true, sort of also a known fact that that food marketers try as hard as they can to create formulas that engage lower brain instincts that largely disable the brain's ability to say "nah I'm good." If there were a way to make cheese as addictive as heroin with it being immediately harmful or obvious, every cheese maker in the world would do that tomorrow.

To be clear, I don't think limiting the size of soda portions is a good idea, either from a policy standpoint or a health efficacy standpoint. I do think a law could be fairly easily crafted to allow a municipality to do so legally. I'm not familiar enough with the law or the ruling here to really have an opinion, but it sounds like poor legislative writing at first blush.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 64 All times are in CST