Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

NY Soda ProhibitionFollow

#102 Mar 12 2013 at 7:51 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,831 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
******
34,982 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
******
49,831 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
******
34,982 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
******
49,831 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
******
34,982 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
*****
15,952 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
******
49,831 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
******
30,084 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
******
21,720 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
******
30,084 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
*****
15,952 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
*****
12,062 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
******
49,831 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
******
30,084 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
****
6,471 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?
#122 Mar 13 2013 at 11:51 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 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:
I lost my post
#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
*****
15,952 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
******
49,831 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.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

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