Reply With Quote
It seems kind of two faced to limit the size of a person's soda and then say Obama has no right to judge.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/ny...bloomberg.html
Good read, IMO.
It seems kind of two faced to limit the size of a person's soda and then say Obama has no right to judge.
Not sure how you equate those, tbh... you can have your diabetes binge drinking as many sodas as you want, just in medium sized cups...
About the same as limiting magazine capacities, because we all know that spree shooters are stopped most often when they go to change magazines.
The idea is to make it inconvenient, more than anything. If it ends up working as a deterrent for a subset of cases, then it's a plus. This certainly attempts to attack a real problem in New York (and in America in general) which ends up costing almost 5,000 lives a year in New York alone and also a good chunk of dough to the state in the long run too. It's become such a severe case in New York, that over half the population is either obese or overweight. It might end up not working, but I give Bloomberg props for being creative about it and trying to address it instead of looking the other way. He was also the guy that made chain restaurants include calorie information on their menus, and that eventually caught on nationwide.
Can't someone just buy multiple 16 oz drinks individually and bring a huge cup to a restaurant and pour all the 16 oz drinks into the huge cup?
If there is anyone in politics to hate more than either Romney or Obama, it's ing Bloomberg. That anti-american slimeball has been calling for more and more gun bans for years, and he's criticizing both candidates for not doing something that nobody in this country wants. The right to own firearms is sacred and fundamental to being an american. Hey bloomberg wake up you head, the reason that guns aren't going anywhere is because nobody wants them to. We all see how well that is working out for NY which has one of the highest violent crime rates in the nation, keep your slimeball ideas contained to your own little hole over which you govern. And could somebody please explain to me how gay marriage is such a huge issue? There are bigger fish to fry than 3% of the population who identify as LGBT stamping their feet and crying that they want to be recognized in a religious ceremony. We have the national debt, the wars, all this middle east bull , and global compe iveness to worry about and this asshole is crying that neither guy is dedicating their campaigns to something that only affects a tiny minority, and in a much lesser way than the other issues? I'll be glad when this guy is out of politics for good, that ing idiot.
lol soda and gun bans, that ing nazi
lol soda bans indeed
What it does it play nanny for grown ass Americans. We don't need legislation from the government to babysit us. Let the fat ers croak, nature will balance out. If insurance companies want to charge them more or even deny coverage because they refuse to lose weight, that's fine, but the government telling Americans how much soft drink we can have at once.
^Exactly let darwinism run its course. Make all drugs legal and let the fattasses and drug addicts kill themselves.
He doesn't want to ban all guns, just assault weapons. You know, like Mitt while he was governor.
But the problem is that realistically it doesn't "balance out". They don't croak quick enough. And over time, you keep having more and more cases. On top of that, by the time the health issues are severe enough, they're already likely in some form of government assistance, be it Medicare or Medicaid. And we end up spending a good chunk for them not to croak.... at any rate, I don't particularly see it as playing nanny, since this kind of ban won't affect the guy that wants to drink 3 gallons of soda anyways.
You cannot legislate common ing sense nor will to survive. If anything, legislate what WE, the TAXPAYERS, will not fund, like healthcare for drug dependency not related to medical use, for medical problems brought on by long histories of smoking, obesity and drug abuse. Just as auto insurance goes through the roof if you get a DUI or something along those lines, medical insurance should as well. Those on total taxpayer (not government,they are broke) dependency should be left to their own families to either convince them to lose weight/quit smoking or just watch them die. We aren't pigs in a pen requiring that the farmer ration our intake else we might not know when to stop. We should always have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and if that leads to our demise so be it. We have the right to die.
Small things like this collect and soon we will be showing our medical papers in order to get food, or checking in at the state line so we can cross after our insurance and reciprocity papers have been confirmed. No thanks.
It is playing nanny. The fact there's a work around does not detract from that. I used to tell my son, when he was small, that he could reorder if he was still hungry but to only order a small amount originally. He never was hungry afterward but he sure wanted to order large at the start. That's nanny state. I was looking out for him because I knew better than he did yet I still guaranteed he could eat as much as he wanted. If you came to my home and I said you can have a beer, but only 12 ounces at time even though there were 16 ounce bottles, you might think it's weird and definitely would think I am being controlling just a bit. Don't give away small freedoms.
Last edited by DMC; 10-21-2012 at 07:32 PM.
That's a rant I can agree with. But, again, realistically in the country we're living in, it doesn't happen and won't happen. The candidate that says "we're not covering insulin treatments anymore, you made bad choices, deal with it" is the candidate that won't win an election. The sampling of different generations simply shows adults don't really care about excesses and they will demand to be treated of whatever ails them. I can agree that should end, but it won't. So since it won't, what can you do to at least curb the excesses? I mean, this is a matter of pragmatism. We're here, this isn't going away, how do you deal with it?
You're a responsible parent, and that's great. If everybody would be, the problem would probably not exist. I understand what you mean by giving away freedoms, and I personally agree with that. Perhaps a different solution would be putting the onus on education.
The big drink ban is obviously a bad idea technically, but symbolically, as a message, it could cause some people to consider cutting back.
Soft drink companies are no better than cigarette companies. They both sell pathogenic .
So the soda ban has loop holes? Interesting.
Bloomberg: Vote Brown or Warren could ‘bring socialism back, or the USSR’
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is warning that a win for Massachusetts Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren could effectively mean the return of the Soviet Union.
Bloomberg offered the following thoughts on Warren: “You can question, in my mind, whether she’s God’s gift to regulation, close the banks and get rid of corporate profits, and we’d all bring socialism back, or the USSR.”
Bloomberg’s argument against Warren echoed ads purchased by Crossroad GPS, a super PAC founded by Karl Rove, which has attacked the Democratic candidate over her attempts to regulate Wall Street.
Last year, a tea party supporter lost his cool at a Warren campaign event and began shouting at her for being a “socialist .”
Raw Story (http://s.tt/1qHd8)
Most gun crimes in NY are from guns purchased in lenient gun law states.
Fast and Furious also sells in NYC to anybody
You take a hard line stance against those who do it. That's done at the private sector level, not the federal level. The feds can say doctors and hospitals are allowed to refuse treatment to patients who do not follow doctor's orders.
What you don't do is restrict freedoms for everyone so that you don't upset the offenders. If you want to fix the problem and not just give the appearance of fixing it, you address the offenders, not the means to offend. Most of this legislation will never go away once it's passed into law. Unlike bars who serve too much alcohol and someone dies on the road, obesity only hurts the obese, physically. Sure it hurts everyone financially but only because we choose to finance it. You say "that's how the system works" but you want a pragmatic solution. The pragmatic solution isn't to apply a placebo, but to target the user. I've honestly never heard of a more misguided piece of legislation than one to limit the size of a softdrink that can be served because some people are gluttons. Either label soft drinks as controlled substances or let it go.
Put the onus where it belongs, on the offender. Stop looking for a system to accept responsibility for people who don't give a .You're a responsible parent, and that's great. If everybody would be, the problem would probably not exist. I understand what you mean by giving away freedoms, and I personally agree with that. Perhaps a different solution would be putting the onus on education.
You're out of your ing mind. Food will make you fat if you over-consume. Why do we have a nation full of people who point fingers at corporations instead of at the individual who buys and uses a product to extreme? I suppose screwdriver manufacturers are just as bad because some people might stick one in their eye. When did we become such domesticated pussies? The term "liberal" used to be about rights, but now it's more about ducking personal responsibility. Some of you are begging for government oversight into your lives.
Also, if that mirror in your home doesn't send a clear enough message that you're too ing fat, or if the fact you cannot wear the same pants you wore last month because you gained too much weight, or if you cannot sit down and tie your shoes because you cannot reach your feet because your belly won't let you, what is a soda volume restriction going to do? Seriously? Are you totally ing re ed?
Last edited by DMC; 10-22-2012 at 02:23 PM.
"Why do we have a nation full of people who point fingers at corporations instead of at the individual who buys and uses a product to extreme"
why? corporate highly-researched, scientific advertising of dead, synthetic, pathogenic packaged food to ignorant, trusting s who are susceptible to such advertising.
"If a corporation sells it, it must be ok!"
Corporations NEED people to overeat their . Those Ts of pounds of American fat mean $10Bs of corporate profits yearly.
People are mostly cows, eating whatever garbage corporations put in their feed bags.
"Ever Bipartisan, Bloomberg Jabs Both Candidates"
A ban is not creative.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
