• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Appeals court: NYC's big-soda ban unconstitutional

This was not at all unexpected. It certainly had all the hallmarks of government overreach.
 
haymarket said:
This was not at all unexpected. It certainly had all the hallmarks of government overreach.

I love it. This is overreach but forcing me to pay for the super-obese society we live in....nah, that's routine!

Required to have health insurance which essentially subsidizes the unhealthy? That's not overreach, that's Obama-goodness!
Trying to limit absurdly large high calories sugar drinks? Overreach! Stop them!

Everyone knows that if it had helped your party, pension, or quality of life, you'd be all for it. And given that you have admitted that the constitution should NOT be a living constitution subject to such wild interpretation AND you don't believe in inalienable rights, we now have that you think government overreaches when it tries to limit obesity. I will love watching you contradict that for the remainder of 2013. *64oz soda and popcorn watching the show*.
And to be clear:
1. I don't actually drink soda, or eat buttery popcorn 2. I think both are overreach.
 
Yea free-enterprise!

Anything that knocks a few notches out of Bloomberg's ego is worthwhile.
 
I love it. This is overreach but forcing me to pay for the super-obese society we live in....nah, that's routine!

Required to have health insurance which essentially subsidizes the unhealthy? That's not overreach, that's Obama-goodness!
Trying to limit absurdly large high calories sugar drinks? Overreach! Stop them!

Everyone knows that if it had helped your party, pension, or quality of life, you'd be all for it. And given that you have admitted that the constitution should NOT be a living constitution subject to such wild interpretation AND you don't believe in inalienable rights, we now have that you think government overreaches when it tries to limit obesity. I will love watching you contradict that for the remainder of 2013. *64oz soda and popcorn watching the show*.
And to be clear:
1. I don't actually drink soda, or eat buttery popcorn 2. I think both are overreach.




Here we see the ultimate purpose of progressive policy.

They want government involvement because, when it comes right down to it, they want to argue that your lifestyle is a burden to them and should therefor be regulated.

If you pay your own way, pay your taxes, pay for your own health insurance, and ask nothing from anyone you are really a roadblock to progressive Utopia because there is no good way they can justify regulating your lifestyle.

So ingrained is this repressive dream that they can't even see someone enjoying popcorn and soda at a movie without psychotically believing it somehow burdens them.
 
Unconstitutional and stupid.
 
One of those "duh" moments.
 
Unconstitutional in regard to federal or newyork state constitution?
 
Back
Top Bottom