- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 45,596
- Reaction score
- 22,536
- Location
- Everywhere and nowhere
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
It will prevent me if it goes into my area.
See the idea is to stop something from coming into your/my area before it gets there. How is this done? By pointing it out when it happens in other areas and by showing how it could affect a person personally.
In this case the person is me.
Use to be my state didn't have laws against smoking in private establishments. Washington State did though. Guess what...we now have a law against smoking in private establishments.
Applying something to oneself is a perfectly legitimate debate tactic.
The arguement I am making is that the people of New York City are having their freedom's restricted by an unelected, however appointed, board.
The rest of the stuff in your posts is off topic.
This law will never affect you in your area if you don't live in New York. If you live in New York, then my comments don't apply to you.
So did pissing and moaning about how the law can affect a person personally prevent it? Probably not, since all the pissing and moaning around here about those bans didn't do anything to stop it from coming here to Illinois.
That's why I suggest a more effective method.
But one just like it may already be percolating in my representitives minds.
And if they decide to try and get a similar law enacted because they like Bloombergs idea then by an indirect route that ban in NYC has affected me.
Obviously it didn't no. But there is the off chance that it will. We have no idea how many laws have been stopped from even being suggested because the mayor or senator or whatever realized that if a particular law was enacted then they'd be up a chit creek.
I must have missed this more effective method...what was it again?
Then what the hell are you responding to me for? It's not like I initiated this exchange.
You missed my point. New Yorkers can pretend it will prevent them from having a large pop.
There is no pretend here. Their local government is removing freedom.
Indeed, some folks are just using this thread as an excuse to bash NYC.
It's pretend. They can buy a two-liter and a 32.oz cup if they want. Nobody has a right to big gulps.
What? What about the "rights" of those that now may legally sell them, that is the right being taken.
I don't agree with this. People should be free to drink what they want. I'm a healthy person, so drinking a crap ton of sugary drink once in a while isn't going to affect me. This, to me, is a classic case of focusing too much on the symptom instead of the cause.http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/nyregion/bloomberg-plans-a-ban-on-large-sugared-drinks.html
So now I'm not allowed to buy a big coke at the movies if I want one? What's next, my quarter pounded with cheese will be reduced to a sixteenth pounder?
Here's your nanny state liberals love so much. "Gimme money, gimme healthcare, gimme all day to sit on my butt, and if I get fat eating value meals, it's the government's fault."
Sad. Pathetic. Is this really what we want government doing?
Then you should be writing letters to your local representatives!
So what? Are you saying it sucks to much to have to wait until your local government passes such a law in order to pretend to be a victim of this law so you feel the need to claim preemptive victim-hood by lying about how it affects you?
So your defense for pretending to be a victim is "We know it wasn't effective in the past with some similar issues, but we don't know that it was never effective so we should do it just in case."
Brilliant.
You do realize that if you had taken steps to get rid of the people who had passed that previous legislation, there's be some truth to the claim that they'd be up **** creek, right?
That failure on the part of the electorate is why **** like this keeps passing.
Using the democratic system that we have in place by voting for people who would not support such legislation and convincing other people in your area to do the same when they vote.
Do you really think impotent pissing and moaning while pretending to be a victim is the most effective method of getting certain legislation passed and preventing certain other legislation from being passed?
I don't agree with this. People should be free to drink what they want. I'm a healthy person, so drinking a crap ton of sugary drink once in a while isn't going to affect me. This, to me, is a classic case of focusing too much on the symptom instead of the cause.
In another thread, many rightwingers are saying it's OK for the govt to tell people what they can't eat if the govt is subsidizing their food purchases
Since sugar is highly subsidized, those rightwingers should not have any problem with this legislation. However, as is often the case, the rightwingers don't like it when their so-called "principles" are applied to themselves
Indeed, some folks are just using this thread as an excuse to bash NYC.
There's no right to sell whatever one wants to sell. Regulation of commerce is well within the government's purview.
Except most right wingers don't support the subsidies... :roll:
The cause(s) of obesity.what is the cause we are not focusing upon?
I tend to agree. Even though I wouldn't be extremely against "sin taxes," I think the best means of handling obesity is by implementing solutions that don't limit peoples' actions. Putting calories on a menu is something that fits that definition and it also forces people to continuously see the ridiculousness of what they're putting in their bodies. I would think that more focus on maintaining a healthy body in school would be a nice solution as well.it's another measure that will do very little to motivate people to count calories and exercise. sustained weight loss requires both for most of us.
putting calories on the menu next to the item is a much better tool. i think NYC has done this already. i support that one.
people should be able to order as much food as they want, but they should know exactly what they're getting.
Who says that I won't? Or that I haven't already? That is neither here nor there. This is a forum in which things get discussed.
Sorry, not lying. I've already explained why.
It's true isn't it?
Do YOU know how often some stupid legislation has been stopped cold before it even started because people are doing the same thing?
Thanks!
Taking steps and having those steps successful are two different things.
Also a politician does not always reveal everything that they are for or against. What are you going to do about that? Especially when its an off the wall piece of crap legislation.
While true there is nothing that says that we can't try and have a stupid piece of legislation stopped.
Would your reps support bloombergs proposed legislation?
Do you know?
Have you asked them?
Did you ask them before they were elected?
Not every single little detail of how someone is going to be in office is ever talked about and covered...assuming that every politician will be honest of course.
But it sure can't hurt.
They are restricing only SOME sales, the product is legal, only the "serving size" is being changed, for SOME retailers. Buyng two 16 oz. cups of soda is legal, buying one 32 oz. cup of soda is not. That is insane, as now two cups (lids and straws) go to the landfill, the price goes up and NOBODY benefits. Think, before you drink, even koolaid (if it remains legal).
Well this just made everything a lot more ridiculous.So let's review Bloomberg the statist tyrant king douche....
NY Mayor Bloomberg Follows Soda Ban With…National Donut Day? | Mediaite
Chocolate coconut donut
550 calories....
Donuts | Dunkin' Donuts
32 oz. (double the moron's soda limit)
330 calories....
Calories in McDonald's Beverages - Coke - Large 32 oz cup - Nutrition Facts & Other Nutritional Information | LIVESTRONG.COM
So you statist asshole, you want to explain why you aren't a totalitarian hypocrite?
And so, the next time I am at Yankees stadium, I can buy a 32 oz beer (2 beer limit per transaction, for a total of 64 oz), But I am limited to one 16 oz of soda? Good thing I take the ****ing train from irvington, NY.... /facepalm
Bloomberg defends supporting Donut Day while banning sugary drinks* - NY Daily News
It's pretend. They can buy a two-liter and a 32.oz cup if they want. Nobody has a right to big gulps.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?