- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 45,596
- Reaction score
- 22,536
- Location
- Everywhere and nowhere
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
HOw is that different from regulating where people can buy alcohol? Or food? Or porn?
That is the issue. Sure you can go buy a 32 oz cup and a 2 liter soda. Great. But you can't do it at certain locations. That is wrong. That is removing freedom. The government should not be in control of your personal decisions.
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.
I agree that the law is asinine in the extreme, but the fact remains that there are no rights being violated.
When a rightwinger whines about their rights being violated, it means "I don't like it"
Thats what it means when anyone whines about their rights be violated.
Unless you are suggesting there are people who whine about their rights being violated who like it. :roll:
When a rightwinger whines about their rights being violated, it means "I don't like it"
I see it happening from both sides.
HOw is that different from regulating where people can buy alcohol? Or food? Or porn?
It does sometimes come from the left (ex union busting), but with far less frequency
This is a joke regulation.
They are taking away businesses rights to conduct business. They are taking away a individuals personal choice.
True.
False on both counts.
A business can't sell an item they use to sell. A person can't buy an item they use to buy.
Wrong. When a rightwinger does it, there's usually no violation of any rights. When a leftwinger does it, there usually is
Neither of those things are rights. :shrug:
It's a ridiculous proposal. It doesn't even solve a problem. In fact, it will just create more garbage as it will double the amount given that people will be buying two 16 oz cups as opposed to one 32 oz cup.
but you can still by a 40 oz 8 ball, and use it to down a chocolate donut, yo!
Being discussed =/= pretending it affects you.
It hasn't affected you in any way, so if you claim it has, then you are lying.
It's an argument from ignorance fallacy.
Based on the available evidence, I'd make an educated guess of 0 times.
True. but taking steps that aren't successful really just means "tough ****, the people have spoken and they disagree with you. Don't like it? You always have the choice to move."
You rectify the situation the next time around. It's your own duty to become informed about what your local political are for or against If you haven't done your due diligence then you are at fault because ignorance is no defense. If they lie and claim they are for something when they are against it or vice versa, then it's on them.
Not directly, but I can extrapolate the assumption that they probably would form all of the other idiotic **** they have passed.
Not about that issue, but it doesn't take a genius to guess where they might lean based on their stances on other issues.
I agree, but as I said it doesn't take a genius to guess where politicians might lean on most issues based on their stances on other issues. A politician I would support would be the type who would never vote for this. I'm in the minority politically where I live, though, so I have to accept that my choice to live here means I am subjected to laws created by idiots who were voted for by idiots. I make that choice, thus I'm never a victim.
That's a silly assumption. It wastes time that could be spent on more effective means of creating change.
A business doesn't have the right to sell products of their choosing?
A person doesn't have the right to buy products of their choosing?
What if the town mandated everyone wear pink.
Then the people would not have the right to choose what they wore.
When did a big gulp become a controlled substance?
Of course they don't. Go open up an ice cream parlor that sells liquor, guns and Bengal tiger penises. See where that gets you.
Of course they don't. Go out and buy some heroin, dead babies, and Bengal tiger penises. See where that gets you.
Hash browns are also yummy. It's a lost art on the East Coast it seems. Actually, I don't think they properly understand breakfast at all. I mean, they have no biscuits and gravy out here. How the hell do they not have biscuits and gravy!? Sounds like communism to me! And pork roll....WTF is pork roll. I've seen many a pig in my day, I ain't ever seen a "pork roll".
And alcohol is illegal for a certain part of the population.The difference between your analogy and what is actually happening is that heroin, dead babies, and Bengal tiger penises is that those are completely illegal to buy. Where as a soda is a legal product.
Pace does not qualify as a hot sauce/salsa.
Ummm you do know that in a society freedoms are often curtailed for the benefit of said society, right? You don't have the right to buy nuclear bombs. You don't have the right to buy dangerous materials. Dangerous goods are often removed from the shelves if they are found to be a threat to society. So, your viewpoint is a tad bit warped.
Sorry, but all freedoms should not be indulged. Businesses are concerned solely with generating wealth, public health be damned.
Cell phones: 50 percent increase in frontal and temporal lobe tumors in children
Wednesday, May 30, 2012 by: Lloyd Burrell
(NaturalNews) The Office of National Statistics in the United Kingdom discovered a 50 percent increase in frontal and temporal lobe tumors in children during the ten year span covering 1999 to 2009. Was this a result of cell phone radiation?
The Department of Health in the UK would appear to think so. One in three children under the age of ten currently has a cellphone in their possession. The governmental agency put out the following statement: "Children should only use mobile phones for essential purposes and keep all calls short."
The facts: while adults definitely absorb some radiation from using cellphones, children are at considerably greater risk. When compared to adults, children's brains can take in up to three times the amount of radiation.
Cell phones: 50 percent increase in frontal and temporal lobe tumors in children
Indeed, some folks are just using this thread as an excuse to bash NYC.
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?