Big Gulp ban

127 posts / 0 new

So, the government has no right to get involved with a woman's right to her body when it comes to abortion, but can tell that same woman she can not get a Big Gulp?

Marlin60
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2012 3:04 am

Comments

OK. I'll bite. What kind of argument do you want to propose here?

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I think the intentions behind it are good, but I guess they wouldn't have that right. Making the 32 ounce cost as much as two 16 ounce drinks would be the best idea! This wouldn't effect me since it's pretty rare that I would even drink a soda. XD

WhiteShoePrincess's picture
WhiteShoePrincess
Joined:
May. 23, 2012 8:05 pm

Topic is government involvement in in personal decisions. If someone wants to drink, smoke or eat stuff that is harmful, some want to prevent it, because they don't know better and need help from the wise leaders to control the ignorant masses. But the same idiot who can't make own decisions on food, tobacco and drinks can make decision to kill, yes I said kill, an unborn child. A fetus will grow into a child, sorry, just how it works. I understand that aborting an unwanted child may seem to be better than having and raising such a child, but take a moment to think your own mother could have aborted you.

Marlin60
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2012 3:04 am

more misogyny thinking.

why are you so pre-occupied with abortion? Trying to tie two very disparate line of thought is false equivalency.

smilingcat
Joined:
Sep. 23, 2010 8:14 am

I am pre-occupied with Progressive non-sense. Sugar bad, must ban, abortion good, must protect. I think both are personal choices that govenrment must keep out of, but I still think abortion is killing a child, but may be better than having a child raised by an unloving abusive idiot of a parent.

Marlin60
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2012 3:04 am

I think spilling of the seed on the soil is murder, I can't fathom why Republicans won't join with the Catholic church and protect life.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm

What would conservatives do about the increasing numbers of obese children? It's bad enough that so many adults are now addicted to sugar but tempting kids with the cool seeming Big Gulp or Double Gulp is a stupid idea.

EdBourgeois's picture
EdBourgeois
Joined:
May. 14, 2010 11:24 am
Quote Marlin60:

Topic is government involvement in in personal decisions. If someone wants to drink, smoke or eat stuff that is harmful, some want to prevent it, because they don't know better and need help from the wise leaders to control the ignorant masses.

That's exactly the propaganda that the media wants you to believe.

People can still buy two drinks if they want.

But the point is that businesses are exploiting people's emotional rather than rational response when buying drinks. Studies show that when you offer lower size drinks, people drink those and are perfectly happy about it. The law simply stops people from automatically buying something they don't really think about and really don't really want. The law really just makes people think twice before they buy soda.

And also people have no idea of the harmful effects of that much sugar. We don't sell poisons to people, yet that amount of sugar has toxic implications. And sodas are designed to trick the body and mind's natural desire for sweets.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

The only thing banning soda does is make people vote Republican. A low information voter sees this government action as an over reach and votes Republican. They are blind to the Republican policies that are against their own best interest. Yes, the eating habits and food choices are an issue. But, actions like banning large sodas are not the solution. What's next... banning toys from Happy Meals?

spicoli's picture
spicoli
Joined:
Jun. 4, 2010 11:12 am
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote Marlin60:

Topic is government involvement in in personal decisions. If someone wants to drink, smoke or eat stuff that is harmful, some want to prevent it, because they don't know better and need help from the wise leaders to control the ignorant masses.

That's exactly the propaganda that the media wants you to believe.

People can still buy two drinks if they want.

But the point is that businesses are exploiting people's emotional rather than rational response when buying drinks. Studies show that when you offer lower size drinks, people drink those and are perfectly happy about it. The law simply stops people from automatically buying something they don't really think about and really don't really want. The law really just makes people think twice before they buy soda.

And also people have no idea of the harmful effects of that much sugar. We don't sell poisons to people, yet that amount of sugar has toxic implications. And sodas are designed to trick the body and mind's natural desire for sweets.

So back to my point, people are too ignorant and emotional to buy a big soda, but these same people can be trusted to terminate a preganacy?

Marlin60
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2012 3:04 am
Quote WhiteShoePrincess:

I think the intentions behind it are good, but I guess they wouldn't have that right. Making the 32 ounce cost as much as two 16 ounce drinks would be the best idea! This wouldn't effect me since it's pretty rare that I would even drink a soda. XD

Let me ask you this Princess. Why 16 ounces? Why not a total ban. And beer is much more fattening than soda. Why not ban beer? And what is next? After this ban what will be the next thing banned? I'm predicting double cheeseburgers. We must regulate the size of the burger. If you were a soda drinker would you be thankful that the government has stepped in to punish and protect you from yourself? How about this: Next time you want to get an ice cream cone maybe some government official should run up and slap your hand as it you are their little baby girl. This is how tyranny begins.

I am 156 lbs. of solid muscle. I don't need some government nit wit aproving what I eat. So I get punished because someone else is fat? Government should stay they hell out of my kitchen and personal life. I am not accountable to any man.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am
I am not accountable to any man.
Wow! That's quite a statement. Is this what you really believe?

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote rigel1:
Quote WhiteShoePrincess:

I think the intentions behind it are good, but I guess they wouldn't have that right. Making the 32 ounce cost as much as two 16 ounce drinks would be the best idea! This wouldn't effect me since it's pretty rare that I would even drink a soda. XD

Let me ask you this Princess. Why 16 ounces? Why not a total ban. And beer is much more fattening than soda. Why not ban beer? And what is next? After this ban what will be the next thing banned? I'm predicting double cheeseburgers. We must regulate the size of the burger. If you were a soda drinker would you be thankful that the government has stepped in to punish and protect you from yourself? How about this: Next time you want to get an ice cream cone maybe some government official should run up and slap your hand as it you are their little baby girl. This is how tyranny begins.

I am 156 lbs. of solid muscle. I don't need some government nit wit aproving what I eat. So I get punished because someone else is fat? Government should stay they hell out of my kitchen and personal life. I am not accountable to any man.

Nobody's telling you what you can and can't eat or drink and you know it. The idea behind this is to make it not so easy to over indulge in something that could be harmful to mainly children. You can buy 10 12 oz. sodas if you want. Why is it that when someone tries to do something that's right, so many people swoop in for the kill? The government isn't in your kitchen, they are in public places. ..........and in your bedroom.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote rigel1:
Quote WhiteShoePrincess:

I think the intentions behind it are good, but I guess they wouldn't have that right. Making the 32 ounce cost as much as two 16 ounce drinks would be the best idea! This wouldn't effect me since it's pretty rare that I would even drink a soda. XD

Let me ask you this Princess. Why 16 ounces? Why not a total ban. And beer is much more fattening than soda. Why not ban beer? And what is next? After this ban what will be the next thing banned? I'm predicting double cheeseburgers. We must regulate the size of the burger. If you were a soda drinker would you be thankful that the government has stepped in to punish and protect you from yourself? How about this: Next time you want to get an ice cream cone maybe some government official should run up and slap your hand as it you are their little baby girl. This is how tyranny begins.

I am 156 lbs. of solid muscle. I don't need some government nit wit aproving what I eat. So I get punished because someone else is fat? Government should stay they hell out of my kitchen and personal life. I am not accountable to any man.

Nobody's telling you what you can and can't eat or drink and you know it. The idea behind this is to make it not so easy to over indulge in something that could be harmful to mainly children. You can buy 10 12 oz. sodas if you want. Why is it that when someone tries to do something that's right, so many people swoop in for the kill? The government isn't in your kitchen, they are in public places. ..........and in your bedroom.

Is this what you need? You cannot handle making decisions without a government robot supervising you? Why? You and your family may need the government to make your food decisions for you, but I do not. I don't need to be punished, guided or micro managed. This country was formed because we did not want government managing us through brute force. We are here because we longed for personal freedom. Now we want to give it all back to the rich, elite rulling class. We've seen this movie before and the ending is always bad. Again, Why do you need the government managing all of your decisions or punishing you for what you eat or purchase?

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am
We are here because we longed for personal freedom.
Great rhetoric. Sounds like something out of a movie.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote rigel1:
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote rigel1:
Quote WhiteShoePrincess:

I think the intentions behind it are good, but I guess they wouldn't have that right. Making the 32 ounce cost as much as two 16 ounce drinks would be the best idea! This wouldn't effect me since it's pretty rare that I would even drink a soda. XD

Let me ask you this Princess. Why 16 ounces? Why not a total ban. And beer is much more fattening than soda. Why not ban beer? And what is next? After this ban what will be the next thing banned? I'm predicting double cheeseburgers. We must regulate the size of the burger. If you were a soda drinker would you be thankful that the government has stepped in to punish and protect you from yourself? How about this: Next time you want to get an ice cream cone maybe some government official should run up and slap your hand as it you are their little baby girl. This is how tyranny begins.

I am 156 lbs. of solid muscle. I don't need some government nit wit aproving what I eat. So I get punished because someone else is fat? Government should stay they hell out of my kitchen and personal life. I am not accountable to any man.

Nobody's telling you what you can and can't eat or drink and you know it. The idea behind this is to make it not so easy to over indulge in something that could be harmful to mainly children. You can buy 10 12 oz. sodas if you want. Why is it that when someone tries to do something that's right, so many people swoop in for the kill? The government isn't in your kitchen, they are in public places. ..........and in your bedroom.

Is this what you need? You cannot handle making decisions without a government robot supervising you? Why? You and your family may need the government to make your food decisions for you, but I do not. I don't need to be punished, guided or micro managed. This country was formed because we did not want government managing us through brute force. We are here because we longed for personal freedom. Now we want to give it all back to the rich, elite rulling class. We've seen this movie before and the ending is always bad. Again, Why do you need the government managing all of your decisions or punishing you for what you eat or purchase?

Reducing the size options for a sody pop is punishment? Again, it's not to babysit you and I, it's to help "children" make better choices. It forces nothing on anyone. In fact, if it helps with the growing problem of obesity amongst the poorest of our citizens that's going to save you a lot of your precious tax dollars in health care costs. Leave it to you guys to make a Big Gulp a national story. I think "jan in iowa" made a post about this very thing. Distractions from the real issues.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote WhiteShoePrincess:

I think the intentions behind it are good, but I guess they wouldn't have that right. Making the 32 ounce cost as much as two 16 ounce drinks would be the best idea! This wouldn't effect me since it's pretty rare that I would even drink a soda. XD

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - CS Lewis

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 2:21 pm
Quote Capital.0:
Quote WhiteShoePrincess:

I think the intentions behind it are good, but I guess they wouldn't have that right. Making the 32 ounce cost as much as two 16 ounce drinks would be the best idea! This wouldn't effect me since it's pretty rare that I would even drink a soda. XD

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - CS Lewis

Yeah, like vaginal probes, prayer in schools and illegalizing the consumption of certain plants for our own good. These are important issues but don't carry near as much weight as downsizing a big gulp.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

I doubt that Bloomberg is going to get his way on this. It's a pretty silly move. But making it a matter of the survival of the human race and civil liberties and truth, justice and the American way - seems over the top to me.

I'm more concerned about this attitude " I am not accountable to any man . . . We are here because we longed for personal freedom". That sounds like the typical 19 year old after he has left his parents nest and before he has taken a job or gone into the Army. Aren't we being a little adolescent, here?

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

If talking about this ban gets the population of New York to begin looking at the issue of "GMO corn sweeteners" (not sugar) in everything and the health ramifications then it's a good thing. It probably won't go very far, but the discussion maybe will intensify and make people think.

The comparison to abortion is just more blah blah blah..... we've heard it all before and I for one will not bite on that apple again.

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 11:16 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote rigel1:
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote rigel1:
Quote WhiteShoePrincess:

I think the intentions behind it are good, but I guess they wouldn't have that right. Making the 32 ounce cost as much as two 16 ounce drinks would be the best idea! This wouldn't effect me since it's pretty rare that I would even drink a soda. XD

Let me ask you this Princess. Why 16 ounces? Why not a total ban. And beer is much more fattening than soda. Why not ban beer? And what is next? After this ban what will be the next thing banned? I'm predicting double cheeseburgers. We must regulate the size of the burger. If you were a soda drinker would you be thankful that the government has stepped in to punish and protect you from yourself? How about this: Next time you want to get an ice cream cone maybe some government official should run up and slap your hand as it you are their little baby girl. This is how tyranny begins.

I am 156 lbs. of solid muscle. I don't need some government nit wit aproving what I eat. So I get punished because someone else is fat? Government should stay they hell out of my kitchen and personal life. I am not accountable to any man.

Nobody's telling you what you can and can't eat or drink and you know it. The idea behind this is to make it not so easy to over indulge in something that could be harmful to mainly children. You can buy 10 12 oz. sodas if you want. Why is it that when someone tries to do something that's right, so many people swoop in for the kill? The government isn't in your kitchen, they are in public places. ..........and in your bedroom.

Is this what you need? You cannot handle making decisions without a government robot supervising you? Why? You and your family may need the government to make your food decisions for you, but I do not. I don't need to be punished, guided or micro managed. This country was formed because we did not want government managing us through brute force. We are here because we longed for personal freedom. Now we want to give it all back to the rich, elite rulling class. We've seen this movie before and the ending is always bad. Again, Why do you need the government managing all of your decisions or punishing you for what you eat or purchase?

Reducing the size options for a sody pop is punishment?

Yes it is punishment. They have no business reducing anything. When will they start telling Burger King that the whopper is too big and they will need to "reduce the size option?" If they can tell you what size drink you will be permitted to order, then they can tell you anything. You may need their help in making a good decision, but I do not. I ask you this: After they start micro managing your drink order, what will be next? Any ideas?

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am

Dude, it's a big gulp. Once again, they are trying to do something good for the country as a whole. They haven't ban soda, they want to make it a tad more difficult to consume an unhealthy amount at one sitting. They haven't said you can't drink as much soda as you want. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

I used to do a lot of hunting. They had the gall to limit me to one deer per year. That is probably what led them to micro manage my sugar intake per serving. The flood gates have been opened now. We are doomed to the government making all of our decisions.

I like to drink a beer every now and then. They had the gall to tell me, right down to the percentage, of how much alcohol I can drink before driving home. Yeah, yeah, I know it's for the betterment of society as a whole but who in the hell are they to micro manage my alcohol consumption?

Next thing you know they're going to be deciding for me whether to wear boxers or briefs.

:(

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote spicoli:

The only thing banning soda does is make people vote Republican. A low information voter sees this government action as an over reach and votes Republican. They are blind to the Republican policies that are against their own best interest. Yes, the eating habits and food choices are an issue. But, actions like banning large sodas are not the solution. What's next... banning toys from Happy Meals?

What republican policies are against my best interest.

This soda ban should have the left jumping up And down with delight. The government is taking control of their lives. No need to worry about what choices you make the government has that covered.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

But I don't live (nor would I) in New York Shitty!!! Can Bloomberg make this ban nationwide?

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 10:30 am

Goes too far-nanny state law. Why not tax employers who force workers to work graveyard? Studies have shown it is harmful to health.

lovecraft
Joined:
May. 8, 2012 11:06 am
Quote workingman:
Quote spicoli:

The only thing banning soda does is make people vote Republican. A low information voter sees this government action as an over reach and votes Republican. They are blind to the Republican policies that are against their own best interest. Yes, the eating habits and food choices are an issue. But, actions like banning large sodas are not the solution. What's next... banning toys from Happy Meals?

What republican policies are against my best interest. This soda ban should have the left jumping up And down with delight. The government is taking control of their lives. No need to worry about what choices you make the government has that covered.

Excellent point workingman. It seems that the tables have turned. We are now facing a bunch of "anti-choice" liberals. How ironic is that?

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am
Quote rigel1:

Yes it is punishment.

Buy more than one you idiot!

No one is limiting how much you can buy.

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 11:16 am

It's a terrible problem for Republicans

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

You righties are losing your marbles. Nothing has been banned. Your choices aren't being eliminated.

Go down to the hardware store and try buying 200 bags of fertilizer and tell me what happens. Go to the drug store and try to buy 10 boxes of sudafed and tell me what happens. Send your 14 year old down to the liquor store to buy a six pack and tell me what happens.

We've always had limits to some of our choices and we always will. Those types of things evolve with an ever changing world. Speaking of which, when's the last time you were able to take a pocket knife on an airplane?

Now breathe easy, slow down, gather yourself. I don't want you to have an insulin attack.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:

You righties are losing your marbles. Nothing has been banned. Your choices aren't being eliminated.

Go down to the hardware store and try buying 200 bags of fertilizer and tell me what happens. Go to the drug store and try to buy 10 boxes of sudafed and tell me what happens. Send your 14 year old down to the liquor store to buy a six pack and tell me what happens.

We've always had limits to some of our choices and we always will. Those types of things evolve with an ever changing world. Speaking of which, when's the last time you were able to take a pocket knife on an airplane?

Now breathe easy, slow down, gather yourself. I don't want you to have an insulin attack.

Everything you pointed out is part of the massive government oversteps that Will eventually lead to a totalitarian controlling government or left wing utopia.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

If they can ban a size of a drink because its unhealthy can they ban the size of acar because its "harmful"?

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 1:22 pm
Quote Bush_Wacker:

Go down to the hardware store and try buying 200 bags of fertilizer and tell me what happens.

They will ask you what you plan on doing with it. It's not illegal to buy 200 bags of fertilizer. Biulding Bombs is illegal.

to the drug store and try to buy 10 boxes of sudafed and tell me what happens

Show just cause and you can buy them..... However Manufacturing Meth is illegal. Purchasing 10 boxes of Sudafed isn't.

Send your 14 year old down to the liquor store to buy a six pack and tell me what happens.

a 14 year old isn't an Adult. Only Adults can buy Beer. As an Adult I can buy enough beer to fill a swimming pool

But if I Buy one of those 64 oz Big gulp cups in New jersey and drink it going across the bridge. It will be illegal to refill it on the other side. Your examples do not fit.

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 2:21 pm

It is like putting a frog in a pot of cold water and turning on the heat. He will not jump out and finally boil to death. The same with government slowly taking away all our freedoms little by little until finally the sheeple wonder what the hell happened. A mere hint at restricting abortion and the progressive lefties squeal like pigs stuck under a gate.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 10:30 am

Once we accept this overstep it Will eventually get worse. The government Will just keep taking freedoms by banning anything they think is excessive.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

All for our own good, of course!!!

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 10:30 am

Incrementalism...

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 2:21 pm
Quote camaroman:

It is like putting a frog ....... The same with government slowly taking away all our freedoms little by little until finally the sheeple wonder what the hell happened. A mere hint at restricting abortion and the progressive lefties squeal like pigs stuck under a gate.

Your argument is thin at best. It's obvious because you keep bringing up abortion. The two things have no connection. Try again.

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 11:16 am

Like I said, you guys have gone off the deep end. and by the way, it is illegal to buy more than one box of sudafed in almost every state.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote jan in iowa:
Quote camaroman:

It is like putting a frog ....... The same with government slowly taking away all our freedoms little by little until finally the sheeple wonder what the hell happened. A mere hint at restricting abortion and the progressive lefties squeal like pigs stuck under a gate.

Your argument is thin at best. It's obvious because you keep bringing up abortion. The two things have no connection. Try again.

Conservatives always go to abortion ...... it's the best weapon in their arsenal.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Bush_Wacker:

Like I said, you guys have gone off the deep end. and by the way, it is illegal to buy more than one box of sudafed in almost every state.

I'm going with we are Both wrong.

It's NOT illegal to buy more than one, however there is a law governing the Sale of Sudafed.

Does this mean I need a prescription from my doctor to buy pseudoephedrine?

No. The Act allows for the sale of pseudoephedrine only from locked cabinets or behind the counter. The law:

  • limits the monthly amount any individual could purchase
  • requires individuals to present photo identification to purchase such medications
  • requires retailers to keep personal information about these customers for at least two years after the purchase of these medicines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Methamphetamine_Epidemic_Act_of_2005

Daily sales of regulated products not to exceed 3.6 grams without regard to the number of transactions

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 2:21 pm
Quote Marlin60:... So back to my point, people are too ignorant and emotional to buy a big soda, but these same people can be trusted to terminate a preganacy?

You didn't understand my point. Purchasing soft drinks is done with little thought, thus it is individually irrational (in the economic sense) That is why people are allowed to purchase more than one drink.

Abortions are not decided on that way.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I see all the conservatives have, as usual, ignored my post and went for the easy prey.

Every conservative ignoreld the plain fact that people can still buy two drinks if they want.

I said it once, I was ignored, so I will say it again:

Every conservative ignoreld the plain fact that people can still buy two drinks if they want.

Perhaps I will say it again, with underline and italic:

Every conservative ignoreld the plain fact that people can still buy two drinks if they want.

Perhaps I will start a new post, since the conservatives find it so difficult to read more than one line at once.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

How does the conservative mind grasp this fact that people are allowed to drink more than one drink?

"If we are right", they must think, "then why do the nasty liberals allow people to buy more than one drink"? It blows their minds. They will not and cannot allow it. Liberals are supposed to be regulating their lives, leading to a tolitarian state and destroying the rational individual!

The point is that businesses are exploiting people's emotional rather than rational response when buying drinks. Studies show that when you offer lower size drinks, people drink those and are perfectly happy about it. The law simply stops people from automatically buying something they don't really think about and really don't really want. The law really just makes people think twice before they buy soda.

Is it possible to restate the above more concisely, more simply? Perhaps there are too many sentences. To many opportunities for the conservatives to loose themselves or chop things up into meaningless bits. Let me just get the topic sentence:

The law really just makes people think twice before they buy soda in a public place where they rarely put much mind to it.

Is this the facist hell that the conservatives are so afraid of, or are they just being sugar pimps?

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Yes you are allowed to buy to drinks if you want, however this is still an attack on personal freedom. The government has decided that you can not be trusted to order the small drink if you want. So they Will eleminate your choice. But yea if you.want to order a big mac And four small glasses go ahead..

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

If this were a attack on your personal freedoms(which it is not) they would just ban the crap wouldn't they? You still have the choice to buy what you want so why are you cons still whining? Maybe you have a rash from not changing your diaper often enough.....Eh?

Sprinklerfitter's picture
Sprinklerfitter
Joined:
Sep. 1, 2011 5:49 am
Quote workingman:
Quote spicoli:

The only thing banning soda does is make people vote Republican. A low information voter sees this government action as an over reach and votes Republican. They are blind to the Republican policies that are against their own best interest. Yes, the eating habits and food choices are an issue. But, actions like banning large sodas are not the solution. What's next... banning toys from Happy Meals?

What republican policies are against my best interest. This soda ban should have the left jumping up And down with delight. The government is taking control of their lives. No need to worry about what choices you make the government has that covered.

Asking the correct question is important. The correct question is: What Republican policies are in your best interest. The answer is: I'll get back to you once they have one.

spicoli's picture
spicoli
Joined:
Jun. 4, 2010 11:12 am

Actually, I think that soda dispensers should be required to demand ID and proof of citizenship in order to purchase a Big Gulp. It strikes at the very core of the American ethos that illegal aliens should have access to the glorious bounty that has been made possible by the exceptional American capitalist freedom machine.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Maybe a business could try thinking? Why offer such an enormous cup of sugar? What's the customer base that needs or will buy these? Is there the potential that kids will buy them? Could this actually be harmful to them at this quantity? Should we be advertising them in a way that attracts kids to them. Should we just be money minded pushers or should we care a little about our customers. Industry associations could actually think about the trends they develop and whether they make sense not just cents.

EdBourgeois's picture
EdBourgeois
Joined:
May. 14, 2010 11:24 am

You do not understand, you do not have the choice any more you Will not be able to buy a 32 oz soda any more in one cup. You Will have to buy mulitple cups adding more difficulty to you Day.

Once you accept small government controls you Will suffer under large ones.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote spicoli:
Quote workingman:
Quote spicoli:

The only thing banning soda does is make people vote Republican. A low information voter sees this government action as an over reach and votes Republican. They are blind to the Republican policies that are against their own best interest. Yes, the eating habits and food choices are an issue. But, actions like banning large sodas are not the solution. What's next... banning toys from Happy Meals?

What republican policies are against my best interest. This soda ban should have the left jumping up And down with delight. The government is taking control of their lives. No need to worry about what choices you make the government has that covered.

Asking the correct question is important. The correct question is: What Republican policies are in your best interest. The answer is: I'll get back to you once they have one.

So you do not know of any policies that are against my best interest that is what i thought.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

Currently Chatting

Can Democrats Set Out a New Path?

Democrats must embrace a pro-government platform, not run away from it.

Those were the sentiments of Senator Chuck Schumer today, in a speech given at the National Press Club. Talking about the reasons for Democrats’ losses on Election Day, Schumer said that those losses were proof that the American people and middle-class want a government that will work more effectively for them.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system