• 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!

New York Plans to Ban Sale of Big Sizes of Sugary Drinks

OMG. Another "I pay taxes" blah blah blah. When the hell are people going to stop with that lame excuse? It seems that is the only excuse that people can come up with to support their arguements when they fail at actually supporting their arguements.

Those that get help via government in the treatment of cancer also pay taxes. Which means they helped pay for thier treatments also. Those that smoke also help pay those bills via the extra tax that is already placed on cigarettes. And those that have no problem with smoking pay taxes also. How are your taxes any different than these people?

That was only a very small part of my argument, my main point which you didn't address is that second hand smoke causes significant harm to people who do not engage in the act by merely being around people who do smoke. Why should someone else get cancer for another person's activity?
 
That was only a very small part of my argument, my main point which you didn't address is that second hand smoke causes significant harm to people who do not engage in the act by merely being around people who do smoke. Why should someone else get cancer for another person's activity?
Do you have any proof whatsoever that second hand smoke causes cancer?
 
That was only a very small part of my argument, my main point which you didn't address is that second hand smoke causes significant harm to people who do not engage in the act by merely being around people who do smoke. Why should someone else get cancer for another person's activity?

The fact that it causes cancer is irrelevent to the discussion. What is relevent is that you choose to go to an establishment that allows smoking. An establishment that is owned privately. If you choose to go to such a place knowing that second hand smoke can give you cancer then you accepted that possibility. You are responsible for your own health. Not anyone else. Just as I am responsible for my own health. Which ties this into the main topic of the thread. It is not right that Bloomberg ban privately owned buisnesses from selling what IS a legal product.

See I would have far less of a problem if they made those products illegal period. Same goes for tobacco. I would be fine if they out right banned tobacco products. (I might be upset in both cases but at least they are not being hypocritical) But they haven't. As such laws such as banning smoking from private establishments and banning a food cart from selling a certain amount of a product in one go is wrong and takes peoples freedom of choice, freedom to use a legal product, away.

Edit: I do apologize for focusing only on the tax arguement of yours. I'm just sick and tired of people using it when others on the other side of the aisle pay taxes to.
 
Last edited:
I have no idea why you are whining to me. I thought your comparison of your cigar to offensive body odor was spot on - perfection - very apt - right on the money. I agreed with you.

What about me agreeing to your comparison do you fail to comprehend?


If you thought that was a comparison of similarity of oderiferus eminations, i feel sorry for inabilities.
 
****, you went to a chain restaurant and considered that a real Chicago pizza. That tells you how ****ed up your analysis is. :2razz:



Poquods is a chain? :ssst: its nothing on the pizza like cake, its more about what happens when chicagonians pick up a knife!
 


LOL....The WHO....LOL!!!! What a bunch of Bull Shi'ite! It's not different really, liberal bullies think they have a right to tell others what they can to with or to their bodies, but God forbid that killing an innocent baby is on the table, then we will hear the out of control screams of feminazi's "GET OUT OF MY UTERUS!" What a load of crap.


j-mac
 
OMG. Another "I pay taxes" blah blah blah. When the hell are people going to stop with that lame excuse? It seems that is the only excuse that people can come up with to support their arguements when they fail at actually supporting their arguements.

Those that get help via government in the treatment of cancer also pay taxes. Which means they helped pay for thier treatments also. Those that smoke also help pay those bills via the extra tax that is already placed on cigarettes. And those that have no problem with smoking pay taxes also. How are your taxes any different than these people?

I pay taxes, that then pay government employees that then go home and smoke evil cigarettes, damaging themselves, and then causes them to have to use their government assisted medical insurance to help them get better so therefore, No government employees should be allowed to smoke cigarettes!!!

:roll:
 
That was only a very small part of my argument, my main point which you didn't address is that second hand smoke causes significant harm to people who do not engage in the act by merely being around people who do smoke. Why should someone else get cancer for another person's activity?

Are you forced to be around second hand smoke?
 
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?

Dunkin Donuts is going to go out of business. Their Large is 20 oz. If you sweeten it, then it is illegal. OMG NEW YORKERS...buy 2 mediums. Game the system.
 
LOL....The WHO....LOL!!!! What a bunch of Bull Shi'ite! It's not different really, liberal bullies think they have a right to tell others what they can to with or to their bodies, but God forbid that killing an innocent baby is on the table, then we will hear the out of control screams of feminazi's "GET OUT OF MY UTERUS!" What a load of crap...

Godwining a thread about sugary drinks huh?

:lamo
 
It doesn't...yet. But how long before some idiot in my state tries to do the same thing? In order to prevent that I have a right and an obligation to cry out about it now...before it comes this way.

Sure you can piss and moan about it all you want, but you don't have a right to pretend it will prevent you from having a large pop.
 
Sure you can piss and moan about it all you want, but you don't have a right to pretend it will prevent you from having a large pop.

Thats what makes it all the more a stupid law...
 
Banning soda won't make people lose weight. In protest to this moronic proposal, I give you this:

two reasons i wouldn't have taken bite one of that :

1. eating raw cookie dough is a pretty bad idea.
2. they stirred with their hands. that's disgusting.

not to mention that it didn't even look that good to begin with.
 
You missed my point. New Yorkers can pretend it will prevent them from having a large pop.

heh..anyone can pretend what they want I guess tucker...bloomberg to me is an egomaniac that would control the world if he could because he believes he smarter and better than the rest and could it all so much better.
Anyone with a pea for a brain realizes this cannot work and will do nothing to diminish obesity....Im sure theres many other laws that could be written that would actually help....but how in the world can you control what someone puts in their mouth
 
heh..anyone can pretend what they want I guess tucker...

Yes, but it's tremendously dishonest to pretend that a New York law prevents you from doing something you if you don't live in New York.

Disagree with, sure. call it a stupid law? no problem. But the thing I took issue with was the victim-mentality bull****.
 
Back
Top Bottom