Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 210111213 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 129

Thread: NYC Soda Ban Could Include Frappucinos And Popcorn At Movie Theaters

  1. #111
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: NYC Soda Ban Could Include Frappucinos And Popcorn At Movie Theaters

    Excellent Henrin. Good post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    As I said:

    They require labor. Something we all have right to is our own labor.

    They require property(aka money) We all have a right to our property

    As for the records example, labor.
    So, if people decide that knowing what records the government has on them is more important to them than say the $0.01 a year it would cost them to pay for the labor required to look them up and mail them out on request, what is wrong with them deciding that they want that to be a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Part of my point. Taxes as an idea as I said before is not a violation of your rights. As I have said before, it's the avenue that is chosen on taxes that is the problem and where the violation of rights occurs. For example, income taxes is taken out of your wages without your permission and without you doing anything with the government. By taking it out in the way they are doing they are saying they own the income and whatever they didn't take you should just be thankful they allowed you to keep.

    It is an individual help program that is meant to assist a certain individual in society while you pay for it, which is actually not similar to lets say the police where if I'm paying for it I'm getting a direct return. Sure people have argued there is an indirect return for education towards me and I am forced to agree, but then, everything could have a indirect return really. Hell, the guy that robbed you could get more economic return for your income than you would have done with it and that could benefit you, but its still theft, isn't it? Wouldn't you agree that is true?

    Lastly, it takes labor from individuals to exist. As it stands now we pay those individuals to provide the education to our children, however, because it is a right then we have a right to their labor and they can not refuse their labor to us. For example, if they say, "I will not teach that student" they are violating the students right to an education.
    Yes, I agree that it is debatable which government programs benefit society as a whole. That's what we have democracy for. Everybody sees it a little different, so we vote. The only real alternative would be some kind of a dictatorship where one person's notions of what was good for society and what wasn't were imposed on everybody else.

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    A right to property says everything I own is mine and you can't have it or use it unless I give you permission, while a right to an eduction calls for the property to be given. What other dots are there?
    That is the connection between the two. That is what I guessed was the connection you were drawing, but you hadn't previously explained that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    How exactly does speech conflict with property rights? Please provide an example, thank you.
    Sure, for example, if you own a restaurant and I stand out front of it telling people that you serve rat meat. I would be in effect taking property from you. Your business which was worth $200k before I was out there is now only worth $100k. You may be driven out of business completely if I'm allowed to continue and you might lose the restaurant completely. But, I'm exercising free speech, so if the courts stop me, then my right to free speech will be hindered. The way the courts currently split the baby is that if I can prove that I have a reasonable belief that it is true, I can keep saying it, but if I don't, I can't. So, both sides are losing some rights in the compromise. I lose the freedom to say things that I know aren't true about your business, and you lose the ability to protect your property to speakers who mistakenly believe something that isn't true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    I need an example here as well. Thanks.
    For example, I own the lot next to yours. I dig a pit 20 feet deep right up against the property line. Nothing collapses, but it weakens the ground enough that you can't build a structure right next to the property line on your side because the weight might cause it to collapse. If I'm not allowed to dig the pit, I am losing absolute rights over my own property, but if I am allowed to, I am taking your ability to make a building wherever you want on your property.

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Yes, it does. Do we allow people to take without permission from other people? Why is the government different? Look, I understand the law says so, but I'm trying to get you think about it, so please, do not use the law here. What are the differences between the two? Do you think they are not merely created by the government?
    The government is different because it is elected by the people. The government is the people deciding something together. Some decisions can be made individually with no loss of efficiency. For example, you can decide what color shirt you wear and no matter what color you pick, that won't have any impact on me. It won't help me and it won't hurt me. And there is no significant efficiency to be gained by having that decision made collectively. But, on the other end of the spectrum, the decision of whether or not to repel an invasion of the country needs to be made collectively. Individuals could never defend the country against an invasion by a nation, so if we don't decide collectively to pool our resources and submit to the command and control of the government, then we are deciding to accept occupation. All decisions the country is faced with fall somewhere on that spectrum. Some can only be made collectively because our eggs are essentially all in the same basket. Some have no impact on others so we can make them totally individually. But most fall in between. Many things can be more efficiently handled by working together than individually. For example, we have dabbled with privatizing fire protection from time to time in our history. It is theoretically possible. You just pay a company to give you fire protection, and if you house catches on fire, you call them up and they come put it out. But, that is a far, far, less efficient approach. Once a big fire gets going, it is much, much, harder to stop, and to avoid putting out fires for non-covered people they would need to intentionally let it get huge. Often it would get too huge to fight before they could act. On top of that, you need to essentially duplicate the infrastructure. If you want a 5 minute response time, you need to have one private firehouse from each company within 5 minutes of you, where if they were all one, you would only need one fire house. So, it costs much more to do it privately. So, that is something that we have decided as a society we would rather handle collectively. That is what it means when the government does something rather than individuals- that is a thing that we have decided we would rather handle collectively. That's what the government is- the pool of things that we as a people have decided we want to work on together, so that's why it is different than a business. A business does not have the consent of the people in general, government does.
    Total tax rates- People living in poverty: 16.2%. The median American: 27%. Working people who make over $140k/year: 31%. The top 1%: 30%. Super rich investors: around 15%. Help the democrats retake the house.

  2. #112
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,261

    Re: NYC Soda Ban Could Include Frappucinos And Popcorn At Movie Theaters

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    I sincerely doubt that someone will buy 64 ounces of anything when all they want is 12. There is too much disparity in that, and while prices don't necessarily go up by an even per-ounce amount, I doubt anyone would throw away money "just because".
    A typical 12 canned soda will cost more than a fountain drink no matter where you are. In big cities like NYC, LA or Chicago, a 12oz can of Mt. Dew is going to run you in excess of $2.00. If we are to assume that a a can of soda will cost the same as a variety size fountain drink, the consumer is still being compelled to purchase the better deal.

    64 ounces is just shy of a 2 liter. I don't think people buy 2 liters to chug in one sitting.


    It's got a shelf life tied to the status of the ice! It is not made to drink throughout the day. Refills are typically half the cost as well.

    The place I go to get fountain drinks, a 20 ounce cup costs 1.09, a 32 ounce costs 1.29, and a 44 ounce costs 1.69. I get a 32 ounce because it has the cheapest cost per ounce. Truth is that I could drink the 44 ounce (Dr. Pepper is probably the biggest crutch I have to losing weight). I probably don't need that much though.
    Within the context of the big city, a 96oz super big gulp is going to be similarly priced to a 12oz or 14oz can/bottle. Do you agree?

    I would say it's less about over-consumption and more about waste. I like to think humans are more evolved than dogs and cats, who will continue to eat and eat all food put in front of them until they burst.
    I was brought up not to waste. Personally, i feel compelled to finish the remnants of a drink on principle alone; in the back of my head i hear my grandmothers voice saying, "now don't you waste that."
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  3. #113
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

    Re: NYC Soda Ban Could Include Frappucinos And Popcorn At Movie Theaters

    Within the context of the big city, a 96oz super big gulp is going to be similarly priced to a 12oz or 14oz can/bottle. Do you agree?
    I guess it depends on where you go. I've gone to places where there is a rolling cooler filled with ice by the cash register. There would be cans of Coke or Pepsi or whatever with a sign over it saying "12 oz. Coke/Pepsi, 2 for $1". I'm not sure about where you live, but everywhere I've gone in both Michigan and Alabama, paying more than a dollar for a 12 ounce can is unheard of. Hell, I sometimes get 20 ounce bottles for 99 cents.

    I was brought up not to waste. Personally, i feel compelled to finish the remnants of a drink on principle alone; in the back of my head i hear my grandmothers voice saying, "now don't you waste that."
    That is another reason I brought up a bottle. Since it can be resealed, it has a longer life than a can. Frankly, I think cans are being marginalized and slowly phased out because of their limitations.

  4. #114
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: NYC Soda Ban Could Include Frappucinos And Popcorn At Movie Theaters

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Excellent Henrin. Good post.

    So, if people decide that knowing what records the government has on them is more important to them than say the $0.01 a year it would cost them to pay for the labor required to look them up and mail them out on request, what is wrong with them deciding that they want that to be a right?
    You can't decide things to be a right on a desire. Desires are desires and should stay as desires. Should we allow people to simply be able to force other people to do their bidding because they want something from them? It really doesn't seem to make much sense to me. There has to be some kind of guideline on these matters and right now with positive rights that line seems to be blurred into accepting desire over the liberty and rights of others. Yes, I do have a problem with that, and it really is why I reject positive rights as an idea.

    Yes, I agree that it is debatable which government programs benefit society as a whole. That's what we have democracy for. Everybody sees it a little different, so we vote. The only real alternative would be some kind of a dictatorship where one person's notions of what was good for society and what wasn't were imposed on everybody else.
    Democracy is very comparable to a dictatorship, imho. Why should I have to do the bidding of the majority? Why should anyone? If someone wants a service why can't they just pay for it? The more things you allow people to take from other people the more the tensions build and is that really a good thing?

    The reason the education and police example work so well is because of the benefit return picture but also on the reasons on why government exist. Government was not created to provide people services regardless of effectiveness, but to protect our rights and liberties, and police just like courts are created for that purpose. Is education though? No, not even the most biased person would say education is created for our liberties or our rights. In truth it wasn't even made public to protect our rights or to educate children but more about theories that it would create good citizens, unite society and prevent crime and poverty, so people will need to forgive me if I ignore arguments about falsehoods on why it was created like teaching our population. Sure you could make the argument that "preventing crime" is right on the list, but again, preventing crime and dealing with crime is different ideas. The government should be involved in dealing with crime, not coming up with services they could take from the private sector to prevent it.


    That is the connection between the two. That is what I guessed was the connection you were drawing, but you hadn't previously explained that.
    Well to be honest I thought I did in the past to you, but if not sorry.

    Sure, for example, if you own a restaurant and I stand out front of it telling people that you serve rat meat. I would be in effect taking property from you.
    No he wouldn't. He would either be taking value or future property. My property by itself is untouched.

    Your business which was worth $200k before I was out there is now only worth $100k.
    Exactly value.

    You may be driven out of business completely if I'm allowed to continue and you might lose the restaurant completely.
    Sure that is a risk, but again he didn't take anything from me. He convinced people of a wrong doing and they acted on how they felt about it which took the income I could of gained by them away from me. Was it a lie? Well sure, but all the same he didn't take anything from me.

    But, I'm exercising free speech, so if the courts stop me, then my right to free speech will be hindered. The way the courts currently split the baby is that if I can prove that I have a reasonable belief that it is true, I can keep saying it, but if I don't, I can't. So, both sides are losing some rights in the compromise. I lose the freedom to say things that I know aren't true about your business, and you lose the ability to protect your property to speakers who mistakenly believe something that isn't true.
    I know that is the way the courts deal with the above, but thanks for explaining it. At that early hour I honestly couldn't think of an example.


    For example, I own the lot next to yours. I dig a pit 20 feet deep right up against the property line. Nothing collapses, but it weakens the ground enough that you can't build a structure right next to the property line on your side because the weight might cause it to collapse. If I'm not allowed to dig the pit, I am losing absolute rights over my own property, but if I am allowed to, I am taking your ability to make a building wherever you want on your property.
    That makes sense, thanks. Just take note though that you are not talking about rights conflicting, but more on the idea that rights end where others begin. I guess you could say its just me being picky over words but I think there is a clear distinction between the idea of rights conflicting as if they always exist and rights ending and starting where others begin.


    The government is different because it is elected by the people. The government is the people deciding something together.
    No, it is not. They decide for us and many of us dislike their decisions they decide on. Majority rule is the ruling class kicking the peasants for their benefit.

    Some decisions can be made individually with no loss of efficiency. For example, you can decide what color shirt you wear and no matter what color you pick, that won't have any impact on me. It won't help me and it won't hurt me. And there is no significant efficiency to be gained by having that decision made collectively. But, on the other end of the spectrum, the decision of whether or not to repel an invasion of the country needs to be made collectively.
    That has nothing to do with taxes though. I see no reason the government should be in whatever it might because it might be more effective for them to do it. I am interested in the purpose of government and staying with it and everything that goes away from it is not in my interest. If you want people to agree with you its best to stick to what I'm saying, courts and police.

    Individuals could never defend the country against an invasion by a nation, so if we don't decide collectively to pool our resources and submit to the command and control of the government, then we are deciding to accept occupation.
    I never agreed to anything? Did you? Where was this contract that I was supposed to sign? Did someone sign it for me?

    You are assuming much here and much of it has to do with the existing of a contract, but the fact remains that when you are born in a country you are not put into a contract, and there is no contract that exists between a country and its people. The government is merely the collective organization of the people to protect our rights and liberties, but that doesn't mean they can force us to pay for them on their accord. We have right to decide on where our property is going and we have a right to do so voluntary in some sort of arrangement with the government that might be set up. No one including the government has a right to take what is ours against our will and no amount of "its impossible" without it is good enough to trump that right. If you want our money you will offer us something that treats us like human beings and respects us as people, or else I do not feel obligated to assist you at all regardless if it harms me or not.
    Last edited by Henrin; 06-17-12 at 05:24 PM.

  5. #115
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: NYC Soda Ban Could Include Frappucinos And Popcorn At Movie Theaters

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    You can't decide things to be a right on a desire. Desires are desires and should stay as desires. Should we allow people to simply be able to force other people to do their bidding because they want something from them? It really doesn't seem to make much sense to me. There has to be some kind of guideline on these matters and right now with positive rights that line seems to be blurred into accepting desire over the liberty and rights of others. Yes, I do have a problem with that, and it really is why I reject positive rights as an idea.
    This is our fundamental disagreement. You see rights as being logically derived from something about nature. I see them as being created by people, and so I see your conception of what rights should be as just your personal preference, one amongst many different preferences. The line you describe- you can't do anything that impairs the rights of others- would actually be horrifically oppressive if truly applied in an absolute sense. Virtually everything a person does infringes on somebody else's rights somehow or another in some minor way. When I play music in my apartment that music travels into other people's apartments. When I drive I am taking money from the taxpayers that maintain those roads. So, to me, it is more about working out compromises we can live with that allow us to maximize our freedom and quality of life. And working out that kind of a compromise can only be done legitimately, in my view, through democracy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Democracy is very comparable to a dictatorship, imho. Why should I have to do the bidding of the majority? Why should anyone? If someone wants a service why can't they just pay for it? The more things you allow people to take from other people the more the tensions build and is that really a good thing?
    What IMO you're missing is that if we don't do something the majority wants to do, then the majority is forced to do the bidding of the minority. Say, for example, that you have 10 people. 9 of them want to have public schools, 1 does not. You only really have two choices- have the schools or don't. Either way, one group is imposing its preferences on the other group. So, it certainly isn't ideal to have 9 people imposing their will on 1 person, but it's better than having 1 person impose their will on 9 people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    No he wouldn't. He would either be taking value or future property. My property by itself is untouched.
    Well, the courts treat good will or reputation as property as well. And for good reason. For many businesses, that is their main asset. Some of the largest financial transactions the world have ever seen have been primarily an exchange of a brand and reputation for money. A law of property that ignores that wouldn't be able to provide very strong or meaningful protections to property.

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    No, it is not. They decide for us and many of us dislike their decisions they decide on. Majority rule is the ruling class kicking the peasants for their benefit.
    No, IMO, it is exactly the other way around. In government, every person gets a vote. In the private sector, votes are distributed based on wealth where the wealthier you are, the more say you get. Democracy is the force that counters the ability of the ruling class to kick the rest of us for their own benefit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    I see no reason the government should be in whatever it might because it might be more effective for them to do it.
    What you're saying then is that you would intentionally handicap the nation. Prevent it from achieving the most it can achieve on the basis of your personal conception of rights. We couldn't compete with other nations and we could not remain first world if we were unwilling to pursue those opportunities to advance ourselves that require acting collectively. Are you sure that you believe that adhering to your conception of rights is worth that?
    Total tax rates- People living in poverty: 16.2%. The median American: 27%. Working people who make over $140k/year: 31%. The top 1%: 30%. Super rich investors: around 15%. Help the democrats retake the house.

  6. #116
    Sage
    lpast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fla
    Last Seen
    05-21-16 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,565

    Re: NYC Soda Ban Could Include Frappucinos And Popcorn At Movie Theaters

    I understand both yours and Henrins views...I have to agree with Henrin, more for the reason this Cannot work. It does nothing as I see it and I question the motivations.
    I cant wrap around govt banning a commodity...that commoditys survival should be based on whether consumers choose to purchase it or not.
    Soda is not cigarettes we dont get second hand obesity from soda.
    I have to say what totally astonishs me in this thread...is how people can be for banning soda and in the same breath be for legalizing marihuana which is far more harmful than big gulps and why are we harping on soda and giving ALCHOHOL a free pass...We are all screwed up in our priorities on what should we keep the people from making a choice on what they want to buy. Bloomberg is for loosening weed and for banning big gulps...that reeks of hypocrisy

  7. #117
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,261

    Re: NYC Soda Ban Could Include Frappucinos And Popcorn At Movie Theaters

    Quote Originally Posted by lpast View Post
    I understand both yours and Henrins views...I have to agree with Henrin, more for the reason this Cannot work. It does nothing as I see it and I question the motivations.
    I cant wrap around govt banning a commodity...that commoditys survival should be based on whether consumers choose to purchase it or not.
    Soda is not cigarettes we dont get second hand obesity from soda.
    I have to say what totally astonishs me in this thread...is how people can be for banning soda and in the same breath be for legalizing marihuana which is far more harmful than big gulps and why are we harping on soda and giving ALCHOHOL a free pass...We are all screwed up in our priorities on what should we keep the people from making a choice on what they want to buy. Bloomberg is for loosening weed and for banning big gulps...that reeks of hypocrisy
    Nobody has proposed banning soda. When such a development comes about, i will be the first person to agree with you. As for cannabis being more harmful than soda, i don't believe your in any position to make such a deterministic statement.
    Last edited by Kushinator; 06-17-12 at 06:05 PM.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  8. #118
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: NYC Soda Ban Could Include Frappucinos And Popcorn At Movie Theaters

    Quote Originally Posted by lpast View Post
    I understand both yours and Henrins views...I have to agree with Henrin, more for the reason this Cannot work. It does nothing as I see it and I question the motivations.
    I cant wrap around govt banning a commodity...that commoditys survival should be based on whether consumers choose to purchase it or not.
    Soda is not cigarettes we dont get second hand obesity from soda.
    I have to say what totally astonishs me in this thread...is how people can be for banning soda and in the same breath be for legalizing marihuana which is far more harmful than big gulps and why are we harping on soda and giving ALCHOHOL a free pass...We are all screwed up in our priorities on what should we keep the people from making a choice on what they want to buy. Bloomberg is for loosening weed and for banning big gulps...that reeks of hypocrisy
    Yeah, I'm not arguing that banning soda is a good thing. We're off on a tangent.
    Total tax rates- People living in poverty: 16.2%. The median American: 27%. Working people who make over $140k/year: 31%. The top 1%: 30%. Super rich investors: around 15%. Help the democrats retake the house.

  9. #119
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: NYC Soda Ban Could Include Frappucinos And Popcorn At Movie Theaters

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    This is our fundamental disagreement. You see rights as being logically derived from something about nature. I see them as being created by people, and so I see your conception of what rights should be as just your personal preference, one amongst many different preferences.
    Rights are the foundation of a country and as such they need a foundation themselves that is based on logic and reason and all changes have to built on that foundation. Mine is the foundation the country was built on and so when slavery was made illegal the foundation was only given support in an area of weakness. There was no additions and there was no subtractions. There was merely a brick missing in the foundation and so it was put in place where it belonged from the start. Surely that is based on natural law but not silly versions that include positive rights and no absurd ones that restrict what it sees in nature because of being as a god. I see nature as it is and that includes all its weakness and its all strengths. If you have any important questions then please ask away and I think you will find that I'm being very constant in my view and not putting any personal feelings into it.

    The line you describe- you can't do anything that impairs the rights of others- would actually be horrifically oppressive if truly applied in an absolute sense. Virtually everything a person does infringes on somebody else's rights somehow or another in some minor way. When I play music in my apartment that music travels into other people's apartments.
    That is not infringing on someones rights.

    When I drive I am taking money from the taxpayers that maintain those roads.
    Again, there no infringing of rights occurring because you drive on a road.

    So, to me, it is more about working out compromises we can live with that allow us to maximize our freedom and quality of life. And working out that kind of a compromise can only be done legitimately, in my view, through democracy.
    I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Very little of what you do in life infringes on the rights of others.


    What IMO you're missing is that if we don't do something the majority wants to do, then the majority is forced to do the bidding of the minority.
    Hardly. I'm asking the government to ignore the majority if what they want abuses the rights/liberties of others. That is not saying listen to the minority in any sense of the word. Just to respect the minority as people as you respect the majority as people.

    Say, for example, that you have 10 people. 9 of them want to have public schools, 1 does not. You only really have two choices- have the schools or don't. Either way, one group is imposing its preferences on the other group. So, it certainly isn't ideal to have 9 people imposing their will on 1 person, but it's better than having 1 person impose their will on 9 people.
    Read above.

    Well, the courts treat good will or reputation as property as well. And for good reason. For many businesses, that is their main asset. Some of the largest financial transactions the world have ever seen have been primarily an exchange of a brand and reputation for money. A law of property that ignores that wouldn't be able to provide very strong or meaningful protections to property.
    Well, good will and representation are not property so they have no business being treated as such.


    No, IMO, it is exactly the other way around. In government, every person gets a vote. In the private sector, votes are distributed based on wealth where the wealthier you are, the more say you get. Democracy is the force that counters the ability of the ruling class to kick the rest of us for their own benefit.
    Democracy is the ruling class kicking everyone else around and that is the essence of the saying "majority rule" that goes hand and hand with it. The market is people buying what they desire and the market trying to get more sales to grow around the desires of people.

    What you're saying then is that you would intentionally handicap the nation. Prevent it from achieving the most it can achieve on the basis of your personal conception of rights. We couldn't compete with other nations and we could not remain first world if we were unwilling to pursue those opportunities to advance ourselves that require acting collectively. Are you sure that you believe that adhering to your conception of rights is worth that?
    Yes. Justice isn't winning with services provided, it's being free and gaining wealth with it.
    Last edited by Henrin; 06-17-12 at 06:48 PM.

  10. #120
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: NYC Soda Ban Could Include Frappucinos And Popcorn At Movie Theaters

    Again; back the ice. Imagine this; not ordering ice. . . saying 'no ice, please' . . . or (what I do) - fishing the ice *out* when it goes into the fridge. It's a $2.00 soda that you ordered - it's not rocket science.

    Thanks everyone - I'm here all day Tuesdays and all 7 nights of the week.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 210111213 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •