• 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

justabubba said:
if we adopted your analogy we should then conclude that small nuclear bombs could be available for purchase while larger ones could not
try again
Click to expand...

If that what you took from what I wrote, I must contend that you're being obtuse.
 
Tettsuo said:
If that what you took from what I wrote, I must contend that you're being obtuse.
Click to expand...

don't believe so, actually
under this proposed change
the items can still be sold, only in smaller portions
not true in your analogy
 
Blue_State said:
Please stop side stepping what I am saying. This is a limitation on freedoms. No ones freedoms should be limited in our country. The freedom of choice should be maintained. I don't care if I can buy a 32 oz of soda. I care if someone else can or can't.
Click to expand...

So you **** on the rights of people to have control over their won local government. You don't care about limitations on freedoms and rights, you care about your limitations placed upon your concept of freedoms and rights.

If people want to live in an area that bans the sale of 32 oz drinks, they have the right to vote in legislators who will pass such ordinances.



I live and work in and around NYC.
Click to expand...

you just said you didn't want it spilling into CT. Why would you say that is you live in NY? Clearly you are lying, it's just a matter of which thing is a lie.

If You live in NY, then obviously my statements don't apply to you since they are about people who don't live in NY.

If you only work in NY, then it's your own damned fault for allowing your "rights" to be infringed upon by not having any voting power in a region that directly affects you. In that case, I say tough ****. It's not my fault you relinquished your right to self-governance.

As a libertarian, I choose freedom, not limitations.
Click to expand...

Then why do you support limiting people's legislative rights over their own local region?
 
Joby said:
@Tucker Case

While I disagree with his stance, I don't think it's a strong argument against Blue_State to merely say that if you don't agree with the law, then move.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that he should move. He implied that he lived in CT, not New york.


People put up with laws they disagree with everywhere but are forced to cope with them or must attempt to change the law. I can see your point, that this isn't a proposed piece of federal legislation, but to many New Yorkers, especially those with a low income, we can assume that it might as well be.
Click to expand...


Ultimately, it's the New Yorkers fault if they have to deal with laws they disagree with. I deal with stupid laws every day here in Chicago. It pisses me off just like anyone else.

But I don't chose to move because I love it here despite all of the things I disagree with. Since I make that choice, I can't pretend to be a victim. I take personal responsibility in how the laws piss me off.

People always have the option to move. ****, it's probably a hell of a lot easier for low income people to move than it is for people who have a lot of stuff, a home, etc. ****ty low paying jobs are a dime a dozen. Rent's probably cheaper somewhere else. And quite frankly, their broke asses shouldn't be worrying about not being able to buy a 32 oz soda anyway. As far as things go, no broke mother ****er is going to have a worse life because they couldn't get a goddamned big gulp.

I'm just sick as hell of this victim mentality nonsense. One side is pretending to be the victims because the sugary pop is too ****ing big and the other side is pretending to be the victims because they can't buy an absurdly large sugary pop.

The whole thing is downright pathetic.
 
Tucker Case said:
I didn't say that he should move. He implied that he lived in CT, not New york.





Ultimately, it's the New Yorkers fault if they have to deal with laws they disagree with. I deal with stupid laws every day here in Chicago. It pisses me off just like anyone else.

But I don't chose to move because I love it here despite all of the things I disagree with. Since I make that choice, I can't pretend to be a victim. I take personal responsibility in how the laws piss me off.

People always have the option to move. ****, it's probably a hell of a lot easier for low income people to move than it is for people who have a lot of stuff, a home, etc. ****ty low paying jobs are a dime a dozen. Rent's probably cheaper somewhere else. And quite frankly, their broke asses shouldn't be worrying about not being able to buy a 32 oz soda anyway. As far as things go, no broke mother ****er is going to have a worse life because they couldn't get a goddamned big gulp.

I'm just sick as hell of this victim mentality nonsense. One side is pretending to be the victims because the sugary pop is too ****ing big and the other side is pretending to be the victims because they can't buy an absurdly large sugary pop.

The whole thing is downright pathetic.
Click to expand...

I agree, it is pathetic.

But what do you expect? When our most prolific diseases are obesity, diabetes and heart disease, and those are all tied together. And we are all having to pay for it... yeah naturally there are going to be people who want to put a stop to the nonsense.

In the end. Do whatever the hell you want. Once you get your hand out of my pocket.
 
Ikari said:
The only people I know of who don't like biscuits and gravy are communists and terrorists.

Also hot sauce goes on eggs, not ketchup.
Click to expand...


Pace does not qualify as a hot sauce/salsa. (McIlhenny's Tabasco will suffice in a pinch)

But to really make eggs really stand out is to serve them with Arriba! Roasted Chipotle Salsa
 
Tucker Case said:
So you **** on the rights of people to have control over their won local government. You don't care about limitations on freedoms and rights, you care about your limitations placed upon your concept of freedoms and rights.

If people want to live in an area that bans the sale of 32 oz drinks, they have the right to vote in legislators who will pass such ordinances.
Click to expand...

They aren't voting on this. Their Board of Health is going to vote it up or down. Where is the representation of the people?




you just said you didn't want it spilling into CT. Why would you say that is you live in NY? Clearly you are lying, it's just a matter of which thing is a lie.

If You live in NY, then obviously my statements don't apply to you since they are about people who don't live in NY.

If you only work in NY, then it's your own damned fault for allowing your "rights" to be infringed upon by not having any voting power in a region that directly affects you. In that case, I say tough ****. It's not my fault you relinquished your right to self-governance.
Click to expand...

Great, now I am liar because you don't understand the geography and relationships of lower Connecticut and New York City. For a majority of people who live in Lower Connecticut, specifically Fairfield County, they commute to work in and around NYC. I don't live in NY. My company works in NY and OMG, in NYC.

Then why do you support limiting people's legislative rights over their own local region?
Click to expand...

They didn't vote on this, and I don't remember Bloomberg running on a platform to remove products from the shelves. If the people of NYC vote for this nonsense, fine. But at this point, I don't feel the people are being represented.
 
Aberration said:
yeah naturally there are going to be people who want to put a stop to the nonsense.
Click to expand...

The thing is, banning big soda won't put a stop to the nonsense. I get why New Yorkers might be pissed about this, but it shouldn't be based on the size soda they are allowed to buy. It's perfectly reasonable to be pissed off that people you voted for, or people who have control over your local government even if you voted against them, are passing such ridiculous nonsense that doesn't have any effect on the issue it's pretending to affect.

I would oppose the **** out of such a law in Chicago, and I'd vote against anyone who had a hand in creating/implementing such a law, not because it is a limitation of freedom, but because it'll be about as efficient towards stopping obesity as ****ting on a wildebeest's vagina is towards earning a college degree. One thing I dislike more than the victim mentality is utter incompetence in elected officials.

But since it's not Chicago, and therefore it has nothing to do with me, I just think to myself "What a gaggle of morons" and move on.
 
So will people be able to bur 32 oz diet sodas?
 
Blue_State said:
They aren't voting on this. Their Board of Health is going to vote it up or down. Where is the representation of the people?
Click to expand...

The board of Health is appointed by an elected official, no?



Great, now I am liar because you don't understand the geography and relationships of lower Connecticut and New York City.
Click to expand...

No, you lied because you said "I live and work in and around NYC."

You don't live in and around NYC. You live in Connecticut. You made the choice to live in a place different from where you work.



For a majority of people who live in Lower Connecticut, specifically Fairfield County, they commute to work in and around NYC.
Click to expand...

And they made the chocie to work in a plac ewhere they do not have a right to have democratic legislative power.

I don't live in NY.
Click to expand...

Then you lied when you said you live and work in and around NYC.

My company works in NY and OMG, in NYC.
Click to expand...

It sucks for you that you chose to work in a place where you have no say in the local government.

They didn't vote on this, and I don't remember Bloomberg running on a platform to remove products from the shelves.
Click to expand...

Then they need to vote his ass out next chance they can and put someone in who will rescind this stupid law, if it passes of course. If they are up in arms about it, though,m they should vote his ass out regardless of what happens.

If the people of NYC vote for this nonsense, fine. But at this point, I don't feel the people are being represented.
Click to expand...

If they aren't being represented, then they need to do something about it. They can vote out Bloomberg as soon as possible. If they don't do that, then they are getting the representation they deserve and ask for.
 
This is one of the silliest things I've heard in some time, it will do nothing to curb peoples waistlines.
 
Joby said:
You've gone to the point of saying nobody will visit America's premier city if they can't buy a 2 liter at a movie theater.

I'm going to chalk that one up to hyperbole.
Click to expand...

Reading comprehension is a must. What do the words "If he keeps this crap up" say to you when you read it?
 
Tucker Case said:
The board of Health is appointed by an elected official, no?



No, you lied because you said "I live and work in and around NYC."

You don't live in and around NYC. You live in Connecticut. You made the choice to live in a place different from where you work.





And they made the chocie to work in a plac ewhere they do not have a right to have democratic legislative power.



Then you lied when you said you live and work in and around NYC.



It sucks for you that you chose to work in a place where you have no say in the local government.



Then they need to vote his ass out next chance they can and put someone in who will rescind this stupid law, if it passes of course. If they are up in arms about it, though,m they should vote his ass out regardless of what happens.



If they aren't being represented, then they need to do something about it. They can vote out Bloomberg as soon as possible. If they don't do that, then they are getting the representation they deserve and ask for.
Click to expand...

I feel the view you have is so narrow. Yes, the board of health was put in place by an elected official...not the people. It isn't transparent. It is six degrees away from the person you can hold responsible for passing the decision.

I completely understand where I live. Beside the very distinct sign that says now entering New York when I go to work this whole conversation has nothing to do with where I choose to work or where I live.

The whole point is that the people of NYC should feel violated. Violated by their local government when it over reached. They should vote their local government out, but I don't think the election issue is going to what size soft drinks are now available. The people will vote on taxes and bridges, and the government, the local government will have taken just a little freedom without a word.
 
Tucker Case said:
/snip

No, you lied because you said "I live and work in and around NYC."

You don't live in and around NYC. You live in Connecticut. You made the choice to live in a place different from where you work.


And they made the chocie to work in a plac ewhere they do not have a right to have democratic legislative power.

/snip
Click to expand...

Is this the same argument you use for people who live in Virginia and working in DC or any other huge metropolitan area on a border?
 
Blue_State said:
Is this the same argument you use for people who live in Virginia and working in DC or any other huge metropolitan area on a border?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I developed the argument to apply it to myself when I lived in the burbs but worked in Chicago.
 
Blue_State said:
I feel the view you have is so narrow. Yes, the board of health was put in place by an elected official...not the people. It isn't transparent. It is six degrees away from the person you can hold responsible for passing the decision.
Click to expand...

I like it that **** travels uphill. that's how it should work. The person who makes the appointment should be held responsible for the actions of that appointee. You need to have competent people in the position that appoints said people.

... I choose to work or where I live.
Click to expand...

Keyword: choose. :shrug:

The whole point is that the people of NYC should feel violated.
Click to expand...

Who the hell are you to tell them what they should or should not feel?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Reading comprehension is a must. What do the words "If he keeps this crap up" say to you when you read it?
Click to expand...

It says you don't have a real argument connecting a ban on large sugary drinks in certain locations and the end of tourism to the largest hub of western culture, financial power, and foreign diplomacy in the world.
 
Tucker Case said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Joby said:
It says you don't have a real argument connecting a ban on large sugary drinks in certain locations and the end of tourism to the largest hub of western culture, financial power, and foreign diplomacy in the world.
Click to expand...

If thats what it says to you then you need to take a Reading Comprehension course.
 
Tucker Case said:
I like it that **** travels uphill. that's how it should work. The person who makes the appointment should be held responsible for the actions of that appointee. You need to have competent people in the position that appoints said people.



Keyword: choose. :shrug:



Who the hell are you to tell them what they should or should not feel?
Click to expand...

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. This is wrong. That is my point.

The rest of the stuff in your posts is off topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom