• 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

ReverendHellh0und said:
Am I expected to explain simple concepts and analogies to you that everyone else gets? I'm not your huckleberry, kid. Sorry.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Joby said:
Excellent move by Mr Bloomberg to set a precedent in my opinion. Obesity is a huge public health concern (to put it extremely kindly) and steps must be taken to limit the intake of extremely unhealthy, sugary foods. Because sugary drinks make up such a large percentage of our collective sugar intake, putting the brakes on consumption makes absolute sense.



A small warning on a pack of cigarettes did nothing at all to make them safer, but the campaign against smoking has arguably been largest health victory of the last century in the US.
Click to expand...

It is so scary that some don't want to take personal responsibility but want the govt to regulate their lives. Good grief.
Here is what I see happening. People will purchase a 16oz dring at a fast food place because the larger size is not an option. They will consume it, go up and refill it.
I got a better idea, hold people accountable for their own actions. I don't need the govt trying limit what I do.
 
Joby said:
In some aspects, yes.
Click to expand...

So when the hard tyranny comes as opposed to this soft tyranny, you'll be all for it right?

I'm a fan of motorcycle helmet laws and seatbelt laws as well.
Click to expand...

I ride, and even though I live in a state with no helmet law, I still wear one because I don't want my head cracked like an egg if I dump it, and I didn't need Government to enforce that....I drive truck for a living, and always wear a seat belt....No one tells me to wear that either....Imagine that...Now how do you suppose that I did that all on my own?


I also strongly dislike the image of America as a morbidly obese nation.
Click to expand...

So do ad campaigns, post calories, even a warning label I don't care, but I don't need government to do something stupid like this....Tell me, what prohibits me from buying 2 16oz. sodas? Anything?


j-mac
 
mike2810 said:
It is so scary that some don't want to take personal responsibility but want the govt to regulate their lives. Good grief.
Click to expand...
Is it that they want the Gov to regulate their lives, or is it that they want the Gov to regulate others lives?
 
Beyond the nanny state issue -- is it not mindbogglingly stupid that lattes and cappuccino can be any size yet you can't have more than 16 oz of tea? ROFLMAO.

It's amazing how ****ing stupid and corrupt that state is.
 
mike2810 said:
It is so scary that some don't want to take personal responsibility but want the govt to regulate their lives. Good grief.
Here is what I see happening. People will purchase a 16oz dring at a fast food place because the larger size is not an option. They will consume it, go up and refill it.
I got a better idea, hold people accountable for their own actions. I don't need the govt trying limit what I do.
Click to expand...

It's not scary, it's pathetic. Lots of liberals can't handle being responsible for themselves, or worse yet, feel the need to control everyone around them in order to make them feel better about what they do.

Why can't they just live their own life and leave everyone else around them alone?
 
j-mac said:
I ride, and even though I live in a state with no helmet law, I still wear one because I don't want my head cracked like an egg if I dump it, and I didn't need Government to enforce that....I drive truck for a living, and always wear a seat belt....No one tells me to wear that either....Imagine that...Now how do you suppose that I did that all on my own?
Click to expand...
Can I guess?

You learned more thoroughly about seat-belt use in the military?

So... Government education?
 
Excon said:
Is it that they want the Gov to regulate their lives, or is it that they want the Gov to regulate others lives?
Click to expand...

You would have to ask them. Then the question could be who put them in the place to ask the govt. to regulate my life? (but thank goodness I do not live in NY/NYC).
Either way, its a bad law, imo.
 
mike2810 said:
You would have to ask them. Then the question could be who put them in the place to ask the govt. to regulate my life? (but thank goodness I do not live in NY/NYC).
Either way, its a bad law, imo.
Click to expand...

its not a law yet. jeez.
 
Excon said:
Can I guess?

You learned more thoroughly about seat-belt use in the military?

So... Government education?
Click to expand...


Well, that was one....a Hummer with no doors, off road, and you tend to go flyin', but it really didn't take long when I was OTR trucking to see more than a few gruesome wrecks/fatalities up close to know that buckling up would save my life.


j-mac
 
Arbo said:
Nail on the head.

Only kids use 'soda' or 'pop'.
Click to expand...

Only uneducated kids refer to all pop as "coke". Coke's a name brand genius.
 
Ikari said:
That's because you use the correct terminology.
Click to expand...

Its not pop.

Pop is something we do to stoner kids who mouth off. In the head.
 
Caine said:
Its not pop.

Pop is something we do to stoner kids who mouth off. In the head.
Click to expand...

Pop correctly refers to pop as a noun. And why the **** would you advocate violence against stoners; they're the least violent of folk out there. Perhaps maybe amp heads sure, those guys are violent and uncontrolled. But stoners? All you have to do is offer them a twinkie and they'll shut up.
 
i live in an area where it's called "pop." i have always disliked the term, and i refer to it as "soda." my countrymen look at me as if i'm odd. actually, i probably am. however, i'm still going to call soda soda.
 
Ikari said:
Only uneducated kids refer to all pop as "coke". Coke's a name brand genius.
Click to expand...

Oh, from Jersey, that makes sense...

It's a suburb of NYC....
 
Ikari said:
All you have to do is offer them a twinkie and they'll shut up.
Click to expand...
Now there is an idea. Make police carry a box make that a case or two of Twinkies to placate stoners. A case because when the word gets out that they carry Twinkies, the police will be fielding many more calls.
 
Helix said:
i live in an area where it's called "pop." i have always disliked the term, and i refer to it as "soda." my countrymen look at me as if i'm odd. actually, i probably am. however, i'm still going to call soda soda.
Click to expand...

my grandfather referred to sodas as 'dope'
probably because back in his day coca cola actually contained cocaine

put that dope in a poke and tote it home
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom