• 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!

Court won't reinstate New York City's big-soda ban

Another win for Liberty!

Amazing how those republicans are always trying to restrict liberty. Oops, Bloomberg was a democrat, sorry.
 
Yes he was - for New Yorkers own good you see.

Yes, all the restrictions on liberty imposed during the Bush administration were for our own good.
 
Yes, all the restrictions on liberty imposed during the Bush administration were for our own good.

Nice BDS - still nagging is it?

So what restriction of food items did Bush impose? Tell me all about it and I only charge $260 an hour.
 
I didn't speak to food, that's small potatoes!

Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?pagewanted=all

No no... let's stay apples to apples (no pun intended).

So what normal every day item did Bush deny the American public (like size of Soda and salt in public restaurants) for our own good?

Oh wait... there weren't any.



Where in the NY Times article is Bush quoted that this is all for our own good? Bloomberg said that:

Mayor Bloomberg said:
“With so many poor neighborhoods suffering the worst of this epidemic…It would be irresponsible not to try to do everything we can to save lives,” Bloomberg said.

Michael Bloomberg: Poor People Need Soda Ban Because They Can't 'Take Care Of Themselves'



But let's play. :cool:



I would have no problem striking down the Patriot Act Provisions. Bush over stepped his authority in signing an executive order with that expansion in 2005. Yet, Obama extended the Patriot Act in 2011. Obama approves extension of expiring Patriot Act provisions - CNN.com

Then expanded the NSA's reach ...
Surveillance program is now Obama's to own - CNN.com

Oops...


As candidate Obama in 2007 he said:
"This administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance civil liberties. It is not," Obama said during a speech in 2007. "There are no shortcuts to protecting America."[/quote]

"This administration"
was the Bush Administration.

In 2014, he not only kept the NSA spying program Bush started but GREW it.

WashingtonPost said:
President Obama said Friday, in his first major speech on electronic surveillance, that “the United States is not spying on ordinary people who don’t threaten our national security.”

Obama placed restrictions on access to domestic phone records collected by the National Security Agency, but the changes he announced will allow it to continue — or expand — the collection of personal data from billions of people around the world, Americans and foreign citizens alike.
Obama


You want me to point out hypocrisy wherever I see it huh? I see a whole lot of it and it's oozing from your post.

You still want to continue?
 
No no... let's stay apples to apples (no pun intended).

So what normal every day item did Bush deny the American public (like size of Soda and salt in public restaurants) for our own good?

Oh wait... there weren't any.



Where in the NY Times article is Bush quoted that this is all for our own good? Bloomberg said that:



Michael Bloomberg: Poor People Need Soda Ban Because They Can't 'Take Care Of Themselves'



But let's play. :cool:



I would have no problem striking down the Patriot Act Provisions. Bush over stepped his authority in signing an executive order with that expansion in 2005. Yet, Obama extended the Patriot Act in 2011. Obama approves extension of expiring Patriot Act provisions - CNN.com

Then expanded the NSA's reach ...
Surveillance program is now Obama's to own - CNN.com

Oops...


As candidate Obama in 2007 he said:
"This administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance civil liberties. It is not," Obama said during a speech in 2007. "There are no shortcuts to protecting America."
[




But I agree with you about Obama, why post all of that for me. OBAMA SUCKS, and so did Bush, and in this thread I gave you only one reason. But there's plenty of ways Bush policies were an attack on civil liberties and as a defender of Bush, you become part of the problem and an enemy to liberty and America.
 
Last edited:
[




But I agree with you about Obama, why post all of that for me. OBAMA SUCKS, and so did Bush, and in this thread I gave you only one reason. But there's plenty of ways Bush policies were an attack on civil liberties and as a defender of Bush, you become part of the problem and an enemy to liberty and America.

So Bush didn't use his executive power to limit what people ate or drank for their own good. He also never claimed that the Patriot Act powers he exercised were for our own good but claimed it as a national security issue. Different yes, but still over extending his power. Then we have Obama who not only continues using those over extended powers but expands them.

Here's another hypocrisy. Those on the left during Bush who opposed the Patriot Act, like Wasserman, Waxman et.al. (link here) as well as the demonstrations and marches across the country claiming Bush was a dictator, the nasty signs, Bush pictured as Hitler, etc... didn't seem to have the same effect when Obama pushed for it's extension. The Senate Democrats voted primarily against the Patriot Act in 2005 52-47 vote, yet when Obama extends it, the Senate vote amazingly is 72-23.

The difference here? The difference is no one is paying attention. The only time anyone pays attention in the US is when Republicans are hypocrites. Democrats, the media, newspapers, the protest groups which seems to sprout up new branches daily - they all have a field day. When a Democrat does it? No media coverage, maybe a few opinion page items about it in the papers, and what protest groups? It's the same Patriot Act. It's the same totalitarianism and dictatorship. It's only fascism when a Republican is in charge.
 
Granted, that would be a responsible thing to do but then, someone's going to have to watch me 24x7x365 and count the donuts. Who's doing that? Theoretically I get where this is going but putting it into practice isn't very realistic.



Until full on socialism and government single payer is in full swing, we'll just have to buck up and deal with those radicals eating donuts. To celebrate I'm headed off to the bakery to get some of these... :2razz:

Bacon_donut.jpg

At the local food fair yesterday my friend ate a Krispery Kreme Donut burger. I was thinking were is the government at to stop this.
 
Amazing how those republicans are always trying to restrict liberty. Oops, Bloomberg was a democrat, sorry.

Actually, Bloomberg was an independent this time around, but he's been both a Democrat and a Republican in the past. Nice try.

That said, I thought the soda ban was pants-on-head stupid.
 
Glad the badn is lifted.... Bloomberg was the WORST Left-Winged nanny state nutjob we've had running a big blue city in a while (Sorry Rahm.... you are gonna have to be runner-up). Glad SCONY (Supreme Court of New York) did a good job overturning this ruling although I have a question... what would have stopped me from buying a giant re-usable to-go container and then just filling it up with multiple sodas?

I don't think the ban applied to big giant 7-11 cups. Just concessionaires and restaurants, etc. Even then nothing to stop you from ordering two at a time.
 
I like how right-wingers keep trying to pin the soda ban on liberals when I've never seen a single liberal express support for the idea.
 
So Bush didn't use his executive power to limit what people ate or drank for their own good. He also never claimed that the Patriot Act powers he exercised were for our own good but claimed it as a national security issue. Different yes, but still over extending his power. Then we have Obama who not only continues using those over extended powers but expands them.

Here's another hypocrisy. Those on the left during Bush who opposed the Patriot Act, like Wasserman, Waxman et.al. (link here) as well as the demonstrations and marches across the country claiming Bush was a dictator, the nasty signs, Bush pictured as Hitler, etc... didn't seem to have the same effect when Obama pushed for it's extension. The Senate Democrats voted primarily against the Patriot Act in 2005 52-47 vote, yet when Obama extends it, the Senate vote amazingly is 72-23.

The difference here? The difference is no one is paying attention. The only time anyone pays attention in the US is when Republicans are hypocrites. Democrats, the media, newspapers, the protest groups which seems to sprout up new branches daily - they all have a field day. When a Democrat does it? No media coverage, maybe a few opinion page items about it in the papers, and what protest groups? It's the same Patriot Act. It's the same totalitarianism and dictatorship. It's only fascism when a Republican is in charge.

Your not going to get me to defend Obama's executive overreach. I'm not an apologist for the Democratic Party. I view both parties as injurious to American civil liberties.
 
Actually, Bloomberg was an independent this time around, but he's been both a Democrat and a Republican in the past. Nice try.

That said, I thought the soda ban was pants-on-head stupid.

Bloomberg is a conservative, make no mistake. And I didn't support the soda ban, why would you think I did?
 
Bloomberg is a conservative, make no mistake.

Ehhh ... I don't think he is. I don't particularly think he's a liberal either. He strikes me as being an authoritarian centrist, if that makes any sense.

And I didn't support the soda ban, why would you think I did?

I wasn't intending to imply you did.
 
Ehhh ... I don't think he is. I don't particularly think he's a liberal either. He strikes me as being an authoritarian centrist, if that makes any sense.



I wasn't intending to imply you did.

I do think that makes some sense, and glad you didn't think I supported the ban then.
 
Your not going to get me to defend Obama's executive overreach. I'm not an apologist for the Democratic Party. I view both parties as injurious to American civil liberties.

That's fine - don't apologize for it. Yet it would be better to recognize the double standard.
 
That's fine - don't apologize for it. Yet it would be better to recognize the double standard.

I haven't a problem with that either. I routinely point out the double standards in both parties. Deny they exist and I'll take back those two credibility points I offered you the other day.
 
I like how right-wingers keep trying to pin the soda ban on liberals when I've never seen a single liberal express support for the idea.

Bloomberg, their is your one liberal.
 
Bloomberg is a conservative, make no mistake. And I didn't support the soda ban, why would you think I did?

You feel it is conservatives who want more control over the lives of the individual?
 
You feel it is conservatives who want more control over the lives of the individual?

In the end, there's a dimes thickness of difference between the two .parties
 
Deleted
 
Last edited:
Falling back to 'they all do it' is one of the more common squirms.

Falling back to Americans should hold their representatives responsible instead of being partisan protectorates. Just look at the cover given this president by partisan lefties!
 
Back
Top Bottom