• 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!

Soda Tax

Are there any facts to support such emotional hyperbole?

Dude, I just had one below when I made my statement.

No government is the most freedom but it is bad for everyone.

Therefore, freedom isn't everything.

Freedom is great because it normally helps everyone as a whole, but we should just be aware when it is harmful.


If you just believe in something like freedom to its extreme without any reason, then that would be emotional hyperbole if I ever did see one.
 
Going to be alot of these lil "not really a tax tax" in the future.


Democrats don't seem to have the ability to stand up and put their names to the major tax increases they want and likely require with their spending splurge. So as usual they pull this stuff.

See the tax isn't really a tax tax and besides its for your own good against the EVIL sugar people.

Same basic line they use against..rich people, oil companies, banks, car companies, the 'corporations'.. you name it.

I find it amusing when I watch Democrat HYPOCRITES who when Bush was in charge argued for tax increases but when THEY are in charge run from the words for their political lives.

If tax increases were so acceptable under Bush, why then are they so desperate to avoid it now? :rofl
 
No government is the most freedom but it is bad for everyone.

This makes no sense whatever.

Therefore, freedom isn't everything.

Who is claiming Freedom is "everything?" How can a concept be "everything?"

Freedom is great because it normally helps everyone as a whole, but we should just be aware when it is harmful.

This is patently absurd; Freedom doesn't "help" anyone. Freedom has to be defined and the kind I am talking about is the freedom that allows people to HELP themselves by having the freedom to CHOOSE and do what makes them happy within certain legal limitations; punching me in the nose may make you happy, but it violates my rights.

When Government dictates who you will buy cars from; you lose freedom of choice.

When Government dictates where you get your health insurance; you lose freedom of choice.

When Government dictates which industries will be the winners in this economy; you lose freedom of choice.

When Government dictates how much an employer can pay employees; you lose freedom of choice.

When Government decides to confiscate some of your wages to tre-distribute it to those they deem needier; you lose freedom of choice.

All of these acts, and many more Obama and the Liberal Democrats believe in lead to an erosion of your freedoms, your choices and eventually to mediocrity and lower standards of living.

If you just believe in something like freedom to its extreme without any reason, then that would be emotional hyperbole if I ever did see one.

Emotional hyperbole would be an apt description of your arguments here.
 
When Government dictates who you will buy cars from; you lose freedom of choice.

And that is not happening. I buy whatever car I want to.

When Government dictates where you get your health insurance; you lose freedom of choice.

Hasn't happened so you are just throwing another mantrum.

When Government dictates which industries will be the winners in this economy; you lose freedom of choice.

Hmmmm Bailouts happened under Bush, so this isn't a Dem trait.

When Government dictates how much an employer can pay employees; you lose freedom of choice.

And which REPUBLICAN or CONSERVATIVE president has abolished the min wage? Oh yeah, NONE, they ALL Republican/conservative/Dem/Liberal believe in the Min wage. Another mantrum from you.

When Government decides to confiscate some of your wages to tre-distribute it to those they deem needier; you lose freedom of choice.

Again, which president in the past 50 years has not done this?

All of these acts, and many more Obama and the Liberal Democrats believe in lead to an erosion of your freedoms, your choices and eventually to mediocrity and lower standards of living.

And your final mantrum, you CONVENIENTLY forget to add that EVERY REPUBLICAN president has also supported it by not doing anything about it.

You are dismissed, continue with the mantrum if you'd like. :2wave:

Still waiting for you to actually show TRUTH instead of mantrums, hyperbole, and bile.
 
This makes no sense whatever.



Who is claiming Freedom is "everything?" How can a concept be "everything?"



This is patently absurd; Freedom doesn't "help" anyone. Freedom has to be defined and the kind I am talking about is the freedom that allows people to HELP themselves by having the freedom to CHOOSE and do what makes them happy within certain legal limitations; punching me in the nose may make you happy, but it violates my rights.

When Government dictates who you will buy cars from; you lose freedom of choice.

When Government dictates where you get your health insurance; you lose freedom of choice.

When Government dictates which industries will be the winners in this economy; you lose freedom of choice.

When Government dictates how much an employer can pay employees; you lose freedom of choice.

When Government decides to confiscate some of your wages to tre-distribute it to those they deem needier; you lose freedom of choice.

All of these acts, and many more Obama and the Liberal Democrats believe in lead to an erosion of your freedoms, your choices and eventually to mediocrity and lower standards of living.



Emotional hyperbole would be an apt description of your arguments here.

and the reason we don't have many of those (or shouldn't have them) is because they have bad outcomes for everyone, not because they would restrict freedom.

and you are missing the point, if a lack of freedom erodes our standard of living then that is bad, but you against all restriction of freedom even if they help everyone.

Think about why you support freedom and why you don't. It seems like your reasons don't have to do with freedom anyway.
 
What business is it of mine? The right as a consumer to know what is in the products I buy.

That's informed consent and advertising. The topic was legislative control of sweetener levels in beverages.
 
And that is not happening. I buy whatever car I want to.

Hasn't happened so you are just throwing another mantrum.

Hmmmm Bailouts happened under Bush, so this isn't a Dem trait.

And which REPUBLICAN or CONSERVATIVE president has abolished the min wage? Oh yeah, NONE, they ALL Republican/conservative/Dem/Liberal believe in the Min wage. Another mantrum from you.

Again, which president in the past 50 years has not done this?

And your final mantrum, you CONVENIENTLY forget to add that EVERY REPUBLICAN president has also supported it by not doing anything about it.

You are dismissed, continue with the mantrum if you'd like. :2wave:

Still waiting for you to actually show TRUTH instead of mantrums, hyperbole, and bile.

Good lord, why do you feel compelled to act like a grade school child all the time?

Got a strawman?

NEWSFLASH for NextEra: Republicans aren't in charge anymore. :roll:
 
and the reason we don't have many of those (or shouldn't have them) is because they have bad outcomes for everyone, not because they would restrict freedom.

and you are missing the point, if a lack of freedom erodes our standard of living then that is bad, but you against all restriction of freedom even if they help everyone.

Think about why you support freedom and why you don't. It seems like your reasons don't have to do with freedom anyway.


Stealing money from someone restricts his freedom and helps him not. Therefore your argument that it helps everyone is obviously false.
 
Stealing money from someone restricts his freedom and helps him not. Therefore your argument that it helps everyone is obviously false.

I don't think we can call it stealing; lets call it legal theft or "confiscation" but it all leads to the same thing, someone working hard only to have someone take it away for their own use and political purposes.

It is one thing to support Government for the efforts to defend the nation and manage it's legal process; it is quite another when it is taken to pander to another group of people purely for the purpose to politically pander for their votes.

Many on the Liberal side are having difficulty comprehending this fairly simple concept because of their intolerance and arrogance.
 
Good lord, why do you feel compelled to act like a grade school child all the time?

Onl;y commenting in YOUR fashion that you do others. Why do you feel compelled to do the same?

NEWSFLASH for NextEra: Republicans aren't in charge anymore. :roll:

As usual you avoid the truth. You were trying to say that Obama did all of those things which in the first two he hasn't.

Why do you feel compelled to LIE?
 
The sad thing is the precedent for this sort of nanny state control was set by so called sin taxes on tobbaco and alcohol. I've argued many times with anti-smoking zealots that their logic and justifications could easily be applied to unhealthy foods. They usually laughed it off or said it would never happen. I hope they enjoy the precedent they helped create.

Sometimes I hate to be right.
 
The sad thing is the precedent for this sort of nanny state control was set by so called sin taxes on tobbaco and alcohol. I've argued many times with anti-smoking zealots that their logic and justifications could easily be applied to unhealthy foods. They usually laughed it off or said it would never happen. I hope they enjoy the precedent they helped create.

Sometimes I hate to be right.

I figure that after we have seen people say its a slippery slope, that maybe just maybe its a valid argument now.
 
Stealing money from someone restricts his freedom and helps him not. Therefore your argument that it helps everyone is obviously false.

Sorry, I meant something that helps the most amount of people as possible overall. It is basically impossible for one action to help everyone individually the maxinum amount possible.

So once again, unless freedom helps people overall (or in the future) then there is no reason to support it.

There is no exceptions to that rule, and I think absolutist thinking about freedom is harmful by not being focused on what helps people the most.
 
So once again, unless freedom helps people overall (or in the future) then there is no reason to support it.
False, to regulate freedom away from someone just because it has no societal benefit is tyranny, if my personal choices are bad for me or my family, they are mine and mine alone to correct, not some idiot in Washington, or the state government, or a local council. Freedoms should only be restricted when they pose a clear, present, and imminent danger to those around, like say.........threatening someone with violence, or other abuses of the natural rights of man.

There is no exceptions to that rule, and I think absolutist thinking about freedom is harmful by not being focused on what helps people the most.
I don't know how you formed this opinion, but it is patently false. Freedom breeds innovation, it breeds knowledge, and wisdom. Don't misinterpret that to mean freedom needs to be justified however, because frankly if I want to do something that hurts no one else, then it is no one else's place to commentate, or ban that behavior.
 
The sad thing is the precedent for this sort of nanny state control was set by so called sin taxes on tobbaco and alcohol. I've argued many times with anti-smoking zealots that their logic and justifications could easily be applied to unhealthy foods. They usually laughed it off or said it would never happen. I hope they enjoy the precedent they helped create.

Sometimes I hate to be right.

Government moves slowly, incrementally, and self-righteously. Any student of psychology understands the principles upon which groups of individuals can be manipulated when they are made to feel as if change is for their own good. The concepts of liberty and independence are obfuscated and the issues are presented to the citizens in a vacuum. Either you are for Welfare, or you hate poor people. Either you are for Medicare, or you want sick people to die. Either you are for affirmative action, or you are a racist. Either you are for the Inheritance Tax, or you are for Profit over People. The feeble minded, the ignorant, and the naive, are organized into identity groups, and preyed upon by politicians that have only their own obsession with power as the fuel and motor behind their actions.
 
Frankly I'm VERY curious on aps's stance on this as possibly the most outspoken and loudest proponent of the "punish the smokers" type campaigns by government.
 
False, to regulate freedom away from someone just because it has no societal benefit is tyranny, if my personal choices are bad for me or my family, they are mine and mine alone to correct, not some idiot in Washington, or the state government, or a local council. Freedoms should only be restricted when they pose a clear, present, and imminent danger to those around, like say.........threatening someone with violence, or other abuses of the natural rights of man.

I don't know how you formed this opinion, but it is patently false. Freedom breeds innovation, it breeds knowledge, and wisdom. Don't misinterpret that to mean freedom needs to be justified however, because frankly if I want to do something that hurts no one else, then it is no one else's place to commentate, or ban that behavior.

I am not claiming that if freedom doesn't help people, then that should be prevented. There is no reason to waste time preventing something if it doesn't harm others.

I am simply saying that if freedom HARMS most people overall then it should be prevented.
 
Last edited:
I saw this explained on the local news last night and after watching it I've gotta say that IF we decide to move forward with a health care plan that has a higher public cost THEN I'd be for the soda tax. It makes sense and its so freaking small it makes a negligible impact on people's daily lives but a huge impact when it comes to the gov't budget.

Soda contributes to the obesity problem we have in America. Its not the only factor, but it does contribute. The obesity problem contributes to the higher health care costs we face. Its not the only factor, but it does contribute. This tax will help pay for some of those added costs, once again not all but some. To me it seems like some of the added costs would then be paid by those who are responsible for the higher health costs.
 
Sorry, I meant something that helps the most amount of people as possible overall. It is basically impossible for one action to help everyone individually the maxinum amount possible.

It's not the government's job to "help" people.

It's even more not the government's job to "help" people using someone else's money.

If a citizen wants to help another, he can use his own money, or politely ask others to join him.

So once again, unless freedom helps people overall (or in the future) then there is no reason to support it.

The purpose of freedom isn't to "help" people.

Freedom is it's own purpose.

There is no exceptions to that rule, and I think absolutist thinking about freedom is harmful by not being focused on what helps people the most.

Am I the ONLY person on this board that's seen "Singing in the Rain"?
 
It's not the government's job to "help" people.

It's even more not the government's job to "help" people using someone else's money.

If a citizen wants to help another, he can use his own money, or politely ask others to join him.



The purpose of freedom isn't to "help" people.

Freedom is it's own purpose.



Am I the ONLY person on this board that's seen "Singing in the Rain"?

I think the goal of people should have is freedome AND happiness for the most amount of people as possible.

You just need to watch out if your own freedom doesn't reduce someone else's own freedome or happiness. thats all.
 
I think the goal of people should have is freedome AND happiness for the most amount of people as possible.

You just need to watch out if your own freedom doesn't reduce someone else's own freedome or happiness. thats all.

The goal of people is to have the freedom to set their own damn goals.

The limits to freedom are that exercise of someone's freedom should not interfere with someone else's similar freedom. However, that does not mean people should be robbed, since that violates their freedom.
 
Back
Top Bottom