• 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 Is Target of New Assault

Boo Radley said:
You're making a huge leap here. No one has jumped into your non-food stamp life. And if they do begin to treat soda like tobbacco, you would still be free to harm yourself as much as you like. People still smoke, oddly. But health concersn are, . . . well. . . a concern.
Click to expand...



uhm this is new york, they already have with the trans fat ban. They are working on salt, what would you guess is as next?


:failpail:
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
uhm this is new york, they already have with the trans fat ban. They are working on salt, what would you guess is as next?


:failpail:
Click to expand...

Do you eat trans fat? If you do, you're haven't been denied. Why you want to, I can't say, but you still can if you want to.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Soda is nasty for you, as is many things processed. acting like it's drinking battery acid is hyperbole at its finest.
Click to expand...

well.. ironically i have used coke to clean the sulfated terminals of a flooded-cell battery(a car battery).. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
Do you eat trans fat? If you do, you're haven't been denied. Why you want to, I can't say, but you still can if you want to.
Click to expand...




Irrellevant as to why I would want to.

and yes, some of the bistros in ny that make the best frites are denied the tools to do so by government fiat.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Irrellevant as to why I would want to.

and yes, some of the bistros in ny that make the best frites are denied the tools to do so by government fiat.
Click to expand...

They are denied all kinds of poisoning, as they shold be. As I have shown, it's a health issue. But you still can eat trans fat if you want. Help, take any poison you like. Make it slow or fast. But taking responsible action on health issues is not limiting freedom. Would you argue for allowing crack in your food?
 
Boo Radley said:
They are denied all kinds of poisoning, as they shold be. As I have shown, it's a health issue. But you still can eat trans fat if you want. Help, take any poison you like. Make it slow or fast. But taking responsible action on health issues is not limiting freedom. Would you argue for allowing crack in your food?
Click to expand...




move goal posts much?



hyperbole much?


trans fats =/= crack


and as a very healthy specimen, I can eat the occasional frite cooked in trans fat and not be worse for wear. and if the government says "no" that is limiting freedom, newspeak much?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
move goal posts much?



hyperbole much?


trans fats =/= crack


and as a very healthy specimen, I can eat the occasional frite cooked in trans fat and not be worse for wear. and if the government says "no" that is limiting freedom, newspeak much?
Click to expand...

No, they are not equal, transfats will kill you slower. But, the point is we do make restrictions all the time. This is not new. Once cocaine was an ingredient in soda, but we had them remove it. When we find something is a health concern, is it really unreasonable to remove it. I met your silliness with some of my own, but if you stop with the wild leaps, I'd be happy to do this rationally. Your freedom has not been infrindged any more than any other health concern regulation has throughout time. There was a reason pork was once deemed unsafe. And there are reasons to be concerned about transfats, and soda for that matter.
 
Well, I make my own choices boo, you need the government to make yours. I guess that's where we differ.


And your wrong, if I can't put fat and salt in my food, my freedom is restricted.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, they are not equal, transfats will kill you slower. But, the point is we do make restrictions all the time. This is not new. Once cocaine was an ingredient in soda, but we had them remove it. When we find something is a health concern, is it really unreasonable to remove it. I met your silliness with some of my own, but if you stop with the wild leaps, I'd be happy to do this rationally. Your freedom has not been infrindged any more than any other health concern regulation has throughout time. There was a reason pork was once deemed unsafe. And there are reasons to be concerned about transfats, and soda for that matter.
Click to expand...

You're opinon is duly noted, however RH is correct. Where does it stop? Are people not free to choose their own risks? By your statements, you could argue for all kinds of resitrictions, or prohibitions due to risk of health consequences. If the Government, (me and you) pays, then perhaps some restirctions are warranted, and rightly so, but the government needs to be consistent across the board. Outlaw hiking in public parks, climbing on public spaces, how about no snowball fighting in schools, how about not being allowed to build in fire zones, or hurricane, tornado zones? The list is immense, and to punish one private enterpise and not another is unfair.


Tim-
 
Boo Radley said:
Not sure what you're repying to, but is anyone really doing this? I mean, a health issue, and marking something as it is, a health risk, is not the same as deciding what foods to eat or medicine to take, . . . is it?
Click to expand...


The suggestion to cut out soda is a good thing, but those that are unhappy with the current administration will complain that it is too much control.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Uhm, If I want to cook frites in trans fat, salt em and have a soda, in bloombergs world, I'm a criminal. The fact that he starts out with the whole food stamps thing is irrellevant when he supports a tax on soda, has banned trans fat, and is on the attack against salt.

Freedom, some has it..... Some wants it.
Click to expand...

If you want to cook frites in trans fat, salt em and have ten sodas, you are not a criminal, just an irresponsible eater. If you want to do that on money that is given to you by the government, supplied by taxpayers, to keep you from starving, then you are not only an irresponsible eater, you are altogether irresponsible, and need the guidance of someone with more sense.

And, it has nothing to do with freedom. Anyone can still buy sodas, cookies and potato chips, if they have the money to do so - but if you are dependent on others for your food, at least allow them to restrict those food items that will hurt you instead of help you.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I think we should end food stamps all together. Government cheese and spam lines would be motivation to get the bums back to work. :shrug:
Click to expand...

There you go, showing your conservative values. Not all people on food stamps are there because they are lazy, that is a myth started by Republicans because they would like to keep more of their money, so they can donate more to the corporations.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
please link to difinitive studies that coke is " Osteoporosis In a Can".
Click to expand...
I don't know about osteoporosis, but they are definitely not good for us.

Studies show that soft drinks can lead to tooth decay, nutritional depletion, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease. These are the most common health problems that are associated with heavy soft drink consumption, especially in children.

Soft drinks are packed with sugar, which is one of the main reason they are so bad for you. It's recommended that you only have 10 teaspoons of sugars per 2,000 calories on a daily basis, but one soft drink contains more than the allotted 10 teaspoons.

Why Drinking Soda is Bad for You


Also

Studies show Sodas linked to Pancreatic Cancer

silly hysterics don't help the debate.
Click to expand...
Not silly hysterics, just helpful information. You are still free to drink as many as you want, when you want, if you have the money to do so.


Soda is nasty for you, as is many things processed. acting like it's drinking battery acid is hyperbole at its finest.
Click to expand...
Some people still smoke in lieu of all the bad press cigarettes have been given, in light of all the people that have died due to lung cancer. They just don't want to believe the facts. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot force him to drink, but please don't tell us the studies are all wrong. Show us some studies that prove the opposite instead of just giving your opinion.
 
Ockham said:
Yep - when soda is banned from being sold to the mass market, home soda kits will make a comeback. Maybe we should stock up on Take-A-Boost! now and cellar it for when the food nazi's arrive and proclaim "Vee vill conviskate allis of zee soda pops frum der cubbords, mit zee guns if necessary!"

Rootbeer kits and cream soda kits will be big on zee black market!! :lol:
Click to expand...

I doubt that soda will ever be banned from the food market.

There will always be idiots who don't believe the facts and will continue to over indulge in those things proven to be bad for them. Just like with cigarettes!
 
Lets see.... we gotta extra fed [sin] tax on tobacco/alcohol, a [race] health tax on suntan beds. Why the hell not more health fed taxes on trans fat, sugar or anything the new "Health/Sin Tax Czar"... determines is bad for us.

We could also tax obesity by the pound which would wipe out the fed debt overnite. While we're at it... we could quickly generate an enormous surplus if we'd simply legalize and tax heroin, pot, prostitutes, independent bookies, bootlegging.... etc. We could also give tax credits and deductions for using lower income whores, bookies, dealers.

The only real problem I see is conformance by individual states. Eric Holder may need to file suit against the rogue states that either don't comply... or else passes their own enforcement laws... which they believe work better than the fed laws.
 
Last edited:
Hicup said:
You're opinon is duly noted, however RH is correct. Where does it stop? Are people not free to choose their own risks? By your statements, you could argue for all kinds of resitrictions, or prohibitions due to risk of health consequences. If the Government, (me and you) pays, then perhaps some restirctions are warranted, and rightly so, but the government needs to be consistent across the board. Outlaw hiking in public parks, climbing on public spaces, how about no snowball fighting in schools, how about not being allowed to build in fire zones, or hurricane, tornado zones? The list is immense, and to punish one private enterpise and not another is unfair.


Tim-
Click to expand...

Wow! from restricting food stamp recipients from buying a product found to be unhealthy, not just non nutritional, to outlawing hiking in public parks, climbing on public spaces (whater the hell that is), no snowball fighting in schools, not building in fire, hurricane or tornado zones (although peculiar to certain areas, are not permanently consistent). Talk about getting carried away. I've never heard any hint at any of those other things you mentioned - why let the public know what is considered bad, it might hurt some enterprise, and we know enterprises are more important than people - to some.
 
mertex said:
Wow! from restricting food stamp recipients from buying a product found to be unhealthy, not just non nutritional, to outlawing hiking in public parks, climbing on public spaces (whater the hell that is), no snowball fighting in schools, not building in fire, hurricane or tornado zones (although peculiar to certain areas, are not permanently consistent). Talk about getting carried away. I've never heard any hint at any of those other things you mentioned - why let the public know what is considered bad, it might hurt some enterprise, and we know enterprises are more important than people - to some.
Click to expand...

The logic is the same, whether you think it so, is unimportant.


Tim-
 
Okay these wild tangents about them banning anything unhealthy are completely out of scope with the core issue this thread addressed. We're talking about limiting what people can or cannot buy with FOOD STAMPS. They already limit what you can or cannot buy with food stamps, this is just adding one more thing to the list. This is nothing new.

This whole chicken little thing with outright bans is a bit premature. Yes, I know they banned transfat in NY and that was wrong. I get that. But that's a totally and completely separate issue than limiting what one can purchase with charitable monies. If and when they attempt to ban soda for EVERYONE, then I'll screaming your tune right along with you. But there is absolutely NO reason that people on food stamps should be allowed to use that money for soda (or chips, candy, lunch cakes, etc for that matter), or alcohol, or tobacco, etc. And, limiting what people can or cannot purchase on foodstamps (which we ALREADY DO) has absolutely no bearing on what the rest of the population can or cannot purchase.

This is NOT a matter of the government saying you can't eat this or that. It's a matter of the govt - by way of being the source of the charity - saying that IF you are using food stamps to buy food, what you can purchase is limited.
 
Last edited:
Obamanator said:
Lets see.... we gotta extra fed [sin] tax on tobacco/alcohol, a [race] health tax on suntan beds. Why the hell not more health fed taxes on trans fat, sugar or anything the new "Health/Sin Tax Czar"... determines is bad for us.
Click to expand...
That wouldn't be so bad. That way, only the idiots that insist on putting their health at risk are willing to spend the extra money, and it benefits the rest of the country.

We could also tax obesity by the pound which would wipe out the fed debt overnite.
Click to expand...
They already charge an obese person more to fly, as they take 2 seats. Don't know that it helps the fed debt, just the airline.


While we're at it... we could quickly generate an enormous surplus if we'd simply legalize and tax heroin, pot,
Click to expand...
I don't know about heroin, but pot should definitely be legalized. It would reduce our jail population, curtail crime and create revenue for the government.

prostitutes, independent bookies, bootlegging.... etc.
Click to expand...
It would probably end prostitution, as the prostitutes probably wouldn't like working for the government. Bookmaking might not be a bad idea, also, but bootlegging would just hurt the companies that do all the work.

We could also give tax credits and deductions for using lower income whores, bookies, dealers.
Click to expand...
Some wealthy people are already getting tax credits - maybe for those things disguised as something legit! That's just my opinion.
 
Hicup said:
The logic is the same, whether you think it so, is unimportant.


Tim-
Click to expand...

How is it the same. Does the government pay for your hikes in the park? Does the government pay for your house being built in a hurricane, tornado or fire zone?

I suppose if the government was building our houses, they would have some valid reason for not allowing us to build in a flood zone - insurance companies certainly do.
 
WhyteRash said:
well.. ironically i have used coke to clean the sulfated terminals of a flooded-cell battery(a car battery).. ;)
Click to expand...

That's right! I had forgotten about that. You can use Coke or Pepsi to clean the posts on your car battery, or to clean accumulated crud on the windshield.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
move goal posts much?



hyperbole much?


trans fats =/= crack


and as a very healthy specimen, I can eat the occasional frite cooked in trans fat and not be worse for wear. and if the government says "no" that is limiting freedom, newspeak much?
Click to expand...

You can still eat the occasional frite cooked in trans fat whenever you want, you just have to fry it yourself.

That trans fat has been restricted is a good thing, some people don't know the meaning of "occasional" - and end up costing the taxpayers much more.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Well, I make my own choices boo, you need the government to make yours. I guess that's where we differ.


And your wrong, if I can't put fat and salt in my food, my freedom is restricted.
Click to expand...

No actually I make as well. That doesn't mean that government can't and hasn't acted on health issues in the past from codeine in the soda to lead in the paint, proper regulations have been passed. It's not new. And while those saying this isn't the issue here, and they're right, you're still making wild claims that are not really what is happening. A rational discussion would be about what is happening. I think there is a line between a health issue and freedom, but let's not pretend that health concerns are not at the bottom of thing like the trans fat ban.
 
mertex said:
You can still eat the occasional frite cooked in trans fat whenever you want, you just have to fry it yourself.
Click to expand...

But why? Why not let businesses choose - and target the use of trans fats through other means?


mertex said:
... some people don't know the meaning of "occasional" - and end up costing the taxpayers much more.
Click to expand...

So? That person is that person, that person is not me... I don't need protection from myself.
 
mertex said:
How is it the same. Does the government pay for your hikes in the park? Does the government pay for your house being built in a hurricane, tornado or fire zone?

I suppose if the government was building our houses, they would have some valid reason for not allowing us to build in a flood zone - insurance companies certainly do.
Click to expand...

They, "We" in fact do pay for those hikes in the parks. We pay when we have to rescue one of the idiots that hikes without being prepared. We pay for those houses when they are destroyed by said tornado, hurricane, and fire..


Did you seriously just mkae that argument?


Tim-
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom