Oversized soda to be banned in New York.

There isnt much difference between the bag law and the pop law in NYC.

 

This is surely an excellent example of the overweening nature of the nanny state.

It is certainly true that sugary drinks (especially taken in large quantities) are not healthful. But that should be none of the government's business.

Unless, of course, it is supplying the healthcare (read: ObamaCare); so it has decided that it may now call the tune, to which the rest of us must dance.

Of course, that would still not serve as much of a justifucation for a local government's acting on behalf of a federal healthcare program...

 

I think the bag law is good because it prevents the rubbish from ending up in landfill. The soda law is wrong because you can't tell people what they can and cannot eat as long as they don't harm anyone else.

 

Do they get the 5 cents back if they bring them back for recycling? When they did that in the states, you rarely see soda cans or bottles laying around.

 

Remember, people. Conservatives are the big bad guys that want to interfere in your personal lives and tell you what you can and can't do. Liberals want you to have all this freedom.

 

Since the government now has a moral imperative to protect your pocketbook from the cost of healthcare for any activity which carries risk, do you agree that all risk should be prohibited? Or is it only in situations where the risk isn't something you, yourself, would partake in?

What is the objective level of risk that government should prohibit, or should the law be based on what you feel about something?

 

It cuts down on the size of the container being sold, thus smaller amount of waste goes into landfill. There, now I made it ok for you to interfere with personal choices in soft drink sizes.

 

Come talk to me when your taxed triple because of O-bum-ba care. Then we'll see how you feel about something.

 

Yep, I could give two (*)(*)(*)(*)s for you NYers. You Yankees can have another thousand 911 and I would go about my day without a second thought for NY.

 

hahahahhahahahahahahahhaha

 

Exactly what i think when i see mitt romney. Some real idiots out there outting this liberal fool up against obama.

Good thing i have the freedom to live where i like in this great country. Its obvious that area's people want something else to tax and thats on them. (*)(*)(*)(*) them! As long as its not a national push i dont see why people outside that area give a (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

You should read the papers then. I believe it's something to do with 'economics'.

 

Wow, for once you might be right. Higher taxes is an economic issue. Anti=business governments are an economic issue. Driving employers to leave the state is an economic issue. Driving the state farther and farther into debt is an economic issue.

Of course, trying to control very small personal parts of people's lives isn't really an economic issue. It's just (*)(*)(*)(*)ed irritating. "Put that Happy Meal down and back away from the counter." "We have a warant to search for plastic bags." "Dolphins have human rights, too, you know." "Where have you hidden the raw milk?"

 

Well, I guess it would be an economic issue if you were to add up the costs to taxpayers that it takes to enforce the laws written by the consumption police. Because that $200 fine for serving someone a 64-ounce fountain soda at a gas station isn't really a fine by normal violation standards, but a tax in itself when you consider where the money is going.

 

Idiocy really, but I suppose if you've proven time and time again that you're not adult enough to take personal responsibility for your own welfare, the nany must step in and do it for you.

A sad reflection on the fatties really.

 

So you think recycling will go up just cause people are buying more bottles? Those that don't recycle now, wont recycle in the future when this ban goes through.

 

So what part of you is progressive?

 

So in my other post when I was trying to demonstrate your libertarian side from your progressive side, you said taxes had nothing to do with the conversation. Your next post says it does.

Tell me, how does robbing someone who makes more money than you expand on civil liberties as you claim for your libertarian side?

Progressives aren't the ones that are for gay marriage, that would be the libertarians. Same with marijuana.

Cutting the military budget through what means? Libertarians believe in this as well, but through cuts to overseas bases and personnell.

 

It was in the publics interest to get rid of Jews in Germany too. It was in the publics interest to kill 70 million people in USSR, and China. When the government has the power to do unlimited good, it has the power to do unlimited bad too. Why is this in the publics best interest but banning gay marriage isn't?

 

This is different. This is "america". Our bureaucrats will always do what is best for everyone. They would never harm. Our bureaucrats are not simple humans like those of Germany, USSR, and China, prone to selfish ambition and greed.

 

Yeah, we never had slavery or imprisioned those of a specific national decent. We live in a benevolant land. Everyone is treated equally. Except if you are white, male, rich, female in the womb, or havent past 6 inches down a birth canal.

 

Completely (*)(*)(*)(*)in stupid...

That's about all I have to say on the matter...

 

California has a 5 cent tax, fee, wahtever you want to call it on every can and bottle. There are no bottles and cans laying around now.

Put a 5 cent tax on bottles and cans in NYC and see how fast the stuff gets recycled. At the very least, homeless people can now make a living by helping keeps the streets cleaner.

 

Every new ban...every new instance of government applied force...
creates yet another class of criminal for the "police state" to prosecute.

 

Simple; banning gay marriage is political, stems from anachronistic Biblical imperatives, and is no less than a sop to the right-wing voting cohort. An attempt, however futile, to improve public health and save money in the process is at least not as cynical.