Mayor Bloomberg wants to ban the Big Gulp

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Damien Granz:
Actually this would be closer to the government reducing the number of forks you can have in your house at one time because of eye stabbing. Which, as people that even agree with you and you've applauded in this thread, doesn't stop people from using the same cup (or fork in this case) twice. Otherwise known as useless bullshit legislation to moralize that does nothing but waste money and doesn't make anybody healthier.

I've had it up to my ears with government telling me what I can and can't do with my own body throughout my life when it comes to my sexual orientation, and this really isn't much different, and it wasn't just a matter of me being duped by retail outlets and gay bars.

They cited all the same sorts of health risks, compared it to dope, cancer, war time risks, cited all the public costs to health care and word load inefficiency costs then too, and it was bullshit then too, and I didn't put up with it then either.

It's a bit of a mangled metaphor whichever way you look at it. My point was, why on earth should anybody complain when the moustache-twirling capitalist-fascists at Big Brother HQ decree that... you're not allowed to kill yourself? How so many people in this thread are conflating smaller cup sizes of fizzy corn syrup with Bloomberg wiping his ass on the Constitution while seig-heiling with the other hand is honestly beyond me.

I'm... err.. sorry to hear about your past personal troubles? Can't see how it's related to the current Sodagate scandal though.

Batou667:

Damien Granz:
Actually this would be closer to the government reducing the number of forks you can have in your house at one time because of eye stabbing. Which, as people that even agree with you and you've applauded in this thread, doesn't stop people from using the same cup (or fork in this case) twice. Otherwise known as useless bullshit legislation to moralize that does nothing but waste money and doesn't make anybody healthier.

I've had it up to my ears with government telling me what I can and can't do with my own body throughout my life when it comes to my sexual orientation, and this really isn't much different, and it wasn't just a matter of me being duped by retail outlets and gay bars.

They cited all the same sorts of health risks, compared it to dope, cancer, war time risks, cited all the public costs to health care and word load inefficiency costs then too, and it was bullshit then too, and I didn't put up with it then either.

It's a bit of a mangled metaphor whichever way you look at it. My point was, why on earth should anybody complain when the moustache-twirling capitalist-fascists at Big Brother HQ decree that... you're not allowed to kill yourself? How so many people in this thread are conflating smaller cup sizes of fizzy corn syrup with Bloomberg wiping his ass on the Constitution while seig-heiling with the other hand is honestly beyond me.

I'm... err.. sorry to hear about your past personal troubles? Can't see how it's related to the current Sodagate scandal though.

To me it's, I guess the same thing on a smaller scale. Regulating what people can do under health concerns, when the concern is something most reasonable adults should be able to deal with on their own as adults. I'm aware of 'health concern means you can't be gay' is on a much, much different scale as 'health concerns mean you can't have cake', but to me the argument stems from more or less the same place. It's relevance, at least to me, is that I've seen these horrible excuses used to argue the relevance of shittier laws on a larger scale.

Realistically there does have to come a point where an adult free citizen has to decide what he or she is going to do with their life and their body. You can argue that a reasonable adult isn't equipped to determine alone how much radiation can go into beef, and the government should determine that for him. But if you're trying to tell me a reasonable adult can't make choices on how much soda to drink you've lost me as a supporter to that law, even if you can cite whatever health risks of the day say that people shouldn't eat cake or allow objects into their anus or whatever.

I hope that clarifies my position on the matter.

I guess further, limiting cup size doesn't really stop intake meaningfully in the situations you've described, as people can just get 2 cups. That really just harms smaller businesses that rely on good deals to stay competitive, and hurts customers that have to purchase the same drink 2 and 3 times. To fix a 'health' problem that it's not fixing. While removing my freedom and choice in a matter that I feel as a reasonable adult I should be making for myself, by myself. Using excuses that I don't find particularly compelling especially when expanded to other areas of my life.

So that's why I'm against this sort of law. It's not even effective at doing what it wants and wastes taxpayers money.

Damien Granz:
To me it's, I guess the same thing on a smaller scale. Regulating what people can do under health concerns, when the concern is something most reasonable adults should be able to deal with on their own as adults. I'm aware of 'health concern means you can't be gay' is on a much, much different scale as 'health concerns mean you can't have cake', but to me the argument stems from more or less the same place. It's relevance, at least to me, is that I've seen these horrible excuses used to argue the relevance of shittier laws on a larger scale.

Realistically there does have to come a point where an adult free citizen has to decide what he or she is going to do with their life and their body. You can argue that a reasonable adult isn't equipped to determine alone how much radiation can go into beef, and the government should determine that for him. But if you're trying to tell me a reasonable adult can't make choices on how much soda to drink you've lost me as a supporter to that law, even if you can cite whatever health risks of the day say that people shouldn't eat cake or allow objects into their anus or whatever.

I hope that clarifies my position on the matter.

I take your point, but like most of the other posters arguing against the motion, I think you're:

1) Over-emphasising the slippery slope aspect of this proposal

2) Ignoring the list of FDA regulations as long as your arm that are already in play

and

3) Failing to note that you're operating from one of very, very few places in the world where drinking half a gallon of soda in a single sitting could possibly be seen as a "human right" worth defending. From a non-US perspective, this is a ridiculous debate; one of those issues that make us smug foreigners shake our heads as say "only in America". The point isn't that you shouldn't be allowed to drink a jug of carbonated molasses if you so choose, but why would any sensible adult want to?

[edit] I think this is an effective measure. Anything that counteracts the entrenched American culture of overeating and consuming an excess of calories can only be a good thing.

Batou667:

Damien Granz:
To me it's, I guess the same thing on a smaller scale. Regulating what people can do under health concerns, when the concern is something most reasonable adults should be able to deal with on their own as adults. I'm aware of 'health concern means you can't be gay' is on a much, much different scale as 'health concerns mean you can't have cake', but to me the argument stems from more or less the same place. It's relevance, at least to me, is that I've seen these horrible excuses used to argue the relevance of shittier laws on a larger scale.

Realistically there does have to come a point where an adult free citizen has to decide what he or she is going to do with their life and their body. You can argue that a reasonable adult isn't equipped to determine alone how much radiation can go into beef, and the government should determine that for him. But if you're trying to tell me a reasonable adult can't make choices on how much soda to drink you've lost me as a supporter to that law, even if you can cite whatever health risks of the day say that people shouldn't eat cake or allow objects into their anus or whatever.

I hope that clarifies my position on the matter.

I take your point, but like most of the other posters arguing against the motion, I think you're:

1) Over-emphasising the slippery slope aspect of this proposal

2) Ignoring the list of FDA regulations as long as your arm that are already in play

and

3) Failing to note that you're operating from one of very, very few places in the world where drinking half a gallon of soda in a single sitting could possibly be seen as a "human right" worth defending. From a non-US perspective, this is a ridiculous debate; one of those issues that make us smug foreigners shake our heads as say "only in America". The point isn't that you shouldn't be allowed to drink a jug of carbonated molasses if you so choose, but why would any sensible adult want to?

[edit] I think this is an effective measure. Anything that counteracts the entrenched American culture of overeating and consuming an excess of calories can only be a good thing.

You basically summarised everything I've tried to across in my previous couple of posts in 3 well-put points there, so kudos to you too.

It just seems to me that the only real argument against this measure is the knee-jerk "government taking away my rights" reaction, with inane comparisons to discrimination against homosexuals and the entire "war" on drugs (both are completely different issues). And as far as i can see, no one is effectively losing any rights to drink however much soda they want here, it's just a measure that serves to somewhat reduce the obesity problem through addressing what must be at least in part the cause of it... the ridiculous portion sizes you get over there.

No, it won't solve obesity in one, no it isn't the best/only solution, but compared to plenty of other legislation out there this doesn't really do squat in inhibiting liberties (refills etc) but does go some way in reducing the amount of soda the average fast-food consumer is drinking. Who loses out?

I loved my time in the US, the portion sizes were fantastically and obscenely huge, but they ain't conducive to a healthy society.

I say we ban mayor Bloomberg, he's annoying

Okay, I first had to look up what 16 ounces actually are in proper measurements. Almost half a litre, eh? Frankly, I'm "agin" it. Imagine German beers being legislatively limited to 16 ounces. The humanity! How would we ever have "a Ma"? We could only get "a Hoibe" at most. So, despite my slightly facetious way of writing here, I honestly don't agree with placing such limitations.

Batou667:

Damien Granz:
To me it's, I guess the same thing on a smaller scale. Regulating what people can do under health concerns, when the concern is something most reasonable adults should be able to deal with on their own as adults. I'm aware of 'health concern means you can't be gay' is on a much, much different scale as 'health concerns mean you can't have cake', but to me the argument stems from more or less the same place. It's relevance, at least to me, is that I've seen these horrible excuses used to argue the relevance of shittier laws on a larger scale.

Realistically there does have to come a point where an adult free citizen has to decide what he or she is going to do with their life and their body.: You can argue that a reasonable adult isn't equipped to determine alone how much radiation can go into beef, and the government should determine that for him. But if you're trying to tell me a reasonable adult can't make choices on how much soda to drink you've lost me as a supporter to that law, even if you can cite whatever health risks of the day say that people shouldn't eat cake or allow objects into their anus or whatever.

I hope that clarifies my position on the matter.

I take your point, but like most of the other posters arguing against the motion, I think you're:

1) Over-emphasising the slippery slope aspect of this proposal

2) Ignoring the list of FDA regulations as long as your arm that are already in play

and

3) Failing to note that you're operating from one of very, very few places in the world where drinking half a gallon of soda in a single sitting could possibly be seen as a "human right" worth defending. From a non-US perspective, this is a ridiculous debate; one of those issues that make us smug foreigners shake our heads as say "only in America". The point isn't that you shouldn't be allowed to drink a jug of carbonated molasses if you so choose, but why would any sensible adult want to?

[edit] I think this is an effective measure. Anything that counteracts the entrenched American culture of overeating and consuming an excess of calories can only be a good thing.

You've all stated several times why it won't be an effective measure. And I don't personally care that it's uniquely American to not want to give up rights to a nanny states. You say you can't understand why somebody would exercise a right but I don't think its you job or need to. I'm not going to try explain to a straight person why I'd want to exercise my right to risk my health in bed. Because nothing I can say will satisfy them just like nothing said will satisfy you. I could try to explain and they and you would just sit there all smug like like "only a liberal would risk HIV for such a decadent lifestyle" or in your case "only an American would risk getting fat for such a lifestyle".

Also saying I have a right but putting hurdles in the way of it or saying I have a right but only if I'm too publicly shamed to use it, to me, sounds two faced. Like "You have a right as long as you don't exercise it ever". It's an argument I'm tired of hearing. It sounds like saying I have the power of invisibility as long as nothing alive or machine observes me.

It's inherently contradictory in its premise. Do I have the right or don't I?

Again maybe if, maybe if, you could convince me this was something a reasonable adult couldn't comprehend or be expected to deal with I would change my mind but I highly expect you won't be able to.

Because it seems to me if an adult can't be expected to make his own decisions about soda then we might as well pack up the idea adult humans can make personal decisions altogether because we're all apparently infants in the eyes of the government.

Damien Granz:
Because it seems to me if an adult can't be expected to make his own decisions about soda then we might as well pack up the idea adult humans can make personal decisions altogether because we're all apparently infants in the eyes of the government.

Oh good, another person saying nanny state without trying to be ironic. Now how about we go beyond the usual American drivel about the big evil government trying to bring about communism because socialism and face facts. America has an obesity problem, moreso than any other nation in the world, and needs to do something about it. Ignoring that, there's also the numerous OTHER health risks associated with drinking pop and eating fast foods.

Now, you have two options here. You can either acknowledge the problem, tightly regulate the pop and fast food industries and start a national campaign to inform people of the dangers of these items or you can wish it all away. Your choice buddy.

Damien Granz:

Batou667:

Damien Granz:
To me it's, I guess the same thing on a smaller scale. Regulating what people can do under health concerns, when the concern is something most reasonable adults should be able to deal with on their own as adults. I'm aware of 'health concern means you can't be gay' is on a much, much different scale as 'health concerns mean you can't have cake', but to me the argument stems from more or less the same place. It's relevance, at least to me, is that I've seen these horrible excuses used to argue the relevance of shittier laws on a larger scale.

Realistically there does have to come a point where an adult free citizen has to decide what he or she is going to do with their life and their body.: You can argue that a reasonable adult isn't equipped to determine alone how much radiation can go into beef, and the government should determine that for him. But if you're trying to tell me a reasonable adult can't make choices on how much soda to drink you've lost me as a supporter to that law, even if you can cite whatever health risks of the day say that people shouldn't eat cake or allow objects into their anus or whatever.

I hope that clarifies my position on the matter.

I take your point, but like most of the other posters arguing against the motion, I think you're:

1) Over-emphasising the slippery slope aspect of this proposal

2) Ignoring the list of FDA regulations as long as your arm that are already in play

and

3) Failing to note that you're operating from one of very, very few places in the world where drinking half a gallon of soda in a single sitting could possibly be seen as a "human right" worth defending. From a non-US perspective, this is a ridiculous debate; one of those issues that make us smug foreigners shake our heads as say "only in America". The point isn't that you shouldn't be allowed to drink a jug of carbonated molasses if you so choose, but why would any sensible adult want to?

[edit] I think this is an effective measure. Anything that counteracts the entrenched American culture of overeating and consuming an excess of calories can only be a good thing.

You've all stated several times why it won't be an effective measure. And I don't personally care that it's uniquely American to not want to give up rights to a nanny states. You say you can't understand why somebody would exercise a right but I don't think its you job or need to. I'm not going to try explain to a straight person why I'd want to exercise my right to risk my health in bed. Because nothing I can say will satisfy them just like nothing said will satisfy you. I could try to explain and they and you would just sit there all smug like like "only a liberal would risk HIV for such a decadent lifestyle" or in your case "only an American would risk getting fat for such a lifestyle".

Also saying I have a right but putting hurdles in the way of it or saying I have a right but only if I'm too publicly shamed to use it, to me, sounds two faced. Like "You have a right as long as you don't exercise it ever". It's an argument I'm tired of hearing. It sounds like saying I have the power of invisibility as long as nothing alive or machine observes me.

It's inherently contradictory in its premise. Do I have the right or don't I?

Again maybe if, maybe if, you could convince me this was something a reasonable adult couldn't comprehend or be expected to deal with I would change my mind but I highly expect you won't be able to.

Because it seems to me if an adult can't be expected to make his own decisions about soda then we might as well pack up the idea adult humans can make personal decisions altogether because we're all apparently infants in the eyes of the government.

Why do you continuously talk about "adults" while children can buy Soda's. We ain't talking about beer or cigarettes here.

Or do you suggest Soda's should become 16/18/21+ beverages?

PercyBoleyn:

Damien Granz:
Because it seems to me if an adult can't be expected to make his own decisions about soda then we might as well pack up the idea adult humans can make personal decisions altogether because we're all apparently infants in the eyes of the government.

Oh good, another person saying nanny state without trying to be ironic. Now how about we go beyond the usual American drivel about the big evil government trying to bring about communism because socialism and face facts. America has an obesity problem, more so than any other nation in the world, and needs to do something about it. Ignoring that, there's also the numerous OTHER health risks associated with drinking pop and eating fast foods.

Now, you have two options here. You can either acknowledge the problem, tightly regulate the pop and fast food industries and start a national campaign to inform people of the dangers of these items or you can wish it all away. Your choice buddy.

It's pretty funny that you'd think I'd be against socialism considering if you'd ever read anything of mine here you'd find I'm pretty keen on it, just because I'm against legislation to baby people with what they can eat until the only menu is tofu and shit.

I mean, because realistically why fucking stop at soda. Soda's hardly nearly as 'dangerous' as red meat or pure cane sugar candies or riding in a car or not having mandatory periods of exercise a day. At what point if not here can we even say people are allowed to be responsible for their own health or lifestyle?

What's the reason for not making government mandates on all that? You can try "It's not as big a deal" but then I'd just say I hear an echo in the room.

I think having the government give every citizen a ankle bracelet pedometer like they give criminals or the elderly and fining or taxing them if they don't do enough crunches or run enough every morning would do a lot more than telling people they have to purchase 2 12 ounce drinks instead of 1 16 ounce drink. Considering that if you buy 2 12 ounce drinks, you're gonna fucking drink both anyways. And it'd be goddamn cheaper for the economy, per pound lost than trying to randomly ban foods and shit.

I have no problem against educating people or giving them opportunities to eat healthier, but legislating what you can eat or do with your body isn't really a good solution, and so I'm entirely against it.

But also the more I hear people talk about this problem the way people in this thread are doing the more I'm convinced it's blown entirely out of proportion too, and the less I give a shit about it.

Because it sounds right now like "I found a spec of dust in my house! I need a hazmat team!", and people sound like idiots. Get a feather duster if you want to, but put shit in perspective.

I think if you being worried about another country being fat is a priority in your life you have exactly 0 fucking worries in your life and should reflect on that.

generals3:

Why do you continuously talk about "adults" while children can buy sodas. We ain't talking about beer or cigarettes here.

Or do you suggest Soda's should become 16/18/21+ beverages?

Considering children under the age of 16 tend to have 0 income that their parents don't give out and can monitor, I still think it's an adult's problem.

That's a pretty weaksauce excuse to me, "I don't want to be a responsible parent, so just ban everything so I don't have to make conscious choices".

TheTim:
I say we ban mayor Bloomberg, he's annoying

I concur. Mayor Bloomberg's actions towards legitimate protest and his protection of Wall Street interests have done much more harm to my blood pressure levels than soda could ever fucking hope to accomplish, so for the sake of citizen's health ban Bloomberg.

Damien Granz:

generals3:

Why do you continuously talk about "adults" while children can buy sodas. We ain't talking about beer or cigarettes here.

Or do you suggest Soda's should become 16/18/21+ beverages?

Considering children under the age of 16 tend to have 0 income that their parents don't give out and can monitor, I still think it's an adult's problem.

That's a pretty weaksauce excuse to me, "I don't want to be a responsible parent, so just ban everything so I don't have to make conscious choices".

So would you also like it to become legal to sell alcohol and cigarettes to children? Because it's exactly the same.

And "can" monitor? Really, can you say with a straight face that it is realistically possible for parents to know everything their children buy/do ? Unless you lock em up in your basement obviously.

Surely this guy is screwed at this point.

It's just so god damn ridiculous. I don't even....

Captcha: Come what may

Come what may....

Naheal:

Stagnant:

Tyler Perry:

It doesn't matter if it will work or if it won't work.

What I eat, drink, snort, smoke or fuck is NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS.

It is if the government has to pick up the bill for your health care.

That will be a valid argument when we get a public healthcare system in the US.

You know what, I'm not sure even then he'd have a point considering that I don't see anybody banning sports like baseball or soccer or football, which while 'good' in the sense that exercise is good, are still dangerous on a scale that can cause permanent injuries, when compared to simple non-threatening aerobics.

generals3:

Damien Granz:

generals3:

Why do you continuously talk about "adults" while children can buy sodas. We ain't talking about beer or cigarettes here.

Or do you suggest Soda's should become 16/18/21+ beverages?

Considering children under the age of 16 tend to have 0 income that their parents don't give out and can monitor, I still think it's an adult's problem.

That's a pretty weaksauce excuse to me, "I don't want to be a responsible parent, so just ban everything so I don't have to make conscious choices".

So would you also like it to become legal to sell alcohol and cigarettes to children? Because it's exactly the same.

And "can" monitor? Really, can you say with a straight face that it is realistically possible for parents to know everything their children buy/do ? Unless you lock em up in your basement obviously.

You know what, I'm done trying to argue this hyperbolic bullshit. I'm tired of trying to argue against and simultaneously by even entertaining it falsely legitimizing the asinine comparison of soda to beer or cigarettes.

No, it wouldn't be exactly the same because the factors involved in one case to the other aren't even remotely the same, therefor nothing your conclusion can be that easily extrapolated. And trying to explain this on your terms which has its basis of discussion in that beer and soda are the same thing is just as much a fools errand as trying to argue to somebody that we don't need to ban crayons based on the idea that if a child eats them because of negligent parenting they could get a stomach ache while they cite the fact they ban arsenic in food as some sort of equivalent example.

And the utmost hilarity on this subject is that everybody on both sides knows this legislation won't even solve the issue it sets out to do.

Damien Granz:

You know what, I'm done trying to argue this hyperbolic bullshit. I'm tired of trying to argue against and simultaneously by even entertaining it falsely legitimizing the asinine comparison of soda to beer or cigarettes.

No, it wouldn't be exactly the same because the factors involved in one case to the other aren't even remotely the same, therefor nothing your conclusion can be that easily extrapolated. And trying to explain this on your terms which has its basis of discussion in that beer and soda are the same thing is just as much a fools errand as trying to argue to somebody that we don't need to ban crayons based on the idea that if a child eats them because of negligent parenting they could get a stomach ache while they cite the fact they ban arsenic in food as some sort of equivalent example.

And the utmost hilarity on this subject is that everybody on both sides knows this legislation won't even solve the issue it sets out to do.

Thank you for proving my point.

Hyperboles? There were none. You claimed it wasn't up to the nanny state to regulate the soda intake of "adult humans". Well why is it suddenly right when we are talking about cigarettes and alcohol? Why are those grown adults suddenly helpless infants who need a nanny state when we talk about those products? It seems you just like to pick which product the government should regulate. Which is no problem but you really shouldn't start using big statements in an attempt to add value to your position.

Damien Granz:
I'm against legislation to baby people with what they can eat until the only menu is tofu and shit.

I assume they should also be allowed to smoke as much nicotine as they want. In fact, why don't we repeal those silly legislations and stop trying to warn people about the dangers of smoking? After all, people can make their own decisions in life, right?

Damien Granz:
Soda's hardly nearly as 'dangerous' as red meat or pure cane sugar candies

I'm perfectly fine with regulating those as well.

Damien Granz:
or riding in a car or not having mandatory periods of exercise a day.

Now you're just being silly.

Damien Granz:
At what point if not here can we even say people are allowed to be responsible for their own health or lifestyle?

Limiting the destructive nature of these products is a good thing, especially since the average person doesn't give much thought to long term consequences or have you already forgotten smoking? Fast foods are unhealthy, sodas are unhealthy and regulating both these industries so that the end product doesn't contain as much shit is, frankly, a given. The US is fat, sitting on your ass and doing nothing won't solve that.

Damien Granz:
I think having the government give every citizen a ankle bracelet pedometer like they give criminals or the elderly and fining or taxing them if they don't do enough crunches or run enough every morning would do a lot more than telling people they have to purchase 2 12 ounce drinks instead of 1 16 ounce drink.

Oh good, strawmans. Haven't seen those before /sarcasm.

Damien Granz:
Considering that if you buy 2 12 ounce drinks, you're gonna fucking drink both anyways.

Yeah, except most people won't buy 2 12 ounce drinks, they'll just get one.

Damien Granz:
And it'd be goddamn cheaper for the economy, per pound lost than trying to randomly ban foods and shit.

Good thing nobody is trying to ban anything then.

Damien Granz:

I have no problem against educating people or giving them opportunities to eat healthier, but legislating what you can eat or do with your body isn't really a good solution, and so I'm entirely against it.

More strawmans. Unless you actually believe that in which case read the OP again.

Damien Granz:

But also the more I hear people talk about this problem the way people in this thread are doing the more I'm convinced it's blown entirely out of proportion too, and the less I give a shit about it.

Have fun with your rotten teeth and heart attacks then.

Damien Granz:

Because it sounds right now like "I found a spec of dust in my house! I need a hazmat team!", and people sound like idiots. Get a feather duster if you want to, but put shit in perspective.

Do you seriously have to strawman everything just so you have a leg to stand on? Because it's a bit pathetic.

Damien Granz:

I think if you being worried about another country being fat is a priority in your life you have exactly 0 fucking worries in your life and should reflect on that.

I'm guessing you're angry.

I guess I just don't understand why so many people are so willing to hand over their decisions to the government. Well, I guess it's easier than making them for yourselves.

CAPTCHA: Know your rights. Heh ...

Tyler Perry:
I guess I just don't understand why so many people are so willing to hand over their decisions to the government. Well, I guess it's easier than making them for yourselves.

CAPTCHA: Know your rights. Heh ...

I just love how everybody's like "We regulate how much arsenic is in food, so we should regulate how many cookies are allowed at your private supper!", it's just ridiculous. I actually feel bad for people that can't see the difference between the two.

generals3:

Hyperboles? There were none.

Equating sugary soft drinks (remember, only these are covered) with tobacco and alcohol is hyperbole.

You claimed it wasn't up to the nanny state to regulate the soda intake of "adult humans". Well why is it suddenly right when we are talking about cigarettes and alcohol?

An adult's intake of tobacco and alcohol is limited only by money, or their friends, or perhaps the bartender, and not by the government.

Before you say "But what about under 21, over 18?" their parents can provide.

I said before I don't even have a dog in this fight, I don't drink sugary drinks and Texas is highly unlikely to follow New York's example (assuming it passes, anyway). However, I am against wasting money, and that's what this is, a waste of everybody's money.

evilneko:
An adult's intake of tobacco and alcohol is limited only by money, or their friends, or perhaps the bartender, and not by the government.

Then why have government initiatives like local smoking bans, taxation of tobacco and advertising campaigns reduced the numbers of smokers massively? As for alcohol, why are there such big differences in alcohol intake between countries, and even between regions?

Government action yields more results than you give it credit for I think.

For instance around here in the Netherlands, there's only been a campaign against people getting fat and obese for, well, maybe 2007, that's when I remember the first ads appearing. In 2009, both the overweight and obesity rates for people under 25 dropped, after rising steadily for some 20 years. The trend continued in 2010. It's likely the campaigning has had some effect, and so far it's all been just suggesting things to people. If they brought in a few well-targeted bans, chances are the effects would be much greater.

evilneko:

generals3:

Hyperboles? There were none.

Equating sugary soft drinks (remember, only these are covered) with tobacco and alcohol is hyperbole.

In this context it is not. His point was that we are all grown ups and thus should be able to decide on our own if we want to fuck our own health. I immediately thought of two products that fuck our health that are regulated and than wondered what happened to that whole "we're adults" speech. My main problem lies with how the anti-soda regulation folks use all those fancy huge statements that are actually a huge load of bollocks. I indeed refer to "We're all adults so we should be able to decide if we want to fuck ourselves" or "freedom of contract",etc. Now THOSE are hyperboles because all of them are HUGE exaggerations of the reality. We have long given up the whole "responsible adult" concept and "freedom of contract" is more of a "privilege of contract" considering the huge amount of products that are regulated..

You claimed it wasn't up to the nanny state to regulate the soda intake of "adult humans". Well why is it suddenly right when we are talking about cigarettes and alcohol?

An adult's intake of tobacco and alcohol is limited only by money, or their friends, or perhaps the bartender, and not by the government.

Before you say "But what about under 21, over 18?" their parents can provide.

I said before I don't even have a dog in this fight, I don't drink sugary drinks and Texas is highly unlikely to follow New York's example (assuming it passes, anyway). However, I am against wasting money, and that's what this is, a waste of everybody's money.

I think all i need to say is "see: Blah's reply" . And while i would agree the proposed measure is silly, the reason behind it seems legit. If anything he should actually take more drastic measures such as adding a sales tax on soft drinks.

Blablahb:

evilneko:
An adult's intake of tobacco and alcohol is limited only by money, or their friends, or perhaps the bartender, and not by the government.

Then why have government initiatives like local smoking bans, taxation of tobacco and advertising campaigns reduced the numbers of smokers massively? As for alcohol, why are there such big differences in alcohol intake between countries, and even between regions?

Government action yields more results than you give it credit for I think.

For instance around here in the Netherlands, there's only been a campaign against people getting fat and obese for, well, maybe 2007, that's when I remember the first ads appearing. In 2009, both the overweight and obesity rates for people under 25 dropped, after rising steadily for some 20 years. The trend continued in 2010. It's likely the campaigning has had some effect, and so far it's all been just suggesting things to people. If they brought in a few well-targeted bans, chances are the effects would be much greater.

This isn't a "win at all costs" situation for us. Maybe it is to you but that's the beauty of personal and national sovereignty, when treated with a respect you and mayor Bloomsberg aren't treating us with is, that you get to decide that issue. The cost of removing that personal sovereignty is too high. We've been willing throughout to look for solutions including those you say have helped above. But this isn't the solution. It will neither work nor is it economically sound, rendering the social cost more unpalatable.

Trying to render education and opportunity creation solutions inseperable from solutions that involve bans as you and your like minded posters are trying to do, and ignoring our acceptance of those solutions as long as we don't swallow both pills is probably the quickest way to get us to reject both. If you insist that education and bans have to come together, congratulations you've convinced me to be against education on the subject, too.

Also your insistence on paralleling soda to beer or second hand smoke is hyperbole, and is an argument that does you no favors. If you can't see that then your arguments, no matter how well meaning, as at best childish and at worst as fear mongering. And I get enough of that shit domestically without having to import it thank you.

I would like to think of myself as not an unflinching enigma so I've spelled out my concerns on the matter and how you can better address them. I've given you what you need to, maybe not "win" this thread but at least find a solution we can agree on. Or people can continue to do what they're doing and convincing me all solutions are a pile. Whichever floats your boats.

I'll add this though, to some of the more asshole posters in this thread. Keep attacking posters for being Americans in the same way conservatives attack me for being liberal if your goal is for me to add you to the pile of voices I instantly don't give a damn what they say.

generals3:

evilneko:

generals3:

Hyperboles? There were none.

Equating sugary soft drinks (remember, only these are covered) with tobacco and alcohol is hyperbole.

In this context it is not. His point was that we are all grown ups and thus should be able to decide on our own if we want to fuck our own health. I immediately thought of two products that fuck our health that are regulated and than wondered what happened to that whole "we're adults" speech. My main problem lies with how the anti-soda regulation folks use all those fancy huge statements that are actually a huge load of bollocks. I indeed refer to "We're all adults so we should be able to decide if we want to fuck ourselves" or "freedom of contract",etc. Now THOSE are hyperboles because all of them are HUGE exaggerations of the reality. We have long given up the whole "responsible adult" concept and "freedom of contract" is more of a "privilege of contract" considering the huge amount of products that are regulated..

You claimed it wasn't up to the nanny state to regulate the soda intake of "adult humans". Well why is it suddenly right when we are talking about cigarettes and alcohol?

An adult's intake of tobacco and alcohol is limited only by money, or their friends, or perhaps the bartender, and not by the government.

Before you say "But what about under 21, over 18?" their parents can provide.

I said before I don't even have a dog in this fight, I don't drink sugary drinks and Texas is highly unlikely to follow New York's example (assuming it passes, anyway). However, I am against wasting money, and that's what this is, a waste of everybody's money.

I think all i need to say is "see: Blah's reply" . And while i would agree the proposed measure is silly, the reason behind it seems legit. If anything he should actually take more drastic measures such as adding a sales tax on soft drinks.

Again with the hyperbolic equating of sugary soft drinks and alcohol/tobacco. These things are not equal in any way, thus it is hyperbole to equate them in any context.

And while I'd call it flat out stupid instead of silly, at least we can sort of agree on that. In fact, I'd have little issue with a tax instead of this stupid cup size regulation.

Blablahb:

evilneko:
An adult's intake of tobacco and alcohol is limited only by money, or their friends, or perhaps the bartender, and not by the government.

Then why have government initiatives like local smoking bans, taxation of tobacco and advertising campaigns reduced the numbers of smokers massively? As for alcohol, why are there such big differences in alcohol intake between countries, and even between regions?

Because smokers have decided on their own to quit. Their cigs weren't taken away or chopped in half by the government, but the government did increase the price of them and educate people on the very real health risks of smoking. I think that supports my case nicely, since it's been effective without banning it altogether.

Government action yields more results than you give it credit for I think.

For instance around here in the Netherlands, there's only been a campaign against people getting fat and obese for, well, maybe 2007, that's when I remember the first ads appearing. In 2009, both the overweight and obesity rates for people under 25 dropped, after rising steadily for some 20 years. The trend continued in 2010. It's likely the campaigning has had some effect, and so far it's all been just suggesting things to people. If they brought in a few well-targeted bans, chances are the effects would be much greater.

Also supports my case. Educating people works better than bans.

evilneko:
Because smokers have decided on their own to quit. Their cigs weren't taken away or chopped in half by the government, but the government did increase the price of them and educate people on the very real health risks of smoking.

That's true, but now I don't really see the purpose of that statement in relation to the discussion anymore. Bloomberg isn't banning fizzy drinks, he's banning ridiculously large servings which encourage excessive consumption, much like you can't buy beer or spirits in barrel-size in a supermarket.

evilneko:
Also supports my case. Educating people works better than bans.

How do you plan to make it plausible? Targeted bans have worked for smoking and alcohol. How is excessive eating different?

For one thing for instance, EU food regulations are much tighter than those in the US.


And on a general note not related to a specific post in this discussion, some relevant news:

Here in the Netherlands the courts just served a ruling in regards to parents who had been the target of action by child protection services because the children were too fat. The three children are 6, 11 and 13 years old, and two are obese and one is heavily overweight. The 13 year old for instance is already 51 kilos above the average weight for his age, and the 6 year old 17 kilos above the average for her age.

Child protection services intervened because their weight threatened the development of the children, and the parents tried to have that decision overturned in court, but they failed. The court judged the intervention to be an accurate measure, and the parents will have to follow the directions of the appointed custodian, or face their children being placed elsewhere to safeguard their health.

And although child protection services stressed it's not a step they take lightly, it's the first time obesity was the reason for intervention. Chances are this may happen more often in case of this form of neglect of children, and it's a signal that letting your children become so fat it's unhealthy is not acceptable.

On the odd chance someone might want to read the Dutch source of this news:
http://nos.nl/artikel/381637-te-dikke-kinderen-onder-toezicht.html

PercyBoleyn:
And what's this legislation going to solve? It certainly won't stop people from drinking less soda, they can simply buy more or get a refill.

To be fair, studies have shown that if you make servings smaller, people will tend to consume less, and they don't even realize they are consuming less. Even with free refills, if you have a smaller cup, I would bet that people on average end up consuming less soda; that's just how people work.

Now, I hardly think that this is the best solution, but it's not as totally crazy as it sounds.

LetalisK:
._. Are...are you grading me?

Assuming that particular chemical was going to come up and that it was linked to cancer, I was going to note that aspartame has been approved more than once by the FDA, investigated by the CDC, countless other government agencies foreign and abroad, and independently investigated by toxicologists. The scientific consensus is that its not harmful.

That being said, there has been a recent major study that found a link between diet soda and both heart disease and type 2 diabetes over a 10 year period. The reasons aren't fully understood.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/health/research/diet-soft-drinks-linked-to-risk-of-heart-disease.html

I think that it's still probably not as bad for you as regular soda, but you're probably better off drinking tea or coffee if you want caffeine.

Cowpoo:
Stop fucking subsidizing corn. HFCS won't be so damn cheap and people won't be drinking sodas more than water.

MFW this is another example of the government trying to fix a problem it created by expanding its power instead of reducing it: >:/

PercyBoleyn:

Damien Granz:
Because it seems to me if an adult can't be expected to make his own decisions about soda then we might as well pack up the idea adult humans can make personal decisions altogether because we're all apparently infants in the eyes of the government.

Oh good, another person saying nanny state without trying to be ironic. Now how about we go beyond the usual American drivel about the big evil government trying to bring about communism because socialism and face facts. America has an obesity problem, moreso than any other nation in the world, and needs to do something about it. Ignoring that, there's also the numerous OTHER health risks associated with drinking pop and eating fast foods.

Now, you have two options here. You can either acknowledge the problem, tightly regulate the pop and fast food industries and start a national campaign to inform people of the dangers of these items or you can wish it all away. Your choice buddy.

This is a false dichotomy. How about we acknowledge the problem but go about solving it in a way that does not violate the rights of presumably intelligent adults? This argument really has nothing to do with socialism; it's all about whether we will allow ourselves to be controlled by someone else. A bureaucrat (or mayor in this case) does not know better than me how I should live in order to be happy.

Yosarian2:

To be fair, studies have shown that if you make servings smaller, people will tend to consume less, and they don't even realize they are consuming less. Even with free refills, if you have a smaller cup, I would bet that people on average end up consuming less soda; that's just how people work.

Now, I hardly think that this is the best solution, but it's not as totally crazy as it sounds.

I realized, now that I actually thought a bit about this issue, that limiting the size of the can is actually good idea. However, part of my original point still stands. We NEED to regulate the soda and fast foods industries. Like, right now.

randomsix:

This is a false dichotomy. How about we acknowledge the problem but go about solving it in a way that does not violate the rights of presumably intelligent adults? This argument really has nothing to do with socialism; it's all about whether we will allow ourselves to be controlled by someone else. A bureaucrat (or mayor in this case) does not know better than me how I should live in order to be happy.

strawman.

randomsix:
This is a false dichotomy. How about we acknowledge the problem but go about solving it in a way that does not violate the rights of presumably intelligent adults?

Uhm, and what right exactly would decent fastfood/soda regulations violate? I've said it before: That's just a wild assumption in this case. There's nothing at all stopping any level of US government from bringing in food or serving regulations.

And to be honest, people who start whining about their 'rights' when 1 litre cups of soda that are only usefull for guzzling the stuff in ridiculous quantities, really need to get a life. People are being detained without trial, shot dead with impunity, legally assaulted because of not adhering to a religion, denied marriage because of their choice of partner and even persecuted for that. Worry about that. Now those are issues of rights.

evilneko:

Again with the hyperbolic equating of sugary soft drinks and alcohol/tobacco. These things are not equal in any way, thus it is hyperbole to equate them in any context.

Yet you have yet to explain how in this context they are not equal at all.
Both are unhealthy and pose major health problems amongst the population. What makes them different that in one case we can be adults about it and in the other case we suddenly become helpless infants. And no saying "hyperbole" is not an answer.

What more should we regulate to protect us from ourselves? Please, government, tell me what I'm allowed to eat. I obviously don't know. The state owns me; therefore, my consumption is up to the state. DROPKICK ME, JESUS, THROUGH THE GOALPOSTS OF LIFE.

Tyler Perry:
What more should we regulate to protect us from ourselves? Please, government, tell me what I'm allowed to eat. I obviously don't know. The state owns me; therefore, my consumption is up to the state. DROPKICK ME, JESUS, THROUGH THE GOALPOSTS OF LIFE.

Why do you ask your government to do something it already does. (well, in a less hyperbolic way, it doesn't tell you what to eat but what people can sell/give you to eat)

generals3:

evilneko:

Again with the hyperbolic equating of sugary soft drinks and alcohol/tobacco. These things are not equal in any way, thus it is hyperbole to equate them in any context.

Yet you have yet to explain how in this context they are not equal at all.
Both are unhealthy and pose major health problems amongst the population. What makes them different that in one case we can be adults about it and in the other case we suddenly become helpless infants. And no saying "hyperbole" is not an answer.

I may be wrong, as I haven't studied up on it for a while but I do believe the onus of proof is on you making the claim that 'beer = soda' to prove it, not us to 'disprove' it.

Otherwise, I'd implore you to disprove my counter claim that soda under the right conditions is an immortality elixir.

PercyBoleyn:

Yosarian2:

To be fair, studies have shown that if you make servings smaller, people will tend to consume less, and they don't even realize they are consuming less. Even with free refills, if you have a smaller cup, I would bet that people on average end up consuming less soda; that's just how people work.

Now, I hardly think that this is the best solution, but it's not as totally crazy as it sounds.

I realized, now that I actually thought a bit about this issue, that limiting the size of the can is actually good idea. However, part of my original point still stands. We NEED to regulate the soda and fast foods industries. Like, right now.

randomsix:

This is a false dichotomy. How about we acknowledge the problem but go about solving it in a way that does not violate the rights of presumably intelligent adults? This argument really has nothing to do with socialism; it's all about whether we will allow ourselves to be controlled by someone else. A bureaucrat (or mayor in this case) does not know better than me how I should live in order to be happy.

strawman.

I am entirely convinced you think the word strawman means "instantly wins any argument I am unwilling or unable to prepare a response to the concerns of", which is ironic because sizing up a reasonable request or point and just grunting "strawman" so you can defeat the argument on that merit instead of its own is a pretty decent example of an actual strawman argument. Kind of funny too that by insisting education reform must come hand in hand with civil liberty violations however tiny to you they are you strawman your own argument and create opponents out of otherwise supporters. I could continue and try to explain like others have why they're not married concepts but you know what? Fuck it. Trying to push your health agenda's your sides job not mine, and I'm tired of making your points for you.

So guess what? You win. You've convinced me today what the right has been trying to convince us here in America for decades now and that education and civil liberties violations are inherently linked and inseparable. And in light of this truth I guess I'm forced to choose to be against education. Sorry I'd love to promote education but the cost to my conscience is too high. But wow, what a relief to be gone from that burden of trying to promote education. No more dinner table arguments on that matter.

generals3:

Tyler Perry:
What more should we regulate to protect us from ourselves? Please, government, tell me what I'm allowed to eat. I obviously don't know. The state owns me; therefore, my consumption is up to the state. DROPKICK ME, JESUS, THROUGH THE GOALPOSTS OF LIFE.

Why do you ask your government to do something it already does. (well, in a less hyperbolic way, it doesn't tell you what to eat but what people can sell/give you to eat)

Of course, your argument always had and always will hinge on the idea that all types of harm are exactly the same.

But you know what? Let's take your argument on its face value.

So what is next? We've decided that products that are enormously harmful are the same and should be treated the same in legislation as products that are moderately harmful. And realistically if I cant be asked or allowed to tell the difference there I'm not sure how in any consistency to tell the difference between a moderate harm and a minor harm, so I'm forced to conclude we have 3 options.

One, moderate the sale of everything potentially harmful to a child (because if little Timmy's neglectful parents let him purchase a pair of sharp scissors unattended he could poke his adorable eye out, and god forbid they watch him or monitor his income which is just right out impossible, so we should only sell safety scissors), ban children under 21 (or 18, or 16, let's not quibble over minor details for the moment) from buying anything period like how we do alcohol or cigarettes (after all, all levels of harm are the same, as you've explained to me), or regulate nothing. You know what? I'm gonna have to go with regulate nothing then, if those are my only choices. Man, another burden of thought lifted from me. Thanks, thread! That's a load off my mind.

So, there you have it. You've won this thread, as far as I'm concerned, and I have nothing further to post in it. I feel that doing so would just be to rub your victory in the faces of others who haven't seen the light.

But damn, is policy easy to make when all solutions to something are married together intrinsically no matter what and all similar problems are intrinsically the same no matter how vast their differences in scale and have to be all met with the same response. That's a government that can fit in your breast pocket right there.

Damien Granz:

generals3:

evilneko:

Again with the hyperbolic equating of sugary soft drinks and alcohol/tobacco. These things are not equal in any way, thus it is hyperbole to equate them in any context.

Yet you have yet to explain how in this context they are not equal at all.
Both are unhealthy and pose major health problems amongst the population. What makes them different that in one case we can be adults about it and in the other case we suddenly become helpless infants. And no saying "hyperbole" is not an answer.

I may be wrong, as I haven't studied up on it for a while but I do believe the onus of proof is on you making the claim that 'beer = soda' to prove it, not us to 'disprove' it.

Otherwise, I'd implore you to disprove my counter claim that soda under the right conditions is an immortality elixir.

Irrelevant dodge. If you can't answer the question , fine, but just say so instead of those useless dodges. I have no need to prove they are the same in general because it is irrelevant, it is the context that makes them equal in this situation. So my question stands. Why do we suddenly become little babies when face to face with those products?

generals3:

Tyler Perry:
What more should we regulate to protect us from ourselves? Please, government, tell me what I'm allowed to eat. I obviously don't know. The state owns me; therefore, my consumption is up to the state. DROPKICK ME, JESUS, THROUGH THE GOALPOSTS OF LIFE.

Why do you ask your government to do something it already does. (well, in a less hyperbolic way, it doesn't tell you what to eat but what people can sell/give you to eat)

Of course, your argument always had and always will hinge on the idea that all types of harm are exactly the same.

Nice useless dodge that is totally irrelevant to my point. Someone made a sarcastic post about the desire of an all mighty government and while doing so made the huge mistake of underestimating the existing role of the government. I merely clarified that. Unless you can prove me the government does NOT regulate the food/drink industry at all you just wasted your own and my time with that phrase.

But you know what? Let's take your argument on its face value.

So what is next? We've decided that products that are enormously harmful are the same and should be treated the same in legislation as products that are moderately harmful. And realistically if I cant be asked or allowed to tell the difference there I'm not sure how in any consistency to tell the difference between a moderate harm and a minor harm, so I'm forced to conclude we have 3 options.

That's assuming that soft drinks are much less dangerous than things like alcohol on a societal level.

One, moderate the sale of everything potentially harmful to a child (because if little Timmy's neglectful parents let him purchase a pair of sharp scissors unattended he could poke his adorable eye out, and god forbid they watch him or monitor his income which is just right out impossible, so we should only sell safety scissors), ban children under 21 (or 18, or 16, let's not quibble over minor details for the moment) from buying anything period like how we do alcohol or cigarettes (after all, all levels of harm are the same, as you've explained to me), or regulate nothing. You know what? I'm gonna have to go with regulate nothing then, if those are my only choices. Man, another burden of thought lifted from me. Thanks, thread! That's a load off my mind.

So, there you have it. You've won this thread, as far as I'm concerned, and I have nothing further to post in it. I feel that doing so would just be to rub your victory in the faces of others who haven't seen the light.

But damn, is policy easy to make when all solutions to something are married together intrinsically no matter what and all similar problems are intrinsically the same no matter how vast their differences in scale and have to be all met with the same response. That's a government that can fit in your breast pocket right there.

Now that's a bad comparison. Scissors have useful uses and their normal use doesn't involve dangers. By cutting paper you don't poke your eyes out. By drinking soda's you take in all that crap. One product is useful and can be bad if used wrongly, the other one is crap and remains crap if used as intended (just like, you guess it, other regulated products like tobacco products and alcohol)

One thing i would accept on further regulating would be crap food such as candy that consist out of 99% (slight exaggeration but you get what i mean) sugar.

generals3:

Damien Granz:

generals3:

Yet you have yet to explain how in this context they are not equal at all.
Both are unhealthy and pose major health problems amongst the population. What makes them different that in one case we can be adults about it and in the other case we suddenly become helpless infants. And no saying "hyperbole" is not an answer.

I may be wrong, as I haven't studied up on it for a while but I do believe the onus of proof is on you making the claim that 'beer = soda' to prove it, not us to 'disprove' it.

Otherwise, I'd implore you to disprove my counter claim that soda under the right conditions is an immortality elixir.

Irrelevant dodge.

It's not irrelevant. Your entire argument, the whole thing relies on the claim that you can't substantiate that both products are equally harmful, and therefor require equal regulation. You can't back up that claim.

Therefor there's no realistic reason to go through with the rest of your 'debate'. Your policy changes may or may not be wise, but they only can be evaluated as such if you can back up that original claim. Debating the finer points of Martian economic policy is a waste of time if you can't prove to me Martians are a thing, after all.

Saying that it's up to us to prove or disprove your claim? That's just some lazy shit there. I'm not your fucking employee, prove your own claim. Why don't I wipe your ass too while I'm apparently expected to do your work for you.

If I come here and say that "Aliens from Venus are covertly taking over the government, you should give me 50,000 dollars so I can take action to save us all", you're be rightful to expect some proof or demand the burden of supplying it is on my shoulders, not "OK, let me get my checkbook and cut this check out for you. Let's discuss the finer points of what we can do to stave off the Venusian apocalypse. It's a shame it was up to me to disprove your claims like that was a thing that made sense logically!"

I mean think about it. Is 50,000 dollars too high a price to ask for the safety of the whole world? Have you been body snatched by a Venusian yet? If not, you have only me to thank, but I can't do it alone without your generous contributions to my cause.

Are you going to irrelevantly 'dodge' my horseshit claims because your calender isn't free to disprove crazy? Or are you going to prove that Venusians aren't taking over the government with invisibility body snatching technology and that the only reason you continue to be relatively safe or alive is dependent on me receiving a shit ton of cash?

generals3:

Tyler Perry:
What more should we regulate to protect us from ourselves? Please, government, tell me what I'm allowed to eat. I obviously don't know. The state owns me; therefore, my consumption is up to the state. DROPKICK ME, JESUS, THROUGH THE GOALPOSTS OF LIFE.

Why do you ask your government to do something it already does. (well, in a less hyperbolic way, it doesn't tell you what to eat but what people can sell/give you to eat)

I'm pretty goddamn certain that in this case it doesn't, or there wouldn't be a point to this law and no reason for you to defend it as it would already exist. Unless you think 'regulating the fact you can't eat arsenic' means 'everything everywhere is always and always has been regulated', then clearly there are things that aren't regulated.

You know what? I'm forced to think that you're either crazy like the people that think the fact that you can't throw 90 gallons of mercury in a coffee means that 3 atoms of it is unsafe in a vaccine because you have no sense of scale or frame of reference due to crazy, trolling (at which point, congratulations on getting us to reply to this thread a bunch?), or some sort of childlike robot that has never in its life witnessed either a soft drink or beer and can't differ between a soda and crack cocaine because you have no sense of scale or frame of reference due to having lived your life in a bubble of some sort.

Tyler Perry:
What more should we regulate to protect us from ourselves? Please, government, tell me what I'm allowed to eat. I obviously don't know. The state owns me; therefore, my consumption is up to the state. DROPKICK ME, JESUS, THROUGH THE GOALPOSTS OF LIFE.

And by screaming that republican nonsense often enough like little children whose sweets have been stolen, the obesity epidemic will be solved?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked