Am I the only one who supported the soda ban?

[dblack]

It's my right to be a disgusting fatbody and NOBODY can stop me!!!!

Do you believe that's true? Or are you being sarcastic?

If not, why not?

 

[Papageorgio]

So instead of ordering an extra large, they order two, because as you state people can't control themselves.

You can't control behavior, hell, we are giving condoms away because we can't control behavior. So with sex we can't control behavior but you think we can actually control food intake.

Why not make people responsible for their stupidity, instead of trying to control.

Do you really think making a stupid law of not selling an extra large soda is going to change a behavior? Really?

I will what I want, when I want it, and I don't need you or the government interfering with my diet. I very rarely drink pop, I think it is not good for people, I drink water and one cup of coffee a day.

It is my life not yours, not the governments, I'm not hurting anyone, so leave me alone.

But the people that can't control themselves are hurting people. They are a drain on the economy. They, in a small way, are hurting the country with the risks that they take.

Then are you going to legislate sex with multiple partners? That is high risk. How about people that have anal sex, did you know that is related to a direct increase in anal cancer? What about those that use abortion as a form of birth control? Health wise, both mental and physical it cost Americans money. What about smoking, talk about high risk. What about drinking alcohol, period. How did banning that turn out?

We have laws against cocaine, opiates, marihuana and the list goes on, we are losing there pretty bad.

Again you are trying to control behavior based on your morals?

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

It's my right to be a disgusting fatbody and NOBODY can stop me!!!!

Do you believe that's true? Or are you being sarcastic?

If not, why not?

Sarcastic. What's America's obsession with being a fuckin' fat disgusting motherfucker anyway? You can't even browse good porn anymore what you don't see some sick motherfucker laying pipe to a mountain of flab which, I guess, is supposed to be a fat lady. Sick shit dude!

 

[dblack]

It's my right to be a disgusting fatbody and NOBODY can stop me!!!!

Do you believe that's true? Or are you being sarcastic?

If not, why not?

Sarcastic. What's America's obsession with being a fuckin' fat disgusting motherfucker anyway? You can't even browse good porn anymore what you don't see some sick motherfucker laying pipe to a mountain of flab which, I guess, is supposed to be a fat lady. Sick shit dude!

The question is whether others (via government) should be able to tell you how to eat and drink. Do you have a right to manage your health as you see fit? Or is your body 'public property'?

 

[BillyV]

Do I have the choice to refuse to pay for their diabetes?

One liners like yours .... are not going to convince otherwise. Try again.

But the cost of their health care to the taxpayer is the entire point. You just can't figure that out.

You're absolutely right; the taxpayers and those paying medical insurance premiums should not be expected to support the bad habits of those who eat poorly, smoke, or engage in other unhealthy habits; they should all have to pay a lot more to access the health insurance system. It's only fair, right? You shouldn't have to pay for those nasty fat people and smokers!

On the other hand, those nasty fat people and smokers should not have to support the healthy choices that others make that cost the taxpayer and private pensions huge amounts in additional years of support in retirement; since the unhealthy will not live long enough to receive a benefit from those programs, they shouldn't have to pay for them. I would propose that unhealthy people pay more for medical insurance and nothing for retirement security. You see how that works? Now everyone is on their own.

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

Do you believe that's true? Or are you being sarcastic?

If not, why not?

Sarcastic. What's America's obsession with being a fuckin' fat disgusting motherfucker anyway? You can't even browse good porn anymore what you don't see some sick motherfucker laying pipe to a mountain of flab which, I guess, is supposed to be a fat lady. Sick shit dude!

The question is whether others (via government) should be able to tell you how to eat and drink. Do you have a right to manage your health as you see fit? Or is your body 'public property'?

I don't fuckin' worry about it because despite what fanatics say, NO ONE is going to dictate it by law or otherwise. So what if some liberal wacko bans 40 oz sugar water? Fat fuck will simply drive to the next peddler of shit food and get some more. Now check this bitch out - SHE'S ready for alcohol prohibition!

 

[dblack]

Sarcastic. What's America's obsession with being a fuckin' fat disgusting motherfucker anyway? You can't even browse good porn anymore what you don't see some sick motherfucker laying pipe to a mountain of flab which, I guess, is supposed to be a fat lady. Sick shit dude!

The question is whether others (via government) should be able to tell you how to eat and drink. Do you have a right to manage your health as you see fit? Or is your body 'public property'?

I don't fuckin' worry about it because despite what fanatics say, NO ONE is going to dictate it by law or otherwise. So what if some liberal wacko bans 40 oz sugar water? Fat fuck will simply drive to the next peddler of shit food and get some more.

So you acknowledge that, at best, it's a pointless law. But it is a law. If it stays intact, people will be fined and punished for violating it.

 

[rightwinger]

I support a soda ban for anyone over the age of 21

Nothing as disgusting as watching an adult wolf down a 32 oz Mountain Dew like some acne incrusted teenager. You are an adult for christ sake. Drink adult beverages

You want to drink soda, put some booze in it

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

The question is whether others (via government) should be able to tell you how to eat and drink. Do you have a right to manage your health as you see fit? Or is your body 'public property'?

I don't fuckin' worry about it because despite what fanatics say, NO ONE is going to dictate it by law or otherwise. So what if some liberal wacko bans 40 oz sugar water? Fat fuck will simply drive to the next peddler of shit food and get some more.

So you acknowledge that, at best, it's a pointless law. But it is a law. If it stays intact, people will be fined and punished for violating it.

Why sure it's pointless. Alcohol to a certain extent and street drugs are illegal, yet we have people abusing both like a motherfucker. Fat, drunk and stupid this country is. Reminds me of a movie.............

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1hnwvWhbJw]fat drunk stupid - YouTube[/ame]

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

I support a soda ban for anyone over the age of 21

Nothing as disgusting as watching an adult wolf down a 32 oz Mountain Dew. You are an adult for christ sake. Drink adult beverages

hahahahahahahahahahahaahahaahaahahaaha............................

 

[Lonestar_logic]

There seems to be a broad consensus (here at least) that the soda ban is bad policy. So, that leads me to ask a question, specifically addressed to those who are opposed to the soda ban, yet in favor of treating health care as a basic human right:

If your community is responsible for maintaining your health, shouldn't your community have a say in personal habits that counter that goal? To put it another way, if you want your health care guaranteed by taxpayers, shouldn't they be able to prevent you from damaging your health in a way that will cost them more?

No.

For the simple fact that the majority of Americans take respnsiblity for their own healthcare cost. The way to fix this is to get people off the govt. tit so they wouldn't need to rely on govt for their healthcare.

Myths about the uninsured

You seem to be missing my point. I'm asking IF government (aka your community) is responsible for providing you with health care - which it is if we go with "health care is a right" - then don't they have a vested interest and a compelling justification for telling you how maintain it?

I don't see any way around this logic, which is the main reason I'm opposed to the idea that health care should be considered a "right". As heartwarming and reassuring as it may be to some, the idea is poison.

The thing is, if you go that route then you can say if a person receives any type of govt. assistance then the govt. can dictate every aspect of their life.

If you're on foodstamps they can tell you how many children you can have, if you recieve govt. funded abortions they can force you get a hysterectomy.

Once you give up your right to basic freedom of choice, you no longer have a choice and you may never get that right reinstated.

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

No.

For the simple fact that the majority of Americans take respnsiblity for their own healthcare cost. The way to fix this is to get people off the govt. tit so they wouldn't need to rely on govt for their healthcare.

Myths about the uninsured

You seem to be missing my point. I'm asking IF government (aka your community) is responsible for providing you with health care - which it is if we go with "health care is a right" - then don't they have a vested interest and a compelling justification for telling you how maintain it?

I don't see any way around this logic, which is the main reason I'm opposed to the idea that health care should be considered a "right". As heartwarming and reassuring as it may be to some, the idea is poison.

The thing is, if you go that route then you can say if a person receives any type of govt. assistance then the govt. can didcate every aspect of their life.

If you're on foodstamps they can tell you how many children you can have, if you recieve govt. funded abortions they can force you get a hysterectomy.

Once you give up your right to basic freedom of choice, you no longer have a choice and you may never get that right reinstated.

Think this bitch would listen to any new law about nutrition?

 

[dblack]

No.

For the simple fact that the majority of Americans take respnsiblity for their own healthcare cost. The way to fix this is to get people off the govt. tit so they wouldn't need to rely on govt for their healthcare.

Myths about the uninsured

You seem to be missing my point. I'm asking IF government (aka your community) is responsible for providing you with health care - which it is if we go with "health care is a right" - then don't they have a vested interest and a compelling justification for telling you how maintain it?

I don't see any way around this logic, which is the main reason I'm opposed to the idea that health care should be considered a "right". As heartwarming and reassuring as it may be to some, the idea is poison.

The thing is, if you go that route then you can say if a person receives any type of govt. assistance then the govt. can dictate every aspect of their life.

If you're on foodstamps they can tell you how many children you can have, if you recieve govt. funded abortions they can force you get a hysterectomy.

Once you give up your right to basic freedom of choice, you no longer have a choice and you may never get that right reinstated.

Yep. And we're hearing demands for exactly these kinds of provisions. Fascism is ugly business.

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

You seem to be missing my point. I'm asking IF government (aka your community) is responsible for providing you with health care - which it is if we go with "health care is a right" - then don't they have a vested interest and a compelling justification for telling you how maintain it?

I don't see any way around this logic, which is the main reason I'm opposed to the idea that health care should be considered a "right". As heartwarming and reassuring as it may be to some, the idea is poison.

The thing is, if you go that route then you can say if a person receives any type of govt. assistance then the govt. can dictate every aspect of their life.

If you're on foodstamps they can tell you how many children you can have, if you recieve govt. funded abortions they can force you get a hysterectomy.

Once you give up your right to basic freedom of choice, you no longer have a choice and you may never get that right reinstated.

Yep. And we're hearing demands for exactly these kinds of provisions. Fascism is ugly business.

Fascism! hahahahahahahahahahahaha Used to take the overthrow of a Czar or something. A Beer Hall Putch for godssake. "In America today Fascism was instituted in the form of a 40 oz soft drink............" hahahahahahahahahahahahahaah

 

[Katzndogz]

A soda ban isn't helping the "fight" against obesity. It was never designed to help fight obesity. Soda doesn't make anyone fat. It was a STEP and a step only in the direction of the kind of control men like Michael Bloomberg intend to exert.

To fight obesity it would take more than a soda ban. There's ice cream, cake, pie, cookies, doughnuts, candy. Ban those and there is still bread, butter, (the Danish tried to ban butter. It didn't work) crackers, pasta, beer, milk, rice, potatoes, cereal, cheese. Even if the sale of all food that could make somone fat was banned, it doesn't prevent people from consuming such banned foods if they can get it.

Philosophers throughout history have addressed perfect public health by controlling diet. They came up with the only way. There is no private ownership of food at all. Meals are taken communally, in government dining halls, with each meal nutritionally measured and allocated per person. Then of course, there is the other half of the problem. People must be made to consume the food given to them. As we have already seen in schools where the meals are measured and allocated, the children simply throw what they don't want away. The solution is quite simple. The people (the students in the case of the schools) must be make hungry enough to eat all of what they are given.

Drinking too much soda is such a miniscule part of the obesity problem that it could only be considered a very weak but essential first effort.

As Bloomberg said he probably would not mandate exercise at this point. How big a part does sedentary lifestyle play in obesity? How much does proper exercise have to do to maintain a government approved level of health. Should a taxpayer who runs every day really have to pay for someone else's heart disease because they chose to sit on their ass? How do you mandate exercise and how do you enforce it?

 

[Ringel05]

Anyone can drink 44 ounces or more. No one banned the amount you can drink. LOL


the ban was about packaging

Smaller packaging = more sales = more tax revenue................. Uummmmm, no extra large candy bars, no supersized fries, no large Marie Callender Pot Pies.......
Yup that'll cure the obesity problem...........

 

[rightwinger]

They need to ban 44oz Slurpies

The brain freeze can put you in the hospital

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Do I have the choice to refuse to pay for their diabetes?

If we didnt have Gov health care you wouldnt have to.

True. But go to Washington and very publicaly propose that medicaid be terminated. Give your address too. And see what happens.

It's our money,not the govs.
Here come the death panels.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Let's face it. Some people can't handle themselves. The idea of personal freedom is not the bigger picture. The bigger picture is for the greater good. With all of the health problems that obesity causes, it needs to be curbed. Afflictions like diabetes are a drain on the economy with the health care cost associated with it. Sure this policy would have only made a small dent, but it is a start.

New Yorkers can still live happy fulfilling lives without buying an extra large soda

All hail the nation state! Government is here to build the master race. For the greater good.

Tired of being nice. Go fuck your fascist self.

God some of you are such drama queens. You are making this personal for no good reason. Seriously, grow the fuck up.

When the gov sticks it's nose into my business it becomes personal.

 

[Katzndogz]

Most of the people who buy those extra large sized drinks do it because it is cheaper than buying two small ones to split between children. Banning the sale of the large size drinks is a direct attack on the poor.