Author Topic: Bloomie launches war on sugar  (Read 2479 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Predator Don

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4576
Re: Bloomie launches war on sugar
« Reply #20 on: June 02, 2012, 05:36:39 PM »
....speakeasies popping up everywhere. To the rescue, Elliott "Nestle Tea" Gulp.

How about a new movie "Escape from New York II" only this time it's Bloomberg who can't get out of his very own kingdom as he's being hunted down like the scumbag he is by New Yorkers fed up with his bullshyt.


Yea...instead of sending in snake, we send in the kook aid man...oh yeah.....
I'm not always engulfed in scandals, but when I am, I make sure I blame others.

Online John Florida

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 8508
  • IT'S MY FONT AND I'LL USE IT IF I WANT TO!!
Re: Bloomie launches war on sugar
« Reply #21 on: June 02, 2012, 07:18:58 PM »
  What stops anyone from buying 2 sixteen once containers? Or bringing their own container?Or buying a two litre bottle? Bung hole.
All men are created equal"
 Filippo Mazzie

Offline AlanS

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 7457
  • Proud Infidel
Re: Bloomie launches war on sugar
« Reply #22 on: June 02, 2012, 09:01:48 PM »
Or buying a two litre bottle? Bung hole.

They'll have to drink it out of a brown paper bag.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem."

Thomas Jefferson

Offline EW1(SG)

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
  • Who? Me?
    • EW1's Intercept Log
Re: Bloomie launches war on sugar
« Reply #23 on: June 02, 2012, 09:23:04 PM »
Quote
“It’s not perfect, it’s not the only answer, it’s not the only cause of people being overweight – but we’ve got to do something,” said Bloomberg. “We have an obligation to warn you when things are not good for your health.”

Bloomberg's obligation "to do something" also includes making sure that donated food is not used to feed the homeless.  The "homeless" that we are talking about are typically recovering addicts and alcoholics who eat at the city's shelters, and whose personal dietary requirements Bloomberg is quite happy to replace with his own junk science, even if it kills them.

And it will.  The donated food being turned away is generally food catered to special events that wasn't served (ie, prepared, and kept ready to serve but unneeded at the event).  So it isn't being turned away as "unsanitary," but as unhealthy because it's "party food."  But the problem is this:  recovering addicts and alcoholics appetites are affected by their disease, and it is much more important to get them to eat than it is to worry about whether or not the food is whole grain or freakin' organic.

So, as far as I am concerned, Bloomberg is a killer, a murderer by foul food.
My doctor told me to start killing people.  Not in those exact words, she said I had to reduce the stress in my life.

Same thing.

Offline LadyVirginia

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5167
  • Mt. Vernon painting by Francis Jukes
"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 45218
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: Bloomie launches war on sugar
« Reply #25 on: June 06, 2012, 06:42:14 AM »
Lilek's article is pretty funny as are the comments

This is all about power and generating revenue for the growing behemoth that is government at every level...the power hungry types aren't stupid, they know they cannot raise taxes too fast without incurring blowback, so they look to alternative fee-based methods, that our rights get trampled into the ground is of little concern to them beyond a pleasantly-sounding batch of euphemisms to purportedly sell their wicked idea and mask its true intent.  If they were more sincere in their bullsh*t reasoning they'd jack the fine up to $2000 just to show how important it is.

Irrumabo!  GOP? - Nope. No more. They made their bed, now let them die in it.*
* © Libertas (H/T Glock32)

Offline Weisshaupt

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5352
Re: Bloomie launches war on sugar
« Reply #26 on: June 06, 2012, 02:09:37 PM »
They even find it necessary to lie about calories in Bloomie's infographic!
Its okay, its not like liberals can do math and notice that as the size doubles the calorie numbers don't.

Its a linear relationship guys. F'ing libtards.


Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 45218
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: Bloomie launches war on sugar
« Reply #27 on: June 06, 2012, 05:40:21 PM »
Their brains are hard-wired to deflect common sense and logic, only in that construct their actions make any sense.
Irrumabo!  GOP? - Nope. No more. They made their bed, now let them die in it.*
* © Libertas (H/T Glock32)

Offline Predator Don

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4576
Re: Bloomie launches war on sugar
« Reply #28 on: June 06, 2012, 05:52:59 PM »
Their brains are hard-wired to deflect common sense and logic, only in that construct their actions make any sense.

Probably not enough sugar in thier diet.
I'm not always engulfed in scandals, but when I am, I make sure I blame others.

Online benb61

  • Established Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1183
  • My 2 fast cars
Re: Bloomie launches war on sugar
« Reply #29 on: June 06, 2012, 06:32:48 PM »
What about diet sodas?  Will the size ban include these?  If not, at most 7-11's you buy a cup, not what you put into it.  So I go into the store and fill a 64oz cup with whatever sugary drink I want, when I get to the counter I tell the clerk "It's a Diet Coke".  The clerk charges me and I leave.  A cop sees me on the corner and asks what I'm drinking, I say "Diet Coke".  He wants to verify and says to hand it over.  As I'm passing my gigantic drink his way I "accidentally" spill it (maybe even on him) and now he can't fine me since he can't prove that it was indeed the "hard stuff".

What do you think?
Eschew Obfuscation

Online Pandora

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 17067
  • I iz also makin a list. U on it pal.
Re: Bloomie launches war on sugar
« Reply #30 on: June 06, 2012, 06:54:43 PM »
I think you'll be better off just staying out of NYC.
"Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer." - Mark Twain

"Let us assume for the moment everything you say about me is true. That just makes your problem bigger, doesn't it?"

Online benb61

  • Established Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1183
  • My 2 fast cars
Re: Bloomie launches war on sugar
« Reply #31 on: June 06, 2012, 07:00:42 PM »
I think you'll be better off just staying out of NYC.

Advice noted... and taken.
Eschew Obfuscation

Online Alphabet Soup

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4911
  • Hier standt ich. Ich kann nicht anders
Re: Bloomie launches war on sugar
« Reply #32 on: June 06, 2012, 07:02:23 PM »
I think you'll be better off just staying out of NYC.

That's a place that I've never had a moments interest in. At this point I'm not sure you could pay me enough...

Offline Predator Don

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4576
Re: Bloomie launches war on sugar
« Reply #33 on: June 06, 2012, 08:11:42 PM »
I think you'll be better off just staying out of NYC.

That's a place that I've never had a moments interest in. At this point I'm not sure you could pay me enough...

Especially since 26K in Atlanta is the equivelant to 120K in NYC.
I'm not always engulfed in scandals, but when I am, I make sure I blame others.

Offline Predator Don

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4576
Re: Bloomie launches war on sugar
« Reply #34 on: June 18, 2012, 08:38:38 PM »


I still find this amazing there are people who support this crap.



NEW YORK — If New York City bans big sodas, what's next on the list? Large slices of pizza? Double-scoop ice cream cones? Tubs of movie-theater popcorn? The 16-ounce strip steak?

The proposed crackdown on super-sized drinks could face a legal challenge from those who oppose the first-in-the-nation rule and fear the city isn't going to stop with beverages.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg wants to bar restaurants, movie theaters, sports arenas, food carts and delis from selling sodas and other sugary drinks in servings larger than 16 ounces, saying it is a way to fight obesity in a city that spends billions of dollars a year on weight-related health problems.

Whether that's legal, though, is a matter of dispute and may be tested.

"We're going to look at all of our options to protect our business, our rights to do business and our rights not to be discriminated against. We won't take anything off the table," said Steve Cahillane, a senior executive with Coca-Cola.

The city Board of Health, appointed by the mayor, is expected to approve the measure after a three-month comment period. It could take effect as early as March, unless the critics who accuse Bloomberg of instituting a "nanny state" can get the courts or state lawmakers to step in.

It's not just businesses and industry groups that could sue. In theory, any individual affected by the ban could bring a legal challenge.

But it wouldn't be enough to simply claim that the ban infringes on personal freedom, said Rick Hills, a New York University law professor specializing in local government law and New York City.

While Bloomberg administration officials say they have no plans to move against solid foods, any local government could ban red meat — or even all animal products — without violating a person's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, Hills argued.

"The court has never struck down a health measure that was designed to protect people from unsafe diets or unsafe foods," he said. Whether the ban is on rat poison or on sugar, government is allowed to protect people from themselves, he said.

And Hills said that opponents would have to do more than argue that the law affects one source of sugar more than others. Courts, he said, have repeatedly ruled that the government can try to eradicate societal ills one step at a time.

Rob Bookman, an attorney who has represented the New York Restaurant Association, predicted opponents will argue that the city Health Department is overstepping its authority and infringing on federal or state power.

He said the sugary-drink rule would set a dangerous precedent: If the ban is within the city's rights, then there's nothing to prevent, for example, a prohibition on the 16-ounce New York strip steak, he suggested.

"We have one federal Food and Drug Administration that determines what products are legal or not legal, or safe for consumption or not safe for consumption," he said. "We cannot have 30,000 or so localities around the country being their own FDAs" without killing the national food industry.

At a Board of Health meeting this week, members seemed to suggest they would, in fact, welcome more expansive measures. Board member Bruce Vladeck asked why the city wasn't considering portion-size limits for buttery movie theater popcorn.

"The popcorn isn't a whole lot better from the nutritional point of view," he said.

In a statement, Health Department spokeswoman Alexandra Waldhorn said the Board of Health's responsibilities include "the control of chronic disease and food service establishments." She added: "Limiting the portion size of sugary beverages served at New York City restaurants is a valid exercise of these authorities."

New York has passed other regulations aimed at making food sold in the city healthier. In 2006, it became the first major city to ban the use of artificial trans fats in restaurant cooking. The ban was not challenged in court, according to the Health Department. And many other cities followed suit.

In 2008, New York city health officials passed a regulation requiring many chain restaurants to post calories on menus. A federal judge rejected a challenge from the restaurant industry, which argued that the rule violated the First Amendment right to free speech by forcing restaurants to "convey the government's message regarding the importance of calories."

Bennett Gershman, a constitutional law professor at Pace University, argued that the ban on big sugary drinks would run afoul of the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause.

Local governments "can't pass laws that do impose burdens on the free flow of commerce between states," he said. "If it is too much of a burden, the Supreme Court says that states can't do it. Only Congress can impose burdens on commerce. States can't."

Gershman suggested the measure would impose a burden by requiring out-of-state companies to produce different size drink containers and offer different services for customers in New York.

But Hills scoffed at that line of reasoning, saying the courts have generally accepted such an argument only in regard to transportation rules that might, for example, prevent some trucks from driving across state lines.

___

I'm not always engulfed in scandals, but when I am, I make sure I blame others.

Online Pandora

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 17067
  • I iz also makin a list. U on it pal.
Re: Bloomie launches war on sugar
« Reply #35 on: June 18, 2012, 08:43:19 PM »
I see some people just need killin' ............
"Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer." - Mark Twain

"Let us assume for the moment everything you say about me is true. That just makes your problem bigger, doesn't it?"

Offline EW1(SG)

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
  • Who? Me?
    • EW1's Intercept Log
Re: Bloomie launches war on sugar
« Reply #36 on: June 18, 2012, 09:11:38 PM »
Quote
"The court has never struck down a health measure that was designed to protect people from unsafe diets or unsafe foods," he said. Whether the ban is on rat poison or on sugar, government is allowed to protect people from themselves, he said.

Uh, there's a problem here:  When the government relies on junk science to "protect people" from themselves, they have usurped an authority they do not have and no longer have the implied consent of the governed.
My doctor told me to start killing people.  Not in those exact words, she said I had to reduce the stress in my life.

Same thing.

Online Pandora

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 17067
  • I iz also makin a list. U on it pal.
Re: Bloomie launches war on sugar
« Reply #37 on: June 18, 2012, 09:24:30 PM »
Quote
"The court has never struck down a health measure that was designed to protect people from unsafe diets or unsafe foods," he said. Whether the ban is on rat poison or on sugar, government is allowed to protect people from themselves, he said.

Uh, there's a problem here:  When the government relies on junk science to "protect people" from themselves, they have usurped an authority they do not have and no longer have the implied consent of the governed.

The whole premise is a problem.  Government does NOT have the authority to protect people from themselves regardless of the friggin science, good/bad/indifferent.

Governments are instituted among men to protect our Constitutional rights.  PERIOD.
"Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer." - Mark Twain

"Let us assume for the moment everything you say about me is true. That just makes your problem bigger, doesn't it?"

Offline warpmine

  • Conservative Hero
  • ****
  • Posts: 3248
Re: Bloomie launches war on sugar
« Reply #38 on: June 18, 2012, 09:49:56 PM »
Quote
"The court has never struck down a health measure that was designed to protect people from unsafe diets or unsafe foods," he said. Whether the ban is on rat poison or on sugar, government is allowed to protect people from themselves, he said.

Uh, there's a problem here:  When the government relies on junk science to "protect people" from themselves, they have usurped an authority they do not have and no longer have the implied consent of the governed.

The whole premise is a problem.  Government does NOT have the authority to protect people from themselves regardless of the friggin science, good/bad/indifferent.

Governments are instituted among men to protect our Constitutional rights.  PERIOD.
Of course some statist inevitably comes along and convinces the absolute idiots that "We need to have this" and so that is that. The idiots are the real danger past, present and future to Liberty which must take a back seat to "we know better than you" so stick it.

I state this again hopefully not in vain, only a full blown war can correct the course back towards that of Liberty. Folks, we aren't and haven't been dealing with people that desire freedom to choose as they cannot and will not be held responsible for any possible bad decisions. ::rockets:: ::rockets:: ::rockets:: ::rockets:: ::rockets::
Remember, four boxes keep us free:
The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 45218
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: Bloomie launches war on sugar
« Reply #39 on: June 19, 2012, 07:12:40 AM »
Well, we're back to what Pan said...

"I see some people just need killin' "

When government exists solely to enlarge and empower more government to make more decisions that impact individual liberty (that last time I checked were guaranteed in our Constitution and Bill of Rights as derived from our Declaration of Independence and Almighty God himself...any violation thereof being the highest treason)...well, that so many people fail to see it that way shows how deep in the sh*t we've gone and the only way out is fighting back.

Like steep odds?
Irrumabo!  GOP? - Nope. No more. They made their bed, now let them die in it.*
* © Libertas (H/T Glock32)