New York's Biggest Criminal

More worthless legislation than you can shake a stick at.

Mayor Bloomberg brings us New York's latest brand of fascism, a proposed ban on sugary drinks of over 16 ounces.

In a time when jobs are scarce, crime is up, and a laundry list of actual problems face society dear Mayor Bloomberg has pushed forward this brilliant piece of garbage.  Now let's pretend for a minute you actually think for some bizarre and possibly insane reason this is a good idea in theory, and skip right to asking "How in the hell is this going to curb the issue of obesity?"

1) Anyone with a pulse knows an arbitrary unit of measurement placed on a ban like this will just lead to the same company that offered a 32 ounce Big Gulp to offer you a new and improved 16 ounce pair of sodas or a million other simple workarounds. This does NOTHING to curb any sugar intake by anyone. This is simply a further attack on business, period.

2) I can honestly say I have never in my life bought a Big Gulp in these massive sizes being targeted by this bill, and while I have had my share of super-sized sodas from fast food places, that was only as a side effect of wanting the super-sized fries, and the attempts early on to tell the cashiers "Can you just give me the drink in a medium cup so it will fit my cup holder?" Just led to the same mastery and efficiency as when you order your sandwich as anything other than "As it comes" or "Plain" so I would just begrudgingly take the mountain of soda as well.  Are we supposed to believe that after I chow down on my triple bacon cheeseburger and large fries that it's that evil soda that's causing me to be fat?  Are we concerned that health conscience people are being confused? "Yes, I'd like a grilled chicken salad, a side order of fresh fruit, oh and a 64 ounce Pepsi to wash it down with, I'm training for a marathon you know, gotta stay hydrated!"

3)  Is this is a sensational decoy? Probably, get the conservatives worked up over a trivial bill..I gotcha...but at the same time...it's also real legislation...how are liberals able to justify trying to push legislation like this now?  Like usual, it comes down to control.  People make poor decisions, can't accept blame, so it's the evil company that put that 64 ounce soda in your fat sausage fingers every day. To hell with your fat sausage fingers.  I have ran the gambit from normal weight to chubby to morbidly obese in my lifetime and I was never at a loss as to why the weight was going up or down.  If a person is too stupid to understand a 64 ounce soda is not a healthy choice, then let them die because we certainly don't want that brand of stupidity breeding.


A completely ineffective, expensive, fascist bill pushed by one of the most liberal cities in the country.  Color me shocked.

I'm really just surprised he didn't take the opportunity to blame guns for obesity as well.

North Carolina equally as rednecky and backwards as similar states...like California

Alright,

This is gonna be a quicky but just want to touch base on a few things here.

1)  North Carolina voted to ban equal rights, bravo North Carolina

2) Let's stop painting them as ignorant rednecks when California beat them to the punch by a wide margin in voting down equal rights and no one was running around talking about those ignorant backwoods hillbillies in Cali-forn-i-a.

3)  This is a reality check folks and for you big government types what more of an example would you like now that big government has once again trampled on rights?  Marriage is not in our consitution.  Marriage as a state sanctioned event is something we do not need.  Stop fighting for government approval and fight for removing government from your bedroom, not just when it suits your side of things. This is EXACTLY why you want government doing as little as possible. Social cons haven't died out enough yet, you can either wait another 30-40 years and hope that shifts in another direction or you can do the right thing and help people remember that you don't need Uncle Sam to make your love for another person be official.

4)  To be clear, if we're going to have state sponsored marriage I prefer it be offered to everyone equally. I don't think it is right to tie certain legal benefits to an event, and then bar people from participating in that event based on religious views about those people. But then how would the politicians get you all riled up and excited without social issues to pull at your heartstrings with that they won't actually do anything with. You know like abortion, gay marriage, legalizing pot, and all of these other things that get people worked up, that aren't changing other than token bones tossed out from time to time.

5) Let's not pretend that Obama is doing anything other than trying to sling anything he can out there to get the conversation away from the economy.  Let's not pretend that the man that campaigned on "Marriage is between a man and a woman" suddenly had a revelation a couple months before election.  Stop pretending any of these politicians care about your rights, they care about power and growing their source of it, government regulation.

How could marriage rights be an issue if government didn't sanction the act of marriage?  There's a solution that leaves the social cons happy (their churches could refuse to do gay marriages. I'm not interested in hearing "Oh but we want the right to a church wedding..." No. You don't have the right to force a religion to go against their religion for you.  You do have the right to be with anyone you like, and call it anything you like.  If you want to call it marriage, go ahead.  Now the social cons can govern "christian" weddings however they see fit.  The homosexual community can open as many marriage churches/centers as they like.

Oh crap, a solution that reaches everyone's goals, penalizes no one's right to live their life the way they want?

Oh man, but where can we tax that?