|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,802
Dawg Talker
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,802 |
Hey, I agree with the premise of how stupid some of the choices people with EBT cards make are, even oft find myself exhaling a heavy, irritatable sigh when I see the "Donuts now accepted on food stamps" sign at my local 7-11, but we have to acknowledge it's a bit ridiculous how much more expensive healthier foods are at grocery stores than most of the packaged crap out there...
Politicians are puppets, y'all. Let's get Geppetto!
Formerly 4yikes2yoshi0
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,249
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,249 |
Quote:
but we have to acknowledge it's a bit ridiculous how much more expensive healthier foods are at grocery stores than most of the packaged crap out there...
Bullcrap. You can buy a bag of apples for the same price as a big bag of chips. Green peppers, carrots, celery and cucumbers are dirt cheap right now. Broccoli, salad greens and kale are also very reasonable. You can buy a family pack of chicken or pork a lot cheaper than you can feed the family one time at Mickey D's. Cartons of 18 eggs are 2 dollars and change. Canned and frozen veggies as well as whole wheat bread are frequently on sale 10 for 10 at Kroger. Potatoes and brown rice instead of Donuts and Cheese curls for carbs for about the same price...and they'll last a lot longer. I'll admit that beef is very expensive right now, even the cheaper cuts.
But the bottom line is that you can eat very healthy for less than what you pay for a typical junk food diet.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,984
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,984 |
Beef is expensive, but about once a month some stores, like my local Save A Lot, has a sale on meat.
Also, both my local Save A Lot and IGA have a "5 for $19.95" that offers all kinds of meats and other family sized products for a very reasonable price.
If someone wants to make excuses for why they "need to" waste their food stamps, they will ..... like the woman who "fed her family" at a local convenience store I was at, while complaining about how she doesn't get much in food stamps. She spent $60 on 5 subs and crap like chips and pop.
I don't think that any of that stuff should be allowed on food stamps. Food stamps should be for wholesome raw products only, plus staples like milk, OJ, bread, and such. Lunch meat should be allowed, but chips, sub sandwiches, pop, and other crap should not.
I always found it bizarre that someone can buy subs on food stamps, but not hot food like cooked chicken and such.
Further, if someone is on food stamps, then they have time to cook for their family. They probably wren't working much more than 25 hours/week.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,802
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,802 |
The issue I have with the fruits and vegetables you're referencing, though, are how they're low in calories for their given weight, and thus a more expensive way to purchase food energy when you break down price per calorie. It's gonna be cheaper to bulk up on macaroni and hot dogs than to get enough fruits and vegetables to grind to a sound diet satisfying the needed caloric intake. For me, the Fit and Active Vitality Cereal at Aldi is a buck or two more opposed to the sugary Kids Crunch and Dookie Crisp knockoffs available. It seems foods with more saturated fats and added sugars will be higher in calories and cost less per...
Politicians are puppets, y'all. Let's get Geppetto!
Formerly 4yikes2yoshi0
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,847
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,847 |
I think it's time for this headline "New York Plans to Ban Mr. Bloomberg"
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
There is far more contained in food than simple calories. Vitamins and minerals are essential and often missing in more processed foods. Fiber is vitally important; intestinal problems are becoming far more common than they were 20-30 years ago. More wholesome, less fatty food is processed more slowly and naturally, allowing for more complete extraction of nutritional content.
People on food stamps need to have their food supplied directly to them. They apparently do not have the ability to purchase food wisely, at least when they are spending other people's money. If they need to feed their families, then they need to do it as efficiently as possible.
The original topic should NOT be government business. However, having a national health care plan makes it the government's business.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,563
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,563 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
soda is not horrible for you. that is silly talk.
yes, it has calories (and caffeine if you drink coke/pepsi, etc.). but, all you have to do is exercise enough and it's gone. if you drink non-caffeinated drinks, then it can quench your thirst just fine (water is still better, yes)
it's not like fatty products (like Bloomberg's precious donuts) that have other effects such as deteriorating artery walls, etc (though exercise minimizes these effects as well)
What do you suppose happens to all the unburned sugar from someone who drinks a six-pack or a two-liter bottle of Coke or Pepsi every day? Really..."just exercise and it's gone"?
Obviously, a single can every day or so isn't going to be harmful, just like you're not very likely to get lung cancer smoking a couple cigarettes when you're drinking on Friday night.
But how many people, especially kids, drink just one 12oz can of soda? On the flip side, how many people drink a couple 20oz bottles, or a six-pack, or a 2 liter every day?
Zero nutritional benefit. Drink water, or unsweetened tea, or mix up a jug of Crystal Light or something.
That doesn't make soda bad for you. That makes being a stinking Sloth bad for you.
And if someone wants to drink that much soda, that's their choice. The government shouldn't be anywhere near that choice, ever.
I personally don't think Soda is good for you... especially kids... it's empty calories plus if it's caffinated caffine is not that good for you and it's a carbonated beverage which is not good for you either..
with that said... I'm drinking my morning soda  and agree 100% that regulating soda is silly...
I will say that,especially for children, you need to drink it in moderation (like everything in life). I saw a kid at my hospital the other day who was about 2 y/o drinking a soda out of his bottle... that's just wrong to me...
<><
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,427
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,427 |
I never said that it was Good for you, I just said that it wasn't inherently Bad. Huge difference  The soda itself is fine - the rate of consumption by the Stupid Human is what makes the act bad.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
I will say that,especially for children, you need to drink it in moderation (like everything in life). I saw a kid at my hospital the other day who was about 2 y/o drinking a soda out of his bottle... that's just wrong to me...
But this should be a parenting issue, not a governmental issue.
If we ban irresponsible people from having children we could probably achieve the same thing.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,249
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,249 |
Quote:
The issue I have with the fruits and vegetables you're referencing, though, are how they're low in calories for their given weight, and thus a more expensive way to purchase food energy when you break down price per calorie. It's gonna be cheaper to bulk up on macaroni and hot dogs than to get enough fruits and vegetables to grind to a sound diet satisfying the needed caloric intake. For me, the Fit and Active Vitality Cereal at Aldi is a buck or two more opposed to the sugary Kids Crunch and Dookie Crisp knockoffs available. It seems foods with more saturated fats and added sugars will be higher in calories and cost less per...
I also referenced chicken, pork, potatoes, and rice. Add some veggies and fruit to these, and you have a well balanced healthy meal with plenty of calories....and cheaper than buying junk. You could even add some macaroni and hot dogs (what kid doesn't love those?) in moderation and still eat healthy for less.
Your initial statement that it is much more expensive buy healthy foods is false.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,563
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,563 |
Quote:
Quote:
I will say that,especially for children, you need to drink it in moderation (like everything in life). I saw a kid at my hospital the other day who was about 2 y/o drinking a soda out of his bottle... that's just wrong to me...
But this should be a parenting issue, not a governmental issue.
I agree 100% with you...
<><
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
What do you suppose happens to all the unburned sugar from someone who drinks a six-pack or a two-liter bottle of Coke or Pepsi every day? Really..."just exercise and it's gone"?
yep. that's the great thing about "empty" calories of sugar. you burn them by exercising 
btw, 800 calories in a 2 liter of Coke and you burn 700 calories playing basketball for 1 hour. Gotta do some situps or something to burn the rest.
if you want to drink that 2 liter of Coke and stay healthy, then you have to be willing to put the work in too.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Or you could drink water and play basketball for an hour and be 700 calories to the good instead of having to work out just to break even That you can burn off the calories through vigorous activity doesn't mean that it's not bad for you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
Or you could drink water and play basketball for an hour and be 700 calories to the good instead of having to work out just to break even
That you can burn off the calories through vigorous activity doesn't mean that it's not bad for you.
that's what I find funny. "to the good" is relative to each person. you are consuming those calories somewhere (or at least you better be if you are at a healthy weight or you will drop below your healthy optimum). so, if you choose a certain % of those calories to be sugar and make sure you are still getting your nutrients, it is not unhealthy.
sugar is not inherently unhealthy. it is a supply of quick energy that your body needs. as long as you do the proper trade-offs, there is nothing wrong with it (unlike what is being unfairly waged against it).
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,573
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,573 |
J/C
My initial reaction to this story,anger at more Gov't intrusion,was wrong.
Something stinks here.
If Bloomberg was so concerned about the health of the citizens,why hasn't he completed outlawed the sale and consumption of cigarettes in his fair city?
Money.They tax the crap out of em.That makes smoking bad for you,but as long there is money to be made,they'll allow it.
I can only assume there is no tax advantage to the Big Gulps,so in the liberal spirit of "We know what's good for you" soda pop is outlawed.
Shouldn't alcohol be banned?People abuse prescription drugs,are they next?
I wish my big brothers would have taken care of me this well when I was growing up,instead of beating the crap out of me all the time.
Indecision may,or maynot,be my problem
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
Then we have Bloomberg delcaring today, NYC Donut Day. Worried About The Soda Ban? Fear Not, Bloomberg to Support ‘National Donut Day’ Tomorrow By Colin Campbell 5/31 3:44pm At Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s press conference touting his efforts to stop the sale of large soft drinks in restaurants, one reporter in attendance brought up the interesting fact that his administration also supporting “National Donut Day” tomorrow and inquired as to whether that muddled the mayor’s message on the issue. Indeed, at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow morning, Entenmann’s will be unveiling “Custom-made Entenmann’s large donuts, 1-foot in diameter” at Madison Square Park at the same time they unveil a “Proclamation Letter by Mayor Michael Bloomberg.” “The work of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene reflects the mayor’s public health agenda,” Deputy Mayor Linda Gibbs said about the possible donut conflict. “The message is that we will do what we need in our official capacity to protect the health of New Yorkers.” “The celebratory events, the naming days in honor of individuals or items, or frivolities that are fun and [bring] exceptional joy are quite distinct from a public health agenda,” she added. web page
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Or you could drink water and play basketball for an hour and be 700 calories to the good instead of having to work out just to break even
That you can burn off the calories through vigorous activity doesn't mean that it's not bad for you.
But the fact that it's bad for you doesn't mean the government needs to tell you how much of it you can have... which is after all, the point.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
The issue I have with the fruits and vegetables you're referencing, though, are how they're low in calories for their given weight, and thus a more expensive way to purchase food energy when you break down price per calorie. It's gonna be cheaper to bulk up on macaroni and hot dogs than to get enough fruits and vegetables to grind to a sound diet satisfying the needed caloric intake.
Banning or limiting unhealthy food isn't going to make healthy food any cheaper. In fact, simple supply and demand dictates that if you ban unhealthy food or tax it or try to manipulate people into buying more healthy food, the price of healthy food will only go up.
And as for part of your premise.. the point is not to get as many calories out of fruits and vegetables as you do out of junk, that is what would help in the weight loss part.... Isn't the whole point of this to REDUCE the caloric intake of people?
I'm sorry, eating healthy isn't as easy as eating unhealthy, green peppers and bananas go bad and twinkies do not, so you have to be more vigilant in buying, storing and eating healthy food.... to eat chips as a snack you have to rip open the bag, to eat carrots or melon as a snack you have to select a good one, clean it, peel it, slice it, store it.... fresh fish has to be cooked correctly where as you can basically eat hot dogs right out of the package and be fine and any moron can cook a hot dog without screwing it up, cooking fresh fish or lean meat actually requires a little bit of work... Eating healthy not only costs a little more, it also requires you to put some effort into it.. it's easier to let your kids grab a bag of chips or a twinkie than it is to put forth the effort to make sure you have fresh sliced fruits and vegetables to snack on...and a lot of people aren't willing to put forth the effort...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
I can only assume there is no tax advantage to the Big Gulps,so in the liberal spirit of "We know what's good for you" soda pop is outlawed.
A) I do think there is tax involved in soda in NYC. The kicker here would be that you'd end up paying the tax twice. Instead of once on the Big Gulp, you'd now pay twice on two 16 ounce drinks.
B) I don't know why you label the 'we know what's good for you'/'protect you from yourself' mindset as 'liberal'. Everyone knows I don't see much practical meaning to those those words, but those who are deemed 'conservative' do the same thing. I don't see either side having a claim to it. Plenty of conservatives are out there right now preaching about keeping the community free from drugs or pornography or birth control.
Both sides attempt to strip people of the right to do things that they think are wrong or harmful. Both sides want the government to tell people how to live.
But as many people have said ... we're not in the mess we're in because of soda. We're in it because we drink soda like it's water, and we don't properly exercise. It's a social problem, not a soda problem.
I'd say the same thing about drugs. You shouldn't outlaw something simply because abusing it will harm you. The time and money spent on banning and outlawing these things should go towards examining and working to rectify the root causes of the abuse.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Quote:
I can only assume there is no tax advantage to the Big Gulps,so in the liberal spirit of "We know what's good for you" soda pop is outlawed.
A) I do think there is tax involved in soda in NYC. The kicker here would be that you'd end up paying the tax twice. Instead of once on the Big Gulp, you'd now pay twice on two 16 ounce drinks.
And this may be closer to the truth than we will ever know.
a 64oz thirstbuster is say $2.59, whereas a 16oz fountain soda is $1.59.
They sell you 2 sodas and a an overall higher cost and rake in more taxes, and you still only get 1/2 the soda, meaning the chances are higher you will purchase 2-3 or more for every 1 thirstbuster you used to buy.
It all adds up to additional tax revenue.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,563
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,563 |
Quote:
sugar is not inherently unhealthy. it is a supply of quick energy that your body needs. as long as you do the proper trade-offs, there is nothing wrong with it (unlike what is being unfairly waged against it).
Yeah but if you're eating a healthy diet that 'sugar' is coming from things like fruits... which give you other nutrients that your body needs....
<><
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,573
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,573 |
If line item B was directed at me,your presumption is incorrect.
I reside so far to the right,that Barry Goldwater would think that I'm a nut job.That would make damned near everyone else a liberal.
The ones that aren't,are full blown communists that should be dragged from thier houses and shot.
Indecision may,or maynot,be my problem
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
Quote:
sugar is not inherently unhealthy. it is a supply of quick energy that your body needs. as long as you do the proper trade-offs, there is nothing wrong with it (unlike what is being unfairly waged against it).
Yeah but if you're eating a healthy diet that 'sugar' is coming from things like fruits... which give you other nutrients that your body needs....
no doubt that is the healthier way to go. but, it's a trade-off that each individual gets to make themselves.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
I'd say the same thing about drugs. You shouldn't outlaw something simply because abusing it will harm you.
no, but you should outlaw something that if you consume it can cause you to harm others. we seem to have another thread going on a certain drug causing a person to go on a face-eating rampage. hmmm, I don't think that one is a bad idea to try to stop.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
no, but you should outlaw something that if you consume it can cause you to harm others
So you would ban alcohol?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
Quote:
no, but you should outlaw something that if you consume it can cause you to harm others
So you would ban alcohol?
i took the "outlaw" term from earlier in the thread and should have changed it. regulate and penalize is the more proper terminology.
i don't really care what people do as long as they keep it to themselves, but the second that crosses the line there should be consequences.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 10,870
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 10,870 |
NY mayor blasts sugar ban critics: "That's a lot of soda" By Chris Francescani NEW YORK | Fri Jun 1, 2012 1:03pm EDT (Reuters) - New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg offered a full-throated defense of his proposed ban on large-size sugary sodas on Friday, calling criticism of the proposal "ridiculous" and saying his city is again leading the way in taking on critical health issues. "I look across this country, and people are obese, and everybody wrings their hands, and nobody's willing to do something about it," Bloomberg said on his weekly radio show. "I would criticize the federal government for not doing anything," the health-conscious Bloomberg added on WOR radio's John Gambling show. "I would criticize the state governments for not doing anything, but in the end, it's the cities that do things." On Wednesday, Bloomberg proposed a far-reaching ban on sugary sodas larger than 16 ounces (about half a liter) in most restaurants, theaters, delis and vending carts throughout the city. It could take effect as early as next March, city officials have said. The move against soft drinks is the latest in a string of public health initiatives promoted by the mayor. During his three terms in office the city has banned smoking in bars, restaurants and public places, banned artificial trans fats in restaurant food, and required calorie counts to be posted at fast-food outlets. Bloomberg also leads a campaign to cut salt in restaurant meals and packaged foods. The soda measure will be introduced on June 12 at a New York City Board of Health meeting. The board is expected to pass the mayor's measure, following a three-month public comment period. BIG SODA COMPANIES OBJECT Bloomberg said that the proposal was aimed towards the city's poorer residents who may not have a sophisticated understanding of nutrition. He insisted that the measure is not targeted towards big soda companies like PepsiCo and Coca-Cola. "There's nothing wrong with the products from PepsiCo and Coca-Cola," the former-business-leader-turned-mayor said. "They are responsible companies. They are making stuff that people want to buy. This is not targeted towards those companies. This is targeted the consumer." Coca-Cola, the world's largest soft-drink maker, assailed the proposal in a statement on Thursday. "New Yorkers expect and deserve better than this,'' the Coca-Cola statement said. "They can make their own choices about beverages they purchase." Meanwhile, New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, a Democrat, told The New York Post on Thursday that he was considering state legislation to thwart the measure. "We may be getting too close to Big Brother," Silver told the newspaper. "I just think we ought to step back and look at the freedoms that we have been given in this country and reflect on them." On Friday, Bloomberg said he expected New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, to back his plan. Asked about Silver's threat, Bloomberg crisply responded that "I don't think that's going to happen. "I assume the governor is going to veto it." Bloomberg went on to compare controversy over the proposal to his 2002 ban on smoking in bars and restaurants. "You think this was bad?" Bloomberg asked. With the smoking ban, "everybody was opposed to it. today, virtually every major city in America does it ... whole countries! "If people are yelling and screaming, there's nothing you can do about that. I mean, this is ridiculous." Bloomberg, now an independent but a Republican from 2001 to 2007 and before that a Democrat, called obesity "the single biggest public health issue in the country.'' "It's the first disease that's gone from being a rich person's disease to a poor person's disease,'' he continued. "Look at the pictures of the old robber barons with their big stomachs out in the '20s. They were proud that they were fat. They all died young, but they were proud until that. Today it is poor people who are dying much more. And the numbers are just off the charts." "Nobody is taking away any of your rights," Bloomberg said later in the broadcast. "This way, we're just telling you ‘That's a lot of soda.'" web page
You know my love will Not Fade Away.........
#gmSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
i don't really care what people do as long as they keep it to themselves, but the second that crosses the line there should be consequences.
I agree completely. But that doesn't mean you ban something simply because some people are going to cross that line.
You simply punish those people for crossing that line.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,427
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,427 |
Quote:
Quote:
i don't really care what people do as long as they keep it to themselves, but the second that crosses the line there should be consequences.
I agree completely. But that doesn't mean you ban something simply because some people are going to cross that line.
You simply punish those people for crossing that line.
Amen.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,882
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,882 |
He has really backed himself into a corner on this one. I can't even count the amount of asinine things he said in that article.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,223
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,223 |
Well, this is just stupid.
I love pop (or soda. whatever.), but I gave it up almost entirely due to the fact that it's pretty much all sugar and empty calories, and I wanted to drop a few pounds. But to ban a "large" size? Stupid. Get a free refill. Stupid.
NYC tries to be some trendsetter, and just ends up looking like a bunch of tools.
![[Linked Image from pic18.picturetrail.com]](http://pic18.picturetrail.com/VOL905/3216203/6567769/349897772.jpg) "The Browns' defense is kicking mucho dupa."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,947
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,947 |
j/c
NYC should be the healthiest place in this country. A ban on smoking in bars/restaurants/ public parks........a ban on transfats (or something like that), a ban (not enacted yet, I know), on sugary drinks over a certain size............fast food places have to put up calorie contents on the menu..
Won't be long and they'll be seeing doctors leave and hospitals closing up because they are so healthy. No more heart attacks, no more obesity in NYC, all thanks to the good mayor.
Oh, wait. That hasn't happened, and it won't. At least the city is doing it's part, right?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458 |
Quote:
Quote:
i don't really care what people do as long as they keep it to themselves, but the second that crosses the line there should be consequences.
I agree completely. But that doesn't mean you ban something simply because some people are going to cross that line.
You simply punish those people for crossing that line.
Wow...been saying this for years....
I wish to wash my Irish wristwatch......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 12,092
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 12,092 |
Bloomberg said that the proposal was aimed towards the city's poorer residents who may not have a sophisticated understanding of nutrition. He insisted that the measure is not targeted towards big soda companies like PepsiCo and Coca-Cola.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
Bloomberg said that the proposal was aimed towards the city's poorer residents who may not have a sophisticated understanding of nutrition. He insisted that the measure is not targeted towards big soda companies like PepsiCo and Coca-Cola.
So if you are poor, then you are a stupid imbecile? This guy needs to get off his high horse along with his moral high horse.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/FUKyw.png) "Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979 |
The government must be stopped.
This is what happens when you let traditionally blue state democratically controlled states to have their democrat politicians keep their jobs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,984
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,984 |
Quote:
Bloomberg said that the proposal was aimed towards the city's poorer residents who may not have a sophisticated understanding of nutrition. He insisted that the measure is not targeted towards big soda companies like PepsiCo and Coca-Cola.
I'm sure.
If you want to make sure that poor people are getting good nutrition, then limit what they can buy with food stamps. No more subs ..... no more chips ...... no more pop ...... no more crap.
Of course, we can't do that, because that would somehow be discriminatory. 
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877 |
Actually Bloomberg has been a Democrat, a Republican and an Independent (on the Republican ballot line).
So I think that might actually shoot a big hole in your argument.
A bad idea knows no political boundaries, really......
"People who drink light 'beer' don't like the taste of beer; they just like to pee a lot."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 8,483
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 8,483 |
Wow, this idea is really dumb. Are they even allowed to do something like this?  I don't think it will pass. But then again, I always thought the term, "everything in moderation" was supposed to be applied to things that were not good for you. I drink pop everyday but its diet or coke zero. Nothing tastes better then a cold cherry coke zero!
Find what you love and let it kill you.
-Charles Bukowski
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,984
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,984 |
So ...... Bloomberg wants to allow pot in NYC .... saying that they won't arrest or prosecute people for "smaller" amounts ..... and he slathers his BLT with mayo ....... but he wants those who sell a large Coke shot dead on the spot ........
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... New York Plans to Ban Sale of Big
Sizes of Sugary Drinks
|
|
