New York Plans to Ban Sale of Big Sizes of Sugary Drinks

For some reason he only acknowledges two political viewpoints. Libertarianism and not libertarianism which he seems to be calling liberalism.

 

Buy two sodas if you're that damn thirsty. While double fisting a couple of Mountain Dews, you’d look more like the gluttonous, mouth-breathing, health statistic that your inherent Amuur-Can freedom liberates you to be.

But honestly I’d be pretty pissed if I was on a long road trip, stopped at a gas station on the Interstate, and the biggest fountain drink that I could get was only 16oz.

 

Sodas are ridiculously big. A small at burger king is almost unfinishable.

 

No, you are the one that is wrong. Conservative and Libertarian are not the same thing. And neither does liberal equal big government. What is so difficult about this to understand??

Look at this chart:
<a href="http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/the-nolan-chart-survey---liberal-conservative-somwhere-between/blog-268849/?link=ibaf&imgurl=http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/0/8/8/8/2/2/7/Result-1267500414.png&q="><img src="http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/0/8/8/8/2/2/7/Result-1267500414.png"><br> pics on Sodahead</a>

 

both Libertarians and Conservatives believe in free markets (no regulation). regulating sugar drinks is a liberal policy that conservatives/libertarians would disagree with. Where libertarians and conservatives differ is national defense (foreign policy) and social issues. If you had bothered to read what I wrote you would see I said they weren't the same. This is very very basic.

lol 'look at my chart' ....

 

You must fit on the chart somewhere.

 

Maybe if you are a chick.

 

Which is why we are confused about how you could be failing on it so hard. Newt and Ron Paul have massive disagreements about market regulation. And the subject we are talking about right now, is a social issue. So by your definition, they part on it.

 

regulation of sugar drinks is not a social issue..........

Wikipedia can help you with all your confusion on political ideologies.

 

Hmmm, how come I never noticed how spaced you are? In your eyes this is economic? They are doing it to ration corn syrup?

What type of issue, in your sphere, is alcohol and tobacco laws? tia

 

Would they outlaw diet big gulps?

 

I think these labels are pretty useless
Most be at best are .. MORE CONSERVATIVE than Liberal
MORE LIBERAL than conservative

I don't think anyone .. . or the rare few . . .are 100% any of them.
There are usually some issue that you are not one or the other.

Rocket River

 

********. I, as a liberal, would be perfectly willing to discuss a ban on large sugary drinks. I, as a liberal, am against this ban- I think Bloomberg is overreaching and has in several initiatives.

However, when you equate that with Michelle Obama, who has said many times that these are not directives from her (as if she could even do that), but suggestions, and when you realize that Laura Bush pushed for the same focus on eating healthy as Michelle Obama, then you have zero time to waste with the likes of him and you. Hightop, you have an excellent topic to debate, one that many liberals would even agree with conservatives on, and you blow it with your monomaniacal focus on the Obamas. So, **** ***.

 

I have never blamed Michele for anything in this thread. Not sure what you are yelling at me for. That being said, you say Michele Obama suggested it. suggested it to who? and what is 'it'? You mean she suggested to Americans what they should eat/drink? Why would she do that? Is she an expert? Who the **** is she? That's why I hate first ladies pushing agendas.

 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/XRCFJ8MrUzc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Saw this today.

 

Pretty okay with this. Lots of fast food joints and latchkey kids in a town that big, and food producers make more than their share in NYC, no problem with trying to hedge against diabetes or weight gain.

 

Edit: Never mind

 

here on the UWS we drink VitaCoco.

this is basically a regressive tax targeted at low income minorities. you ok with that?

 

The government is already ruining their health by propping up corn sugar multiplied in various forms as a cost-effective supply of calories, and allowing the spread of food deserts instead of looking into providing subsidies to anything that can be qualified as proper food. If American society is okay with that, I don't see why it wouldn't be okay with your idea.