Quote from: kramarat on May 31, 2012, 11:21:01 AM
what part of this proposed regulation violates the US Constitution?

I don't know. I'll admit that I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but it sure seems to me that the government doesn't have any more right to tell us what we can't buy, than it does to tell us what we have to buy......................as in Obamacare.

But... but... but...

Its for the Children! 

-Dr Watt

Quote from: walkstall on May 31, 2012, 07:58:33 AM
What next only 400  kernels popcorn with no butter.   

This is the problem.

Is it constitutional? Who gives a rat's ass, what're going to do, dust off the tri-corner and grab your musket? Maybe find a victim and some willing donor that'll spend a coupla million bucks wandering through the judicial system getting it to the point where the Supreme Court has a good laugh over it?


Sure you can refill you're 16 ounce cup, how're you going to feel about refilling that dixie cup in 10 years and a little refinement of this wonderfully healthy law that's for our own good?
The problem is not the regulation you're looking at, it's what the regulation will be in 5 years or 10 years.

geez...

Quote from: kramarat on May 31, 2012, 08:20:00 AM
Bloomberg's out of control.

Here's my question. Are big cups going to be allowed for diet and sugar free drinks Mr Bloomberg?

If the answer is yes, are you going to hire more city workers to monitor each place that serves drinks, to insure that a sugary drink doesn't accidentally end up in a big cup?

NYC is an interesting petri dish to watch. It's more than a little concerning, to see the citizens of the city roll over and allow all of their rights to be taken away, without even a wimper.

I'm sure Mr Obama is furiously taking notes on the methods used.

You do realize, the Dim party reads these posts, right?
You just created quite the conundrum for the libs, they hadn't quite thought it through, that is, until you posted.

Mr Bloomberg, did you see what a conservative wrote?
Were in trouble now, back to the drawing board.

Quote from: Dr_Watt on May 31, 2012, 12:04:35 PM
But... but... but...

Its for the Children! 

-Dr Watt

Oh, that's right. If it helps prevent one kid from getting fat, it's good. Actually, even if it just prevents one cavity, it's good.

(Where's that sarcasm icon?)

I never understood how anybody could want and finish a 64 ounce soda. But it is their choice. And, if their choices destroy their health it's their problem.

Meanwhile...

Bloomberg to Support 'National Donut Day' 

So sugar is bad but sugar and deep fried dough are okay.

Quote from: kramarat on May 31, 2012, 12:17:23 PM
Oh, that's right. If it helps prevent one kid from getting fat, it's good. Actually, even if it just prevents one cavity, it's good.

(Where's that sarcasm icon?)

Dunno... I couldn't find it either!

-Dr Wat

File this under "The world turned upside down" or the "The sun rises in the West"...

The New York Post is NYC's conservative tabloid and they are OK with the sugar ban:


Mike: Downsize it

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/mike_downsize_it_EnoWDXfLT6dBShCQ2ukPhK


Meanwhile, the NY Times has a problem with the Mayor's mommy-state overreach:

A Ban Too Far
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/opinion/a-soda-ban-too-far.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


Go figure!

It's all an evil plot by the right - Hizzoner said that people are perfectly free to buy any number of cups of stuff at a time, just not one big one - so they'll probably sell more cups -

James River is the largest paper cup manufacturer in the country, they're owned by Georgia-Pacific, who in turn is owned by { ~ THE *EVIL* KOCH BROTHERS ~ }