mike bloomberg at it again.....
#5
Posted 31 May 2012 - 03:40 PM
Did you think it could get any worse? Now they want to legalize the use of propaganda on American citizens -- and the vote could happen NEXT WEEK.
An amendment legalizing the use of mass propaganda campaigns on American audiences has been inserted into the latest defense authorization bill — and that bill just passed the House.
The NDAA amendment lifts bans on propaganda that have been around since the 1940s, neutralizing laws put in place to protect the American people from its government’s own “misinformation” campaigns.
“It removes the protection for Americans,” a Pentagon official told Buzzfeed, who broke the story. "There are no checks and balances. No one knows if the information is accurate, partially accurate, or entirely false.”
The amendment would remove all distinction between a hostile foreign audience and American one, turning the massive information operation apparatus within the federal government against its own people.
http://act.demandpro...anda/?source=fb
#7
Posted 31 May 2012 - 03:46 PM
I really don't have an issue with this. No one needs a Double Big Gulp's volume of soda in one sitting. But, doesn't banning anything larger than 16 oz seem a bit small though? Bottles of soda on average have 20 oz in 'em. Mebbe start the ban at 32 oz?
there are many things people don't need. doesn't mean they should be banned. IMO, you don't change society by banning shit and taking freedoms away. you change it with education.
#8
Posted 31 May 2012 - 03:48 PM
I really don't have an issue with this. No one needs a Double Big Gulp's volume of soda in one sitting. But, doesn't banning anything larger than 16 oz seem a bit small though? Bottles of soda on average have 20 oz in 'em. Mebbe start the ban at 32 oz?
Why don't they make a law requiring retailers who sell the stuff to post scare posters with photos of morbidly obese people and their autopsy photos?
It would be like watching a Mets game on SNY with all the anti-smoking PSA spots.
#10
Posted 31 May 2012 - 03:50 PM
also, if a person is limited to purchasing one 16 oz soda at a time, what is stopping them from going back & purchasing another? banning w/o educating the consumer does not get to the root cause of the issues & imo won't change a thing. if he wants to make a sound difference, perhaps posting calories counts and/or sugar counts beside the soda display (like the city has done w/ fast food restaurants) may be a better idea.
& quite honestly, if he's going to ban soda might as well ban tobacco & alcohol, no?
#19
Posted 31 May 2012 - 04:18 PM
I really don't have an issue with this. No one needs a Double Big Gulp's volume of soda in one sitting. But, doesn't banning anything larger than 16 oz seem a bit small though? Bottles of soda on average have 20 oz in 'em. Mebbe start the ban at 32 oz?
Or maybe ban the idiot mayor who has nothing better to do than petition laws governing the soda intake of his constituents?
#22
Posted 31 May 2012 - 04:46 PM
it will of course be controlled by an information system that tracks your purchases via a personal identification code. some easy math figures out your daily offenses which are automatically printed and mailed. 2% off for e-statements. I'm working on legislation right now.I like the way you think.
#25
Posted 01 June 2012 - 04:02 PM
You simply can not make this stuff up. Friggin' LOLberals.
#27
Posted 01 June 2012 - 04:15 PM
#28
Posted 01 June 2012 - 04:33 PM
LOLberals want it both ways. They want "freedom of choice" to do what they believe is right and at the same time, want to ban things they feel are detrimental to society. You can't have it both ways, LOLberals. It's either big govt. nanny state, or not. Seems to be the crux of the LOLberal disease.
Nice false dichotomy. I'd like to think the government can ban people from selling rancid meat and poisoned toys but not regulate the size of sugared beverages.
#32
Posted 01 June 2012 - 05:48 PM
And while he's at it, if obesity is actually the issue, ban candy, cakes, cookies, bread, processed food, etc. Again, if obesity is actually what the issue is here...
as I said, I don't really believe it is the issue and your reasoning is a great example why.
Like most things involving billionaires, it all comes down to money.
#33
Posted 01 June 2012 - 05:50 PM
So today, Bloomberg held a press conference regarding the soft drink sizing ban and while he was at it, celebrated national donut day. Yeah, this dizzy LOLberal wants to talk about the good behind banning high calorie soft drink sizes while he stuffs everyones face with a donut or two. You simply can not make this stuff up. Friggin' LOLberals.
What gives you the idea that Bloomberg is a liberal? He was Republican when he first ran for public office, and now he's independent...
sounds like you're clueless as usual.
#39
Posted 01 June 2012 - 06:16 PM
as I said, I don't really believe it is the issue and your reasoning is a great example why. Like most things involving billionaires, it all comes down to money.
There is a reason I said "if obesity is actually the issue here".
I seriously didn't mean he should ban other foods
#40
Posted 01 June 2012 - 06:20 PM
Would you say Ron Paul deflection is another crux of the LOliberal disease?
No, it is simply deflection. The crux of LOLerbal disease is that they want it both ways. LOLberals will destroy liberty and call it liberty all in the same breath. It's quitte perplexing to the rational thinker.
#42
Posted 01 June 2012 - 06:35 PM
#43
Posted 01 June 2012 - 06:37 PM
http://en.wikipedia....chael_Bloomberg
#45
Posted 01 June 2012 - 06:44 PM
Well, we're doing a really lousy job of ensuring individual liberty while we ban all kinds of things LOLberals dont like. SO i would say it's a pretty piss poor lousy attempt. We already have laws that protect individuals from fraud and harm. We don't need to go banning everything a LOLberal deems necessary. Rancid meat? Who buys rancid meat? Lead toys? Don't parents check on what they are giving to their children to play with?
most parents don't have a mass spec, or whatever you'd use to detect lead. USDA regulations help keep our meat and food safe. I just don't think it can be an all or nothing thing. we have to pick things (collectively, with respectful and science/fact based debate) that are dangerous to society, and exclude them.
don't be such a Lolibertarian
#46
Posted 01 June 2012 - 06:52 PM
#48
Posted 01 June 2012 - 07:00 PM
We don't need government to push social laws. People who buy rancid meat, and I completely disagree that the FDA or the USDA helps keep food safe, thats actually a total lie, deserve to get sick. Who buys rancid meat? Right, you want it both ways. Only it never works out both ways. Which is why we have to wear helmets to walk down the street and can only have a dixie cup full of soda in the city. LoLberals, they never seize to amaze. Never.
I probably shouldn't have said rancid, lets say teaming with E. coli. People wouldn't buy rancid meat, unless that's all there was available or all they could afford. Poor and dumb people should prolly die anyway.
Also, you should know most consider these slippery slope arguments informal fallacies. I won't hold that against you though
#50
Posted 01 June 2012 - 07:05 PM
most parents don't have a mass spec, or whatever you'd use to detect lead. USDA regulations help keep our meat and food safe. I just don't think it can be an all or nothing thing. we have to pick things (collectively, with respectful and science/fact based debate) that are dangerous to society, and exclude them. don't be such a Lolibertarian











