Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

mike bloomberg at it again.....


  • Please log in to reply
87 replies to this topic

#1 Kuzsin

Kuzsin
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,897 posts

Posted 31 May 2012 - 03:34 PM

Yes I know its politics...... http://www.nydailyne...ticle-1.1087241

#2 halfstar

halfstar
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,070 posts

Posted 31 May 2012 - 03:36 PM

Wrong forum brough.

#3 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,748 posts

Posted 31 May 2012 - 03:38 PM

Next up, more than one bowel movement per day. Bann'd

#4 gram-man

gram-man
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,185 posts

Posted 31 May 2012 - 03:40 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?

#5 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,534 posts

Posted 31 May 2012 - 03:40 PM

How's about this one?

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

#6 Kuzsin

Kuzsin
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,897 posts

Posted 31 May 2012 - 03:43 PM

Wrong forum brough.

......I'm going to ask him to ban lot shirtz...nice to see you back.

#7 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,534 posts

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 In A Silent Way

In A Silent Way
  • VibeTribe
  • 27,007 posts
  • LocationShoreline, CT

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. :cheesy:

#9 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,748 posts

Posted 31 May 2012 - 03:50 PM

More than one bowel movement. People do not need more than one.

#10 jnjn

jnjn
  • VibeTribe
  • 6,934 posts

Posted 31 May 2012 - 03:50 PM

i am all for combating obesity & diseases related, but what mikey b. is proposing doesn't make any sense. there are a ton of exclusions (why ban soda but not sugary lemonade or grape drink?). & diet soda will NOT be banned...wait, what?! :lol:
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?

#11 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,748 posts

Posted 31 May 2012 - 03:52 PM

LOLberals just love this stuff.

#12 capt_morgan

capt_morgan
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,549 posts
  • Locationatlantic ocean

Posted 31 May 2012 - 04:03 PM

nyc residents should all start wearing diapers....must be very re-assuring to have a mayor who will hold your hand through life and keep you from making your own bad decisions


i remember that feeling...it was in daycare

#13 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,748 posts

Posted 31 May 2012 - 04:04 PM

Helmets while walking. They should be required.

#14 capt_morgan

capt_morgan
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,549 posts
  • Locationatlantic ocean

Posted 31 May 2012 - 04:06 PM

no walking...you need a trained certified human carrying engineer....and yes, they'll be expensive. but you cant walk without one

#15 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,534 posts

Posted 31 May 2012 - 04:07 PM

we need padding on light poles and sign posts. those f-ers are hard.

#16 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,748 posts

Posted 31 May 2012 - 04:09 PM

Training wheels on shoes too.

#17 capt_morgan

capt_morgan
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,549 posts
  • Locationatlantic ocean

Posted 31 May 2012 - 04:11 PM

and all the sidewalks should be replaced with yoga pads

#18 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,534 posts

Posted 31 May 2012 - 04:16 PM

we should be assigned a daily caloric intake. if you exceed, you are fined per calorie.

#19 deadheadskier

deadheadskier
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,380 posts

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?

#20 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,748 posts

Posted 31 May 2012 - 04:28 PM

we should be assigned a daily caloric intake. if you exceed, you are fined per calorie.


I like the way you think.

#21 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,748 posts

Posted 31 May 2012 - 04:30 PM

Central planning and social engineering is fun, isn't it?


All strollers should have to be registered with the DMV and subject to all rules of the road. Not allowed on sidewalks.

#22 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,534 posts

Posted 31 May 2012 - 04:46 PM

I like the way you think.

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. :coffee:

#23 Kuzsin

Kuzsin
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,897 posts

Posted 31 May 2012 - 06:01 PM

.....this should be moved back to the original forum because its just got good replies.....keep me laughing

#24 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 01 June 2012 - 06:56 AM

Bloomberg is a wingnut, but if this passes, then it's obviously supported by many NYC businesses.

They make more money off two 16 oz cups than they do a 32 oz.

Couples sometimes share a soda to save a little money, and this will do away with that.

#25 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,748 posts

Posted 01 June 2012 - 04:02 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.

#26 Karen

Karen
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,075 posts

Posted 01 June 2012 - 04:10 PM

if he's going to ban soda might as well ban tobacco & alcohol, no?


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...

#27 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,748 posts

Posted 01 June 2012 - 04:15 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.

#28 Smiles

Smiles
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,940 posts

Posted 01 June 2012 - 04:33 PM

LOLberals? More like LOLfascists.

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.

#29 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,748 posts

Posted 01 June 2012 - 04:42 PM

Right. Both ways.

#30 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,534 posts

Posted 01 June 2012 - 04:44 PM

things that could be used to harm others perhaps require more thought. something like sugar that will harm nobody aside from someone that abuses it is another thing. personal choice, we are losing it.

#31 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,748 posts

Posted 01 June 2012 - 04:48 PM

Have a donut instead.

#32 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

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 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

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.

#34 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,748 posts

Posted 01 June 2012 - 05:53 PM

I dont care what party affiliation he claims to be from. Both republicans and democrats are big govt. nanny statist LOLberals that like social engineering. He's a LOLberal.

#35 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 01 June 2012 - 05:55 PM

really?

did you already forget that Ron Paul ran as a Republican?

#36 Smiles

Smiles
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,940 posts

Posted 01 June 2012 - 06:05 PM

I dont care what party affiliation he claims to be from. Both republicans and democrats are big govt. nanny statist LOLberals that like social engineering. He's a LOLberal.


:lol:

#37 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,748 posts

Posted 01 June 2012 - 06:09 PM

It's always right back to Ron Paul with these LOlberals. It's all they have. They must deflect and Ron Paul is all they have to use. Because if we face facts and reality, the argument is lost before mouth is opened.

#38 Smiles

Smiles
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,940 posts

Posted 01 June 2012 - 06:11 PM

Would you say Ron Paul deflection is another crux of the LOliberal disease?

#39 Karen

Karen
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,075 posts

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". :thup:

I seriously didn't mean he should ban other foods :rolling:

#40 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,748 posts

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.

#41 Smiles

Smiles
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,940 posts

Posted 01 June 2012 - 06:27 PM

All or nothing? We can't ensure individual freedom while still protecting citizens from the dangers of corporate greed/lazieness? (i'm thinking about rancid meat and leaded toys again)

#42 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,748 posts

Posted 01 June 2012 - 06:35 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?

#43 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,632 posts

Posted 01 June 2012 - 06:37 PM

A Democrat before seeking elective office, Bloomberg switched his registration in 2001 and ran for mayor as a Republican, winning the election that year and a second term in 2005. Bloomberg left the Republican Party over policy and philosophical disagreements with national party leadership in 2007 and ran for his third term in 2009 as an independent candidate on the Republican ballot line.

http://en.wikipedia....chael_Bloomberg

#44 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,748 posts

Posted 01 June 2012 - 06:41 PM

He is the most dizzy LOLberal I've ever encountered. I thought PF had that title but nope! Bloomberg is definitely the diziest LOLberal....well, PF is not in a position of power so its a hard contest.

But, jumpin jeebus!

#45 Smiles

Smiles
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,940 posts

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 :funny1:

#46 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,748 posts

Posted 01 June 2012 - 06:52 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.

#47 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,748 posts

Posted 01 June 2012 - 06:54 PM

It's just liek the old saying goes. If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

#48 Smiles

Smiles
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,940 posts

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 ;)

#49 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,748 posts

Posted 01 June 2012 - 07:05 PM

The only slippery slope I see is the one where we all have a calorie counter wrist band like MeowMeow suggested. Slippin right into tyranny. The road to hell is always paved in good intentions.

#50 jnjn

jnjn
  • VibeTribe
  • 6,934 posts

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 :funny1:


:clapping: