Page 35 of 52  •  Prev 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37 ... 52 Next
Switch to Forum Live View
Locked: Big Apple Soda Ban
2 years ago  ::  Jun 23, 2012 - 6:43PM #341
Idbc
Posts: 4,597

Jun 21, 2012 -- 5:40PM, rabello wrote:


Whatever, TRUECHRISTIAN.   The topic is ABOUT the costs to society, so the date Charikleia provided is exactly on point, unlike some amorphous talk about "public" education. 



The title-topic of this thread is "Big Apple Soda" ban. 


Quoting from the Original Post


"news.yahoo.com/york-mayor-bloomberg-prop...



Really people, does New York really have to do this? I can imagine NYPD taking kids in for possessing a six pack or a liter of soda.


It adds new meaning to a "Coke Bust"


This is not just about the "monetary" cost to society. 


As the Original Poster implies their is a "cost" in liberty and freedom. 


 


 


Jun 21, 2012 -- 5:40PM, rabello wrote:


 You prefer to look at it as a personal issue, when it is a population issue, a public health issue,



It is NOT "personal".  I do NOT buy "supersized drinks"  either at the movies or at fast food resturant.  



Jun 21, 2012 -- 5:40PM, rabello wrote:


and seem perturbed that someone would expect a seller to have some moral responsibility towards his/her patrons, or that some parent in NYC won't be able to share a 32+ ounce drink with his/her spouse or her kid once in awhile regardless of consequence to anybody else who doesn't use their privilege of getting more than a quart of super-sugary drink to indulge in whenever they want.



What I am perturbed about is that it is THE BUYER who has the PRIMARY responsiblity   for what parents buy for their children IS the parents NOT  FATHER BLOOMBERG.   


What I am "perturbed" about is that the PRIMARY


 


I imagine, from a personal point of view, cancer is worse than diabetes, since cancer leads to a quicker death, making tobacco less "safe" than supersugary oversized drinks, and I imagine from a personal point of view, heart disease is worse the diabetes since it can lead to sudden death instead of lifetime disability, making red meat less "safe" than supersugary oversized drinks, but population studies and public health studies aren't based on personal experience or individual "rights".   Like I said, shut down the NIH and bring back the smoking section in restaurants. Smokers have rights, too, and their personal experience is as important as anybody else's.



"Whatever"  Rabello. "The topic is ABOUT the costs to society" of demon sized sodas being sold to both adults and minors in NYC. It is ALSO about the way this ban by decree is being imposed by Father Bloomberg.   


Jun 21, 2012 -- 5:40PM, rabello wrote:


It's not my job to inform those who want to debate about what current research tries to tell us about public health, if we are willing to listen



But it is your "job" to support your claims.  Your "job" is the burden of proof.


 


Jun 21, 2012 -- 5:40PM, rabello wrote:


What I think is interesting is that the trend in "supersize" was the brainchild of someone who worked in movie theaters and had trouble getting people to buy a second soda or serving of popcorn.



Whatever!


And where did you learn that the trend to "supersize" was the brainchild of "someone" who worked in a movie theater who had trouble getting people to buy a second serving of soda or popcorn? 


Oh wait!  It is not your "job" to inform those who debate you.   It is not your "job" to say who is this "some" who developed this scheme-plot.  In a debate, if person A makes a claim, and person B asks for proof, it is the "job" of person A to offer proof of the claim that they made.  


 


 


Jun 21, 2012 -- 5:40PM, rabello wrote:


  And of course not - -who's going to interrupt their viewing of a movie to go buy a second treat.  The obvious answer to that was to supersize the drinks and the serviing of buttered popcorn....and that sales tactic morphed to the rest of the sellers.  



Whatever! 


This thread is not about supersized-buttered popcorn.  It is about the banning the sale of supersized drinks.   Father Bloomberg has proposed a decree to ban  "supersized buttery popcorn with salt.     Yet! 


The persons who are going to interrupt their viewing of a movie to buy another small or moderate sized sugary drink is the person who is "addicted to processed sugar". 


Jun 21, 2012 -- 5:40PM, rabello wrote:


Public health officials have long decried the size of portions being served at restaurants, fast food joints. etc.    




Whatever!  


This a logical strawman fallacy.  The laws that Father Bloomberg is try to un-democracitly degree is NOT about the size of portions being served at restaurants, fast food resturants etc.  


Father Bloomberg has not un-democractically decreed law banning restrictiing the size of food portions to BOTH adults and minors.   Yet. 


But if Father Bloomberg is successful in banning the sale of large servings of sugary drinks then he may also decree a ban making it illegal to sell large portions of salty, buttery popcorn in theaters, selling large portions of food in any resturant to both adults-parents and minors-children. 


But if the proposed decree is moral then so would it be moral to ban the sale of large sized buttery-salty popcorn and large portions of food in all resturants. 


And what about the supersized candy that has sugar.  Clearly a threat to public health.  Clearly it would be "immoral" to sell them to children-parents and minors-parents.   If it is immoral then it should be illegal. 


   

HAVE A THINKING DAY MAY REASON GUIDE YOU
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 23, 2012 - 11:08PM #342
rabello
Posts: 22,234

OFCS, IDBC...you're a little late to the party to be coming in with guns blasting, don't you think? 


The thread is more than 18 pages long, and I have more than justified my claims -- unlike those who keep harping about "liberty" like a broken record.  Every single person in America, including every single resident or NYC is "free" to buy and consume as much super-sugary drink as they want.  If you are one who chooses not to get it, then you are one who just won't get it.  If you are one who feels the discussion CANNOT BE BROADENED past what is written in the OP, have at it.  What was written as a title and in the OP was not correct. You won't be saying anything different than what's already been said on your side.


The reference to the fact that supersize is the brainchild of somebody who worked in movie theatres in the 50s and 60s has been provided.  And it makes perfect sense that something that was used in movie theatres for a reason (even if it wasn't a good reason) got "borrowed" by food/drink sellers for no reason.  If you choose to disbelieve it, fine.


If you are so hot under the collar about something so petty as soda pop and Sunny D and Hawaiian Punch, then recall the mayor.  If he's not your mayor, send money to a group that will recall him.   No skin off my back, I don't live in NYC.  I can see a justification for doing what the mayor is doing, though, too bad you can't.  Jugs of soda pop is that important in New Yorkers' lives, I guess.  Apparently you believe that capitalists should have repsonsibility-free carte blanche when it comes to selling stuff using gimmicks and manipulation.  Apparently you believe people should be punished for the wrong lifestyle decisions they make.  


It may not affect you personally, but it does affect all the fat New Yorkers, and from what's been reported, New York City has as big of a problem with adult and childhood obesity as the polyester-loving "fly-over" country.


Have a 42 ounce coke and cool off.

Black Lives Matter
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 24, 2012 - 9:49PM #343
Idbc
Posts: 4,597

Howdy Rebello


 


Jun 23, 2012 -- 11:08PM, rabello wrote:


OFCS, IDBC...you're a little late to the party to be coming in with guns blasting, don't you think? 



OFCS, Rabello.....NO. I do NOT think that I am coming to in to this party with guns blastiing



Jun 23, 2012 -- 11:08PM, rabello wrote:


The thread is more than 18 pages long, and I have more than justified my claims -- unlike those who keep harping about "liberty" like a broken record. 



Your claims are not about Father Bloomberg's plan to decree largmovie size soda's illegal to sell in  movie theaters.  What you have not done is to support the claim that selling large sized drinks in movie theaters and resturants to adults and minors is a signicant factor in the rise in obesity and diabeties.  


If when you do show proof that sellinglarge sized sodas in theaters and resturants is a significant enough cause for the public health problem i.e. diabeties and obesity then I will stop "harping" on the liberty and feedom of people to decide to buy large sodas in resturants and movies theaters. 


 


Jun 23, 2012 -- 11:08PM, rabello wrote:


 Every single person in America, including every single resident or NYC is "free" to buy and consume as much super-sugary drink as they want. 



But according you  they shouldn't be free to do so if by buying as much sugary drinks it causes a public health problems which we all pay for.  


Jun 23, 2012 -- 11:08PM, rabello wrote:


 If you are one who chooses not to get it, then you are one who just won't get it. 



And if I have the liberty to freely choose to buy sugar drinks or not to buy large sugary drinks then so do others. 


Jun 23, 2012 -- 11:08PM, rabello wrote:


 If you are one who feels the discussion CANNOT BE BROADENED past what is written in the OP, have at it. 



The simple fact is that this "plan" has nothing to do with anything else other than selling large sugary drinks in movie theaters and resturants.  If you want to change the subject by "BROADNENING" if you want to harp on something that is not part of this plan-decree-law and "harp" on immorality of selling large sized portions of food in resturants, then have at it. 


Jun 23, 2012 -- 11:08PM, rabello wrote:


 What was written as a title and in the OP was not correct. You won't be saying anything different than what's already been said on your side.



Then debate why the title of the thread is incorrect! 


Yes, the title of the thread is incorrect.  The ban does not include the sale of all sodas in NYC.


It is not about the NYPD taking in children for possession of a six pack of coke. 


But I am sure that you understand what is correct about this ban. 


"A document outlining the proposal said it was aimed at fighting an epidemic of obesity, citing public health statistics showing that 58 percent of New York City adults and nearly 40 percent of city public school students are obese or overweight.


Americans consume 200 to 300 more calories every day than they did 30 years ago, according to the Bloomberg administration's analysis



So in the interest of public safety a law should be decreed that people should not consume more excessive calories.  


Jun 23, 2012 -- 11:08PM, rabello wrote:


The reference to the fact that supersize is the brainchild of somebody who worked in movie theatres in the 50s and 60s has been provided.  And it makes perfect sense that something that was used in movie theatres for a reason (even if it wasn't a good reason) got "borrowed" by food/drink sellers for no reason.  If you choose to disbelieve it, fine.



It does sound plausable that the reason that someone(?)who worked in movie theartres in the 50's and 60's to sell large drinks for the convience of the customers in the theatre.  That is a good reason. 


The good reason that resturants borrowed it was for both for convience, to sell the soda at a lesser pricel . 


Jun 23, 2012 -- 11:08PM, rabello wrote:


If you are so hot under the collar about something so petty as soda pop and Sunny D and Hawaiian Punch, then recall the mayor.  If he's not your mayor, send money to a group that will recall him.   No skin off my back, I don't live in NYC.



What I am hot under collar about is that there is no evidence that banning the sale of large drinks of soda, Hawaiian Punch or Sunny D   in movie theaters is the cause of obesity or diabeties.  I have no problem with the laws that now exist in NYC against cigarettes because there was clear and convincing evidence for having those laws passed. 


Those laws were not passed by decree but democractly over the objections of the makers and sellers of the immoral capitalist.  


The mayor of NYC cannot be recalled.  However when Father Bloomberg was running for mayor he supported a law that would ban a mayor for running for more than three terms. 


This law was passed when after he became mayor. However he found a....loophole. The loophole was that since the law was passed after he became mayor the law did not apply to him. 


In his third run for mayor he spent over one hundred million dollars to buy the election.  


Father Bloomberg is defintely not a Communist.   He is an authoritarian-autocractic capitalist. 


He cut spending on athletic programs in NYC school and after school sports by more than 25%.


 


Since you do not live in NYC it is no skin off your nose about the law. 


Jun 23, 2012 -- 11:08PM, rabello wrote:

   


  I can see a justification for doing what the mayor is doing, though, too bad you can't.  Jugs of soda pop is that important in New Yorkers' lives, I guess. 



Jun 23, 2012 -- 11:08PM, rabello wrote:


 Apparently you believe that capitalists should have repsonsibility-free carte blanche when it comes to selling stuff using gimmicks and manipulation.  Apparently you believe people should be punished for the wrong lifestyle decisions they make. 



Apparently you believe that the buyers bear should have no responsiblity because the are so easily manuiplated by gimmicks.  They are uneducated proles who must be......encouraged by decree as to what to buy. 


Jun 23, 2012 -- 11:08PM, rabello wrote:

  


It may not affect you personally, but it does affect all the fat New Yorkers, and from what's been reported, New York City has as big of a problem with adult and childhood obesity as the polyester-loving "fly-over" country.



You are right, if this law is decreed  it will not effect me personally because I do not buy large sized sodas in either resturants or in movie theaters. 


 Can you help me to understand why I am not....influenced by the same manupilive sales gimmicks that affect so many others? 


I would guess that you also live in the same "polyester-loving fly over country" as I do. 


Where do you live? 


Is there a weight-diabeties epidemic where you live? 


If so are there laws there banning the sales os large sugary drinks. 


Do you or your children(if you have any)overweight or diabetic due to large sugary drinks? 


Jun 23, 2012 -- 11:08PM, rabello wrote:


Have a 42 ounce coke and cool off.




It seems that you are as "hot" as you believe Iam. 


I would suggest that you drink however much water drink that you choose to drink. 




 

HAVE A THINKING DAY MAY REASON GUIDE YOU
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 24, 2012 - 11:07PM #344
rabello
Posts: 22,234

Jun 24, 2012 -- 9:49PM, Idbc wrote:


Your claims are not about Father Bloomberg's plan to decree largmovie size soda's illegal to sell in  movie theaters.  What you have not done is to support the claim that selling large sized drinks in movie theaters and resturants to adults and minors is a signicant factor in the rise in obesity and diabeties.  


If when you do show proof that sellinglarge sized sodas in theaters and resturants is a significant enough cause for the public health problem i.e. diabeties and obesity then I will stop "harping" on the liberty and feedom of people to decide to buy large sodas in resturants and movies theaters. 




First off, it's not about people deciding to buy a "large" soda or other super-sugary drink when they are out and about.  It is about establishing some reasonable standards as to what volume constitutes a "large".    The Greatest Generation sure didn't have this particular dilemma to grapple with....why was that?  (answer is: no restaurant was giving out a third of a gallon of supersugary drink and calling it a "large" back then


As for proof, please google "sugary drinks + obesity" and you shall find what you seek, from the AMA, JAMA Network, Harvard Health Education, Web MD, CNN News, CBS News, etc.  I am having problems with my computer and cannot access those websites without my browser shutting down; otherwise I would have shared these references earlier in the thread.   None other than the AMA agrees with Bloomberg and supports taxing sugar drinks to help fund obesity research.


Jun 24, 2012 -- 9:49PM, Idbc wrote:


But according you  they shouldn't be free to do so if by buying as much sugary drinks it causes a public health problems which we all pay for.  




No, that is NOT according to me.  I have said, time and time again on this thread, most recently on my repsonse to you, people are free to buy and consume as much supersugary drink as they want, even in New York City.   That's not even up for debate. If you're going to blast me for being wrong, please at least make sure you are representing my position accurately.


Jun 24, 2012 -- 9:49PM, Idbc wrote:


And if I have the liberty to freely choose to buy sugar drinks or not to buy large sugary drinks then so do others. 




Exactly right.  Everybody has that right.  I never said anything different.  Thank you for agreeing with me on this point.


Jun 24, 2012 -- 9:49PM, Idbc wrote:


[The simple fact is that this "plan" has nothing to do with anything else other than selling large sugary drinks in movie theaters and resturants. 




It has to do with more than that but that would be for another time.


Jun 24, 2012 -- 9:49PM, Idbc wrote:


Then debate why the title of the thread is incorrect! 




I answered this ages ago.  I think issues in public health are interesting.  It is not so interesting to try to discuss issues in public health with people who are not interested, though.  I debate because people have been misrepresenting the most recent findings of public health researchers and what Bloomberg's proposal seeks to do.   As Charikleia said before, a tax would be better, but of course, judging from the reactionary-ism stemming from just the thought of going back to a 16 ounce "large" means such a tax will never get passed, at least, not until we get past this age of social darwinism.


Jun 24, 2012 -- 9:49PM, Idbc wrote:


"A document outlining the proposal said it was aimed at fighting an epidemic of obesity, citing public health statistics showing that 58 percent of New York City adults and nearly 40 percent of city public school students are obese or overweight.


Americans consume 200 to 300 more calories every day than they did 30 years ago, according to the Bloomberg administration's analysis




Yes, exactly that was quoted very early in this monster of a thread.


Jun 24, 2012 -- 9:49PM, Idbc wrote:


So in the interest of public safety a law should be decreed that people should not consume more excessive calories.  




No, the rule does not decree that.  The rule attempts to steer people into making better, healhier decisions instead of being manipulated by the gimmicks of the seller, by making them have to think, just a teeny tiny bit about buying yet another coke to get to the 42 ounce desire.


Jun 24, 2012 -- 9:49PM, Idbc wrote:


The good reason that resturants borrowed it was for both for convience, to sell the soda at a lesser pricel . 




A sugary drink is much more expensive in restuarants and movie theatres nowadays, and is more expensive than what a person can buy at a supermarket.


Jun 24, 2012 -- 9:49PM, Idbc wrote:


What I am hot under collar about is that there is no evidence that banning the sale of large drinks of soda, Hawaiian Punch or Sunny D   in movie theaters is the cause of obesity or diabeties.  I have no problem with the laws that now exist in NYC against cigarettes because there was clear and convincing evidence for having those laws passed. 




Please do that googling using the key words "sugary drink + obesity".  Please consider doing some googling about childhood obesity and adult-onset diabetes in children (now called type 2 diabetes, for obvious reasons). 


Jun 24, 2012 -- 9:49PM, Idbc wrote:


Those laws were not passed by decree but democractly over the objections of the makers and sellers of the immoral capitalist.  


The mayor of NYC cannot be recalled.  However when Father Bloomberg was running for mayor he supported a law that would ban a mayor for running for more than three terms. 


This law was passed when after he became mayor. However he found a....loophole. The loophole was that since the law was passed after he became mayor the law did not apply to him. 


In his third run for mayor he spent over one hundred million dollars to buy the election.  


Father Bloomberg is defintely not a Communist.   He is an authoritarian-autocractic capitalist. 


He cut spending on athletic programs in NYC school and after school sports by more than 25%.




So, you don't like Mayor Bloomberg.  I'd have voted for the Democrat, myself.  It is rather independent of the topic. I wonder how many others so enraged by this plan feel that way because they don't like Bloomberg.


Jun 24, 2012 -- 9:49PM, Idbc wrote:


Apparently you believe that the buyers bear should have no responsiblity because the are so easily manuiplated by gimmicks.  They are uneducated proles who must be......encouraged by decree as to what to buy. 




No, I didn't say anything of the sort.  Social science research tells us, however, how vulnerable consumers are to unethical and/or manipulative sales tactics and advertisements are, especially the young.


You are right, if this law is decreed  it will not effect me personally because I do not buy large sized sodas in either resturants or in movie theaters. 


Jun 24, 2012 -- 9:49PM, Idbc wrote:


Can you help me to understand why I am not....influenced by the same manupilive sales gimmicks that affect so many others? 




Because you are not them.  Do you think all people are of equal standing and capable, esp in a hierarchical structure as exists in NYC?  I don't.


Jun 24, 2012 -- 9:49PM, Idbc wrote:


Is there a weight-diabeties epidemic where you live? 




There is an obesity and obesity-related disease including diabetes epidemic across the entire nation.  It is in the news.


Jun 24, 2012 -- 9:49PM, Idbc wrote:


Do you or your children(if you have any)overweight or diabetic due to large sugary drinks? 




Most of the kids I see in restaurants -- esp the fast food places, chug-a-luging their jug of pop are not with parents, they are with their same-aged friends.   I worry for them.


***end***end***end***end***end***good night and good luck***end***end***en

Black Lives Matter
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 25, 2012 - 9:11AM #345
Nepenthe
Posts: 2,723

Jun 22, 2012 -- 11:36PM, rabello wrote:

Smart people will, of course, only buy a supersized drink on an occasional basis...



Smart people won't buy soda at all.  I gave up soda a couple of years ago, and recently gave up coffee, in an effort ot save money and health (the headaches at first were not pleasant).  Drinking water at resaurants saves 3-5$ per meal. 


If the majority wants size restrictions on drinks, then so be it, we will accept the democratic voice of the people and move on with our lives. 


 


 

Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 25, 2012 - 10:24AM #346
Erey
Posts: 19,423

Jun 23, 2012 -- 12:32AM, rabello wrote:


Sorry, I don't share the blaming, punative, "let 'em rot" kinds of attitudes that social darwinists adhere to, so I can't agree with the blame-the-victim philosophy.  Everybody is the victim of unethical business/sales practices, just some more than others.


Besides, the government **isn't** making any decisions for anybody, or legally preventing anybody from having their third-of-a-gallon sugar drink to go with their chili chesse dog or their chicken fried steak.   That's a point that keeps getting lost, for some unknown reason.




 


This is a scary quote and one I think should strike fear and loathing in the hearts of decent people everywhere.  It is "social darwinism" to not limit and manage the food people purchase?  That it is some kind of dystopic free for all to let people either carry on or adjust thier soda consumption as they see fit?


 


There are several countries that have this kind of micromanaging and we call them dictatorships.  The North Korean Kims would have zero compuction to tell people what they can and can't consume and how much of it.  North Korea is not a happy place.  It is not fat at all, the only one fat is the Kim family but happy, no.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 25, 2012 - 2:28PM #347
rabello
Posts: 22,234

Jun 25, 2012 -- 9:11AM, Nepenthe wrote:


Smart people won't buy soda at all.  I gave up soda a couple of years ago, and recently gave up coffee, in an effort ot save money and health (the headaches at first were not pleasant).  Drinking water at resaurants saves 3-5$ per meal. 




What do you think should be the fate of those many people who don't make the same smart decisions you or I make and end up with debilitating, obesity-related illness and have no insurance?


Did you see today's headline that another study shows the dangers of sugar consumption, this time showing a link between it and learning disabilities?  


Jun 25, 2012 -- 9:11AM, Nepenthe wrote:


If the majority wants size restrictions on drinks, then so be it, we will accept the democratic voice of the people and move on with our lives. 





Somehow, I doubt it.  The rightwing and the monied lobbies that control Congress never advocate programs or measures that help the majority, even when the majority supports those programs and measures, whether it be EPA regulations, OSHA regulations, safe and legal abortion, universal health care, medicaid, welfare and food stamps for the poor, gun control, etc, and over the past 30 years have succeeded in moving public policy to the far right in just about every category. 

Black Lives Matter
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 25, 2012 - 2:41PM #348
rabello
Posts: 22,234

Jun 25, 2012 -- 10:24AM, Erey wrote:


This is a scary quote and one I think should strike fear and loathing in the hearts of decent people everywhere.  It is "social darwinism" to not limit and manage the food people purchase?  That it is some kind of dystopic free for all to let people either carry on or adjust thier soda consumption as they see fit?


There are several countries that have this kind of micromanaging and we call them dictatorships.  The North Korean Kims would have zero compuction to tell people what they can and can't consume and how much of it.  North Korea is not a happy place.  It is not fat at all, the only one fat is the Kim family but happy, no.




More insults and off-topic reactions?   Have you done any of that googling yet?  The key words are "sugary drinks + obesity" and "obesity + disease".   Otherwise, tell it to the AMA -- that's the American Medical Association, btw, and it is an organization of doctors although scientists who conduct research in human health belong, too.  They have a professional journal where they publish peer-reviewed scientific monographs, you can find articles from  JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) if you google using the above key words. You might want to take a moment to look up the definition of "social darwinism," too. It has a specific meaning unrelated to mild regulations on business.


What I will say, "decent" is as "decent" does.   And sadly, especially over the past 10 years, America has fallen short, seeing as we are a people who would bomb innocent women and children for selfish reasons, stick people we suspect in prison cells without evidence, trial or conviction, and leave them there indefinitely, and use torture on those suspects, sometimes to the death of the victim.  That of course is as off topic as your yakking about N Korea on a thread about soda pop and fruit punch, but isn't it interesting that , in general, those who adhere to Trickle Down Economics and laizze-fair capitalism where anything goes are the same ones who become enraged when some mayor proposes to put some reasonable restrictions on what capitalists can sell to the people who fall under his watch, and yet support bombing innocent people, indefinite detention of people based on their religion or ethnicity but without evidence, and torture, sometimes to the death of the vicitm


Perhaps you want to find some different words than "decent people" if you have a point to make.

Black Lives Matter
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 25, 2012 - 2:48PM #349
Mlyons619
Posts: 16,573

Bull.  Erey's response was very ON TOPIC.


People are getting fed up with Big-Mama Government. 


It's one thing to educate the public.  It's another thing entirely when Big Mama Government says, "Do this because I'm so much smarter than you lil' children in the public."


All in all THAT is an insult to the public.

"No freedom without education"
            --Thomas Jefferson

"NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition"
            -- Monty Python
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 25, 2012 - 3:28PM #350
farragut
Posts: 4,196

I just filled a 32-ounce drinking cup from one of the local fast-fooderies with ice, just as they do at the shop. Then filled it with water, to simulate a soda-pop. I was able to squeeze 14 ounces of fluid into it, between the cubes. That's two ounces less than the ale that I expect in my pint at the tavern. And only two ounces greater than what a kid would get in a can of Coke.


Does it really deserve all this hoorah?

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 35 of 52  •  Prev 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37 ... 52 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook