This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: Brainwashing Starts With This Two-Letter Word
Submitted by Simon Black from Sovereign Man
Brainwashing Starts With This Two-Letter Word
The big news out of New York City these days is Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s proposed ban on the sale of soda drinks over 16-ounces (about 1/2 liter) at restaurants, movie theaters, sports stadia, street carts, fast food chains, etc.
Bloomberg stressed that we have a responsibility to combat obesity, diabetes, and heart disease, and that the government must consequently regulate what people can/cannot put in their bodies. Michelle Obama even came down to applaud the idea.
Last night I was out with a group of friends at a chic Soho restaurant called the Dutch, and we started talking about the soda ban.
One of them defended it, saying that ‘we’ have a responsibility to do something about the obesity problem in this country.
“Excuse me,” I asked, “but who exactly is ‘we’…? I certainly didn’t come into this world born with a burden prevent obesity. And I’m pretty sure nobody else signed up for it either.”
‘We’ is one of the most dangerous words in the English language, particularly when bandied about in Western representative democracy.
It’s a term often used when a politician wants to thrust a burden or obligation onto everyone else’s shoulders, but without being too direct about it.
‘We’ masks responsibility by pushing the burden to some nebulous collective like ‘society’ or ‘the country’ rather than directly to individuals. This makes things much more palatable.
For example, it’s easier to say “We have a responsibility” rather than ”You three guys– Don, John, and Bill, have a responsibility.”
‘We’ is disarming. It makes the stakes seems smaller, so it’s easier to achieve buy-in. And this is what makes it so dangerous… because in actuality, ‘we’ is code for ‘you’.
I live my life by the principle that human beings come into this world born free, born without obligation to serve another human being, a government, some political construct bounded by invisible lines… and certainly not to ‘do something’ about the obesity problem.
Simultaneously, government is based on the principle of awarding a small handful of individuals a set of powers that no human being should wield– the power to kill. The power to steal. The power to wage war. The power to control what we put in our own bodies.
Throughout our lives, governments use these powers to create artificial obligations and reduce the natural freedom that we were born with. It’s so commonplace that most people have simply become accustomed to it… hence only 30% opposition to the soda ban.
Such policies, however, fall on a very slippery slope. When government begins regulating X, the regulation of Y and Z will follow by extension.
This is how frogs are brought to a boil– slowly, deliberately, gradually, and grounded in good intentions. The real question is whether you want to be trapped in the same pot as everyone else.
Needless to say, the rest of the conversation didn’t go especially well; we debated endlessly over several bottles of wine, after which I reached an obvious conclusion:
People will either see the light for themselves, or they’ll become victims. Trying to change their minds is fruitless.
»
- 20127 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
please tell me the cop's physique is photoshopped! (I know Bloomberg's dress isn't BTW)
That cop's physique is pretty much par for the course as far as I have seen.
don't be messin wit muh fries - aww yea foo.
The proportions are unchanged. I sized it to fit the poster.
What do you think kids think when they see cops that look like that?
If you lookaround NYC, there are plenty of obese cops, perhaps not all as bad as this example, but obese nevertheless.
So what would brother Greorge Carlin say?: I almost got a ticket for buying a jumbo coke, but the cop couldn't fit through the theater door.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GgWrV8TcUc&feature=results_main&playnext...
Banzai i always love your stuff but you are dead wrong on this. A great many of the WE have lost control of their lives and as a result of free choice consumption of soft drinks, excessively fat foods, porn and computer games is creating a generation of people who cannot fend for their own lives let alone their nation.
I am amazed that 99% of the contributors are against fiat money but come out so strngly in support of businesses imposing FIAT FOOD.
Nobody is imposing food upon free people. I drink coconut water, tea, and purified water by choice. If they started putting people in jail for using competing soft drink, then government decree would indeed be imposing said Fiat food. I understand your point and disagree with you at the same time.
There is a legal precedent. The government regulates drugs. It can be argued, and there's plenty of evidence to support it, that sugar and HFCS even moreso are mind altering drugs.
Personally I think the DEA should be abolished. I also believe, however, that if one is lied to to get that person to buy something and/or consume it, that's fraud and the perps should be subject to civil and criminal penalties. The agribusiness industry tells plenty of lies (or are those fibs?). Politicians occasionally fib too.
HFCS contains mercury,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/26/AR200901...
as to the "agribusiness" and it's fibby lies, most likely covered by competitive business hidden secrets acts, or sumthin.
A. Bloombergs a Nazi
B. NYPD are fat slobs, not all, but a surprising number. What is done about that? You won't see cops that look like that anywhere else, except perhaps England.
C. I don't believe in paternalistic government.
D.. I'm much more impressed that Disney announced that it will no longer advertise junk food on children's programming. That will make a huge difference.
E. Bloombergs thesis that this will save money is disingenuous coming from the asshole who will now have to settle millions and millions in false arrest claims stemming from his war on OWS.
this is interesting,
I'm guessing Disneyland is looking at falling revenues because the amkns aren't fitting into their ride seating restrictions - no body likes a retrofit, or fewer consumers, hmmmm.
Yes, people need to be forced into their happiness!!!
Who actually imposes FIAT FOOD on anyone - in contrast to fiat money?
its bush's fault..lol
Yep -- Medicare Part D.
And then there's the 9/11 affair and the subsequent brain-washing of the American people.
Bush's understudy, the current chief puppet is nearly as bad.
If we really want to help reduce obesity in America we should cut farm subsidies. Stop providing dirt cheap sugar to food manufacturers.
We only have one obligation, to let other people be free. Sure stop farm subsedies, but not to stop obesity.
Precisely, the only thing policy (and laws) should "do" is insure that bad behavior results in REAL FUCKING CONSEQUENCES.
For example, when a corporation becomes unprofitable and goes belly up, the management and shareholders should pay back the creditors, not the taxpayer.
If shareholders were held liable for a corporations debts, negative stock prices would become a reality.
Our government is already working to stop subsidies for farming. That is why we now have subsidies for farmers to not farm. Farmland Preservation Credit.
Our government is already working to stop subsidies for farming. That is why we now have subsidies for farmers to not farm. Farmland Preservation Credit.
Rock, meet hard place. Cut the subsidies for food and fuel and the SNAP program becomes unsustainable overnight.
By I digress, Nature makes no promises regarding anyone's survival, fuck it, cut everything in government, crash the system and let's find out precisely what the real value of everyone's labor really is. Fucking bring it.
You hit the soda cap right on the head there Lawsofphysics. I find one of the hardest things to articulate to those around me is the correlation between our paper money system and their labor. Trying to explain how the pricing mechanism is what is keeping me, as well as them, on a constant path of debt and taxes is like trying to force a kid to eat their veggies (no ideas there Heimberg). Because of the Fed's paper money, the market is not clearing the true price of our labor, while at the same time the paper market propping up the price of labor of the leeches of society (govt workers, banksters, wall street, lobbyists, etc).
Oh well, Fuck it. I live in Ohio. In the meantime, I need to go meet up with my Nicaraquan supplier of three liter Fanta. http://www.citymarket.com.ni/catalog/product_info.php/sodas-fanta-red-liter-p-3191?osCsid=1b2c05d40ff242ff731289372447b4e2 The black market is now full of bloated, corn fed, sheeple cattle who need their corn syrup. Don't blame the pusher, blame the fucking user.
This is worth watching, 4 min 26 seconds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD_ybaXhXno&feature=youtube_gdata_player
The author is exactly right. The use of "we" is simply wrong because it assumes we all agree and that therefore we are not forcing our will on someone else. It is power used to make other people do your will, plain and simple, and it is an exucuse to be a tyrant because everyone agrees that being tyranical is good.
Pretty soon you won't be allowed to pack your kid's lunch for school...wait.
Pretty soon you won't be allowed to pack your kid's lunch for school...wait.
Oh you can still pack it, but when the Schools Food Nazi's check it, they take it away from the kids, and feed them from the crapeteria.
No shit, already happening.
That was exactly my point.
german 2y rate + 600%
undconditional surrender??
http://www.cds-info.com/
Eh, to 0.07%.
Funny how all the "Me-My-I" people like to use "we" to justify stuff that just has to be done.
I find the four-letter word, "they" even more disturbing than "we" because inevitably when someone is trying to screw me they is me.
The combination of 'we' and 'they' is especially powerful as it provides division where none necessarily existed. I'm sorta surprised Barry Soetero didn't name his dogs 'we' and 'they'...
Simon.... man... we get the hook: GUBMINT = BAD.
Only to be followed by the brilliant:
It's all very clear dude. You have money. Any kind of obligation fills you with anxiety. 'Natural' freedom is about being selfish and plain douchey.
Gene, does it delight you or sadden you to know that, with the absence of Harry, Robo and Leo K., you are now the biggest jackass on the site?
My mistake, forgive my inaccurate description of Simon and his douchebaggery.
The power of money is an entirely different matter because it is "private" and, hence, can never be abused.
We must celebrate the power of "sovereign individuals" employing their money however they see fit.
Might makes right--as if what I do is any of your goddamn business to judge if it's right. Fuck U.
Gettin' high on that Liberty!
Thank God I'm an A'murikan!
Could that be what doesn't sit well with ya, Gene?
Bob trust me when I say I'm cool with most of it. Just move to Chile and STFU about 'government' being the source of all evil. Thirty plus years of propaganda has unleashed an army of idiots who seem to be after their own destruction, nothing more.
'Guests' posts here are only getting worse.
Which evil is not sourced in the government? That is, which systemic evil which hurts or threatens everyone is sourced from private sources absent government interference?
Again if you're going to start this dogma nonsense then Somalia should be a bedrock of flowering 'free' enterprise.
Also, this should be a predatory failure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_North_Dakota
Yep, all of Somalia's problems come from not enough government. If only they had more government, their problems would be gone.
Severe lack of water, and having international fishing fleets completely deplete their fishing stocks, can all be solved with more government.
With or without government, severe poverty due to a lack of resources cannot be solved with ideaology alone.
Maybe I've just drunk the statist koolaid, but my impression is that without an active government "our" fishing stocks would also be depleted by international fishing fleets. But then I don't put too much stock in the enlightened self-interest of "sovereign individuals" to avoid such things. Environmental destruction in general gives proof to the lie.
Without the evil "we" there is no collective . . . or at least nobody to protect collective interests.
Which would, of course, be mighty convenient for some. And not only Somalian "warlords."
The fishing stocks are being depleted by international fishing fleets. Unfortunately, the fish don't understand and comply with the invisible international/national boundaries we draw on our maps.
EDIT: it does seem that a lot of the problems with illegal fishing and illegal dumping of toxic waste in Somali waters has occured since the civil war started in 1991, with the loss of a national naval force to enforce their rights.
From what I can see, the pirates are essentially what they have as a form of defense of their waters; however, the international community is waging war against them. The problem could be seen as their lack of government, but it is also the failure of international governments as well.
Predatory activity by international corporations against people that have insufficient ability to protect themselves, and when they fight back, they just get killed by Americans, Russians, and who ever else has warships in the area.
From my own experience most people do not or perhaps cannot deal with abstract concepts like freedom. They think that a bigger soda than than drink is crazy and ridiculous. The same way that they believe everyone who drives faster than them is reckless and those who drive slower are impeding traffic.
'We' is the collective. Individual rights must be subsumed in favour of the 'common good'. Communitarianism. http://nikiraapana.blogspot.co.uk/
It's just a more hip form of communism, same kind of top-down social control like North Korea has. And look how that turned out!
"We" are fucked.
Yes, but one day...very soon I hope "they" will be fucked!
"We" is politically correct, allows for scapegoats and gets votes.
"I" is ownership, responsibility, ethics, morals.
This is the United States of.."we".
Personally "I" believe obesity and health starts and ends with parenting.
"I" teach and show my kids good choices, habits and self control with moderation.
I know...I know...crazy talk.
<<Personally "I" believe obesity and health starts and ends with parenting.
"I" teach and show my kids good choices,>>
What do your kids eat for breakfast? Cereal? Toast? Sugar? If so, you have been drinking the kool-aid too. A well indoctrinated parent if sufficiently strict will provide society with well indoctrinated (and fat, pre-diabetic) offspring.
As long as there is TV, public schools and other central indoctrination programs, you do not teach your kids good choices. They learn what a society that is controlled by large agribusiness and food processing giants intellectually and physically feed them.
fuck Michael Bloomberg. and fuck NYC for electing a fascist billionaire closet homo.
So ya thought it would end at the smoking ban huh? Now a soda ban...what next? a farting ban? no holding hands in public? no striped ties on Tuesdays? no hats?
I repeat: Fuck Michael Bloomberg and Fuck NYC for electing that cocksucker!
Bro fist with the same message from August 28th, 2011: http://dont-tread-on.me/?p=6165
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
those people signed that document. there's a difference.
"-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
In other words, government gets it's power from men, governments should not have power over men.
Key words: "just powers" and "consent of the governed".
Lincoln retracted that "consent of the governed" thing. Now one must get consent, aka a license, from the governors for nearly everything one wants to do. Try driving on the public right of way without a license, for example. One even needs a license to get married or keep a dog.
While I agree in principal, those are bad examples. there is no national license to drive, not marriage licenses or even dog licenses. Those are state and local issues where the constitution does not apply.
If you don't like those examples, how about a license to own a machine gun? Or just a license to purchase a firearm? Or fly an airplane? Or simply to cross the international border?
Drivers licenses are now subject to a federal standardization law. The feds centrally collect and distribute data with your SS# tied to it. They also keep you from having drivers licenses in more than one state.
there are "state issued" cards that permit the users to grow or use marijuana that is re-classified (government naming system) as "medicinal" - same substance that is also a "schedule I controlled substance" (and began with merely being taxed to being fully outlawed, federally).
so the "state" has its laws, and then the Federal gov. comes in to supersede these - this is a "national" trump card being played - how does one avoid this obvious contradiction?
The "We" back then was quantifiable and had signatures to it. Not a good analogy.
I'm British not American.
But if you are American, how many times did YOU parrot those words at school ?
Sorry about the loss back in '76, mate.
Hey, no bad. :-)
You were far better off without us.
That's not the point I'm trying to make though.
For the record, my citizenship is not of the US.
Sorry about the loss back in '76, mate.
_________________________
And thanks for the gain, US citizenism is the best thing to ever happen to humanity.
AnAnonymous said:
Of course, of course. Explain to us again the story of US citizenism and Easter Island. That is one of your best stories, Frenchie.
Ah, a new meme to come up with. Grown tired of the old one?
Why not explain how saving being consumption makes it that immediate and postponed are the same?
Would be more entertaining.
AnAnonymous avoided the question when saying:
Ah, but I already did that, exposing the the insanitation of such a claim, which is of course your claim. Embracing the eternality of your French Indo-Chinese Antarctic citizenism nature, you scurried off, rodent-like, running away in ignoration when shown to be wrong.
Nothing is more entertaining than your trained monkey-like gyrations, especially when you're shown to be wrong.
Now, about your Easter Island stories...
'Go get me a sandwich nigger or I'll kill ya'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QemYNQfix-c
all men are created equal [But the women, the blacks and our own slaves.]
Utter Bullshit-o-meter maxed out.
We agree with this article.
Ehhh, WE. Who watches that lame network anyway?
"We" means "I dream it up, then you pay for it".
Kook.
They have been doing it with Cigarettes for a very long time. By making them a Tax revenue generator for bad behavior. They know Cigarettes are addictive and people will pay the Tax. Bloomberg also wants to outlaw smoking outside now. Really, how is smoking out in the open air going to damage other peoples lungs. No Body objected to that.
So, now the they are at War with Fat People, which by todays statistics is most of us. Maybe they should do what they did with Cigarettes and put a $2. Tax on any Soda or sugary drink. That would stop people from drinking so much.
Outdoor smoking bans and soda bans can't be justified. The indoor smoking ban effected third party non-smokers in a way that was unpleasant and/or unhealtful, so at least there was some logic to that ban.
Instead of "we", use "each of us".
In Bloombergistan:
pop = bad
pot = good
oh, and guns = only for his personal enforcers
Does this mean if I were 7 years old today, mom wouldn't let us drink soda with our chocolate hash birthday cake?
I never let my Children have Coke. For them it was a very special treat if they got it at the Grand Parent's house.
We were on such a tight budget that Cola did not fit in. Only food essentials.
I can't wait until they ban McDonalds, Starbucks, Dunkin Donuts, Entenmans, Nabisco...shit just ban fucking cake and cookies altogether as well as liquor, chewing gum, lollipops, taffy, breath mints or ban chocolate entirely.
Chocolate is the cause of the downfall of civilization! Blame Belgium!
They should also ban sitting, television, microwave dinners and/or microwave ovens. They could also ban straws, forks and knives (both dangerous and the cause of many stabbings yearly) too as they are the source of putting food in ones mouth
You're right! All the world's problems ARE a result of Belgium! Why didn't WE see this before! Let's get out the pitchforks and get those waffles!
Sorry pitchforks have been outlawed too. You might try to eat with them and "we" can't have that.
There are only 2 things I can't stand in this world...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ882QYzr-M
Belgium != Dutch.
Hell yeah, lets invade Belgium. Unlike Iraq, Iran and Asscrackistan, they (the Belgians) have hot chicks who wear bikinis and like to have wet t-shirt contests. Alas, sigh, that also can lead to moral hazard (sex, drinking, immoral thoughts...)
Fuck it!
Super, the cops would take up a little less space and be able to do something about crime!
When bloomberg said "we" he was referring to the turd in his pocket....
Just think about what will happen with National Health care.
No Donuts for you.
No Cookies for you.
No Pizza for you.
No Candy for you.
No Ice Cream for you.
No No No to anything that can make you FAT.
I support the measure of banning over half a liter cokes. Industries such as these tend to make their product sizes bigger and bigger, in the end creating new "necessities" and wants. There's no limit to what they can do. And their products are harmful, worse than them ciggies. And they tend to be marketed for children, making it all worse. So yeah, putting limits to corporate power means stuff like this.
You're a fucking idiot and anyone who is influenced so much by advertising is also.
So people can't buy twice the bottles and drink as much? Really?
Isn't all the advertising geared towards sexy, skinny and pretty people? Why isn't everyone skinny and pretty then?
Bloomberg would put DHS color-coded threat levels on every bottle. 32 oz = RED / SEVERE.
Everybody is influenced by some sort of advertisement. Some people more than others. Does that mean it's legitimate to leave corporate power unrestrained? I doubt it.
People can buy as many bottles as they want. But it'd be cooler if corporations wouldn't be able to sell you huge bottles or supersized bullshit, which end up generating new necessities and wants.
Advertisement with sexy slim people is geared towards fatties who want to be as they see on the screen. Advertisements are a bitch and also shouldn't have unrestrained power to do whatever they want.
.
advertisements have effects on whole cultures that they are used on - they train minds towards a "cultural ideal" - which varies from culture to culture, should you want to look outside of "white western" mind-training - the "ideal" is implanted in the mind as a "norm" and then enforced by those who believe themselves to be the ideal.
everyone who isn't close to the ideal suffers the hatred, punishing remarks, etc. of those who believe themselves better than, simply because they align themselves with the advertised "norm" - and need to believe they're special in some way.
cultural policemen are merely tools, in the hands of the elite. the particular words you use in your sentence proves this.
Yeah, I agree. Point taken.
cheers for being honest.
when looking at other cultures (outside of white-western bias), the norm still revolves around what is considered "attractive" - which is understandable as culture promotes the constant regeneration of. . . cultures.
the advertising norms set by advertising companies who advertise consumer goods. . . promote what "they" want "you" to buy in order to be seen as "normal" - this meme has varied over time, and only in the last few decades has "normal" morphed towards "sexualised" - tho' of course, the "manly" and "womanly" standards have always been the ideals to strive for, as again, reproduction is needed by cultures (and taxing gov.ts)
the porn culture we are immersed in, on a historical timeline, is relatively "new" - and exceedingly useful for those who pull the strings.
"is you a hottie? no? fk off!"
yup, divide 'n' rule. . .
Hitler's mass political rallies are a frightening example.
http://www.slideshare.net/MustafaAhmed4/nazi-use-of-propagandarallies-an...
I shot you in the foot so that you would better understand that your aim is quite a bit off. If you are going to regulate corporations - then do so, regulating what the people consume is way off the mark. I don't personally like ANYONE telling me what to do, it is anathema to my uderstanding of what freedom is all about.
Killing stupidity one shot at a time!
You don't like anyone telling you what to do, sounds like Eric Cartman to me. Freedom is not licence. Freedom comes with obligations, they're not divorceable.
Regulating corporations would mean in this case telling corpo that they can't sell supersize bullshit. It's not a prohibition on people who can still buy as much poison as they want.
friend if regulating corporations is a good thing, and if you say it is it is I'm sure. But if regulating corporations is a good thing, why wouldn't you be using every last dime you ever got to relocate your smart and savvy self to North Korea? In North Korea every corporation, every enterprise and every person is entirely regulated by the government. What a Paradise!!
Why are you still here?
So, your spectrum on this issue has 2 points. 1) "No regulation" 2) "North Korea"? Smaaart...
Just wait until you receive the manual on government approved sexual positions. I believe they are very fond of the "bend over and take it" method. You seem to love it so it should go over like gangbusters at your house.
You are now free to do as you are told.
At least it would be a publicly approved material for bending over and taking it. Until now I've been receiving it from privates, e.g. corporations, in the form of supersized bullshit and the externalities they create which I have to bend and take it for... I've been free to do as corpo tells me.
Dear Mr. Marx,
I commend you sir on your skill for torturing logic, abusing the English language, and making yourself a martyr of the free market. How you must suffer!
Corporation offer drinks and beverages for your pleasure, in various sizes, for you to entirely and with 100% freedom of choice to purchase or not. Oh how they victimize you!! Damn you Adam Smith!!
Turning children into obese disease ridden invalids, destroying aquifers, the environment, driving out native populations; and all to push some papers for a profit in the end. Profits that then end up recirculated amongst more unproductive paper pushers who then tell you the trickle down joke. Pushing for social injustice and a complete divide between very few who have it all against the more who have none. If that's freedom, who needs it... Oh yeah, that's the freedom of serfs that make the pact of servitude with the feudal lord.
I've come to realize the reason why so many people are against this ban is because they are morbidly obese. Any rationale person in decent shape, meaning they took care of themselves and had self control over what they put in their mouth would not see any problem with this. There are tons of regulations on stuff, just like you can't go into a pharmacy and say give me 3,000 Oxycodone pills with no prescription. This is nothing new and being able to kill yourself and become a burden on society as we need to pay for your medicare is not a freedom or a right, I for one and glad that Bloomberg is doing this. I was also glad with his bans on smoking in the park. Now I can walk or sit in the park without my fresh air being filled with cancerous cigarette smoke.
Excellent argument worm!
They have already raped you, they might as well shoot you too right?
And to think you are my countryman BAAARF
Regarding this, the only suggestion I made is reflected in the links below:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/How-to-Build-an-Incendiary-Bomb-Based-Mor...
http://www.instructables.com/group/homemadeguns/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_premodern_combat_weapons
http://council.nyc.gov/html/members/members.shtml
If bloomberg could tax a litre of soda so it cost the same as a pack of cigarettes he wouldn't be against banning it.
Step 1 - you decide nobody should die from lack of health care, which is noble.
Step 2 - You turn those noble intentions into legislation, convertiong those noble intentions into tyranny by using the force of law to make other people pay for your cause. You use the word "we" a lot to portray agreement that we should use other people's money for our cause.
Stop 3 - Now, because you have made one group of people financially responsible for the behavior of others, it becomes a moral imperative to control other people's behavior to limit your liability.
When it was charity each person used their own conscience to guide how much to help those who could not afford health care. Now since the force of law is being used to force people to pay for other people's health care you must use the force of law to limit the ability of people to engage in unhealthy acts. You compound one wrong with another.
I read somewhere, not really sure where I saw it, but it said, "On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero."
Health care cannot and does not save lives. It can extend the timeline, some might even say it is akin to kicking the can down the road.
Why should I pay for the kicking of someone else's can? Am I still talking about health care or world finance?
"We the people"
Nobody actually thinks anymore.
I wonder how long it will take till there is black market for 20+oz sodas...
Instead of making a blackmarket for larger sodas, just make the sodas stronger. More caffiene and sweetener. Every historic example I can think of where something was banned, it simply resulted in a more concentrated version of the product.
They WILL be our problem- when our Obamacare annual premium is $20K, to pay for their health issues!
A great reason to repeal Obama-care.
I just hope none of the bottles of wine they had were more than 16oz.
Well, one thing you don't have to worry about in the City is wine that's old. They only serve the fresh stuff.
OUTLAW CORN SYRUP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What really frustrates me as a New Yorker is that he is a third-term mayor who shouldn't even be in the office to begin with.
We had term limits and he got the city council to gut those rules.
And we went right along with it, astoriajoe.
I found that the only thing that solved my problem of being a frustrated New Yorker...was to become an ex New Yorker.
Here's a novel idea how to save money on health insurance without banning soda - stop promising to pay for everyone with sniffles or a stubbed toe to enter the emergency room.
Doug Stanhope sums it up pretty well in this short clip from his standup act in NYC.
The relevant part starts around 2 minutes in...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0Fu8RVjC5A
Big deal about the soda juice! It's clearly defined products and not a grey area. Looks like most of the over-weight can't regulate themselves anyway.
But still, just buy two smaller bottles if your desperate for a sugary liquid nectar fix. Since it's half the amount you can have twice as much!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcKzcganDwk
Bloomberg is living proof that even an idiot can become a billionaire. Having endured this clown as Mayor for the past eleven years, I've seen one consistent thing: When Bloomberg opens his mouth, something stupid usually comes out.
Bloomberg gets his "facts" from the NYC Dept of Making Shit Up. His Reichsfuhrer of Health is Thomas Farley who's 6'3" and 160lbs and thinks anyone who weighs more than him is obese.
I swear I'm going to pop a bottle of Champagne when Bloomberg finally kicks off.
I'd have thought he'd handle the problem as he's handled everything else. Just like cigarettes. Raise the tax and don't let anyone smoke them either!
Ban no. Tax? Perhaps.
But Bloomy can shove a +16 oz can of anything where the sun don't shine IMO.
How do we ban old age? That is the cause of most health issues and deaths from the statistics I've read.
Implement Logan's Run?
Please Mayor Bomberg, exempt the Wall Street area from those food rules!
Just wait until he tries to limit the size of a slice.
Why don't they just ban the use of snap cards on junk food if they want actual results? Oh right, fat and needy is how they want them to stay.
So, why the hell the ban?
There's a lot of energy stored in obese bodies. If TPTB ever figure out how to tap it, then this whole cheap food scheme/unlimited television and video game lifestyle will make a whole lot more sense. (Or maybe they already have a plan...)
MY CHOICE mother fucker..
If you don't like soday, don't fucking drink it.
If you like soda, knock yourself out.
If you tell me I can't "do something" that is clearly within my constitutional rights, I'm gonna kick your fucking teeth in and make a necklace with your ivories.
Incidentally, I stopped drinking soda and I dropped 20 lbs in a few weeks. But, IT WAS MY DAMNED CHOICE!.
Let's recap..
I can do what ever the fuck I want within my god given rights.
You (the guy who is a control freak) can shut the fuck up if you don't like that. Personally, I could use a new necklace to use like Vlad the Impaler used pikes...
So, if your choice causes you to become diabetic and you recieve healthcare that in any way involves public funds, and I happen to pay taxes into the same pool as you, do you support my right in turn to sue you for the costs you have incurred me?
do you support the corporate military machine?
if so, say so. if not, are you going to sue the individual soldiers for the costs they've incurred you?
To some extent, every country needs some form of national defense.
In that example in America, I suppose the President as Comamnder In Chief is the one incurring the costs, not the individual soldiers.
you went to the abstract there, when your previous argument was that "obesity" costs are borne by you, the taxpayer.
as are all monies spent on your behalf for the corporate military amrka makes use of - since gov'ts. are not in the business of making money (except maybe Bernanke, but really, he authorises computer pixels), they collect taxes and spend, would you not agree that the whole "my taxes pay for "______" argument has to be applied to plundering the globe with armed force(s)?
Military Adventurism is something that people can clearly see as right or wrong, and something that can be eliminated practically.
Monitoring everyone's food choices is impractical. Outlawing soda is impractical.
Either: limited public healthcare with an unhealthy goods tax, or no public funds for healthcare, seem to me to be the best solutions.
Total logical fallacy
do you support my right in turn to sue you for the costs you have incurred me?
He didn't cost you a single nickel Socialist. Whoever stole your money for their own grandiose schemes (and even more grandiose paycheck/pension) stole your money and incurred your cost. Please do whatever you want to them, I will not stand in your way or hinder you in any manner. Go get em'
1. If you have a system where there is healthcare paid for by public taxation;
2. and if he makes a choice which causes him to become sick;
3. then he is choosing to cause me to be taxed more in order to pay for his sickness.
Which part of this is incorrect?
Personally, I would prefer a system of:
A) taxation on unhealthy foods, with all of the taxes going directly to the public healthcare system
B) A declining public healthcare system that covers 100 percent of health care from prenatel to 18 years old, 75 percent from 18 to 35, 50 percent from 35 to 50, 25 percent from 50 to 65, and 0 percent from 65+. People would be free to either pay a deductible or get seperate complementary private insurance to supplement their health costs once they are over 18.
The crack down should be on the Food Industry not the American People.
Coke used to be made with actual sugar. Now it is make with high fructose Corn syrup. Other Countries still make Coke and other Colas with actual sugar.
Just start looking at the labels on so many foods that include high fructose corn syrup. I was very surprised to find that even Bologna has high fructose corn syrup in it and probably hot dogs. I really do not understand why they need high fructose corn syrup in a meat product. Except it causes your brain to eat more.
So many foods today are filled with brain altering ingredients to cause you to eat more that you originally wanted to. They use those ingredients to sell more of their product.
Stop looking at the American people and look at the Food Manufacturers.
Coke (and Pepsi and pretty much everyone else) uses corn syrup because the US Government props up the domestic price of sugar to about four times the world price. Companies like ADM love it because they can sell corn syrup as a cheaper substitute. That's why.
Stop looking at the food manufacturers and look at the US Government.
1) remove corn subsidies
2) end the embargo against Cuba. They aren't going to invade Colorado, I promise.
corporate fudTM manufacturers are the corporate government - it's a continuum, neither exist in a vacuum. revolving door CEO ownership model in action.
As I understand it, salt is used as a preservative in many foods. Since people don't want everything to taste like salt, the HFCS is used to mask the salty flavor. It is in literally everything; loaves of bread, meat, i suspect most condiments. it is pretty out of control.
Upon any closer investigation, these royal "we" personalities are the most disfunctional people on the planet. They can't solve their own issues within one or two degrees of influence (their own families), so they cast about for other people's problems. It seems to assuage their fragile egos and let them sleep better.
Can't the Mayor attend to more important things to do for the City, such as having all those used condoms on the streets disposed of?
Maybe this is all a ruse concocted by the soda companies? Now all the fatties are chugging down their super big gulps bellowing MY BODY MY CHOICE while feeling empowered