• Here is a link to the full explanation: https://rollitup.org/t/welcome-back-did-you-try-turning-it-off-and-on-again.1104810/

New York Bans Large Sodas

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
For sure. The bill of rights.
Well there are only a few rights listed there, but we should look at the 9th to see what I mean. We only call the first 10 amendments the bill of rights, that isn't its official name.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Most Rights retained by the people aren't listed in the Connie at all, the 9th amendment says so.

Barack Obama called the bill of rights a list of NEgative rights http://www.schillingshow.com/2010/12/27/guest-editorial-president-obamas-negative-rights/
 

Grandpapy

Well-Known Member
Corporations exist thru the magic of government don't they?

No person or fictitious creation (corporation or government) should tell others what they can or cannot do with their own bodies as long as they aren't doing it to OTHERS bodies that do not consent. Best to leave others alone, no?
I agree.
If a consumer wants to buy gun and shoot himself in the head and die fine.
Who pays for the burial? The gun manufacturer? or your Govt.? Someone needs to step up and take responsibility.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
If it keeps some clowns from drinking this crap, all the better. The regulation will make vendors more money.
then shall we also ban 40 oz malt liquors, menthol cigarettes and fried chicken?

then we can ban mayonnaise, flour tortillas, meat, anything fried, and anything using shortening or lard

once thats done we could further enhance public health by mandating a raw food, macrobiotic, organic, local, small batch artisinal diet based on well established Atkins principles.

then we will each receive our daily ration of unleavened bread, water and soya paste from approved government outlets.

its all for our health, because being fat, drinking booze, smoking and eating sugars is costly in public health dollars. this would greatly reduce "absenteeism" and reduce "tardiness" this would improve our economy immeasurably so fuck yes, lets embrace a society based on the purity of an ant colony.

wake, consume, work, consume, reproduce within tightly controlled mandates, sleep. the perfect society of drones to ensure that rich plutocrats like bloomberg can live in luxury without having to worry about some radical throwing a bomb through his window.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
I agree.
If a consumer wants to buy gun and shoot himself in the head and die fine.
Who pays for the burial? The gun manufacturer? or your Govt.? Someone needs to step up and take responsibility.
if a "consumer" decides to kill himself why does it fucking bother you?

why does anyone else's actions matter so damned much to you at all?

what if this same "consumer" jumps off a bridge? who's fault is that? the bridge builder? the government? passing motorists who didnt stop him?

and what if a "consumer" trips over his own shoelaces, falls and dashes his brains all over a rock? should we force the rock to bury it's "victim"?

there are millions of ways to "consume" death, why blame the commodity for the "consumer" demand for this high value, low priced product?
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
So how about no one is allowed to drive anymore? After all driving causes accidents that kill tens of thousands a year. How many people die in a year due solely to soda? While we are at it no one is allowed to leave their homes anymore, ever. This will cut down on crime since no one will be able to go anywhere, if you aren't for these measures that I propose than you must be for crime and car accidents and are an evil bad bad person who needs government to come down on you like a 2 ton heavy thing.

Driving is a necessity, death is a result of something that we must do. No one has to drink soda, it is not an essential source of food.


I don't know why people are sooo upset about this. Firstly, it is a local law, I thought folks believed that local laws were far more prefereable than national ones, federal ones. Secondly, no on is banning soda, they are simpy banning tubs of it and thirdly the onus is on the sale and not the posession, nothing is being made illegal except for the SELLING of a cardboard or plastic tub with a handle.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
Corporations exist thru the magic of government don't they?

No person or fictitious creation (corporation or government) should tell others what they can or cannot do with their own bodies as long as they aren't doing it to OTHERS bodies that do not consent. Best to leave others alone, no?

A person is found to be severely bipolar - that person goes into fuge states and wants to kill himself, are you telling us that he should be allowed to do so?
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
I agree.
If a consumer wants to buy gun and shoot himself in the head and die fine.
Who pays for the burial? The gun manufacturer? or your Govt.? Someone needs to step up and take responsibility.
Normally the person's family takes care of that burden, cuz normally they step up and take responsibility.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
Of course being able to purchase something is a COMPONENT of freedom.

The constitution doesn't list all freedoms or rights, I think it alleges to show the limits of government....Of course it didn't work, but the thought was nice.
You have no right to be a consumer - you have been indoctrinated by corporations into thinking that you do. There is no right to purchase anything and rights are far more important than such sillyness.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
A person is found to be severely bipolar - that person goes into fuge states and wants to kill himself, are you telling us that he should be allowed to do so?
rights cannot be rights if they infringe on someone else’s liberty.
 

Grandpapy

Well-Known Member
if a "consumer" decides to kill himself why does it fucking bother you?

why does anyone else's actions matter so damned much to you at all?

what if this same "consumer" jumps off a bridge? who's fault is that? the bridge builder? the government? passing motorists who didnt stop him?

and what if a "consumer" trips over his own shoelaces, falls and dashes his brains all over a rock? should we force the rock to bury it's "victim"?

there are millions of ways to "consume" death, why blame the commodity for the "consumer" demand for this high value, low priced product?
Providing that the body does not harm the water supply fine. but if enough people are doing it and are hanging up on rocks low lying tree limbs, rotting and getting caught in fresh water intakes. We might want to put up a fence to keep the dumb ones out of the water.

Perhaps the laces failed the claim of being able to be tied??? Maybe a better lace? Perhaps too much of another product caused excessive bleeding when he hit the rock, Should Anyone really care?? and if so whom?
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
There was no ban on consumption, no ban on posession and it was a local law - not the infamous "they".
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Driving is a necessity, death is a result of something that we must do. No one has to drink soda, it is not an essential source of food.


I don't know why people are sooo upset about this. Firstly, it is a local law, I thought folks believed that local laws were far more prefereable than national ones, federal ones. Secondly, no on is banning soda, they are simpy banning tubs of it and thirdly the onus is on the sale and not the posession, nothing is being made illegal except for the SELLING of a cardboard or plastic tub with a handle.
driving is NOT essential. people survived long before the automobile, cars are a convenience nothing more, and the reduced time TRUDGING is contributing to america's "obesity epidemic"

Dont get to close to a chubby person! You might catch a nasty case of the fat!

 

canndo

Well-Known Member
So people don't take the bus? Subways don't work either? Walking won't get you anywhere? Bicycles magically stop working?

Makes no difference anyway, no one can leave home anymore, deal with it.


Slippery slope - from banning tubs of sugar from being sold in a location to DESTROYING THE CONSTITUION ITSELF.

And they say lefties are alarmist. I thought the right had nothing but good things to say for locals dealing with local matters.... localy.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
And so you would let this sick peson kill himself?
Someone already killed themselves while you were relaying your statements and you did nothing to stop it. You are a bad bad person and need government to throw you in prison so you can learn to actually want to help people.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Providing that the body does not harm the water supply fine. but if enough people are doing it and are hanging up on rocks low lying tree limbs, rotting and getting caught in fresh water intakes. We might want to put up a fence to keep the dumb ones out of the water.

Perhaps the laces failed the claim of being able to be tied??? Maybe a better lace? Perhaps too much of another product caused excessive bleeding when he hit the rock, Should Anyone really care?? and if so whom?
life is like a movie theatre, some people just fucking decide to leave early. why so buthurt if somebody decides to walk out in the middle of the show? it doesnt stop YOU from hanging around till the ending credits finish and you know who did the post production and who was best boy.

maybe the production values sucked, maybe there was gum on the seats, maybe the assholes in the front rows shouting at the screen ruined the picture? why does it bother YOU that somebody decides to take the emergency exit instead of waiting in the lobby for his turn at the door?
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
driving is NOT essential. people survived long before the automobile, cars are a convenience nothing more, and the reduced time TRUDGING is contributing to america's "obesity epidemic"

Dont get to close to a chubby person! You might catch a nasty case of the fat!

Driving is far more essential than the ability to purchase 64 ounces of Sprite at one time.
 
Top