NY's Proposed Ban on Large Sugary Drinks

[candrew]

Independent

He runs under the republican platform locally - for NYC he's a republican. It's weird NYC politics stuff - kinda how Guiliani ran on the republican and liberal ticket when he was mayor.

But yeah, for the rest of the country he's a moderate at best.

 

[BYE]

LOL - the last I checked Mayor Bloomberg was a republican.

It seems like it's more complicated than Democrat and Republican--imagine that.

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.

These guys are all pissed about the proposed law:

This guy ^^^^^^^ has the shame of being the former fattest man in the world. He gave up the title to this guy:

 

[green]

No, I'm saying that is what happens when you let the government ban one thing. They think they have the power to ban over things. The reason for marijuana being banned is because that it is "unhealthy and bad for you", so by that same regard they can probably justify banning large sodas.

So the key is to make everything legal.

This is why religions fight so hard against gay marriage. Marriage is a religious ritual. If you allow the government to dictate marriage, then you now allow the government to dictate baptism, temple ordinances, Muslim prayers, etc.

You have to keep church and state separate.

p.s. that being said, anyone that isn't for "civil unions" is a bigot.

 

[green]

While there are some differences, on the whole he's about as republican as your dreamboat Chris Christie.

I find this hilarious. Tea party people run around screaming how Romney is a liberal, but then lick the sweat off Christie's *** stains.

 

[Stoked]

This is why religions fight so hard against gay marriage. Marriage is a religious ritual. If you allow the government to dictate marriage, then you now allow the government to dictate baptism, temple ordinances, Muslim prayers, etc.

You have to keep church and state separate.

p.s. that being said, anyone that isn't for "civil unions" is a bigot.

The government is already dictating marriage. They perform marriages and divorces. They set the laws governing both. If your policy on civil unions is sincere then you should be against marriage performed by government. Marriage should be done by religious denominations only and civil unions by the state.

If marriage can only be done bya religious denomination than there is nothing stopping the LGBT community from establishing a church of their own and getting married.

 

[One Brow]

This is why religions fight so hard against gay marriage. Marriage is a religious ritual. If you allow the government to dictate marriage, then you now allow the government to dictate baptism, temple ordinances, Muslim prayers, etc.

No church has been forced by the government to conduct an interracial marriage, and none will be forced to conduct homosexual marriages. If that is why religions are fighting (and I don't believe it is), they are fighting a non-existent threat.

 

[Gameface]

This is why religions fight so hard against gay marriage. Marriage is a religious ritual. If you allow the government to dictate marriage, then you now allow the government to dictate baptism, temple ordinances, Muslim prayers, etc.

You have to keep church and state separate.

p.s. that being said, anyone that isn't for "civil unions" is a bigot.

But what religions are asking government to do is uphold their specific religious standards in regard to marriage. I haven't seen a movement to take control of marriage licensing and recognition out of the hands of government. Quite the opposite, really.

 

[Surely]

No church has been forced by the government to conduct an interracial marriage, and none will be forced to conduct homosexual marriages. If that is why religions are fighting (and I don't believe it is), they are fighting a non-existent threat.

There is a story out there about a photographer in New Mexico who was sued by a lesbian couple for saying she didn't want to "shoot" their wedding. It went to the NM supreme court where they ruled that she had to. With rulings like this I don't find it that hard to imagine gay people suing churches to perform their weddings and winning.

 

[green]

There is a story out there about a photographer in New Mexico who was sued by a lesbian couple for saying she didn't want to "shoot" their wedding. It went to the NM supreme court where they ruled that she had to. With rulings like this I don't find it that hard to imagine gay people suing churches to perform their weddings and winning.

IF gay marriages are made legal, it will only be a matter of time before the LDS church shuts down temples because they won't perform gay marriages. THAT's why they are fighting it so hard. Extremists (on both sides) don't want freedom for everyone, they want freedom to make you do what I want to do.

 

[One Brow]

There is a story out there about a photographer in New Mexico who was sued by a lesbian couple for saying she didn't want to "shoot" their wedding.

A photographer is not a church. If she had been running a diner, should she have been able to refuse to serve them food? Churches are constitutionally protected as long as they only serve their congregation. Organizations that serve the public are required to serve everyone (and can receive public monies to do so, where appropriate).

 

[One Brow]

IF gay marriages are made legal, it will only be a matter of time before the LDS church shuts down temples because they won't perform gay marriages.

If they do, they are being stupid. LDS temples are not places for public weddings.

 

[Stoked]

IF gay marriages are made legal, it will only be a matter of time before the LDS church shuts down temples because they won't perform gay marriages. THAT's why they are fighting it so hard. Extremists (on both sides) don't want freedom for everyone, they want freedom to make you do what I want to do.

I think that is quite a stretch. If the government tried to force gays on a religion (that is not what they are doing with gay marriage and to say so is nothing more than political crap) through forcing churches to marry homosexuals or forcing homosexuals into the clergy of a religion you would see the **** truly hit the fan. I believe that is something that would create mass riots, civil unrest, violence...in short chaos.

 

[Nate505]

Actually, not sure if it has passed yet or not but NYC had proposed that small personal use quantities of pot are "legal" (small fine, no jail time/sentence) in NY so pot would be OK in NYC, a Big Gulp illegal.

EDIT: It is actually a state wide proposal, not just NYC.

Getting fined when breaking a rule hardly makes something legal.

 

[Nate505]

So because you are willing to allow one stupid, freedom trampling law you are willing to allow others? That is dangerous stance.

This is idiotic and very symbolic of the nanny state that the far left wishes to create. If an individual wants to buy a giant soft drink then they have every right to do so. Idiotic proposal.

Thank god the far right gave the far left the blueprint to create a totalitarian state.

 

[TroutBum]

The only thing I learned from this thread is that "green" might just be the dumbest poster on this site. And that's really saying something.


That's all I've got. Cheers.

 

[The Thriller]

Pretty hilarious to hear all the folks here in Utah from the right get their panties in a twist over this. Yet they ignore the ridiculous over regulation of alcohol found in our very state. Repubs and Demos all do stupid things. They both enjoy extending government into their issues.

 

[TroutBum]

The only thing I learned from this thread is that "green" might just be the dumbest poster on this site. And that's really saying something.


That's all I've got. Cheers.

Pretty hilarious to hear all the folks here in Utah from the right get their panties in a twist over this. Yet they ignore the ridiculous over regulation of alcohol found in our very state. Repubs and Demos all do stupid things. They both enjoy extending government into their issues.

I stand corrected.

 

[Stoked]

Thank god the far right gave the far left the blueprint to create a totalitarian state.

If you are expecting me to argue with that you got the wrong. I do not think the far right had to teach the far left anything. They both suck

 

[Stoked]

Pretty hilarious to hear all the folks here in Utah from the right get their panties in a twist over this. Yet they ignore the ridiculous over regulation of alcohol found in our very state. Repubs and Demos all do stupid things. They both enjoy extending government into their issues.

Heaven forbid we focus on the topic. Only one with their panties in a knot here is you. Cry more about us ignoring what you want to talk about. Boo, god damn, hoo.

For the record I think the state control of alcohol, watered down beers, no happy hour...are all stupid.

 

[Gameface]

My understanding of the pot thing in NY is that having a small quantity of pot not in public view was "decriminalized" a while ago. Not legalized, just not a criminal offense, sort of like speeding. However, having any amount of pot in public view still carried criminal penalties.

So what was happening was that when the police stop a car and search it and the people inside (makes me sick so many people allow themselves to get searched and/or police pressure so many people into allowing a search) they pull the contents out and place them in public view. So if there was pot there now it goes from a non-criminal offense to a criminal one. While pot use is very diverse criminal prosecution of pot due to it being in public view (placed in public view by police officers) was very heavily weighted towards minorities. They changed the law so that the offense was the same if your small amount of pot was in public view or not.