America unites in contempt for loathsome nanny-state mayor

posted at 4:06 pm on May 31, 2012 by Allahpundit

The “No Labels” crowd that wanted him to run for president as an indie swore that he’d help bring Americans together. And so he has. Is there anyone on either side of the aisle, aside from celebrity buffoons like Alec Baldwin and the social engineers of tomorrow at Ezra Klein’s blog, who thinks this is a swell idea?

The proposed ban would affect virtually the entire menu of popular sugary drinks found in delis, fast-food franchises and even sports arenas, from energy drinks to pre-sweetened iced teas. The sale of any cup or bottle of sweetened drink larger than 16 fluid ounces — about the size of a medium coffee, and smaller than a common soda bottle — would be prohibited under the first-in-the-nation plan, which could take effect as soon as next March.

The measure would not apply to diet sodas, fruit juices, dairy-based drinks like milkshakes, or alcoholic beverages; it would not extend to beverages sold in grocery or convenience stores…

At fast-food chains, where sodas are often dispersed at self-serve fountains, restaurants would be required to hand out cup sizes of 16 ounces or less, regardless of whether a customer opts for a diet drink. But free refills — and additional drink purchases — would be allowed.

Actual quote from Bloomy, summarizing his nanny-state ethos better than anyone else could: “New York City is not about wringing your hands; it’s about doing something.” The punchline here is that the scheme of targeting portion size rather than the beverage itself seems so inept and arbitrary that you’re almost left wishing he was a more effective nanny. At Reason, Jacob Sullum explains:

Even if we accept Farley’s claims about soda’s role in rising obesity rates, it does not follow that Bloomberg’s plan will have a measurable impact on New Yorkers’ waistlines. There are reasons to doubt that it will, starting with the mayor’s observation that extra-thirsty customers can always buy another 16-ounce drink (which might actually result in the consumption of more calories, assuming their usual serving is between 16 and 32 ounces). Nor will undercover health inspectors monitor the city’s fast food restaurants to prevent diners from availing themselves of free refills; the regulations graciously let them drink as much soda as they want, as long as they do it 16 ounces at a time. The size rule does not apply at all to convenience stores, supermarkets, or vending machines, so Big Gulps, giant Slurpees, and large bottles of soda will still be readily available. Bloomberg also plans to exempt fruit juices, which typically have more calories per ounce than sugar-sweetened soda, and milk-based drinks. So while New Yorkers won’t be allowed to order 20 ounces of Coke (240 calories), they will still be able to get a 20-ounce Starbucks whole-milk latte (290 calories) or even a 24-ounce Double Chocolaty Frappuccino (520 calories), not to mention a 20-ounce milkshake (about 800 calories).

In other words, Bloomberg is right when he says there will still be lots of opportunities for New Yorkers to consume large quantities of high-calorie drinks, which means he does not even have a sound paternalistic justification for his meddling. He is screwing with people not to protect them from their own foolish choices but just to create the appearance of doing so. Or maybe just because he can.

Actually, I think the reason he’s taking such a half-assed step now is simply to set a precedent that NYC and other cities can build on later. We may yet see a dip in sugary-drink consumption if portion size is regulated, simply because some people won’t want to pop for a second cup to get their fill. When that happens, Bloomy will point to the decline as evidence that regulation works and the public, meanwhile, will have gotten used to the idea of having its dietary choices restricted. The next step would be to apply the size rule to supermarkets and convenience stores, then after that to impose a calorie rule, and maybe down the road to drop one of those European “fat taxes” on sugary beverages to really drive down demand. It’s the same M.O. as regulating smoking — one of Bloomberg’s points in the clip below, in fact, is how obesity is now a bigger health threat than cigarettes — but minus the “secondary smoke” logic of regulating the individual to protect those around him. What he’s trying to do here is simply get his foot in the prohibitionist door. (And I do mean his foot; according to NY1, Bloomberg won’t even seek a rubber stamp from the City Council to impose this policy.) That’s more important long-term to controlling people’s diets than enacting a policy on soda portions that’s consistent or coherent.

Consider this an hors d’oeuvre for the meal we’re going to have in a few weeks when the Supreme Court rules on ObamaCare and we spend a week revisiting the ever-less-hypothetical “broccoli mandate” hypothetical. Incidentally, show of hands: Does anyone reading this not know that sugary drinks can fatten you up and mess with your blood sugar and that soda, in particular, is basically devoid of all nutritional value? The last time we wrote about diets and nanny statism, I noted that it seems like the better informed consumers are about nutrition, paradoxically the more government wants to micro-manage what they eat and drink. In theory, the more information a citizen has, the less government should need to regulate his activity because he’s better equipped to tend to his own welfare. Instead, at least in dietary matters, it seems that the more information legislators have, the more they feel compelled to meddle with citizens to make “the right choices” for them. That’s an ominous undercurrent amid the many advantages to mass media and the information age. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing potentially, at least in the hands of a tool like this.

Update: You’ve got to be kidding.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

He is screwing with people not to protect them from their own foolish choices but just to create the appearance of doing so. Or maybe just because he can.

That, and, more importantly, it makes him feel good.

Cleombrotus on May 31, 2012 at 9:49 PM

Bloomberg……kill your unborn, it’s YOUR CHOICE!!!!!

Bloomberg……..put down that 22 ounce Slurpee yah big fat stupid HOG!!!!!!

Stick your nose in peoples business Progressives at their Woodrow Wilson / Michelle Obama best!!!

All hail our great leaders!!!!

PappyD61 on May 31, 2012 at 9:52 PM

Meanwhile, the government subsidies for corn from which high fructose corn syrup, the sweetening ingredient in almost all our processed foods these days, continues unabated.

Cleombrotus on May 31, 2012 at 9:52 PM

“Man, New York is really messed up!”

–California

search4truth on May 31, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Too funny

Cleombrotus on May 31, 2012 at 9:58 PM

So let’s take this one step forward. People who WANT to drink a large amount of soda – will just buy two or three smaller ones. That would mean more cups, straws, lids, etc. in the trash. So there would be more trash to pick up and more in the landfills. Probably require more public workers (maybe that’s the idea here!).

Is this the most pressing issue facing New York City?

IlonaE on May 31, 2012 at 9:58 PM

Hey Liberals,
it’s none, of your damn business what i put into my body.
if it’s “ok” for a women to do with “her” body as she see fit, I think u know where i’m going.

mmcnamer1 on May 31, 2012 at 10:00 PM

Wonka rootbeer flavored Bottle Caps stock just went up. What’s next? Nerds?

bettycooper on May 31, 2012 at 10:12 PM

This fat-ass liberal needs to be locked up in order to protect the general public.

GarandFan on May 31, 2012 at 10:24 PM

Wonka rootbeer flavored Bottle Caps stock just went up. What’s next? Nerds?

bettycooper on May 31, 2012 at 10:12 PM

Bottle Caps are gooooooooooooooooooooood!

GhoulAid on May 31, 2012 at 10:25 PM

I don’t like soda.. I haven’t since I was a kid. Just hated the way it bloated my stomach….and I believe Soda is a big reason many of us suffer from many health problems.

That being said, I hate a nanny state. Get the info out there about the damage sugar in all its forms are doing to us, but do not tell people what they can and can’t buy. Let the clear information about what made us healthy over hundreds of thousands of years and that the real good fats…no not those fake polyunsaturated they have told us are good,but good healthy saturated fats and a little bit of leafy veggies and low sugar fruit and NO DARN GRAINS! we will get healthy. But so few believe it thanks to our own interfering government.

Sugar is danger, but the message and market needs to convince….not Mayor Bloomberg.

Noelie on May 31, 2012 at 10:27 PM

Guy really has too much time on his hands. Nice to know all other problems in New York City have been resolved. Alcoholic drinks exempt? No. Wouldn’t want to offend the 40oz malt liquor vote.

curved space on May 31, 2012 at 10:29 PM

I just want to know….why can you still buy soft drinks with food stamps????

skeeterbite on May 31, 2012 at 10:35 PM

Fresh Off His Sneak Attack On Big Gulps, NYC Mayor Bloomberg To Proclaim Friday … National Donut Day…

Zcat on May 31, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Actually National Donut Day has been around for a long time. It was started by the Salvation Arm . So Bloomberg isn’t proclaiming anything.

Deanna on May 31, 2012 at 10:38 PM

Yeah, I’ll have a Big Mac, an Apple Pie and two Soda’s.

…That’s a Mac, Pie and two Sodas, right?

Um, yeah.

…you want fries with that?

I mean really, exactly how much thought went into this law anyways?

RavingLunatic on May 31, 2012 at 10:50 PM

So many comments here are so over the top… just wow.

AlexB on May 31, 2012 at 11:02 PM

Raving… yep! Now we order two every time. Just because we still can.

petunia on May 31, 2012 at 11:03 PM

There is a lot of obesity among the poor, lower classes in America. Those are the folks that that would use the public American healthcare system (Medicare I think…?), i.e. funded by YOUR taxes.

If those people get less obese, they will use less of YOUR tax dollars – wouldn’t you like that???

People who get themselves obese aren’t the thinking or in-control kind, and this is just a gentle reminder: “hey fatazz, do you REALLY want another 16 ounces of that sweet sweet cola? don’t you think you’ve had enough with the first 16 ounces? no? ok fine go have another one”.

People here comment as if it’s the end of the US constitution.

AlexB on May 31, 2012 at 11:07 PM

Funny coming from a mayor of a city that smells like a sewer in Summer.

john1schn on May 31, 2012 at 11:33 PM

People who get themselves obese aren’t the thinking or in-control kind, and this is just a gentle reminder: “hey fatazz, do you REALLY want another 16 ounces of that sweet sweet cola? don’t you think you’ve had enough with the first 16 ounces? no? ok fine go have another one”.

People here comment as if it’s the end of the US constitution.

AlexB on May 31, 2012 at 11:07 PM

Really? Snobby much? How about you just leave it to that person how much cola they want to drink and butt out of it yourself?

You have no more right to remind anyone, gently or otherwise, how much or what they should eat or drink than Michael Bloomberg does. It’s really none of your business as it isn’t his or any other meddlesome politician’s.

What’s that old expression? “Your right to swing your fist stops at the point my nose begins.”

PatriotGal2257 on May 31, 2012 at 11:33 PM

How are diet drinks affected?

Funny thing, the “if we are paying for your healthcare, we have a right to tell you what you can consume” argument has some merit. However, that is all the more reason the government should have nothing whatsoever to do with our healthcare.

digitalhap on May 31, 2012 at 11:34 PM

AlexB on May 31, 2012 at 11:07 PM

When the government tries to control your life, then yes, the Constitution is over. Remember, the U.S.Constitution is a limit on the government, not the people.

john1schn on May 31, 2012 at 11:34 PM

Is this the most pressing issue facing New York City?

Bloomberg can’t even deal with the 19th century health problems of rat control and bedbug free hotels.

Those are the folks that that would use the public American healthcare system (Medicare I think…?), i.e. funded by YOUR taxes.

As usual, Libtards like AlexBasshole are bass-ackwards: MY taxes shouldn’t be paying for ANYONE’S healthcare.

SDN on May 31, 2012 at 11:43 PM

If this pompous windbag is so concerned about calories, let him try to outlaw booze in that dump he calls home.

after all, a 20oz coke has 240 calories, 16 ounces of hard liquor have 1322 calories.

Granted, liquor doesn’t come in big gulp cups but look at the secondary effects of alcohol.

Just think what the limousine liberals will do when he tries to take away their Manhattans and afternoon cocktails.

The refusal of this closet commie to even suggest it is more evidence of his hypocrisy.

MaaddMaaxx on May 31, 2012 at 11:45 PM

Silly wingnuts …..if you cannot trust women enough to buy the right size soft drink how can you trust them to raise a childe?

/

Alex you pompous big gov. cowtowing loser –FO.

CW on May 31, 2012 at 11:48 PM

Psssss! Hey Buddy, Come down to our local “Grease-Easy”. We have it all! Potato Chips, Onion Rings, French Fries, Large Drinks, Even Milkshakes! Extra Large Hamburgers, Real Ketchup with full salt.

Smoking is Allowed!

Franchises Available!”

Rush, you Magnificent Bastard!

Bulletchaser on May 31, 2012 at 11:50 PM

MaaddMaaxx on May 31, 2012 at 11:45 PM

This soda pop thing is at least partial prohibition . The uproar if he tried this on booze would be awesome to see.

CW on May 31, 2012 at 11:51 PM

From Malkin’s site

National Donut Day in NYC:

At Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s press conference touting his efforts to stop the sale of large soft drinks in restaurants, one reporter in attendance brought up the interesting fact that his administration also supporting “National Donut Day” tomorrow and inquired as to whether that muddled the mayor’s message on the issue.

Indeed, at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow morning, Entenmann’s will be unveiling “Custom-made Entenmann’s large donuts, 1-foot in diameter” at Madison Square Park at the same time they unveil a “Proclamation Letter by Mayor Michael Bloomberg.”</blockquote

I wonder if I can buy more than one donut?

CW on May 31, 2012 at 11:55 PM

Bloomberg’s a bad deal. His work for a buck is not worth it.

New Yorker’s should pay this POS his dollar salary, and send him packing.

Suggestion, chances are, after November, Barack Hussein Obama will be available. Hey, where else can a wannabe dictator practice for free.

byteshredder on June 1, 2012 at 1:12 AM

Somewhat tangential, but when you participate in a collective, such as one does with health insurance, you give up a little behavioral freedom. A penalty of some sort can easily be applied to behaviors such as smoking or even activities like sky diving. Currently, you can reasonably choose to not participate.

When we all participate in a government mandated health care system, Katy bar the door.
Every minute aspect of your existence will be subject to the whims of government busybodies and imbeciles. It won’t just be granny being denied a hip replacement. Any action, habit or behavior will become fair game for the government to control- witness the Interstate Commerce octopus.

justltl on June 1, 2012 at 1:37 AM

I envision Big Mooch slapping a chocolate iced yellow cake donut (love those) out of my hand just before it enters my mouth, while wagging her clarified butter dripping lobster claw at me in admonition.

justltl on June 1, 2012 at 1:49 AM

Go to hell. Is that simple enough!

Winebabe on June 1, 2012 at 2:08 AM

I wonder if it was Bloomberg who wrote the instructions for use of the Holy Hand Grenade in the film the Search for the Holy Grail:

You shall measure to 16 ounces for 16 is the number. Neither 15 nor 17 but always 16. 16 is the number of the cup and the cup shall be indeed 16. Never exceed ye this number for it is doom to do so. 32 is your utter destruction for the number is 16. 16 and not 17 for 17 is 1 greater than 16 and 16 is the number….

Sherman1864 on June 1, 2012 at 2:11 AM

I think these authoritarian “liberals” must got to definitely have their Local Chapter of Choom Gang.

No, Obama, you will NEVER live this down, Mr. ChoOmer!

Choom!

Sherman1864 on June 1, 2012 at 2:15 AM

Alec Baldwin?

Just a shadow of his early days.

No folks, a choomer could not come up with such wonderful and/or horrible material.

Just OHAing tonight to be a general nuisance … which is all that OWS crap is anyway.

What’s that? I’ve just been demoted to a private nuisance.

But I will ever be Obama’s major nuisance….

Sherman1864 on June 1, 2012 at 2:22 AM

I wish I could find the article I read from a 1930′s newspaper. The New York Times, I think.

Did you know not even Hitler wanted to ban soda pop? He was promoting it in place of beer. I read this article about the National Socialist Party in pre-war Germany…. they were going after the beer makers. It read like any nanny statist anti-obesity pro-healthy activist article you would read today. Only the names were different. I was stunned by it. All of this garbage is exactly what the Fascists were doing in Germany.

Here’s how the article went…. first.. it began with some sort of study by their “national health minister” or something. He showed that beer drinkers were killing themselves. Then he said something like beer drinking was going out of style anyway and that the beer makers needed to turn their attention to making “fizzy drinks”… it was just soda pop. The article stated that the stupid beer makers would make much more money selling the fizzy drinks too..only they were too stupid to realize it, since there would be a large market in the Hitler Youth. That people were clamoring for fizzy drinks but that the beer makers were behind the times. Beer drinking was unhealthy, no longer profitable and the future was the more healthier and fashionable fizzy drinks!
I do have that article somewhere in my endless stack of links. I will have to find it.

JellyToast on June 1, 2012 at 7:09 AM

Re Mexican cokes: My family heard and believed that Mexican Cokes tasted better until we had a blind taste test, comparing Mex. Coke, Coke Zero, and Coke Classic. Unanimous decision in favor of Coke Classic, fructose and all. We plan to repeat the test next picnic with more tasters.

Qzsusy on June 1, 2012 at 8:14 AM

Speaks volumes about how this person thinks.

CurtZHP on May 31, 2012 at 6:44 PM

Liberal socialist collectivists do not believe in personal freedom and liberty, except for themselves and their buddies. Everyone else must be forced to do what is good for them and for the collective. That is — Freedom for me but not for thee, because you can’t handle it and will not do what is best for you.

This is the worst kind of tyranny. Its aim is to control, regulate, and dictate every waking moment of life, including speech and, to the extent possible, thought.

farsighted on June 1, 2012 at 8:41 AM

Doesn’t Bloomie’s “thinking” [sic] make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?!

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2012/05/new-york-citys-official-acceptable.html

Czar of Defenestration on June 1, 2012 at 8:46 AM

Can someone who knows NY State and City law explain to me exactly what authorizes the Mayor to ban the sale of a food item?

happi on June 1, 2012 at 9:56 AM

WOW!
So, in response to my ‘May 31, 2012 at 11:07 PM’ post, most of the responses were to call me “AlexBasshole”, a “Libtard”, and to tell me to “FO”.

Not over the top at all.

You have no more right to remind anyone, gently or otherwise, how much or what they should eat or drink than Michael Bloomberg does. It’s really none of your business as it isn’t his or any other meddlesome politician’s.

PatriotGal2257 on May 31, 2012 at 11:33 PM

OK – one person without rabies. Thanks for a normal response.
I disagree with you of course. People, especially in NYC, have no problem to tell strangers to do this or stop doing that. This is really a gentle reminder. A mayor definitely has that authority.
This law won’t say “you can’t have any more soda”.

In fact, banning the sale of soda in schools is more draconian – it’ll make the kids WALK for a quarter mile to the plazas near the school to buy some. (Ewww, exercise, right?), whereas this law doesn’t prevent you from buying any amount you want. You can even buy 2 or 3 or however many you want 16oz drinks during one purchase.

This is such a minor “trampling of the constitution” as some hysterically and stupidly called it, that, as AP said, it’s almost pathetic.

And yet there is so much backlash… I’m just shocked.

AlexB on June 1, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Sort of O/T: I just saw John Boehner on Fox being asked what he thought of Bloomie’s edict and he said something to the effect of: “Are you kidding me? Don’t we have better things to do than to tell people what amount of soft drinks they can buy?”

PatriotGal2257 on June 1, 2012 at 10:41 AM

The inexorable logic of the liberal: Don’t worry– the government will provide what you need! You need health care? You got it! And the price is low: all we want in exchange is your liberty. This is only fair, because, if we’re going to look after your needs, we need to make sure that our investment in you is protected. And, what did you need liberty for, anyhow? By voting for us, you’ve already made it clear that you’ll exchange it for goods.

morganfrost on June 1, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Hopefully, he won’t try to bully his way into any more terms. He needs to go.

Amazingoly on June 1, 2012 at 10:46 AM

There is a lot of obesity among the poor, lower classes in America. Those are the folks that would use the public American healthcare system (Medicare I think…?), i.e. funded by YOUR taxes.

If those people get less obese, they will use less of YOUR tax dollars – wouldn’t you like that???

People who get themselves obese aren’t the thinking or in-control kind, and this is just a gentle reminder: “hey fatazz, do you REALLY want another 16 ounces of that sweet sweet cola? don’t you think you’ve had enough with the first 16 ounces? no? ok fine go have another one”.

People here comment as if it’s the end of the US constitution.

AlexB on May 31, 2012 at 11:07 PM

Does anyone else find it strange that “poor” people are more obese?

I live in the midwest, and when I travel I have noticed that the more educated (and yes, wealthy) areas I visit, the thinner people are.

But increased wealth in the form of food stamps and welfare apparently only makes people fatter, therefore it must be the result of “free” money without the benefit of self-pursued knowledge.

A people that can live high on the hog without any ambition to work, educate, or improve oneself is a recipe for slovens.

If a person is truly poor, they don’t have enough money to go out to eat. Hell, I’m not poor, but I can rarely afford to take my family to the movies, let alone buy a pop!

When we do go, we buy the biggest size and share it because it’s cheaper!

Has anyone else here ever been on food stamps? I have, and I can tell you I never ate better before or since in my life. It is way more money than necessary. If you really care about the health of the “poor”, lobby for a decrease in food stamp allocations.

guera on June 1, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Just another liberal reinforcing that liberalism is a progressive mental disorder. Bloomberg is the epitome of a liberal in the latter stages of the illness. In his “brilliant” mind not allowing oversized sodas to be sold is his way of making someone do something against their will. The saddest part is the purchaser just buys two (2) drinks instead of one (1) oversized one. Bloomberg proves there is a fine line between liberalism and insanity.

volsense on June 1, 2012 at 10:59 AM

People who get themselves obese aren’t the thinking or in-control kind, and this is just a gentle reminder: “hey fatazz, do you REALLY want another 16 ounces of that sweet sweet cola? don’t you think you’ve had enough with the first 16 ounces? no? ok fine go have another one”.

AlexB on May 31, 2012 at 11:07 PM

I want to see AlexB ask that question of the big, 6’5″ 350-pound muscular dude in a convenience store or fast-food joint. I’d want to be there with my video camera to film the reaction. My guess is that AlexB wouldn’t get the first two words out of his mouth before the glare from the big dude’s eyes would freeze him into silence.

PatriotGal2257 on June 1, 2012 at 11:00 AM

I wrote a long response but my comment isn’t displaying for some reason…

Anyway, re:

PatriotGal2257 on June 1, 2012 at 11:00 AM

A 6’5″ 350-pound muscular dude, as you wrote, isn’t obese, is he. But the 6’5″ 350-pound lardazz definitely is. I know it’s dangerous to come between a fatman and his twinkie or 32oz soda pop, but those folks can’t run very far so it’s less intimidating if you think about it.

AlexB on June 1, 2012 at 11:14 AM

At fast-food chains, where sodas are often dispersed at self-serve fountains, restaurants would be required to hand out cup sizes of 16 ounces or less, regardless of whether a customer opts for a diet drink.

In other news, the Bloomberg family reportedly completes the acquisition of the entire 16 oz cup manufacturing and transport industry, but says the move is unrelated to the sugary drink cup size ban.

BobMbx on June 1, 2012 at 11:52 AM

If those people get less obese, they will use less of YOUR tax dollars – wouldn’t you like that???

And if we ban abortion, we’ll have more taxpayers.

And if we ban same-sex marriage, taxpayers won’t have to pay for costly court battles anymore.

“less obese”. Sorta like “less pregnant”, I guess.

Dr. Sanger would hire you, hands down.

BobMbx on June 1, 2012 at 11:56 AM

I guess there’s no more crime in Manhattan, and all the roads are in perfect shape. I supposed there are no traffic problems or issues concerning schools. I see that all the parks are clean and free of squatters and there are no violent protesters hanging around. Apparently, there is no more trash to pick up (now that smoking outdoors is illegal there are no cigarette butts on the ground) or city departments to monitor. Clearly, this man does not have enough actual work to do running the city, so he spends all his free time babysitting the woefully inept populace. He really needs to declare his Democrat party membership.

totherightofthem on June 1, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Oops. Should be I supposed. Really need to preview better.

totherightofthem on June 1, 2012 at 12:25 PM

We smokers told all the rest of you years ago that when they were done chasing us out of the public arenas, that the fatties would be next. Paranoid, delusional were usually the words used to describe us. Does not seem so delusional now, huh. Don’t worry if you don’t smoke or are not a fatty. Your vice (whatever it may be)will be banned shortly enough. Nothing to see here citizen, move along. Sounds familiar doesn’t it?

MouthyMainah on June 1, 2012 at 12:42 PM

AlexB on June 1, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Do you have any clue at all what you’re saying or how incredibly arrogant and elitest you sound? You sound like a typical liberal control freak.
Have you ever read the US Constitution? You should try it some time and maybe you’ll figure out why this crosses the line.
The government should not have the ability to control anyone’s life down to this level – it’s none of their business or your business – and it’s the very definition of an over-controlling tyrannical government.
And the government should NOT be paying for anyone’s healthcare either. So if someone is ok with getting fat, too bad for them, but that’s their business. But don’t look to me to pay for your food to get that way, or your healthcare, and don’t expect to get half of my seat on a plane.

dentarthurdent on June 1, 2012 at 1:14 PM

dentarthurdent on June 1, 2012 at 1:14 PM

Your response is very hyperbolic. (Tyrannical government, “have you read the constitution?” etc.)

And the rest of your position is unrealistic as it is more libertarian than Ron Paul’s vision for America. In THEORY I agree with you. To each their own, etc. But in practice the government is very involved in subsidising many sectors and functions of society. That reason in itself is enough to justify some sort of reasonable intervention, much harsher than this little pathetic intervention is. But there are other justifications too, to promote the national interest.

AlexB on June 1, 2012 at 1:42 PM

AlexB on June 1, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Your commentary is pathetically illogical. The fact that government DOES try to contol people so much is not a valid excuse to allow or justify it. It’s just plain wrong for government to try to micro-manage everyone’s lives at this level. If you don’t understand that, you’re a lost cause who would apparently be perfectly happy as a submissive little slave to your government masters. Welcome to the tyrannical worlds of 1984 or Fahrenheit 451 or Atlas Shrugged – you seem to look forward to making those reality – which means there is something seriously wrong with you.

dentarthurdent on June 1, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Politicians using power over citizens that they do not hold needs to be fought at every level including the courts. What do I mean? First off the citizens are the boss of this man and not the other way around, and secondly I am getting tired of people taking legal products and telling American citizens that they can’t have them or they are too stupid to have them. They did this to tobacco even though that is also a legal substance and they are doing it to fat, salt, sugar, CO2 and the list goes on and on. It is time for us to make it clear that we are in charge of our families, our homes, our bodies and our country.

SGinNC on June 1, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Mr Bloomberg along the way to becoming a billionaire you must have had people who forced you to understand (and you did comply I’ll bet), will you share their names with us. Will be most helpful to those of us in need of righteous understanding. Humbly yours.

steveracer on June 1, 2012 at 2:51 PM

“But in practice the government is very involved in subsidising many sectors and functions of society.AlexB on June 1, 2012 at 1:42 PM”

Alex the government spends money to try and influence its people as you state, but the government uses your own money against yourself? The money is taken from citizens, borrowed from our futures or our money system is watered down by printing and then handed back to certain groups with strings attached to force you to do something or force a certain behavior. This scam has been going on for a long time and it is time that it stops.

SGinNC on June 1, 2012 at 2:57 PM

In fact, banning the sale of soda in schools is more draconian – it’ll make the kids WALK for a quarter mile to the plazas near the school to buy some. (Ewww, exercise, right?), whereas this law doesn’t prevent you from buying any amount you want. You can even buy 2 or 3 or however many you want 16oz drinks during one purchase.

This is such a minor “trampling of the constitution” as some hysterically and stupidly called it, that, as AP said, it’s almost pathetic.

And yet there is so much backlash… I’m just shocked.

AlexB on June 1, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Right, don’t oppose this law; it’ll inconvenience you, but it won’t do anything meaningful… just as governemtn should do.

If a governemtn didn’t inconvenience you on a regular basis for useless proposals that don’t do anything, this wouldn’t be America anymore.

Remove choices, control people, but don’t do anything real or meaningful.

AWESOME!

Or did you mean something else in your defense that this law doesn’t do anything except inconvenience people and limit their choices without making any real change?

Why should I support meaningless proposals that won’t have any effect except inconveniencing me? This might be a horrific shock for you; but I prefer convenience, not inconvenience.

I guess you disagree… can I get you a typewriter where the letters change every week into a new pattern that you have to learn?

Maybe a car where you have to solve a Rubik’s Cube every time before you start it?

Or do you only support inconvenience when you get to impose it on everyone and not just you?

gekkobear on June 1, 2012 at 10:37 PM

Yeah, this is bad enough, but did Hot Air even report on Bloomberg’s atrocious demand that illegal aliens be forced on cities and states who have gotten tough on illegals? Bloomberg is a leftist, all neo-cons are. He represents the mindset of the party of slavery, Jim Crow and the KKK. A week or so back, he announced his demand that illegals be forcefully imposed on cities and states, and then the next day was interviewed about his two new mansions.

I didn’t see any conservatives blogging against Bloomberg’s demand more citizens be displaced by illegal aliens, it’s as though too many conservatives aren’t anything but RINOs at heart, and think because he’s rich, it’s somehow “unAmerican” to criticize foul policy that harms our nation, our sovereignty, and freedom. If you claim to care about the constitution, you can’t remain silent over Bloomberg’s demand that the US be reduced to a plantation slavery state so pigs like him can pick us clean. This is the same mindset of his that rationalized selling the people of New York out, at the behest of the Saudi and Dubai terrorist funding royals, who demanded the Ground Zero mosque be imposed upon us, in exchange for Bloomberg being allowed to open up a headquarters in Dubai, and he was over there kissing backside on his knees.

Ceolas on June 2, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Time for a legit mayor next time – no more “extra terms”. Ridiculous idea he has (had).

Amazingoly on June 4, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3