The Nanny State - We'll tell you what you can drink

[not2sharp]

I have great difficulty understanding why government at any level has any business telling citizens what they can and cannot purchase and consume.

That is not what they are doing. They are allowing the product to be sold and instead attempting to regulate the pakaging and marketing for the product, which is an entirely novel approach. They are unable to show that the product is dangerous enough to warrent FDA or ATF intervention, but if they can inject additional costs (marketing/packaging) upon the vendors they can effectively regulate the product's availability. I see the whole as a shakedown of the restaurant industry by the most corrupt politician NYC has had since Tammany Hall.

n2s

[Triton]

That is not what they are doing. They are allowing the product to be sold and instead attempting to regulate the pakaging and marketing for the product, which is an entirely novel approach. They are unable to show that the product is dangerous enough to warrent FDA or ATF intervention, but if they can inject additional costs (marketing/packaging) upon the vendors they can effectively regulate the product's availability. I see the whole as a shakedown of the restaurant industry by the most corrupt politician NYC has had since Tammany Hall.

n2s

I hadn't considered it in that light but I wonder how it will actually work. How much does an extra paper cup cost a fast food chain? 2 cents? Seems like that would be easy to add to the price of the new "drink combo."

[not2sharp]

I hadn't considered it in that light but I wonder how it will actually work. How much does an extra paper cup cost a fast food chain? 2 cents? Seems like that would be easy to add to the price of the new "drink combo."

It is not the cost of the extra cup; it is the cost of having to explain to every customer why their experience at this particular outlet must e different then they have come to expect everywhere else. That means a lot of advertising $$$ and a lot of irrate customers.

n2s

[philwar]

That is not what they are doing. They are allowing the product to be sold and instead attempting to regulate the pakaging and marketing for the product, which is an entirely novel approach. They are unable to show that the product is dangerous enough to warrent FDA or ATF intervention, but if they can inject additional costs (marketing/packaging) upon the vendors they can effectively regulate the product's availability. I see the whole as a shakedown of the restaurant industry by the most corrupt politician NYC has had since Tammany Hall.

n2s

It's still splitting hairs. Technically (and practically) you can buy as much Coke as you like but the State is prohibiting you from buying it packaged in quantities it deems undesirable. It's not about the Coke. It's about the power to control, to regulate.
The more people accept being forced to swallow such petty tyranny, the more they will have it done to them.

[Fanglekai]

I think we should just shut up and do what the liberals want. After all, their ideology is a proven success. LBJ's "Great Society" eliminated poverty and racial injustice, and 50 years later there are now no Americans on welfare and racism has been eradicated. Taxing the rich has eliminated social injustice, and now even the poorest American lives in a big house in a gated community and drives a Mercedes. Without Obama's leadership in the space program, we would not have the Mars Colony, and his nationalization of health care has eliminated illness and reduced the cost of medical care to almost zero. Eliminating incandescent lightbulbs has saved millions of lives from the horror of exploding bulbs, and the 1.6 gallon restriction on toilet tank capacity resulted in an end to the worldwide fresh water shortage. Its time to admit that liberalism just plain works.

So all of you complainers should just be quiet and do what you are told. With no more giant Slurpees, obesity will be eliminated from America.

Incandescent light bulbs are inefficient and waste vast amounts of electricity. You can get the same brightness for about 1/3 the power with CFLs. Why do you want to waste 66% more electricity for no gain? Why do you want to use wasteful 1800s technology?

The 5 gallon toilet was replaced by the 3.5 gallon and later the 1.6 gallon toilet. Why do you need to use 5 gallons of water to flush urine? The restriction saves 3.4 gallons per flush. You might not have stopped to think about what an impact saving 3.4 gallons per flush has on the entire country. If the average household flushes the toilet only 7 times a day, that's 23.8 gallons saved every day per household. Multiply that by let's say 90 million households. 2,142,000,000 gallons saved every day from that restriction.

All the water would have to be procured from somewhere, then treated at a sewage plant, which of course we'd need more of to handle the huge amount of water needing to be treated, costing municipal governments a lot of money, which they of course would pass on to the taxpayers. I read that about 30% of the water consumption in an average household is from flushing the toilet, so reducing the tank size was an efficient and effective way of decreasing the amount of water people use each day.

These types of advancements in technology may be confusing to older generations but they make sense and have a positive impact on the country by reducing the amount of resources that get wasted every day for no reason. We could go back to the days before fuel injection in cars and get 10 miles per gallon. Wouldn't that be awesome if everyone used 2-4x more gas for no reason? I'm sure that would definitely bring down oil prices!

The world's population has increased exponentially in the last century. Wasting water, electricity, gas, and other resources for no reason gains us nothing. I cannot fathom why you want to waste for no reason other than you feel entitled to do so. I imagine this is the mentality of the older generations who got to waste as much as they wanted, pollute the environment with leaded gasoline, destroy the ozone with CFCs, and waste water, gasoline, and mass amounts of electricity on inefficient devices.

As far as limiting soda size, it may or may not have an impact on the population. If it has a positive impact then it's worthwhile. Healthcare costs in the US are astronomical. More and more people are getting diabetes and are becoming obese. If they cannot stop themselves from consuming trash then maybe it's best that the government mandate it for them. Then you won't have to pay for their healthcare. Preventive medicine is the way to decrease healthcare costs. Get people to exercise and be healthy and then healthcare won't cost as much because half the population won't have to be treated for diabetes and obesity. Of course this kind of thinking goes along with wanting to be less wasteful and more efficient, which is something people here don't seem to agree with.

[timcsaw]

If half of us would just take a flying leap of a tall building the world would be a much better, wonderful place... I have some specific ideas and recommendations on the subject.

[Hog Feet]

some seem "convinced that a lasting recovery of our folk can only come about from within on the pinciple:

COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD"

I wonder where that idea came from?

[Codger_64]

I have one of those fifty year old cars that doesn't have fuel injection. It gets 28 mpg, better than the current fleet average. CFLs come with a warning to clear the room if they break. Why? Mercury. So how do you safely dispose of billions of defunct lightbulbs that contain mercury? You don't. You send them to the landfill like the old incandescent bulbs (or you dump them in the ocean if you live in NYC). My electricity comes from a hydroelectric dam. As long as the river flows and I pay my bill, I have electricity. My bill for May was $53.00 for 463 kwh. How many kwh did you use and how much was your bill? My water came from the same river, about three miles away. I used 3,000 gallons last month. Where does yours come from?

[quietmike]

Incandescent light bulbs are inefficient and waste vast amounts of electricity. You can get the same brightness for about 1/3 the power with CFLs. Why do you want to waste 66% more electricity for no gain? Why do you want to use wasteful 1800s technology?

Because they were made in America and supported American workers, and didn't contain toxic materials.

The 5 gallon toilet was replaced by the 3.5 gallon and later the 1.6 gallon toilet. Why do you need to use 5 gallons of water to flush urine? The restriction saves 3.4 gallons per flush. You might not have stopped to think about what an impact saving 3.4 gallons per flush has on the entire country. If the average household flushes the toilet only 7 times a day, that's 23.8 gallons saved every day per household. Multiply that by let's say 90 million households. 2,142,000,000 gallons saved every day from that restriction.

I've always been curious about "saving" water. Where did that "wasted" water go?

All the water would have to be procured from somewhere, then treated at a sewage plant, which of course we'd need more of to handle the huge amount of water needing to be treated, costing municipal governments a lot of money, which they of course would pass on to the taxpayers. I read that about 30% of the water consumption in an average household is from flushing the toilet, so reducing the tank size was an efficient and effective way of decreasing the amount of water people use each day.

Curious as to which municipality has taxpayers pay for all water costs? Where I live, water is charged by amount, to each customer.

These types of advancements in technology may be confusing to older generations but they make sense and have a positive impact on the country by reducing the amount of resources that get wasted every day for no reason. We could go back to the days before fuel injection in cars and get 10 miles per gallon. Wouldn't that be awesome if everyone used 2-4x more gas for no reason? I'm sure that would definitely bring down oil prices!

A 115 y.o. electric car had the same range as the Chevy Volt.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/14/11...as-chevy-volt/

As far as limiting soda size, it may or may not have an impact on the population. If it has a positive impact then it's worthwhile. Healthcare costs in the US are astronomical. More and more people are getting diabetes and are becoming obese. If they cannot stop themselves from consuming trash then maybe it's best that the government mandate it for them. Then you won't have to pay for their healthcare. Preventive medicine is the way to decrease healthcare costs. Get people to exercise and be healthy and then healthcare won't cost as much because half the population won't have to be treated for diabetes and obesity. Of course this kind of thinking goes along with wanting to be less wasteful and more efficient, which is something people here don't seem to agree with.

Or, get government out of the healthcare business, and it won't cost the taxpayer anything, and it adds incentives to be healthy without violating anyone's rights.

[philwar]

As far as limiting soda size, it may or may not have an impact on the population. If it has a positive impact then it's worthwhile.

You may wanna think about that statement. Such ideas have led to forced sterilizations and gruesome medical experiments in the US, and worse in other parts of the world that were deemed equally civilized.
And it's exactly the reason why the State should not be allowed to dictate what people can and cannot eat or drink. It never ends there.

Healthcare costs in the US are astronomical. More and more people are getting diabetes and are becoming obese. If they cannot stop themselves from consuming trash then maybe it's best that the government mandate it for them. Then you won't have to pay for their healthcare.

This is a good one. Because the State has take to subsidizing healthcare, now they're 'forced' into meddling some more. People shouldn't have been forced to pay for other people's healthcare to begin with. But it's a done deal, and now it's a reason for more Government intrusion into the lives of private citizens.

Preventive medicine is the way to decrease healthcare costs. Get people to exercise and be healthy and then healthcare won't cost as much because half the population won't have to be treated for diabetes and obesity. Of course this kind of thinking goes along with wanting to be less wasteful and more efficient, which is something people here don't seem to agree with.

People here don't much agree with it because most of them feel that if responsibility for your health lay solely with you, then YOU would be more inclined to look after it.
Now fat people treat their bodies like a company car, they can abuse it all they like, even crash it, and it will be fixed at no cost to them. There is no incentive to live healthy (other than the obvious examples, which clearly aren't that obvious to fat people). Pig out all your life, if it causes problems, someone will fix it. You get more attention and consideration than people who lead healthy lives.
Why should they change?

[BG42EDGE]

Oh, come on......what silliness.

The government has to step in at some point to save the rest of us from the antics of idiots.

There are laws against cell phone use while driving. You are required to wear a helmet if you choose to ride a motorcycle. You must have car insurance. You can't smoke in restaurants or public buildings.

Face reality and quit yer complaining. When a law protects you from bearing the cost of someone else's stupidity.......it's a good law.

[Codger_64]

Oh, come on......what silliness.

The government has to step in at some point to save the rest of us from the antics of idiots.

There are laws against cell phone use while driving. You are required to wear a helmet if you choose to ride a motorcycle. You must have car insurance. You can't smoke in restaurants or public buildings.

Face reality and quit yer complaining. When a law protects you from bearing the cost of someone else's stupidity.......it's a good law.

These are laws in some states or some cities. Some states and cities don't feel the need to legislate us to death.

If we really wanted to improve the lives of Americans, we would depopulate all of the large cities where such silliness is favored by the citizens and politicians.

[quietmike]

When a law protects you from bearing the cost of someone else's stupidity.......it's a good law.

Which is yet another reason to avoid liberalism.

[Hog Feet]

Oh, come on......what silliness.

The government has to step in at some point to save the rest of us from the antics of idiots.

Face reality and quit yer complaining. When a law protects you from bearing the cost of someone else's stupidity.......it's a good law.

...sooooo, should we be expecting laws which prohibit liberals from trolling???

[BG42EDGE]

Funny, when a Liberal comes into a Right-Wing forum and spoils the mood of those who wish to hide in a Group-Think den......

The Group-Thinkers call that trolling.

Why the need to prohibit the truth? If your ideas are legit, they will stand. If they don't stand, you get nervous and call "Trolling."

[BG42EDGE]

If we really wanted to improve the lives of Americans, we would depopulate all of the large cities where such silliness is favored by the citizens and politicians.

Ah, that old "Ethnic Cleansing" thing.

Good one.

[Hog Feet]

Funny, when a Liberal comes into a Right-Wing forum and spoils the mood of those who wish to hide in a Group-Think den......

The Group-Thinkers call that trolling.

Why the need to prohibit the truth? If your ideas are legit, they will stand. If they don't stand, you get nervous and call "Trolling."

Who called "trolling"? I asked a simple question based on your own 'logic', to show the absurdity of your argument, and you assume you are being called on trolling. Why so sensitive?

[BG42EDGE]

Then, when they get caught, they deny everything and try to shift blame somewhere else.

[timcsaw]

Funny, when a Liberal comes into a Right-Wing forum and spoils the mood of those who wish to hide in a Group-Think den......

The Group-Thinkers call that trolling.

Why the need to prohibit the truth? If your ideas are legit, they will stand. If they don't stand, you get nervous and call "Trolling."

Because you rarely seem to follow this first rule below, so you are often guilty of the second;

First from the rules thread;

Defend your position - If you post an article or make a statement, back it up with some commentary on what brought you to that.

If you don't follow the above, don't be surprised when you are labeled as the following describes;

Occasionally, a person will join the forum with the express purpose of stirring up hate and anger; or, perceiving this as a forum with a conservative majority, defecating in the conservative meeting place.
We call those who stir up trouble for trouble's sake, or who participate just to ridicule and abuse those who have a different viewpoint, trolls.
They troll for trouble.
They drag their hook, usually a series of intentionally inflamatory (flaming) posts, through a thread to see who they can catch, or who will take a bite.
They want to start a flame war for their own amusement and self importance.

Trolls come from all walks of life and all political, religious and ethnic persuasions.
The moderators may come alongside and offer suggestions, model behavior, or even give warnings.
On rare occasions, a moderator will ban a forumite for consistent trolling.
I have banned two forumites.
Generally, banned forumites come back with a new identity and try to behave themselves.
Those of us who moderate usually recognize them within two posts.
Even when they behave themselves, their writing style gives them away almost instantly.
We all have very distinct writing styles, usually invisible to ourselves but obvious to everyone else.

The best control of trolls comes from other forumites, and not from the moderators.
First, one does not feed a troll.
Responding with anger feeds a troll.
The trolls like to see everyone get upset over them.
Attention, y'know?
Secondly, it helps to completely ignore a troll until they start posting in a responsible manner.
Ignore garbage; acknowledge courtesy, respect and sincerity.
Thirdly, it helps if fellow forumites confront a troll before the moderator does; and, confrontation does not mean calling someone a troll, but, rather, telling them how to post in a responsible and contributing manner.

[BG42EDGE]

Who called "trolling"? I asked a simple question based on your own 'logic', to show the absurdity of your argument, and you assume you are being called on trolling. Why so sensitive?

BTW.......there was no "absurdity" in my argument, just in your fevered imagination.