"Sometimes government does know best. And in those cases, Americans should just cede their rights"

[billvon 2,426]

>51% of the people want it
>89% of the people want someone else to pay for it

>so what does that 'really' mean?

Means it is like all things that US voters want.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>51% of the people want it
>89% of the people want someone else to pay for it

>so what does that 'really' mean?

Means it is like all things that US voters want.

agree - but someone has to pay for all these things. So what it really means is that the voters are being sold a scam that, if they were smarter about it, they wouldn't really want it, or a lot of other 'services'

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rushmc 18]

Quote

"Sometimes government does know best. And in those cases, Americans should just cede their rights"

Do you agree with Bloomberg?

(IE, this thread has been hijacked)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

>51% of the people want it
>89% of the people want someone else to pay for it

>so what does that 'really' mean?

Means it is like all things that US voters want.

agree - but someone has to pay for all these things. So what it really means is that the voters are being sold a scam that, if they were smarter about it, they wouldn't really want it, or a lot of other 'services'

I do find it amusing when people around here plop down poll results that say things like "X% of people in favor of something [that has no discernable negative impact on them.]" and pretend as though there's any altruism to be found therein.

[billvon 2,426]

>Do you agree with Bloomberg?

Yes, I do - in some cases.

The government decided that slavery had to be ended, even though half the country disagreed. They were right, even though slaveowners lost their rights to own people. (And in many cases their farms, and in some cases their lives.)

The government decided that they needed to put rules in place to control the use of airspace in the US. I agree with that. Even though some pilots lost some of their rights.

The government decided that monopolies could not engage in unfair restraint of trade. I agree with that, even if it hurt Standard Oil.

However, I do NOT agree with many of the things that Bloomberg claims the government should decide on. The soda cup size is the most ridiculous example.

[billvon 2,426]

>but someone has to pay for all these things. So what it really means is that the voters
>are being sold a scam that, if they were smarter about it, they wouldn't really want it,
>or a lot of other 'services'

Yep. A recent poll showed that most Americans wanted to cut spending. But when polled on what, exactly, they would cut, they couldn't even get over 50% on any one item. "Cut someone else's spending and keep mine."

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

>Do you agree with Bloomberg?

Yes, I do - in some cases.

The government decided that slavery had to be ended, even though half the country disagreed. They were right, even though slaveowners lost their rights to own people. (And in many cases their farms, and in some cases their lives.)

The government decided that they needed to put rules in place to control the use of airspace in the US. I agree with that. Even though some pilots lost some of their rights.

The government decided that monopolies could not engage in unfair restraint of trade. I agree with that, even if it hurt Standard Oil.

However, I do NOT agree with many of the things that Bloomberg claims the government should decide on. The soda cup size is the most ridiculous example.

It never hurt standard oil as ole Rocky got stocks in all subsequent firms. He made even more money...

[billvon 2,426]

>It never hurt standard oil as ole Rocky got stocks in all subsequent firms. He made even more money...

So he made more money and the market was then open to more players. Sounds like a win/win.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>Do you agree with Bloomberg?

Yes, I do - in some cases.

The government decided that slavery had to be ended, even though half the country disagreed. They were right, even though slaveowners lost their rights to own people. (And in many cases their farms, and in some cases their lives.)

The government decided that they needed to put rules in place to control the use of airspace in the US. I agree with that. Even though some pilots lost some of their rights.

The government decided that monopolies could not engage in unfair restraint of trade. I agree with that, even if it hurt Standard Oil.

However, I do NOT agree with many of the things that Bloomberg claims the government should decide on. The soda cup size is the most ridiculous example.

Slavery was a rights issue decided on the side of rights

the rest of what you listed, are not rights

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,426]

>the rest of what you listed, are not rights

The right to fly an airplane isn't a right? The right to run your business as you see fit isn't a right? Interesting.

In that case, Bloomberg can then just claim that having a 32 oz soda (or a 10 round magazine) isn't a right. Problem solved.

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

>It never hurt standard oil as ole Rocky got stocks in all subsequent firms. He made even more money...

So he made more money and the market was then open to more players. Sounds like a win/win.

Like SO every went away. Funny. Looks like there becoming one firm again.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I do NOT agree with many of the things that Bloomberg claims the government should decide on. The soda cup size is the most ridiculous example.

Bloomberg is thin, healthy and in great shape for his age, and thinks everyone else should strive for that, too. If a porker like Chris Christie was mayor, he'd probably push for mandatory cream donuts in school lunches.

[ryoder 1,394]

Quote

Quote

I do NOT agree with many of the things that Bloomberg claims the government should decide on. The soda cup size is the most ridiculous example.

Bloomberg is thin, healthy and in great shape for his age, and thinks everyone else should strive for that, too. If a porker like Chris Christie was mayor, he'd probably push for mandatory cream donuts in school lunches.

I love that guy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLFcEWaQJs4

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[billvon 2,426]

>Like SO every went away.

?? It didn't. It just stopped its anti-competitive practices (like colluding with railroads to deny shipping to competitors.) Standard Oil did just fine under different names afterwards - but other companies were allowed to compete.

Sometimes the government does know best.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>Like SO every went away.

?? It didn't. It just stopped its anti-competitive practices (like colluding with railroads to deny shipping to competitors.) Standard Oil did just fine under different names afterwards - but other companies were allowed to compete.

Sometimes the government does know best.

Only under the constituionally limits

Limits they overstepped years ago

And the list here? Has nothing to do or is even closely related to limiting a drink size

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,426]

>Only under the constituionally limits

There are no references to antitrust actions in the Constitution. That came from the Sherman Act.

>And the list here? Has nothing to do or is even closely related to limiting a drink size

Correct, that's what I said.

Antitrust law? An example of when the government really does know best.
Air traffic control? An example of when the government really does know best.
Soda size limit? An example of when the government should mind its own business.

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

Quote

>Like SO every went away.

?? It didn't. It just stopped its anti-competitive practices (like colluding with railroads to deny shipping to competitors.) Standard Oil did just fine under different names afterwards - but other companies were allowed to compete.

Sometimes the government does know best.

Only under the constituionally limits

Limits they overstepped years ago

And the list here? Has nothing to do or is even closely related to limiting a drink size

Explain why it exceeds Constitutional limits for the city department that issues business licenses to put health-related conditions on the issuance of those licences?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Like SO every went away.

?? It didn't. It just stopped its anti-competitive practices (like colluding with railroads to deny shipping to competitors.) Standard Oil did just fine under different names afterwards - but other companies were allowed to compete.

Sometimes the government does know best.

Only under the constituionally limits

Limits they overstepped years ago

And the list here? Has nothing to do or is even closely related to limiting a drink size

Explain why it exceeds Constitutional limits for the city department that issues business licenses to put health-related conditions on the issuance of those licences?

Where are they givin that power?

At the state level, by the people

Fed is a whole different game

But, if you wish the state to have that kind of power, dont bitch when the state defines marriage between a man a woman and bans abortion. Neither are rights. Neither should be controled by the Fed

Buy your own rationalizations

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Like SO every went away.

?? It didn't. It just stopped its anti-competitive practices (like colluding with railroads to deny shipping to competitors.) Standard Oil did just fine under different names afterwards - but other companies were allowed to compete.

Sometimes the government does know best.

Only under the constituionally limits

Limits they overstepped years ago

And the list here? Has nothing to do or is even closely related to limiting a drink size

Explain why it exceeds Constitutional limits for the city department that issues business licenses to put health-related conditions on the issuance of those licences?

Where are they givin that power?

At the state level, by the people

Fed is a whole different game

But, if you wish the state to have that kind of power, dont bitch when the state defines marriage between a man a woman and bans abortion. Neither are rights. Neither should be controled by the Fed

Buy your own rationalizations

Apples and oranges.

There are no constitutional questions about health and safety conditions placed on business licenses. Good thing too, or we'd have restaurants with constitutionally protected rats and roaches in the kitchens. I see no substantive difference between requiring freedom from vermin and requiring freedom from other health/safety hazards.

NOTE VERY CAREFULLY that I do not necessarily agree with NYC's ban, just that your argument against it sucks.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Like SO every went away.

?? It didn't. It just stopped its anti-competitive practices (like colluding with railroads to deny shipping to competitors.) Standard Oil did just fine under different names afterwards - but other companies were allowed to compete.

Sometimes the government does know best.

Only under the constituionally limits

Limits they overstepped years ago

And the list here? Has nothing to do or is even closely related to limiting a drink size

Explain why it exceeds Constitutional limits for the city department that issues business licenses to put health-related conditions on the issuance of those licences?

Where are they givin that power?

At the state level, by the people

Fed is a whole different game

But, if you wish the state to have that kind of power, dont bitch when the state defines marriage between a man a woman and bans abortion. Neither are rights. Neither should be controled by the Fed

Buy your own rationalizations

Apples and oranges.

There are no constitutional questions about health and safety conditions placed on business licenses. Good thing too, or we'd have restaurants with constitutionally protected rats and roaches in the kitchens. I see no substantive difference between requiring freedom from vermin and requiring freedom from other health/safety hazards.

NOTE VERY CAREFULLY that I do not necessarily agree with NYC's ban, just that your argument against it sucks.

No
Not apples and oranges

those powers not specifically spelled out in the Constitution, are relegated to the state

The Fed is so far pasted it’s spelled out powers, I doubt we will ever get back

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

Quote

I do NOT agree with many of the things that Bloomberg claims the government should decide on. The soda cup size is the most ridiculous example.

Bloomberg is thin, healthy and in great shape for his age, and thinks everyone else should strive for that, too. If a porker like Chris Christie was mayor, he'd probably push for mandatory cream donuts in school lunches.

and on that basis, I would vote for chris christie

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Like SO every went away.

?? It didn't. It just stopped its anti-competitive practices (like colluding with railroads to deny shipping to competitors.) Standard Oil did just fine under different names afterwards - but other companies were allowed to compete.

Sometimes the government does know best.

Only under the constituionally limits

Limits they overstepped years ago

And the list here? Has nothing to do or is even closely related to limiting a drink size

Explain why it exceeds Constitutional limits for the city department that issues business licenses to put health-related conditions on the issuance of those licences?

Where are they givin that power?

At the state level, by the people

Fed is a whole different game

But, if you wish the state to have that kind of power, dont bitch when the state defines marriage between a man a woman and bans abortion. Neither are rights. Neither should be controled by the Fed

Buy your own rationalizations

Apples and oranges.

There are no constitutional questions about health and safety conditions placed on business licenses. Good thing too, or we'd have restaurants with constitutionally protected rats and roaches in the kitchens. I see no substantive difference between requiring freedom from vermin and requiring freedom from other health/safety hazards.

NOTE VERY CAREFULLY that I do not necessarily agree with NYC's ban, just that your argument against it sucks.

Regulation of sanitation can be rationalized quite easily using the harm principal. Regulation of soda size is paternalistic and honestly liberals tend to be a bit more paternalistic than republicans...granted a good number of republicans are moralistic.

I think that's the problem people have with bloomberg, he's bluring the line between mayor and daddy.

[quade 3]

Nanny. FFS if you're going to bitch and use metaphors, use the right one.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

[Relply]Regulation of sanitation can be rationalized quite easily using the harm principal. Regulation of soda size is paternalistic

[ManagingPrime 0]

Lol...if I called his behavior paternalistic and then referred to him as a nanny I'd be damnd as well.

In either case, it does not change the fact that his style of governance is paternalistic and at times insulting to people that value freedom of choice. If he was on the other side of the isle and governed the same way some liberals would be just as upset as some conservatives.

-signed
"sipping on a soda to large to be healty"