Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gawker)   What Fark will agree with: Quit complaining about Mayor Bloomberg's soda ban, fatsos. What Fark won't: Banning soda is the same as banning murder   (gawker.com ) divider line
    More: Dumbass, Bernie Goldberg, free country, Coke Zero, New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg, murders  
•       •       •

815 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Jun 2012 at 1:11 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



88 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-06-01 12:07:40 AM  
Because murdering someone or standing in an intersection restricting free passage is totally the same as me putting an extra ounce of carbonated garbage juice into my personally-owned body.

f*ck off, Gawker.
 
2012-06-01 01:26:33 AM  
First they came for the Sparks, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a raver.
Then they came for the Four Loco, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a frat boy.
Then they came for the Soda, and I didn't speak out because I didn't drink soda.
Then they came for my Purple Drank, and I had nothing to grip and sip.
 
2012-06-01 01:29:23 AM  
If you ban murder, only criminals will commit murder.
 
2012-06-01 01:33:29 AM  
Maybe the Imperial federal govt. will use the interstate commerce clause to biatch slap Bloomberg down.
 
2012-06-01 01:35:56 AM  
What if I just don't give a shiat?
 
2012-06-01 01:38:39 AM  
Can we have a law banning links to shiatty Gawker Media articles?
 
2012-06-01 01:39:30 AM  
Ban sugar, give out guns.
 
2012-06-01 01:42:03 AM  
This ban seems stupid.

I've been know to rock a 216 oz. Diet Pepsi.

/yes, i am fat
//why do you ask?
///slashies!!!
 
2012-06-01 01:42:47 AM  
I have a better idea - let' just make being fat illegal - we can throw offenders into a fat prison until they can get their BMI down to healthy levels.

/ Or tax by the BMI
// Suck it fat people who ride hoverarounds in Walmart
 
2012-06-01 01:43:01 AM  
"I don't care so neither should you."

Why do people read that site?
 
2012-06-01 01:46:08 AM  
No big cup size mean sell more drink mean spend more money?

Why you no like 'Merican econmy?

For the record, I think all portions should be smaller and more expensive. I'd consider it a fat tax. FAT TAX FOR EVERYONE.
/Fat people
//Haha.png
 
2012-06-01 01:48:20 AM  
The right wants to put wands up woman's vagnal area as part of an abortion procedural list. The left wants to ban teenagers from tanning beds. Then you have this asshat.

With all of the ills in our nation, why the fark are we focusing on bullshiat?

Oh, of course, because politicians know what is best for you, and they are looking out for you by forcing wands up a woman's vagina, stopping teens from getting a tan, and now banning tall sodas. It's all for public safety reasons. We should just trust them
 
2012-06-01 01:48:47 AM  

ksdanj: This ban seems stupid.

I've been know to rock a 216 oz. Diet Pepsi.

/yes, i am fat
//why do you ask?
///slashies!!!


My god, that's more than 6 liters of fluid, how can your stomach even hold that much.
 
2012-06-01 01:50:28 AM  
irst of all, derpmitter, they're not "banning soda."

You can start by dropping that bullsh*t.


This law has absolutely no teeth and is exactly ZERO of a threat to you or anyone you know.

This totally reminds me of the Republicans' "outrage" over the Obama administration's "socialism" they're cramming down our throats with health care.

I swear to god this country is full of crying babies.
 
2012-06-01 01:55:10 AM  
Lets try it for a few years. If it helps reduce the obesity rate great. If not, repeal it. I don't see why people are screaming bloody murder. Its just soda.
 
2012-06-01 02:01:12 AM  

PDid: Lets try it for a few years. If it helps reduce the obesity rate great. If not, repeal it. I don't see why people are screaming bloody murder. Its just soda.


It's ok to torture terror suspects. If it helps reduce terrorist attacks, great. If not, don't use it. I don't see why people are screaming bloody murder. It's just torture
 
2012-06-01 02:04:33 AM  

PDid: Lets try it for a few years. If it helps reduce the obesity rate great. If not, repeal it. I don't see why people are screaming bloody murder. Its just soda.


IT'S POP, YOU HEATHEN!
 
2012-06-01 02:04:39 AM  

cman: PDid: Lets try it for a few years. If it helps reduce the obesity rate great. If not, repeal it. I don't see why people are screaming bloody murder. Its just soda.

It's ok to torture terror suspects. If it helps reduce terrorist attacks, great. If not, don't use it. I don't see why people are screaming bloody murder. It's just torture


Super point!
 
2012-06-01 02:07:48 AM  

whidbey: irst of all, derpmitter, they're not "banning soda."

You can start by dropping that bullsh*t.


This law has absolutely no teeth and is exactly ZERO of a threat to you or anyone you know.

This totally reminds me of the Republicans' "outrage" over the Obama administration's "socialism" they're cramming down our throats with health care.

I swear to god this country is full of crying babies.


So you are ok with this junior version of nanny-state authoritarianism that Bloomberg puts out all the damn time? I'm not asking if both sides are bad, or the same, there are more than two sides to consider, and none of them will represent someone entirely.

So, do you have an opinion on the matter?
 
2012-06-01 02:11:51 AM  
an empty gesture made by a empty suit to please empty minds.
 
2012-06-01 02:18:17 AM  
Everyone's super pissed because a politician wants to use legislation to address what he sees as a problem.
Whether you agree with the "ban" or not, why is no one having the conversation about how farking sick and far gone self destructive and stupid a country/individual/society is for even wanting to consume so much all at once?

Seriously. Didn't anyone teach you that it's better to not have so much sugar?
 
2012-06-01 02:18:49 AM  

violentsalvation: So you are ok with this junior version of nanny-state authoritarianism that Bloomberg puts out all the damn time? I'm not asking if both sides are bad, or the same, there are more than two sides to consider, and none of them will represent someone entirely.

So, do you have an opinion on the matter?


Whatever opinion I might have about it isn't going to get through the wall of "junior nanny state authoritarianism Bloomberg puts up all the damn time" you've constructed to frame your posts with.

I can't wait until the real thing happens nationwide. It's really going to bring the derp to the surface.
 
2012-06-01 02:27:56 AM  

brichter: Everyone's super pissed because a politician wants to use legislation to address what he sees as a problem.
Whether you agree with the "ban" or not, why is no one having the conversation about how farking sick and far gone self destructive and stupid a country/individual/society is for even wanting to consume so much all at once?

Seriously. Didn't anyone teach you that it's better to not have so much sugar?


Maybe because it's none of their farking business?
 
2012-06-01 02:29:45 AM  

whidbey: violentsalvation: So you are ok with this junior version of nanny-state authoritarianism that Bloomberg puts out all the damn time? I'm not asking if both sides are bad, or the same, there are more than two sides to consider, and none of them will represent someone entirely.

So, do you have an opinion on the matter?

Whatever opinion I might have about it isn't going to get through the wall of "junior nanny state authoritarianism Bloomberg puts up all the damn time" you've constructed to frame your posts with.

I can't wait until the real thing happens nationwide. It's really going to bring the derp to the surface.


So you are cool with it, I guess. I knew you were pathetically stupid and partisan. If this was a repub mayor you would be chugging soda in solidarity with the unhealthy. I hardly ever drink soda but I hope someday someone steps on one of your guilty pleasures. Slippery slope toward prohibition.

You give a little, they take a lot. But they don't stop there..
 
2012-06-01 02:30:07 AM  

Mimekiller: an empty gesture made by a empty suit to please empty minds.


A super-sized THIS.
 
2012-06-01 02:36:05 AM  

violentsalvation: I knew you were pathetically stupid and partisan


I'm not the one seeing Orwell in every glass of Coke, dude. Maybe Ron Paul will buy you a new pair of shoes or something.
 
2012-06-01 02:38:52 AM  

whidbey: violentsalvation: I knew you were pathetically stupid and partisan

I'm not the one seeing Orwell in every glass of Coke, dude. Maybe Ron Paul will buy you a new pair of shoes or something.


No, but your blinders are awesome. I dislike Ron Paul, by the way.
 
2012-06-01 02:39:35 AM  

whidbey: violentsalvation: I knew you were pathetically stupid and partisan

I'm not the one seeing Orwell in every glass of Coke, dude. Maybe Ron Paul will buy you a new pair of shoes or something.


Why is it any of your farking concern of how other people live their own lives?
 
2012-06-01 02:40:41 AM  

violentsalvation: whidbey: violentsalvation: I knew you were pathetically stupid and partisan

I'm not the one seeing Orwell in every glass of Coke, dude. Maybe Ron Paul will buy you a new pair of shoes or something.

No, but your blinders are awesome. I dislike Ron Paul, by the way.


I'm just noticing that we're not really having a discussion. You seem awfully paranoid about government, hence the Ron Paul jab. You're out to make Bloomberg into some kind of Destroyer of Liberty, have at it. Not really worth my time.
 
2012-06-01 02:57:53 AM  

whidbey: violentsalvation: whidbey: violentsalvation: I knew you were pathetically stupid and partisan

I'm not the one seeing Orwell in every glass of Coke, dude. Maybe Ron Paul will buy you a new pair of shoes or something.

No, but your blinders are awesome. I dislike Ron Paul, by the way.

I'm just noticing that we're not really having a discussion. You seem awfully paranoid about government, hence the Ron Paul jab. You're out to make Bloomberg into some kind of Destroyer of Liberty, have at it. Not really worth my time.


Not worth your time? All I see is you casting partisan sh*t around and doing everything possible to AVOID discussion. I'd love a discussion. So let me quote myself and you can give it another stab, if you like.

violentsalvation: So you are ok with this junior version of nanny-state authoritarianism that Bloomberg puts out all the damn time? I'm not asking if both sides are bad, or the same, there are more than two sides to consider, and none of them will represent someone entirely.

So, do you have an opinion on the matter?



Disregard my remarks that offend you, but what is your opinion on this? IIRC, I have seen you say you are for legalizing drugs, and I am too. So why are you defending this in a beat-around-the-bush manner? Do you not have an opinion? Do you want to wait until sh*t gets really stupid so you can blame the GOP? What part of trampling personal freedoms do you not understand? Were you beaten up by a Mountain Dew junkie as a kid and this is where you find your authoritarianism?
 
2012-06-01 03:07:03 AM  

violentsalvation: Do you want to wait until sh*t gets really stupid so you can blame the GOP? What part of trampling personal freedoms do you not understand? Were you beaten up by a Mountain Dew junkie as a kid and this is where you find your authoritarianism?


Right. You claim you want to have a discussion, and then you revert to the same tired paranoid posting style as before. Have fun fighting Big Brother.
 
2012-06-01 03:19:46 AM  

whidbey: violentsalvation: Do you want to wait until sh*t gets really stupid so you can blame the GOP? What part of trampling personal freedoms do you not understand? Were you beaten up by a Mountain Dew junkie as a kid and this is where you find your authoritarianism?

Right. You claim you want to have a discussion, and then you revert to the same tired paranoid posting style as before. Have fun fighting Big Brother.


Like I thought, whidbey. You have absolutely nothing of value to say, if you did, you would have said it. You go ahead fighting for all personal freedoms except the ones Democrats strive to restrict. Your BS stinks but it is clear enough that we all see through it.
 
2012-06-01 04:06:55 AM  

MrEricSir: First they came for the Sparks, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a raver.
Then they came for the Four Loco, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a frat boy.
Then they came for the Soda, and I didn't speak out because I didn't drink soda.
Then they came for my Purple Drank, and I had nothing to grip and sip.


Robitussin? There are already restrictions on that. You need to be over 18 to buy it where I am
 
2012-06-01 04:08:17 AM  

Oldiron_79: Maybe the Imperial federal govt. will use the interstate commerce clause to biatch slap Bloomberg down.


The burden of proving that a municipal bylaw trespasses the interstate commerce clause could be a biatch.
 
2012-06-01 04:21:40 AM  

violentsalvation: Like I thought, whidbey. You have absolutely nothing of value to say, if you did, you would have said it.


I did say it. Feel free to scroll up to the comment about dumbmitter. I also pointed out that your flair for paranoia and exaggeration does not bode well for honest discussion. I'm sorry if that makes you mad.
Now goodbye.
 
2012-06-01 04:22:05 AM  
farm8.static.flickr.com
It's like Mr. Roger's Fascist Neighborhood.
 
2012-06-01 04:28:16 AM  

Johnnyknox: [farm8.static.flickr.com image 240x159]
It's like Mr. Roger's Fascist Neighborhood.


Yes, because banning large soft drinks at ball parks and street carts= Hitler

Who knew?
 
2012-06-01 05:37:01 AM  
Not sure that a ban on large sodas is going to make a difference. People will just buy two smaller sodas.

What we could really use is state taxes on sugar, with the proceeds used to supplement Medicaid budgets.

As sugar consumption declines tax revenue would decline, but so would health care costs, so it works out. And we'd have healthier people to boot.
 
2012-06-01 06:35:46 AM  
"Can I have a large soda?"

"No, sorry, we're not allowed to serve those anymore."

"OK, then give me two medium sodas."
 
2012-06-01 06:45:09 AM  

violentsalvation: You go ahead fighting for all personal freedoms except the ones Democrats strive to restrict.


Bloomberg is a Democrat again now?
 
2012-06-01 07:21:52 AM  
There is no soda ban. Go ask for a refill, fat ass.
 
2012-06-01 07:43:50 AM  

SomeAmerican: Not sure that a ban on large sodas is going to make a difference. People will just buy two smaller sodas.

What we could really use is state taxes on sugar, with the proceeds used to supplement Medicaid budgets.

As sugar consumption declines tax revenue would decline, but so would health care costs, so it works out. And we'd have healthier people to boot.


Pretty much, this law is stupid and that's why it should not have passed, not that it is some affront to freedom (though it is somewhat creepy that Bloomberg took such an authoritarian track with this). Also, TFA writer is a goddamn idiot. I hope he wasn't paid for that tripe.
 
2012-06-01 07:49:59 AM  
No one wants to discuss this?

I have a cousin who used to work for UPS and whenever they had to clean the inside of the UPS truck, they doused the inside with Coke because it acted as a corrosive agent.
 
2012-06-01 07:53:02 AM  

telephone: No one wants to discuss this?

I have a cousin who used to work for UPS and whenever they had to clean the inside of the UPS truck, they doused the inside with Coke because it acted as a corrosive agent.


That doesn't really make any sense to me, but I do know the cops use coke to clean blood off the street.
 
2012-06-01 08:09:24 AM  
As someone who doesn't drink soda/pop/coke WTFever, who's farking business is it if I want a 300 oz diet coke?
 
2012-06-01 08:11:52 AM  

SomeAmerican: What we could really use is state taxes on sugar


... so the government uses our tax money to subsidize corn, making HFCS cheaper, which in turn leads to its prevalent use, which (allegedly) makes us obese, so we should increase the taxes on sugar ...

/recursion detected

HotWingConspiracy: I do know the cops use coke to clean blood off the street.


Since cops aren't known for their street-cleaning duties, I doubt this.
 
2012-06-01 08:26:13 AM  

ArcadianRefugee: HotWingConspiracy: I do know the cops use coke to clean blood off the street.

Since cops aren't known for their street-cleaning duties, I doubt this.


I dunno, I saw a cop on Cops do it. The don't get a mop out or anything, they just dump a two liter on the pool. They could probably use any soda, I think it's more the carbonation breaking it up then an "acid" in coke.

I just looked it up, Snopes says it's a myth, but some boards have people saying it happens. And again, I saw it on Cops. Anecdotal, but at least I know it has happened once and it looked like it worked.
 
2012-06-01 08:26:16 AM  
Slap 30% tax of full sugar sodas.

I suspect that that will make them pull their finger out on using a non-calorie sugar replacement that doesn't vaguely taste of chlorine.

They already exist in powdered form (like sugar from the stevia plant), and they don't use them in drinks widely because of the power of the Cane Sugar Lobby and their comparative higher cost (again, due to the power of the Cane Sugar Lobby).


I gave up sugar versions of soda, did nothing else, and had lost a stone in a year. They really are wicked.
 
2012-06-01 08:27:11 AM  

Bungles: I gave up sugar versions of soda, did nothing else, and had lost a stone in a year. They really are wicked.


How much did you normally drink?
 
2012-06-01 08:32:53 AM  

SomeAmerican: Not sure that a ban on large sodas is going to make a difference. People will just buy two smaller sodas.


Actually, they won't. People are lazy - even a small amount of inconvenience will cause them to reevaluate whether they legitimately want that second soda. For the most part, they won't want it. For the handful of people that *have* to have more, then they can go do it, they'll just have to make a conscious decision to do so instead of letting soda company marketing drive the process.

Soda sizes have gotten larger and larger because we more or less always pick "medium" when making decisions and then get upsold ("only 30 cents more") to a larger size. Notice how the actual size of the drink doesn't enter into the equation. So all the sizes (and prices) get bigger and bigger and bigger despite people not actually needing/wanting that much drink (or food!).

As a result, people buy more food and drink than they actually need and once they've purchased that food and drink, they feel obligated to consume the entire portion regardless of whether they're actually hungry or thirsty enough to want that much. The massive portion sizes in the US is a big factor behind obesity. And the worst part is that you don't even think about what you're doing most times.

If you want a good example of how even a slight inconvenience and change behavior, look at bag fees. Simply changing the default from "always get a bag" to "explicitly pay 5 cents per bag" is enough to eliminate 98% of plastic bag use. Every time the issue comes up, there's always a bunch of people here claiming "This is stupid, people will just pay the 5 cents and nothing will change" despite things changing in every single place that's done it.
 
Displayed 50 of 88 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report