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.

(Big 1059)   Starbucks serves condescending overpriced retort to Mayor Bloomberg's sugary drink law slated to start next week   (big1059.com) divider line 170
    More: Followup, Starbucks, soft drinks, balks, enforcement  
•       •       •

20426 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Mar 2013 at 12:53 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-07 06:28:09 PM

umad: Cornelius Dribble: The law doesn't ban anybody from buying anything. If you want 32 ounces of sugar water, you have every right to buy two 16-ounce cups and drink them both. I have no idea why everybody's getting their panties in a twist over this.

If you don't like the nanny state, stop acting like spoiled children.

lol

"If you don't want me to force you to behave in a manner that I find acceptable, then you should behave in a manner that I find acceptable."

I have a better idea. If I don't like the nanny state, you go fark yourself.


Thank you for proving my point.
 
2013-03-07 06:40:35 PM

Charles_Nelson_Reilly: JohnBigBootaywe have a fat problem in this country...What about rules that would force ..."

Laws and regulations are too important, too powerful, to waste on trying to solve problems that people are free to solve for themselves. "I see a problem, so there ought to be a law" is a wrong-headed knee-jerk reaction.


I rather agree, but this brings the question.. why do we let wrong-headed jerks into office?
 
2013-03-07 06:53:32 PM

magu2k: Charles_Nelson_Reilly: JohnBigBootaywe have a fat problem in this country...What about rules that would force ..."

Laws and regulations are too important, too powerful, to waste on trying to solve problems that people are free to solve for themselves. "I see a problem, so there ought to be a law" is a wrong-headed knee-jerk reaction.

I rather agree, but this brings the question.. why do we let wrong-headed jerks into office?


Rich people are so dreamy.
 
2013-03-07 08:00:18 PM

WhyteRaven74: Someone needs to ask Bloomberg point blank if he's so concerned about people's health and well being why he's done exactly jack and shiat about all the people living in slums in New York City. There are buildings that have a long string of code violations and tenant complaints and yet the city won't lift a finger.


It's always been easier in politics to make "feel good" decisions instead of actually addressing the social roots behind the issues they're trying to address.. It would have taken political effort to take action against some of his biggest donors...so soda got targeted instead.
 
2013-03-07 08:26:27 PM
crap.. i find myself impressed with starbucks over something.
 
2013-03-07 09:07:57 PM
SilentStrider: crap.. i find myself impressed with starbucks over something.


I never understood the whole hate for Starbucks. It's like lumped in there with Walmart or McDonalds.  Those places have a better argument for the hate.

Fact is it brought in the small coffee hangout place model for a lot of small towns to medium size cities.  The coffee isn't great but it's okay.  Whatever.  And if the small town doesn't have Starbucks, it probably has some copy-cat place which probably serves better stuff.  Prior to, a lot of towns and cities just had diners if you wanted a cup (or the gas station).
 
2013-03-07 09:09:29 PM

Endive Wombat: What is to stop retailers and coffee shops from selling two med sized sugar drinks as opposed to one extra large to the same person?


The person.
 
2013-03-07 09:15:16 PM

Great Janitor: Doesn't New York City have enough problems right now that need to be addressed long before the subject of sugary drinks is addressed?


That's what Bloomberg is counting on.
 
2013-03-07 09:16:02 PM

delsydsoftware: Sadly, Starbucks really does need to reduce sugar. I think they have been bumping up sugar in their frappuchinos over the past 5 years. They no longer resemble iced coffee...it's just syrupy shiat.


I wonder why they would do that?
 
2013-03-07 09:17:23 PM

StoPPeRmobile: No sugar packets. You must go to another store for that if, you have a prescription authorized by your insurance company. It's the only way we can be safe.


And we need your ID to enter into a database so your monthly sugar purchases can be tracked.
 
2013-03-07 09:23:00 PM
JohnBigBootay:

I just want the option to buy less sometimes and not have to throw a bunch of food away that i paid good money for.

Are there no homeless people in sight?  I carted the leftovers from my wedding to a shelter. It felt good, better than the Swedish meatballs made me feel.
 
2013-03-07 09:28:24 PM

justtray: Fatties dont obey diets, so there's no point forcing them to diet. Unless we can force them to not be fat, there's no point restricting their access to sugar.


If North Carolina can control what people buy with food stamps, the problem is solved.  Just put everyone on food stamps and forbid food transactions with anything else.
 
2013-03-07 09:33:59 PM

Cornelius Dribble: The law doesn't ban anybody from buying anything. If you want 32 ounces of sugar water, you have every right to buy two 16-ounce cups and drink them both. I have no idea why everybody's getting their panties in a twist over this.

If you don't like the nanny state, stop acting like spoiled children.


Large drinks are still available at 7-11, other convenience stores, supermarkets, and other outlets that are regulated by the State.  Bloomberg's regulation affects mainly small, local businesses... and that's racist, according to the NAACP.
 
2013-03-07 09:39:09 PM

WhyteRaven74: Someone needs to ask Bloomberg point blank if he's so concerned about people's health and well being why he's done exactly jack and shiat about all the people living in slums in New York City. There are buildings that have a long string of code violations and tenant complaints and yet the city won't lift a finger.


"When you have your health, you have everything."  So STFU.
 
2013-03-07 11:00:21 PM

SirEattonHogg: SilentStrider: crap.. i find myself impressed with starbucks over something.


I never understood the whole hate for Starbucks. It's like lumped in there with Walmart or McDonalds.  Those places have a better argument for the hate.

Fact is it brought in the small coffee hangout place model for a lot of small towns to medium size cities.  The coffee isn't great but it's okay.  Whatever.  And if the small town doesn't have Starbucks, it probably has some copy-cat place which probably serves better stuff.  Prior to, a lot of towns and cities just had diners if you wanted a cup (or the gas station).


So who do I thank for bringing the roadside coffee stand with the hot baristas' in halter tops in the middle of winter into the mainstream?

/Cause...thanks!
 
2013-03-07 11:01:40 PM

BarkingUnicorn: JohnBigBootay:

I just want the option to buy less sometimes and not have to throw a bunch of food away that i paid good money for.

Are there no homeless people in sight?  I carted the leftovers from my wedding to a shelter. It felt good, better than the Swedish meatballs made me feel.


Speaking as a (non-food) small business owner, I imagine that a lot of the reason they don't do that is the extra difficulty of factoring in a second menu of prices. My accountant friend brought me to one of her classes for a presentation, and another student had been working with a small restaurant owner and from what he said, many of them are absolutely TERRIBLE at tracking costs and general accounting/inventory. He literally had to build his partner a quick and dirty Excel spreadsheet that would do it for him; it was extremely basic but much better than the mountains of receipt tape he'd gone through to do it.

Sooo rambling aside, I'm guessing that's most of the reason they don't have such options. That and size of meal per dollar matters more to a lot of people than quality, which is sad.
 
2013-03-07 11:38:18 PM

SirEattonHogg: I never understood the whole hate for Starbucks. It's like lumped in there with Walmart or McDonalds. Those places have a better argument for the hate.


My biggest problem with Starbucks is that their coffee is, in my opinion, terrible.
 
2013-03-08 12:36:31 AM

BarkingUnicorn: Cornelius Dribble: The law doesn't ban anybody from buying anything. If you want 32 ounces of sugar water, you have every right to buy two 16-ounce cups and drink them both. I have no idea why everybody's getting their panties in a twist over this.

If you don't like the nanny state, stop acting like spoiled children.

Large drinks are still available at 7-11, other convenience stores, supermarkets, and other outlets that are regulated by the State.  Bloomberg's regulation affects mainly small, local businesses... and that's racist, according to the NAACP.


If true (and I'll take your word for it unless somebody corrects you), that is a legitimate complaint. It would fall in line with my main complaint about Bloomberg, which is that, as you might assume from somebody who made billions in high finance, he's overly biased in favor of large corporate interests. See Times Square, Coney Island, his centralized, teach-to-the-test education platform, and his plan (thankfully nixed by City Council) to plaster advertisements all through Central Park.

Even so, if the city government had the power to enforce this restriction universally, this objection wouldn't hold.
 
2013-03-08 12:43:04 AM

BarkingUnicorn: "When you have your health, you have everything." So STFU.


Slums are not healthy places to live. Those buildings with an dozens of code violations are public health disasters.
 
2013-03-08 02:33:38 AM
Simpsons did it!
 
Displayed 20 of 170 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report