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.

(New York Daily News)   Mississippi, the fattest state in the union, reacts to NYC mayor Bloomberg's "big soda ban" by passing a law to make it illegal for any city in THEIR state to ever force restaurants to limit portion sizes or post calorie counts   (nydailynews.com) divider line 28
    More: Asinine, Michael Bloomberg, calorie counts, Mississippi, nyc mayor, Dietary Reference Intake, Big Gulp, Stonewall, speed limits  
•       •       •

3756 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Mar 2013 at 12:33 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-13 11:57:50 AM
5 votes:

Theaetetus: Banning limiting portion size, I can understand. From a libertarian perspective, it's "hey, if you want to eat yourself stupid, it's not the government's place to stop you."
But banning requiring calorie counts? What's the theory there? "Freedom requires ignorance"?


I think the answer may lie in the fact that the sponsor also owns the state's largest chain of BBQ joints actually.

Still, this sort of knee-jerk reaction makes me think Bloomberg should next pass a law making the constant breathing of air mandatory for all citizens.  The collective IQ of the country would go up by 15 points overnight.
2013-03-13 01:14:05 PM
3 votes:

Gergesa: Ugh, fat people.  If only they qualified as big game I could have such a trophy room.


Yes, but I'm not sure why you'd want to hang your used condoms on your walls.
2013-03-13 12:36:29 PM
3 votes:
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
Meanwhile, in Mississippi.
2013-03-13 12:36:07 PM
3 votes:
i.imgur.com

'MERICA!
2013-03-13 01:10:17 PM
2 votes:

Dissociater: And that's why you should only eat at all-you-can-eat buffets.

QED


Demolition Man was wrong.  The only restaurant in the coming future dystopia won't be Taco Bell.  It'll be the Golden Corral.
2013-03-13 12:53:07 PM
2 votes:

pacified: Bloomberg is right, too.  There is no reason to sell large sodas.  I don't care if it is your farking right.  Is it my "right" to have to pay for your fat ass diabetus?!?!?!  No, Mr. Brimley, it is not.  So STFU, get a small coke, and worry about an actual problem.


And what if I want 64 ounces of  diet coke? Or 64 ounces of seltzer? Or 64 ounces of black iced coffee? Some of us have manly thirst requirements.
2013-03-13 12:47:31 PM
2 votes:

Ring of Fire: theknuckler_33: Passing laws that they think will really 'stick it to them libs'... the primary goal of conservatives.

Yep that's what this is really all about. I actually don't agree with trying to limit portion sizes if some one wants to drink three gallons of come be my guest. I also think if someone wants to get high as a kite that we shouldn't stop them either. Somehow I think the sponsor of the bill might not agree with me on that.
As for the calorie count issue. Why not put it out there let the free market decide? Oh you want to piss off libs that would like to make informed decisions about what they eat.


LOL of coke not come.  Not that there is anything wrong with that.
2013-03-13 06:19:23 PM
1 votes:
Dear Mississippi,

Thanks for making us look smart.

Love and kisses,
Louisiana
2013-03-13 05:17:08 PM
1 votes:
i wonder if occamswrist wants us to look at our belly?
2013-03-13 04:47:46 PM
1 votes:

GORDON: Freedom is stupidity, literally.


...says the most free person in this thread.
2013-03-13 01:43:04 PM
1 votes:

occamswrist: On issues like this I prefer individual choice over government bans.


occamswrist: Calories on the menu are a distraction.

2013-03-13 01:28:43 PM
1 votes:

Theaetetus: Gergesa: Ugh, fat people.  If only they qualified as big game I could have such a trophy room.

Yes, but I'm not sure why you'd want to hang your used condoms on your walls.



5.media.bustedtees.cvcdn.com
US1
2013-03-13 01:28:38 PM
1 votes:
Is Bloomberg gonna put an end to refills?  What if I order two sodas?  What if I want to get a hershey syrup bottle and put a nipple on it and just go to town?  We need more laws.
2013-03-13 01:19:38 PM
1 votes:
You want your god given right to be Fatty Fat McFatston? Stay classy, Mississippi.

i651.photobucket.com
2013-03-13 01:13:05 PM
1 votes:
Ugh, fat people.  If only they qualified as big game I could have such a trophy room.
2013-03-13 01:06:27 PM
1 votes:

Theaetetus: kiwimoogle84: Theaetetus: pacified: Bloomberg is right, too.  There is no reason to sell large sodas.  I don't care if it is your farking right.  Is it my "right" to have to pay for your fat ass diabetus?!?!?!  No, Mr. Brimley, it is not.  So STFU, get a small coke, and worry about an actual problem.

And what if I want 64 ounces of  diet coke? Or 64 ounces of seltzer? Or 64 ounces of black iced coffee? Some of us have manly thirst requirements.

"manly thirst requirements"? Hahaha. I guess that's the reason for the Big Gulps- like for long distance truckers...

I'm an iced coffee fiend.

But what I don't understand is why in the last ten years, a small went from 12 oz to 16, a med went from 16 to 20, and a large went from 20 to like 40. So big that they had to alter the bottom four inches of the cup to fit into a cupholder, because the rest is so wide, it won't fit. It's utterly ridiculous. When I worked in food service in 2003, those were the sizes. Sometime in the last few years they've gone up. THERE IS NO REASON FOR THAT.

Because America. No, really. We've been trained by the corporations to go for value over quality, which invariably means quantity over reasonable sizes. Specifically, they can increase the size of a drink from 12 to 16 ounces for a mere penny or two, but charge the consumer 20-30 cents more, and we think we're getting a better "value". It's all about profit margins. Same thing with portions sizes at restaurants... You've got a $10 entree with an $8 cost, but most of that cost is labor. You can double the size of it for an additional $2 in food costs, the labor is just about identical, and now you can justify charging $15 or $20.


And that's why you should only eat at all-you-can-eat buffets.

QED
2013-03-13 01:02:27 PM
1 votes:

pacified: Bloomberg is right, too.  There is no reason to sell large sodas.  I don't care if it is your farking right.  Is it my "right" to have to pay for your fat ass diabetus?!?!?!  No, Mr. Brimley, it is not.  So STFU, get a small coke, and worry about an actual problem.


Here's the funny thing about living in an ostensibly free society, you don't get to decide whether or not there's a reason to sell large drinks.  Oh, I'm sure the world would be a better place if you ran things, but unfortunately for all of us, we don't have you as our benevolent dictator and have to make do with our flawed representative democracy.
2013-03-13 01:01:09 PM
1 votes:
Eating healthy is un-American.
2013-03-13 12:55:03 PM
1 votes:
Just looking at the food on your plate can give you a reasonable idea how many calories there are. If you eat too many calories its your own dumb fault.

When I see calories on a menu I start thinking like an engineer again - reduce my $/calorie. I usually have to talk myself out of thinking like that. Calories on the menu are a distraction.
2013-03-13 12:49:07 PM
1 votes:

pacified: ahh, the american south!  Never has a larger group of fat, stupid morons ever been collected.  Lincoln was wrong.  Should have let the racist inbred pig-farkers start keep their fatty fat country.

the whole of the south still lives in a slavery mentality, like the house slave: praising their oppressors.


Whoa, whoa, whoa there, son!
susanhenschen.files.wordpress.com
2013-03-13 12:47:16 PM
1 votes:
It's good that Mississippi has such a handle on its problems that its legislature can dedicate time to reactionary chest-thumping over sodas.
2013-03-13 12:45:01 PM
1 votes:

Theaetetus: Banning limiting portion size, I can understand. From a libertarian perspective, it's "hey, if you want to eat yourself stupid, it's not the government's place to stop you."
But banning requiring calorie counts? What's the theory there? "Freedom requires ignorance"?


That should be the new motto of the Republican party.
2013-03-13 12:44:32 PM
1 votes:

theknuckler_33: Passing laws that they think will really 'stick it to them libs'... the primary goal of conservatives.


Yep that's what this is really all about. I actually don't agree with trying to limit portion sizes if some one wants to drink three gallons of come be my guest. I also think if someone wants to get high as a kite that we shouldn't stop them either. Somehow I think the sponsor of the bill might not agree with me on that.
As for the calorie count issue. Why not put it out there let the free market decide? Oh you want to piss off libs that would like to make informed decisions about what they eat.
2013-03-13 12:41:23 PM
1 votes:

Magorn: Theaetetus: Banning limiting portion size, I can understand. From a libertarian perspective, it's "hey, if you want to eat yourself stupid, it's not the government's place to stop you."
But banning requiring calorie counts? What's the theory there? "Freedom requires ignorance"?

I think the answer may lie in the fact that the sponsor also owns the state's largest chain of BBQ joints actually.

Still, this sort of knee-jerk reaction makes me think Bloomberg should next pass a law making the constant breathing of air mandatory for all citizens.  The collective IQ of the country would go up by 15 points overnight.


He's a mayor, not a legislator.  Prohibition has never been successful.  Freedom of choice is the bedrock this nation was founded upon.
2013-03-13 12:40:14 PM
1 votes:
Miss is hippy so her pants do not fit well
2013-03-13 12:36:31 PM
1 votes:
The bill was authored by state Sen. Tony Smith, a Republican who owns the Stonewall's BBQ chain, who said government shouldn't tell people what they cannot eat.

Nope, no conflict of interest here.
2013-03-13 12:06:21 PM
1 votes:

Magorn: I think the answer may lie in the fact that the sponsor also owns the state's largest chain of BBQ joints actually.


But even then, it's inconsistent... "Citizens have the right to eat as much as they want! But we shouldn't be forced to let them know how much they're eating."
You'd think he would proudly put calorie counts on his menu, with prizes for consuming the 10,000 calorie snack pack and such.
2013-03-13 11:41:51 AM
1 votes:
Banning limiting portion size, I can understand. From a libertarian perspective, it's "hey, if you want to eat yourself stupid, it's not the government's place to stop you."
But banning requiring calorie counts? What's the theory there? "Freedom requires ignorance"?
 
Displayed 28 of 28 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report