Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

I hate Mayor Mike....

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 456
Author
 Rating: Topic Rating: 1 Votes, Average 5.00  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
usafpilot07 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
FreeEnterprise's #1 Fan & Potty Mouth

Joined: 31 August 2004
Location: Tokelau
Status: Offline
Points: 4450
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote usafpilot07 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 June 2012 at 2:46pm
Originally posted by Rofl_Mao Rofl_Mao wrote:


Another option is to just raise the cost of the drinks. Fewer people will buy a coke if its $3.00+ a bottle.




Having not read pages four or five yet, I nominate this quote as worst argument of the thread, and maybe of all time.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
Back to Top
Kayback View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Ask me about my Kokido

Joined: 25 July 2002
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 4029
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kayback Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 June 2012 at 3:47pm
They should make the price the same as 2 x 8oz.

The main problem, and research has shown which is why companies do it, people will pay more for what they don't want, if they think they are getting a bargain. Only $1 more for double the amount? Sure!

I'm still curious to see FE's reply to the sugar-level-in-wine statements from a week ago.....

KBK
Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2
Back to Top
usafpilot07 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
FreeEnterprise's #1 Fan & Potty Mouth

Joined: 31 August 2004
Location: Tokelau
Status: Offline
Points: 4450
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote usafpilot07 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 June 2012 at 4:05pm
Originally posted by SSOK SSOK wrote:

Most of the sugar in wine/beer/cider/hooch/alcohol is consumed during fermentation. Yeast eat sugar, poop booze. 

I don't know about you guys, but I graduated highschool in 2009 and it was an interesting time to be in highschool because I got to watch the "school food" laws take place. I forget the specifics, but my freshman year the food was relatively decent and definitely edible. I remember being able to buy chicken fingers, french fries, pizza, and a whole plethora of bad-for-you food, as well as a lot of less obese food. 

My second year a lot of the school food laws took place, and it was terrible. I am trying to not sound like a whiney American white kid, but the States effort to force schools into "healthy" lunches really killed any desire to eat food in school, and a fair percentage decided to stop eating school food entirely. I remember everything possible was turned into whole wheat, albeit a cheap crappy whole wheat. The school continued selling the generic hamburgers/pizza etc, but after everything became "healthy" it became disgusting.

My guess is, "unhealthy but definitely edible" food is pretty cheap to sell, and the more healthy offerings were more expensive so we got stuck with the lower end crap. I remember salads were downright terrible.

I think by my seinor year my lunch was a bagel. During lacrosse season I would eat cookies about an hour before practice.


I don't think the food laws ever hit us while I was there(graduated in 07), but who knows.

I ate a frozen round pizza thing, French fries, cookies, and sweet tea almost every day Sophomore-Senior years, and I turned out fine.

It comes down to parents feeding their kids better at home, and keeping them active. After that, they turn 18 and have to decide what kind of care they want to take of themselves.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
Back to Top
Kayback View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Ask me about my Kokido

Joined: 25 July 2002
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 4029
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kayback Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 June 2012 at 4:06pm
Don't want to let this drop off the page before FE responds to the wine sugar level comments.
Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4788
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 June 2012 at 4:31pm
Bloomberg is doing this because he thinks the people in his city are too fat. So the calories per drink is what he wants to reduce. 

Look at the calories per bottle of wine, (since it is rarely sold by the glass). 


IF he really wanted to curb obesity, why would he not ban the stuff HE drinks?... Since it packs a ton of calories and makes people fat...

That was my point. 
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
mbro View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Original Forum Gangster

Joined: 11 June 2002
Location: Isle Of Man
Status: Offline
Points: 10743
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mbro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 June 2012 at 4:36pm
Because people consume far more soda than wine?

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Back to Top
tallen702 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Swearing on Facebook

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: Under Your Bed
Status: Offline
Points: 10951
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tallen702 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 June 2012 at 6:02pm
Originally posted by mbro mbro wrote:

Because people consume far more soda than wine?


Speaks fer yourshelfs there meester "I don't drinks da wines all day" *hic*




<Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.>
Back to Top
usafpilot07 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
FreeEnterprise's #1 Fan & Potty Mouth

Joined: 31 August 2004
Location: Tokelau
Status: Offline
Points: 4450
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote usafpilot07 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 June 2012 at 6:42pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

Bloomberg is doing this because he thinks the people in his city are too fat. So the calories per drink is what he wants to reduce. 

Look at the calories per bottle of wine, (since it is rarely sold by the glass). 


IF he really wanted to curb obesity, why would he not ban the stuff HE drinks?... Since it packs a ton of calories and makes people fat...

That was my point. 


I bet the majority of obese people in New York are fat because of alcohol.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
Back to Top
Eville View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 5/19, Filter-dodge

Joined: 19 September 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3147
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Eville Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 June 2012 at 11:29pm
Wine is sold by the glass in nearly every restaurant I have err been in. When wine is bought by the bOttle, it is shared by several people. When is the last time you saw a table sharing a large coke?
Back to Top
Kayback View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Ask me about my Kokido

Joined: 25 July 2002
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 4029
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kayback Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 June 2012 at 2:25am
Since when was the sugar content the exact same thing a the calorie content when discussing how there is too much sugar in soda?

Its very easy to win your argument by simply changing what you were saying when you get caught out making blatant errors when stating fact.

The grass it red.
No it is green.
What I meant was it isn't blue!

On the whole I'd say the calorie content of a nice meal is higher than the calories on fast food. The last meal I had a "nice" wine with consisted of bread for the table, dips for the bread, a soup, Kudu fillet, julliened sweet vegetables, roast potatoes, champagne based cream sauce and a creme brulle with coffee. Those calories kicked the ass of the medium Big Mac I had for lunch yesterday. The calorie content of the wine or the soda was almost a by the bye.

The wine my wife and I had was sold by the glass. In fact we most often get it by the glass, because a bottle will put many people over the legal driving limit. You can get it by the glass at many top places. For example La Colombe which is in the top 20 list of the best restaurants in the world, they sell expensive wines by the glass. I know, we eat there often. The wine is often more expensive than the food.

So that argument is rather moot.

Do people consume too many calories? Yes. Is soda/wine part of the problem? Yes. Is the argument you put forwards valid? No.

KBK
Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4788
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 June 2012 at 11:59am
My bad Kayback... I said sugar, but should have said calories. Since calories make you fat... Which was what bloomberg was referencing with the ban... You know, fat people. 

I'm sorry I was wrong and caused you so much distress.
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
Kayback View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Ask me about my Kokido

Joined: 25 July 2002
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 4029
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kayback Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 June 2012 at 1:30pm
Lol and then you are condescending about it.

You're really good at this "debate" thing.

KBK
Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2
Back to Top
Mack View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Has no impulse! control

Joined: 13 January 2004
Location: 2nd Circle
Status: Offline
Points: 9820
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 July 2012 at 1:52am
There were a couple of comments made that made me start thinking about this topic in relation to, for lack of a better (shorter) term, Obamacare.  Especially, since SCOTUS has essentially given it the go-ahead.

Originally posted by scotchyscotch scotchyscotch wrote:

Ok obesity is a problem almost anywhere in the developed world. Now the argument in the UK for these kind of ideas is that it costs our NHS billions to treat the huskier gentlemen.  I'm not sure how it works in the US but I would imagine that if the majority of healthcare is paid for privately, which is my baseless assumption. Then where does the state figure they have to stick their oar in?

I say this as a UK resident and we have been facing all this kind of thing for a while and it is always difficult to argue against it when the public money is being used for the healthcare system. Supersize meals at Mcdonalds are a thing of the past, and a deck of smokes has doubled in price in the last 5 years. Any promotional deals on alcohol are now banned in Scotland and they've just passed a bill for minimum pricing on alcohol to IIRC 50p/unit.


Originally posted by Kayback Kayback wrote:

Over 25% of the States would benefit from imposed eating laws. Over $150 Billion in heath care for fat asses would be saved.....KBK


Originally posted by stratoaxe stratoaxe wrote:

I'd be fine with the government taking an active role in regulating the weight of its people. I'd get a tax break for all my working out.


Originally posted by *Stealth* *Stealth* wrote:

Like Kayback hinted at, with such overwhelming government assistance  in terms of Healthcare, it is an obvious step to begin imposing regulations such as this. Obesity will in short order become the number one cause of preventable death in America, and much like we target tobacco use now, we will be making dieting mistakes a major inconvenience for those involved. 

I'm not trying to say I agree with it on a personal level; unfortunately, however, government assistance  naturally leads to government regulation.


The gist I'm getting from this is that since the government is/will be footing the bill for people's health care then the government has a right to interfere with people's lives to keep costs down by forcing them to live/eat healthier.  If we take this to the next logical step, then perhaps only people who can afford to have children should be allowed to have them . . . after all, the government, will already be helping pay for the birth, if the people having kids can't afford to take care of them why shouldn't the government interfere here as well to keep costs down on programs such as welfare, foodstamps, etc.

It all seems a little Orewellian to me . . . slippery sloped, etc.

Edited PS:  I almost forgot . . . "They're gonna off grandma!"


Edited by Mack - 02 July 2012 at 1:53am
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 456
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.