Aww ….. Sadz, Totalitarian Nutters Lament The S.C. Decision Not To Allow Them To Tell Us How Much And How We Drink Our Soda-Pop


From Newsbusters ….

NY Times Laments Demise of City’s Soda Ban ‘Dashing the Hopes’ of ‘Health Advocates’

Reporting on yesterday’s demise of New York City’s jumbo-soda ban in New York State’s Court of Appeals, the New York Times’s Michael Grynbaum loaded his June 27 story with weighted language in favor of the vanquished side of the policy and legal arguments and presenting the fight as one between well-intentioned health advocates on one end and evil, greedy soda barons — Big Fizz? — on the other.

“The Bloomberg big-soda ban is officially dead,” the Times staffer mourned in his lead sentence, adding (emphasis mine), “The state’s highest court on Thursday refused to reinstate New York City’s controversial limits on sales of jumbo sugary drinks, exhausting the city’s final appeal anddashing the hopes of health advocates who have urged state and local governments to curb the consumption of drinks and foods linked to obesity.” By contrast, he noted “The ruling was a major victory for the American soft-drink industry, which had fought the plan.” It was also a victory for the leave-me-the-hell-alone ethos of many a New Yorker who opposed the soda ban, but it seems Grynbaum failed to consult the proverbial man on the street by say hitting up a local bodega and asking the average customer for his or her thoughts.

Lunatics.  They need to quit obsessing over what other people are doing and mind their own. 

This entry was posted in News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Aww ….. Sadz, Totalitarian Nutters Lament The S.C. Decision Not To Allow Them To Tell Us How Much And How We Drink Our Soda-Pop

  1. I hear they ‘banin’ beer in KA

  2. philjourdan says:

    That would be SCONY? Do they want some tea (sugar, 32 oz) with that?

  3. kelly liddle says:

    I would be inclined to let it go through.
    It would not do any harm and could do some good because retailers would just get around it by serving 2 smaller sizes and then they would cover that loophole and another method would be found showing the futility of the law. In other words don’t take them to court just call them stupid.

    • DirkH says:

      You must push their sad faces into the dirt as soon as they start exercising their totalitarianism; otherwise they just become encouraged.

    • kelly liddle says:

      Then you might end up winning the battle not the war, Because they will feel that they only have a setback not a defeat.

      • DirkH says:

        They are a brainless mob and will not care for your logic. If they were thinking logically they wouldn’t be totalitarians in the first place. Exhibit a): the never stopping warmist propaganda; totally undeterred by a planet that hasn’t warmed in 26 years. These people care neither for facts nor for logic because their brains are just not up for the task. What they know is cheating, lying, stealing and making excuses for it.

    • kim2ooo says:

      Sorry, I disagree.

      Why burden the LAW with something clearly unconstitutional?

      It should have been stopped at the beginning… In this case The Judicial upheld the Constitution.

      So far, this session they’ve killed 9 of Obamas “laws” alone.

      • cdquarles says:

        Some won’t like it, but the same logic applies to intoxicants. There is no point in ‘banning’ intoxicants, if you are concerned about liberty and have issues with intoxicated citizens, focus on intoxication. D & D ordinances/laws have been around much longer than prohibitions (for intoxicants).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s