You Knew it was Coming

[BOP]

more and more and more and more government intrusion into our lives.

Mass. mayor suggests ban on large drinks, free refills – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

A Massachusetts mayor is taking inspiration from a controversial New York City proposal to ban large, sugary beverages – and might even want to take it a step further.

Cambridge Mayor Henrietta Davis unveiled a proposal that would outlaw large-size sodas and other sugary drinks in area restaurants to the City Council on Monday.

She’s also suggesting that city officials consider banning free refills of sugary beverages, which would be a step beyond New York City’s plan.

“Our environment is full of way too many temptations,” Davis said. “This is one temptation that isn’t really necessary.”

[Moved_south]

This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard.... Don't these people have better, more important things to regulate?

[RPMDAD]

Originally Posted by Moved_south

This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard.... Don't these people have better, more important things to regulate?

Nope absolutely not, they have discovered that the easiest thing for them to regulate is law abiding tax paying citizens who always seem to follow like lemmings and keep voting them into power. Why should they look any farther.

[kom526]

What's next? A corking fee for your 2 liter bottle of coke?

[vraiblonde]

“This is one temptation that isn’t really necessary.”

Right, because donuts and candy bars are so necessary, not to mention pizza, fried chicken and whatever else.

I don't get this bugaboo about sodas. Did the Coca-Cola company not pay their political shakedown or something?

[preselector]

First they came for the smokers
And the non-smokers cheered.

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by BOP

more and more and more and more government intrusion into our lives.

What's even sadder is there are still lots of people willing to keep these dictators in power.

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

Right, because donuts and candy bars are so necessary, not to mention pizza, fried chicken and whatever else.

I don't get this bugaboo about sodas. Did the Coca-Cola company not pay their political shakedown or something?

It’s not just sodas. It’s anything they can get their hands on to control us. Cigarettes, light bulbs, fossil fueled vehicles, forcing us to buy something we may not want, forcing religious organizations to provide something that is against their principles, no more toys in ‘happy meals’, the free practice of religion, no more free speech...

Once they have established a firm foothold on soda, they will go after the next thing.

It goes on and on. And Americans just keep on taking it.

Top Leaders in the Nazi Party in the 1930's were Animal Rights, Do not eat meat, pro healthy diets / living


Progressives in this country were all gaga over Hitler [and Mussolini] - he was another socialist - until Stalin and Adolf had a falling out - then everything Stalin was against was 'fascist'


Hitler - fascist

Trotsky [who was to the left of Stalin and thought like Jefferson [?] there should be a new 'revolution' every 5 yrs to keep politics fresh [of course this means Stalin would have been out of Power to Big T had to go] - fascist

it is all outlined in the 1st couple of chapters of 'Liberal Fascism'



[I am just say'n]

[Tilted (Premo)]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

What's even sadder is there are still lots of people willing to keep these dictators in power.

Originally Posted by PsyOps

It’s not just sodas. It’s anything they can get their hands on to control us. Cigarettes, light bulbs, fossil fueled vehicles, forcing us to buy something we may not want, forcing religious organizations to provide something that is against their principles, no more toys in ‘happy meals’, the free practice of religion, no more free speech...

Once they have established a firm foothold on soda, they will go after the next thing.

It goes on and on. And Americans just keep on taking it.

Part of the problem is that so many of the people that reprove particular instances of government control-seeking unapologetically approve other instances of it. They advocate the latters even while they deride the formers. It seems that most of us favor big, invasive government, some of us just disagree as to how it should be big and in what areas it should be invasive. We end up tolerating each other's desired forms of big government - reluctantly and not without rhetorical opposition, but tolerate them ultimately we do - so as to preserve the system in which our own desired forms of big government might be effectuated. It's kind of like how an overeating wife tolerates an over-drinking husband and vice versa - not without arguments, not without fights, but tolerate they do to secure their own vice's place within the context of the relationship.

There seems to be something about the human psyche, one of its frailties: We crave power over other people. It quiets our insecurities - in particular, our sense of powerlessness over ourselves and our own lives. But it doesn't vanquish those insecurities; rather, it distracts us from confronting them head on and overcoming them. So they remain or even grow stronger, which causes us to crave more power over others. Far too few people, it seems to me, come to the realization that power over others can never replace a sense of power over oneself - no matter how much of the former you achieve. In that realization lies a key to sustained happiness. When people find happiness and contentment within themselves, when they sense ownership of their own life, they lose the need to control others and then the desire to do so. It makes them better people - better husbands, wives, sisters, brothers, friends, lovers, bosses, workers, and, yes, better voters and elected officials.

At any rate, back to the depressing quagmire that was the point: In democracy, the people get what they deserve.

(For those that might insist that we don't live in a democracy, that we live in a republic: I'm using the term in keeping with modern definitions not as it was used in 1828. If it were 1800, it would be accurate to say that this is not a democracy but rather a republic. Today the term democracy refers to both direct democracy and representative democracy, and more commonly to the latter as that is what the world has become populated with. See democracy, democracy, or democracy.)