NYC Mayor Bloomberg: Government has right to ‘infringe on your freedom’

carlin's a hoot, and he's right

The United Citizens decision and Bloomberg's attempts to control consumption of root beer are the same thing? The mind reels......

The "fire in a crowded theater" decision came about in World War I. The Sedition Act was challenged by the left! (Wilson was a racist progressive) Wilson passed laws the incrementally made it seditious to criticize the military, then the government, then the president under the guise of supporting the war. Remember this was left winder progressives behind these laws. People like Emma Goldberg and Eugene Debs spoke out against the war and more specifically the mandatory draft. Both were charged with sedition and both went to prison for a number of years. The phrase, "you can't shout fire in a crowded theater" came from the pen of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. who could always turn a phrase. Also the more academic term "imminent danger" was about restricting free speech during the war. Afterwards parts of the Act were struck down in 1921 by the same supreme court and Holmes agreed that the danger had passed.

I digress again. The difference between that and Bloomberg is that the latter went through the process and Bloomberg is dictating. If Bloomberg can't get through his government, he orders it, if he can't order it then he tries to buy public opinion. Wasn't it the left just last year complaining bitterly (bitter complainers!) about the SCOTUS decision to allow corporations to have the same rights as people. Wouldn't that include the fortune of a single man (think Koch brothers) used to create or oppress public opinion? The left is being hypocritical again. They were for something before they were against the same thing. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

We'll end up paying for the healthcare of the morbidly obese one way or the other....unless you are prepared to support a directive that prohibits healthcare providers at ER's and county hospitals across the nation from treating uninsured fatties without cash.

And, I'm not so sure you're right about people doubling up on portions if portions weren't doubled up already. Our country has somehow turned into a nation of fatties over the past couple of decades. Is it just a coincidence that it was during that time period that 64 ounce cokes and triple-decker Baconator cheeseburgers became available for the sludge-gobbling masses?

I heard somewhere the other day that this year, for the first time, deaths related to obesity will likely exceed deaths related to starvation world-wide. I read the other day that by 2030, 60% of the US population will be obese. You have to wonder if there wasn't a McDonald's on every single street corner these days if those numbers would be the same.

Should the government be allowed to force fast food makers to put photos of a fat-engorged organ, or a cutaway of a severely congested heart valve on the box that your triple-decker hamburger comes in? Or at least a warning that eating that shit is going to kill you?

What's the difference between eating yourself to death and smoking yourself to death? Originally Posted by timpage

Yeah, there's an interesting parallel between fast food / soft drinks / junk food industry and the tobacco industry of years ago.

I doubt such photos would do much to deter idiots. I remember as a child back in the 60's we used to see photos of nasty lungs as a show of what smoking can do. Yet people still smoke and want to sue the tobacco companies.

I figure it's only a matter of time when being able to sue fast food companies for complications due to obesity will become common. Originally Posted by satexasguy

Yes, but at least today, more people are aware of the negative health effects of tobacco use (I'm pretty sure it's common knowledge now at least in the United States) and numbers of smokers have significantly dropped since the government went after big tobacco.

I wouldn't live in NYC if they gave me that freakin town.

I'm fine with my fellow fatties paying extra for insurance, as long as smokers pay more, druggies pay more, sex addicts pay more (raise a glass my fellow whore-mongers) overexercise fanatics get charged extra for joint problems, motorcycle riders pay extra minus a credit for organ donations, people receiving extra pay for high stress jobs pay extra, etc.
Basically, anyone who doesn't smoke, drink more than one alcohol serving per day, eats lean meats and vegetables, avoids caffiene, visits the doctor regularly, exercises responsibly, is emotionally well adjusted, no thrill seeking sports, one sex partner (two for Mormons) keeps thin and brushes and flosses everyday can cast the first stone. Everyone else has a plank in their own eye.

The idea that the government can't curtail your freedoms is absurd. Of course, it can, and does, every single day.

Telling you how much Fanta Orange you can drink is over the line, however.

That having been said, it's a shame that the big fat slobs who populate our country these days can't figure out on their own that slurping down 64 ounces of soda is a bad idea. Take a look around. Go to the mall. Or god forbid, Walmart. Americans are turning into big tubs of jiggling shit because of bad eating habits and lack of exercise.

Bloomberg is an arrogant ass but his heart is in the right place. He's trying to help you fatass couch potatos. Now, I'm going for a run. Originally Posted by timpage

it's always been cheaper to eat unhealthy

I have an idea. Individual liberty and personal responsibility.

I have an idea. Individual liberty and personal responsibility. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

The liberals would never allow that, COG.

What if there really is a fire in a crowded theater?

Well, in the context of this discussion, I'd say it's hard to deny that individual liberty regarding caloric intake is alive and well. Personal responsibility? Not so much.

I have an idea. Individual liberty and personal responsibility. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy