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

Just thought you'd like to know what the mayor of the nation's largest city thinks about freedom:

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said on Sunday: Sometimes government does know best. And in those cases, Americans should just cede their rights.

“I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom,” Mr. Bloomberg said, during an appearance on NBC. He made the statement during discussion of his soda ban — just shot down by the courts — and insistence that his fight to control sugary drink portion sizes in the city would go forth.

“We think the judge was just clearly wrong on this,” he said, on NBC. “Our Department of Health has the legal ability to do this. … [They’re] not banning anything.”

Mr. Bloomberg’s remaining months in office have included a firestorm of regulations and policy pushes on wide range of issues. Aside from the soda size ban and a well-publicized call for tighter gun control, another contentious policy he pushed: Nudging hospitals to lock up baby formula to force mothers to breast-feed newborns.

Seriously, is further comment necessary? He's talking about Big Gulps. Government has the right to infringe on your rights if you want a Big Gulp.

You can't make this shit up.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2OcUtK9JU

Please Mr. Bloomberg, save me from myself.

Typical liberal, wanting to have as much control over the people as he can get away with. The really sad thing is that there are enough people that think he is right that he got elected. All will be fine till he comes for one of your rights.

The jerkoff is a billionaire with power and privilege - exactly the way he thinks the world should be set up - everyone think like him and do what he says.

Of course the government has the right to limit people's freedoms.

You don't have the right to shout "fire!" in a public place. You don't have the right to indiscriminantly kill whomever you wish. You don't have the right to <insert nuclear topics of the board>.

That being said, I'd be interested to see how the large sized soda thing goes. On one hand, in the name of freedom, people should be allowed to buy whatever sized soda they want. On the other hand, plenty of studies show that all those sugary sodas do terrible things to the human body.

It's also an interesting comparison between sugary sodas and say tobacco, which the government also cracked down on and today most people are better off for it.

Of course, we would love for people to be personally responsible for themselves, but we all know many people just aren't capable of that.

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.

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

Correct.

But the solution to that problem is to NOT pay for health care benefits of the morbidly obese and/or charge them an extra high premium.

Banning a 24 ounce drink just means they will buy two 12 ounce drinks instead. It won't change their consumption.

Great idea by Bloomberg. Lets ban large fountain drinks so you won't get fat. But you can still go to Burger King and tell'em " Super Size Me" motherfucker, I'll show that Bloomberg by god, lol. Rule number one don't listen to political people they don't know shit. If they did we wouldn't have all these problems in this country.

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?

Correct.

But the solution to that problem is to NOT pay for health care benefits of the morbidly obese and/or charge them an extra high premium.

Banning a 24 ounce drink just means they will buy two 12 ounce drinks instead. It won't change their consumption. Originally Posted by ExNYer

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? Originally Posted by timpage

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.

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

But, they made it taste SO GOOD. I was powerless to stop myself from gorging. It's really not my fault. I'm the victim here...

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.

Typical liberal, wanting to have as much control over the people as he can get away with. The really sad thing is that there are enough people that think he is right that he got elected. All will be fine till he comes for one of your rights. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Bloomberg left the liberal party and became a republican.. he's now running as an independent .

if Ellie Mae wants to engulf a large bag of Doritos and down a 2 liter bottle of Pepsi before dinner, the good Mayor needs to ban grocery stores.

putting a ban on a large soft drink wont help that

putting a ban on a large soft drink wont help that Originally Posted by CJ7

Nope to late, lol.
http://youtu.be/66OwZjsi0D0