PDA

View Full Version : New York Says "Goodbye" to Big Gulps



LouPhinFan
06-01-2012, 02:36 PM
I'm glad the city of New York has solved all of their other, more pressing problems.

I can't get a 200 calorie soda in Manhattan, but I can get 800 calorie milkshake.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/31/us/new-york-sugar-drinks/index.html

Gonzo
06-01-2012, 03:16 PM
Definitely a stupid idea. I just wish I could come up with a way to solve the very legitimate issue. I volunteer in the ER of the VA hospital. 90% of our patients are either homeless or below the poverty line. I'd say at least 75% of the patients that are admitted have diabetes-related conditions (a good number of the other 25% have diabetes but are in for other reasons). It's crazy. I'm betting the numbers at Bellevue are not all that different. I live on the border of Clinton Hill and Bed-Stuy, about half a block from a housing project. I have to walk several blocks to get to a grocery store that sells fruits and vegetables, and those are never in the best shape (referring to the produce). I usually do my shopping in Manhattan on the way home or at farmers markets on the weekend, which are always a ways away. Then again, I grew up being taught how to eat properly. Around those projects there are a total of 15 "convenient" stores directly across the street. That's not an estimate. I counted. The other spots are a fried chicken place where you can get a 3 piece with fries and a soda for $4, 2 liquor stores, a pizza place, and a gourmet donut place (amazing actually). It's delicious, but you get the idea.

Now, we can discuss the parents and why they are there all we want, and I'd likely agree with you on a lot of it. My concern are the kids that are being raised by parents that simply don't give a **** and are left to fend for themselves. They get a few bucks (who knows how...) and are hungry or thirsty. What are they going to spend it on?

Of course, banning the big gulp and **** won't change any of that. They'll just buy two or three sodas instead. Win for the convenient stores because that costs more money. The biggest problem with this whole approach is that it completely ignores the core issue. It's a lazy way of acting like they are doing something about it without having to confront the much more complicated causes. It's a ****ing sham.

I wish I knew how to address this issue, but I'll be honest, I don't have a clue. I know banning Big Gulps won't do a ****ing thing.

NY8123
06-01-2012, 03:19 PM
Can I get a liter O'cola do we have liter O'colas?

Dolphins9954
06-01-2012, 03:22 PM
Dumb idea.

I love this little bit.......

Latte-Sipping Liberal’? Mika Brzezinski Praises NYC Sugary Drink Ban…While Sipping Large Coffee

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/06/mikelattesipping-1.jpg (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/latte-sipping-liberal-mika-brzezinski-praises-nyc-sugary-drink-ban-while-sipping-large-coffee/attachment/mike-latte-sipping/)

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/latte-sipping-liberal-mika-brzezinski-praises-nyc-sugary-drink-ban-while-sipping-large-coffee/

Gonzo
06-01-2012, 03:26 PM
Dumb idea.

I love this little bit.......

Latte-Sipping Liberal’? Mika Brzezinski Praises NYC Sugary Drink Ban…While Sipping Large Coffee

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/06/mikelattesipping-1.jpg (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/latte-sipping-liberal-mika-brzezinski-praises-nyc-sugary-drink-ban-while-sipping-large-coffee/attachment/mike-latte-sipping/)

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/latte-sipping-liberal-mika-brzezinski-praises-nyc-sugary-drink-ban-while-sipping-large-coffee/
What's funny is that most of the "juices" have just as much, if not MORE sugar. Soda companies should just start adding "white grape juice" or tiny bits of kola back into the sodas, then call themselves kola juice.

Dolphins9954
06-01-2012, 04:28 PM
What's funny is that most of the "juices" have just as much, if not MORE sugar. Soda companies should just start adding "white grape juice" or tiny bits of kola back into the sodas, then call themselves kola juice.

I say bring back the coke in coca-cola.

Gonzo
06-01-2012, 04:31 PM
I say bring back the coke in coca-cola.

No worse than the high-frutose corn syrup that's in it now. At least you get some benefit out of coke.

Ilovemyfins4eva
06-01-2012, 04:54 PM
the potential ban is absurd.

people should be able to drink/eat whatever they choose to, its their life. they know the health risks of these products when putting it into their body, if they are ok with it and willing to pay for it, they should be able to drink or eat whatever they choose to.

there are much worse things that people put in their body that are not cut down on. first start by banning cigarettes then worry about this crap.

Tetragrammaton
06-01-2012, 05:47 PM
Make soda more expensive, and wine cheaper. Then everyone wins.

Nublar7
06-01-2012, 05:54 PM
It is a stupid idea to ban sodas bigger than 16 ounces. So if I am in New York City and go to the movies, I can order a massive popcorn bucket and cover it with butter, but I am only aloud basically a Dixie cup of soda? Hopefully this whole ban idea dies quickly.

Tetragrammaton
06-01-2012, 05:58 PM
It is a stupid idea to ban sodas bigger than 16 ounces. So if I am in New York City and go to the movies, I can order a massive popcorn bucket and cover it with butter, but I am only aloud basically a Dixie cup of soda? Hopefully this whole ban idea dies quickly.

Wow, I didn't even read how small it would be. A bottle is 20 ounces. And I really want popcorn now.

Dolphins9954
06-01-2012, 06:08 PM
It's the same way of thinking that created the epic failure of the War On Drugs. Government trying to regulate personal behavior. I personally don't drink that stuff. I'm a water and beer man.

Clipse
06-01-2012, 06:14 PM
Dumb just dumb. When will people realize it's not the sodas that's the problem. It's the parents who allow their kids to sit on their asses playing video games instead of getting proper exercise. Banning these sodas does absolutely nothing to fix the problem.

Locke
06-01-2012, 08:37 PM
Definitely a stupid idea. I just wish I could come up with a way to solve the very legitimate issue. I volunteer in the ER of the VA hospital. 90% of our patients are either homeless or below the poverty line. I'd say at least 75% of the patients that are admitted have diabetes-related conditions (a good number of the other 25% have diabetes but are in for other reasons). It's crazy. I'm betting the numbers at Bellevue are not all that different. I live on the border of Clinton Hill and Bed-Stuy, about half a block from a housing project. I have to walk several blocks to get to a grocery store that sells fruits and vegetables, and those are never in the best shape (referring to the produce). I usually do my shopping in Manhattan on the way home or at farmers markets on the weekend, which are always a ways away. Then again, I grew up being taught how to eat properly. Around those projects there are a total of 15 "convenient" stores directly across the street. That's not an estimate. I counted. The other spots are a fried chicken place where you can get a 3 piece with fries and a soda for $4, 2 liquor stores, a pizza place, and a gourmet donut place (amazing actually). It's delicious, but you get the idea.

Now, we can discuss the parents and why they are there all we want, and I'd likely agree with you on a lot of it. My concern are the kids that are being raised by parents that simply don't give a **** and are left to fend for themselves. They get a few bucks (who knows how...) and are hungry or thirsty. What are they going to spend it on?

Of course, banning the big gulp and **** won't change any of that. They'll just buy two or three sodas instead. Win for the convenient stores because that costs more money. The biggest problem with this whole approach is that it completely ignores the core issue. It's a lazy way of acting like they are doing something about it without having to confront the much more complicated causes. It's a ****ing sham.

I wish I knew how to address this issue, but I'll be honest, I don't have a clue. I know banning Big Gulps won't do a ****ing thing.

I don't think there is a way to address the issue. I mean, there is a way, but not a realistic one. Healthy foods need to be more accessible, which means more availability in schools/convenience stores and lower prices. You would also need the alternative junk food to be more expensive. Those two will never happen. You'd also need to amp up the education as far as eating goes, which is a possibility...

NY8123
06-01-2012, 08:41 PM
Easiest way around it is to just offer customers the right to fill their own vessel for $x.xx dollars per oz.

Gonzo
06-01-2012, 10:59 PM
I don't think there is a way to address the issue. I mean, there is a way, but not a realistic one. Healthy foods need to be more accessible, which means more availability in schools/convenience stores and lower prices. You would also need the alternative junk food to be more expensive. Those two will never happen. You'd also need to amp up the education as far as eating goes, which is a possibility...
More than anything, you need responsible parents that are willing to play a role in their kids lives rather than simply viewing them as a welfare rate increase. No bigger pipe dream than that.

X-Pacolypse
06-01-2012, 11:43 PM
New York sucks.

rob19
06-01-2012, 11:48 PM
Even dumber than taxing fast food

LouPhinFan
06-02-2012, 07:21 AM
Can I get a liter O'cola do we have liter O'colas?

"Does that look like spit to you?"

LANGER72
06-02-2012, 10:13 AM
The law is silly and will be repealed. It doesn't solve anything. The soda can cause diabetes, and whiskey and vodka can cause cirrhosis of the liver, but it is up to the person consuming the beverage to make those choices and not to drink it to excess.
Where does it end? Ban ice cream? Ban cigarettes? Ban eggs, pork and beef?
I would wager the public water supply is more harmful to people in NYC than any product on the shelf.

LANGER72
06-02-2012, 10:16 AM
Easiest way around it is to just offer customers the right to fill their own vessel for $x.xx dollars per oz.


Or just offer 2 or 3 smaller cups in a cup carrier instead of 1 big cup. The market place will find a way to give us that ice cold liter of cold carbonation that we all want. The fools that created the law probably buy them too.

SpurzN703
06-02-2012, 10:49 AM
Can I get a liter O'cola do we have liter O'colas?

Over at Shenanigan's they might

LANGER72
06-02-2012, 10:54 AM
Big Gulps - outlawed.

Zombie inducing bath salts? - No problem

irish fin fan
06-02-2012, 12:48 PM
Anyone see "weight of the nation" on HBO. Worth seeing as it addresses most of the topics here in this thread.

phins_4_ever
06-02-2012, 03:33 PM
More than anything, you need responsible parents that are willing to play a role in their kids lives rather than simply viewing them as a welfare rate increase. No bigger pipe dream than that.

While I agree with the first part of your statement what is that crap about welfare rate increase?
Are you dumping on the poor?

Obesity and diabetes in kids also happens in middle class and rich kids.

Education and nutrional foods start at home. Parents are lazy. It is much easier to drive my one kid in a big SUV to McD for a nice juicy burger made out of 'unknown ingredients' than making a little lunch out of real food at home. The rules and laws about restricting food are overboard.

phins_4_ever
06-02-2012, 03:41 PM
Anyone see "weight of the nation" on HBO. Worth seeing as it addresses most of the topics here in this thread.

I haven't seen it yet but if one travels one will realize how 'normal' people in other countries look. But of course as American you would say "we are fat because we are a free country and can choose what we eat and we have more food options". Which we all know is utter BS. :lol:

jguig
06-03-2012, 11:46 PM
How interesting this is! In Uber Liberal New York, they are for Pro-Choice until you make a choice they don't like. The "It's my body, so it's my decision," argument is valid only for abortion, but if I want to exercise my constituional right to drink whatever I want, I am restricted by government mandate. The same government, that on one side of their mouth tells me that I can do what I want with my body.

Why don't liberals even see how transparent and shallow their arguments are?

phins_4_ever
06-04-2012, 12:18 AM
How interesting this is! In Uber Liberal New York, they are for Pro-Choice until you make a choice they don't like. The "It's my body, so it's my decision," argument is valid only for abortion, but if I want to exercise my constituional right to drink whatever I want, I am restricted by government mandate. The same government, that on one side of their mouth tells me that I can do what I want with my body.

Why don't liberals even see how transparent and shallow their arguments are?

You mean like those called conservatives who don't want or want less government unless its banning gay marriage or introducing pro life laws. Sitting in a glass house you shall not throw with rocks.

Gonzo
06-04-2012, 07:33 AM
While I agree with the first part of your statement what is that crap about welfare rate increase?
Are you dumping on the poor?

Obesity and diabetes in kids also happens in middle class and rich kids.

Education and nutrional foods start at home. Parents are lazy. It is much easier to drive my one kid in a big SUV to McD for a nice juicy burger made out of 'unknown ingredients' than making a little lunch out of real food at home. The rules and laws about restricting food are overboard.

No, I'm dumping on the "parents" around here that quite freely admit to that. I was just using one example of bad parents. Should I have included all other examples so I don't hurt anybody's feelings? That's a pretty long list. If you want to write it out, by all means, because I'm pretty offended that you are only including middle class parents in your post. What about the bad parents who are rich? What about bad parents who are upper middle class? Lower middle class? Upper lower middle class? Vegans?

JamesBW43
06-04-2012, 05:02 PM
My initial reaction was the same as everybody's but I actually think I like this idea. I think it could be one of those "broken windows" type solutions that you wouldn't think could produce results, but low and behold they often do.

In general, I don't like the idea of restricting the sale of something, but since most places give free refills anyway I don't see it as much of a problem.

Vaark
06-04-2012, 06:31 PM
How interesting this is! In Uber Liberal New York, they are for Pro-Choice until you make a choice they don't like. The "It's my body, so it's my decision," argument is valid only for abortion, but if I want to exercise my constituional right to drink whatever I want, I am restricted by government mandate. The same government, that on one side of their mouth tells me that I can do what I want with my body.

Why don't liberals even see how transparent and shallow their arguments are?

Something like "I want the right to control over your body but don't you dare interfere with my right to sell high powered assault rifles to Mexican Cartels?

Spesh
06-04-2012, 07:12 PM
You mean like those called conservatives who don't want or want less government unless its banning gay marriage or introducing pro life laws. Sitting in a glass house you shall not throw with rocks.

No, no, i believe he was refering to those conservatives that are pro-life, but only pro-life before birth, afterwards they're free game for the death penalty.

I do love it when one side calls out the other for having a "transparent" argument. Because you know, the other side is just the model of consistency.

phins_4_ever
06-04-2012, 09:52 PM
No, I'm dumping on the "parents" around here that quite freely admit to that. I was just using one example of bad parents. Should I have included all other examples so I don't hurt anybody's feelings? That's a pretty long list. If you want to write it out, by all means, because I'm pretty offended that you are only including middle class parents in your post. What about the bad parents who are rich? What about bad parents who are upper middle class? Lower middle class? Upper lower middle class? Vegans?

Cool. I misread then. I didn't think you would thus my question.:up:

But this quote

What about bad parents who are upper middle class? Lower middle class? Upper lower middle class? Vegans?

made me smile.
:lol::up:

SpurzN703
06-05-2012, 01:41 PM
My initial reaction was the same as everybody's but I actually think I like this idea. I think it could be one of those "broken windows" type solutions that you wouldn't think could produce results, but low and behold they often do.

In general, I don't like the idea of restricting the sale of something, but since most places give free refills anyway I don't see it as much of a problem.

Why not just buy 2 20 oz sodas then? Say they take those away. Okay, buy 4 12 oz. cans.

Unless they take it all away, there will always be a way to purchase soda in large quantity.

JamesBW43
06-05-2012, 07:11 PM
Why not just buy 2 20 oz sodas then? Say they take those away. Okay, buy 4 12 oz. cans.

Unless they take it all away, there will always be a way to purchase soda in large quantity.

I don't think the point is so much to restrict the sale of soda, but to make it inconvenient or less worthwhile to buy as much as you can now. Right now you get the super sizes for about 20 cents more than a medium? Well why on earth would anyone buy the medium? It's just so easy to say, "sure i'll pay 20 more cents to get an extra 12 ounces, that's great value". By taking that away, a person will have to really want 32 ounces of soda to get it, rather than just buying it for the convenience/value when he/she wouldn't ordinarily drink that much.

Tetragrammaton
06-05-2012, 09:30 PM
How interesting this is! In Uber Liberal New York, they are for Pro-Choice until you make a choice they don't like. The "It's my body, so it's my decision," argument is valid only for abortion, but if I want to exercise my constituional right to drink whatever I want, I am restricted by government mandate. The same government, that on one side of their mouth tells me that I can do what I want with my body.

Why don't liberals even see how transparent and shallow their arguments are?

It is talk like this that makes me want to support Bloomberg's policy.

NY8123
06-05-2012, 09:48 PM
2 liter.

Vaark
06-06-2012, 04:52 PM
Actually this stuff is toxic for everyone who's not a dentist or child counselor treating hyperactivity.

44oz at 7-11 = 518 calories of which 518 calories are pure sugar; 64oz: 744 total cals of which 744 cals are pure sugar. Who'd have thunk it :idk:

If you're intent on drinking that many calories, go instead to Jamba Juice and get yourself a huge refreshing 2pt Classic Banana Berry Smoothie for 560 calories, of which only 18 are sugar with a low fat content.

http://www.sugarstacks.com/beverages.htm
http://www.calorieking.com/foods/calories-in-fast-food-chains-restaurants_c-Y2lkPTIx.html?bid=493

Bingit
06-06-2012, 05:08 PM
No, no, i believe he was refering to those conservatives that are pro-life, but only pro-life before birth, afterwards they're free game for the death penalty.

I do love it when one side calls out the other for having a "transparent" argument. Because you know, the other side is just the model of consistency.

You are not seriously comparing the murder of an innocent baby to the death penalty which is intended for convicted criminals are you?

SpurzN703
06-08-2012, 02:20 PM
Actually this stuff is toxic for everyone who's not a dentist or child counselor treating hyperactivity.

44oz at 7-11 = 518 calories of which 518 calories are pure sugar; 64oz: 744 total cals of which 744 cals are pure sugar. Who'd have thunk it :idk:

If you're intent on drinking that many calories, go instead to Jamba Juice and get yourself a huge refreshing 2pt Classic Banana Berry Smoothie for 560 calories, of which only 18 are sugar with a low fat content.

http://www.sugarstacks.com/beverages.htm
http://www.calorieking.com/foods/calories-in-fast-food-chains-restaurants_c-Y2lkPTIx.html?bid=493

Is Bloomberg banning diet soda Big Gulps too?

tylerdolphin
06-08-2012, 02:27 PM
You are not seriously comparing the murder of an innocent baby to the death penalty which is intended for convicted criminals are you?

Yea innocent people have never been executed before.

Bottom line is Spesh is right...its very hypocritical. In one breath you say we shouldnt be able to have an abortion because its murder and in the next you are fine with imperfect humans deciding the guilt of a person and killing him based on that. You cant have it both ways. Its one or the other.

Bingit
06-09-2012, 09:47 AM
Yea innocent people have never been executed before.

Bottom line is Spesh is right...its very hypocritical. In one breath you say we shouldnt be able to have an abortion because its murder and in the next you are fine with imperfect humans deciding the guilt of a person and killing him based on that. You cant have it both ways. Its one or the other.

Innocent people have been executed because of the death penalty, but that is not the intent of the law.
Women have died from having an abortion. There are problems with our legal system (As with anything) and it is far from perfect. I'm all for making changes to prevent the innocent from being executed. No one that is for the death penalty is for an innocent person being executed. They are for executing people who have committed heinous crimes and are a danger to society. No one can argue that guys like John Gacy and Dennis Rader didn't deserve to be executed. No one can argue that a baby is guilty of anything.

You can't choose to buy a Big Gulp but you can choose to have an abortion. That is hypocritical. Comparing that to being for the death penalty but against abortion is on two different planets.

Spesh
06-09-2012, 03:01 PM
Innocent people have been executed because of the death penalty, but that is not the intent of the law.
Women have died from having an abortion. There are problems with our legal system (As with anything) and it is far from perfect. I'm all for making changes to prevent the innocent from being executed. No one that is for the death penalty is for an innocent person being executed. They are for executing people who have committed heinous crimes and are a danger to society. No one can argue that guys like John Gacy and Dennis Rader didn't deserve to be executed. No one can argue that a baby is guilty of anything.

You can't choose to buy a Big Gulp but you can choose to have an abortion. That is hypocritical. Comparing that to being for the death penalty but against abortion is on two different planets.

Warning: the picture below is graphic.

The execution of someone like Tedd Bundy, or any other serial killer is completely different than the execution of an innocent baby:



I deleted it when posting on this subject, but did you seriously just link a bloody dead baby on this forum in a extremely misguided attempt to somehow justify your side of the argument? This forum has literally turned into Florida and the religiously inspired protest groups that i am forced to pass when i go to vote.

While i laughed off your original post, ill post now in an attempt to close the door on what i inadvertently started: Jguig made a post bashing liberals for having contradictory opinions. He seemingly laughed as he linked abortions to banning soda. How a extremely controversial subject about when life begins and the rights of free people could be linked to Pepsi is beyond me, but it didnt surprise me in the least. So, very easily, i turned his argument against him by pointing out that the shinning light know as the Republican party had contraditory opinions themselves. Hell, the freaking NAMES(Pro-Life, Death Penalty) are contradictory. The part of my post you should have focused on was this:


Because you know, the other side is just the model of consistency.

Of course, that wasnt taken into account as you fanatically lost your mind at the first part of my post. I rolled my eyes at your first post because(again not surprisingly), after someone bashed liberals for being hypocritical and i pointed out a huge contradiction of terms in the conservative party, someone(you) with conservative opinions jumped on and said "WHAT?!?!?! HOW CAN YOU LINK THOSE TWO SUBJECTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!".
Youd think this outrage should have been expressed when someone linked abortions to soda but apparently not.

P.s: while i am trying to defuse this situation, i cant help but point out that abortions save lives. There is currently a thread in the religious forum about it. Go get 'em!

tylerdolphin
06-09-2012, 04:04 PM
Innocent people have been executed because of the death penalty, but that is not the intent of the law.

The intent of the law has literally zero relevance to my point. The fact remains that innocent people do get executed, intentionally or not, and therefore to support the death penalty but claim abortion is murder is contradictory. Theres no logical way around it.

CedarPhin
06-09-2012, 04:33 PM
The intent of the law has literally zero relevance to my point. The fact remains that innocent people do get executed, intentionally or not, and therefore to support the death penalty but claim abortion is murder is contradictory. Theres no logical way around it.

To not be hypocritical would be un-GOP.

LANGER72
06-09-2012, 06:53 PM
The intent of the law has literally zero relevance to my point. The fact remains that innocent people do get executed, intentionally or not, and therefore to support the death penalty but claim abortion is murder is contradictory. Theres no logical way around it.

The death penalty is usually applied to murderers in a handful of states, who have been convicted in a court of law by their peers, and then allowed to appeal the verdict. The accused has rights and legal representation.

A baby in the womb has no rights in the pro abortion mentality. It is just a unwanted parasite to be surgically removed.

I don't believe the death penalty is necessary but I believe there is a distinction.

IMHO..The condemned should be sentenced to life with hard labor and be offered the option of being "put down" as long as they agree to donate their organs.

The government should not be in the business of killing unless it is during military action or by the police during the dangerous felony arrests.

Bingit
06-11-2012, 09:52 PM
I deleted it when posting on this subject, but did you seriously just link a bloody dead baby on this forum in a extremely misguided attempt to somehow justify your side of the argument? This forum has literally turned into Florida and the religiously inspired protest groups that i am forced to pass when i go to vote.

While i laughed off your original post, ill post now in an attempt to close the door on what i inadvertently started: Jguig made a post bashing liberals for having contradictory opinions. He seemingly laughed as he linked abortions to banning soda. How a extremely controversial subject about when life begins and the rights of free people could be linked to Pepsi is beyond me, but it didnt surprise me in the least. So, very easily, i turned his argument against him by pointing out that the shinning light know as the Republican party had contraditory opinions themselves. Hell, the freaking NAMES(Pro-Life, Death Penalty) are contradictory. The part of my post you should have focused on was this:



Of course, that wasnt taken into account as you fanatically lost your mind at the first part of my post. I rolled my eyes at your first post because(again not surprisingly), after someone bashed liberals for being hypocritical and i pointed out a huge contradiction of terms in the conservative party, someone(you) with conservative opinions jumped on and said "WHAT?!?!?! HOW CAN YOU LINK THOSE TWO SUBJECTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!".
Youd think this outrage should have been expressed when someone linked abortions to soda but apparently not.

P.s: while i am trying to defuse this situation, i cant help but point out that abortions save lives. There is currently a thread in the religious forum about it. Go get 'em!


Is that what that was? I thought it was a POC. My bad.

Look, I agree with you that there are contradictory opinions on both sides of the political parties. The right to choose to do what you want with your body, except when you want to buy a big gulp is a good example. Your example of comparing Abortion and the death penalty is a very poor one. Yes, innocent people have been executed because of the death penalty, but no one that is for the death penalty is for that. It is a mistake / accident. Going by that logic anyone who is against abortion must also be against anyone driving automobiles or flying planes since innocent people get killed all of the time as a direct result from doing so.

The death penalty is for convicted criminals who have committed horrible crimes and there execution is just. Innocent people have been wrongly convicted and put to death unjustly, but they are very small percentage. You argue against the death penalty because innocent people have been executed when that is the vast minority, but then go on to claim that abortions save lives when those cases are in the vast minority. Over 3,500 babies are killed every day and 100% are innocent lives. When you can show me that 100% of people on death row are innocent, then we can start to compare hypocrisies.

Dolphins9954
06-11-2012, 10:11 PM
How the hell did this go from big gulps to abortion?????

Tetragrammaton
06-11-2012, 10:16 PM
How the hell did this go from big gulps to abortion?????

Abortion has to be the most boring issue in politics.

Dolphins9954
06-11-2012, 10:24 PM
Abortion has to be the most boring issue in politics.

But it's the classic wedge issue that keeps on giving.

Tetragrammaton
06-11-2012, 10:35 PM
But it's the classic wedge issue that keeps on giving.

I tell my very ardent pro-life friends that the Republicans won Congress in 2002, got Bush re-elected and improved their numbers in 2004, and appointed two justices to the Supreme Court, but nothing happened with abortion. If that doesn't get them the results they want, what would? It will never change.

Spesh
06-12-2012, 10:43 AM
Is that what that was? I thought it was a POC. My bad.

Look, I agree with you that there are contradictory opinions on both sides of the political parties. The right to choose to do what you want with your body, except when you want to buy a big gulp is a good example. Your example of comparing Abortion and the death penalty is a very poor one. Yes, innocent people have been executed because of the death penalty, but no one that is for the death penalty is for that. It is a mistake / accident. Going by that logic anyone who is against abortion must also be against anyone driving automobiles or flying planes since innocent people get killed all of the time as a direct result from doing so.

The death penalty is for convicted criminals who have committed horrible crimes and there execution is just. Innocent people have been wrongly convicted and put to death unjustly, but they are very small percentage. You argue against the death penalty because innocent people have been executed when that is the vast minority, but then go on to claim that abortions save lives when those cases are in the vast minority. Over 3,500 babies are killed every day and 100% are innocent lives. When you can show me that 100% of people on death row are innocent, then we can start to compare hypocrisies.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

So wait, your saying that there are contradictions on both sides of the party, but that the Republican contradiction isnt really one at all and my example is horrible. But the one linking Pepsi to Abortions is the one that is more apt. Right. Sure. Keep up with the logic gymnastics.

I'll happily show you evidence that the death penalty only kills innocent people the minute you provide evidence linking flavored water as the 100% reason for abortions.

Oh, and since you are so focused on the "laws intent" concerning the death penalty, surely you wont mind stating the "laws intent" on the subject of Abortion, right? I mean, remind us about the historical court decision in which the judge proudly declared that babies were open sport for murdering. I seem to have forgotten where those godless commie liberals boasted from capitol hill(soon to be renamed Stalin grounds) their new law and how its only intention is to murder children.
Thank god we have conservative views in this country that are so clear cut. You know, like how murder is immoral. Well, unless its not. Then its only moral when its against the guilty. Unless a mistake was made. But even then its still totally moral and even pretty cool. Nothing contradictory about that at all.

tylerdolphin
06-12-2012, 05:31 PM
It is a mistake / accident. Going by that logic anyone who is against abortion must also be against anyone driving automobiles or flying planes since innocent people get killed all of the time as a direct result from doing so...

When you can show me that 100% of people on death row are innocent, then we can start to compare hypocrisies.

What the **** is this I dont even.

These points are mind numbingly stupid for a millions reasons. First off, automobiles and planes are something that the driver/passenger CHOOSES to use. I highly doubt an innocent man on death row chooses to be there. Not only that, transportation is a very important part of our economy. The death penalty? Oh yea, thats right...it actually costs MORE than locking someone away for life.

As to your next point...Im speechless that you still fail to see the hypocrisy in your positions. Your position is that abortion is murder, therefore it should be illegal. OK. Fine. But dont spin around in the next breath and tell me its OK to execute people human beings found guilty just because not all of them are innocent. If the state kills an innocent man, its murder. Thats the bottom line. No two ways about it. Think about that...you are just fine with ended a conscious human's life, perhaps under false pretenses, but you are adamantly against the termination of a fetus that may or may not even have consciousness. Its hypocrisy at its finest.

jguig
06-12-2012, 09:42 PM
How do you ban something that doesn't exist?

Pro life laws? Explain. Give me some examples.

tylerdolphin
06-12-2012, 11:50 PM
How do you ban something that doesn't exist?

Pro life laws? Explain. Give me some examples.

wat?

GoonBoss
06-13-2012, 12:39 AM
Jesus.

How about a ban on Pizza?

---------- Post added at 11:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:37 PM ----------


I tell my very ardent pro-life friends that the Republicans won Congress in 2002, got Bush re-elected and improved their numbers in 2004, and appointed two justices to the Supreme Court, but nothing happened with abortion. If that doesn't get them the results they want, what would? It will never change.

I'm good.

Moreover, I'm tired of an issue that will remain withing grenade throwing rage of other deeply committed people.....
None of whom on either side I would associate with freely.