Michael Bloomberg

Next Up in New York's Nanny Rampage: Popcorn, Milkshakes, and Coffee Beverages!

|

Only if your yard is outside the five boroughs!

This stuff will only stop when voters punish offending politicians:

The New York City Board of Health showed support for limiting sizes of sugary drinks at a Tuesday meeting in Queens. […]

At the meeting, some of the members of board said they should be considering other limits on high-calorie foods.

One member, Bruce Vladeck, thinks limiting the sizes for movie theater popcorn should be considered.

"The popcorn isn't a whole lot better than the soda," Vladeck said.

Another board member thinks milk drinks should fall under the size limits.

"There are certainly milkshakes and milk-coffee beverages that have monstrous amounts of calories," said board member Dr. Joel Forman.

Link via the Twitter feed of Dan "Baseball Crank" McLaughlin. Do a Reason search on "nanny" and "Bloomberg."

NEXT: Reason Writers Around Town: Peter Suderman on Wealth and Power in the new Dallas

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “There are certainly milkshakes and milk-coffee beverages that have monstrous amounts of calories,” said board member Dr. Joel Forman.

    Next step will be to define a maximum number of calories per serving, and limit one serving per sale.

  2. Well that was predictable

    1. ^^^^
      Close the thread

      1. Feck Herr Bloomberg and the scumbags he rode in on. To those in NY who voited for this arse-clown…you get what you deserve. Drink! Arse! Girls!

  3. “Oh, quit whining about ‘slippery slopes’, this is for the public good.”

    /liberal logic

    1. I DRINK your milkshake!

      1. Not if Nanny Bloomberg says you can’t.

  4. The slippery slope is considered a logical fallacy. I propose that we instead use the “give them an inch, and the fuckers will take a parsec” argument.

    1. It’s only a logical fallacy when used to prove or disprove a logical proposition.

      As a model of human behavior in groups, it’s nearly a tautology.

      1. Yeah, that’s actually one of the first things I picked up when I started lurking here about a year ago.

        But it can (and is) taken in the other direction as well, “If we legalize mj then next thing you know…heroin vending machines in schools” etc.

        1. Sssssh. You might give our local school district a revenue enhancement idea! Somebody gotta feed the beast (AFT).

      2. Yes, and politicians all too often tell us that we ought to go down the slippery slope. “Hey, it worked for solving this problem (usually a lie), so why not use it on the other problem (usually a totally different problem or not even a real problem at all)”.

    2. I slipped on a slippery slope once. I was hiking on the AT, and there had been about 5-inches of snow overnight. I slipped on some ice, and slide about 100 yards down the mountain before a tree stopped me. I’m not a fan of slippery slopes.

  5. Does anyone know if Manhattan island would fit under the Verrazano bridge if we hooked up ten thousand tug boats to it and tried to tow it off to Cuba?

    1. I think the Cubans would want to move away from socialism, not to see socialism move to it.

    2. I can’t believe that it already hasn’t sunk, under all that weight.

      1. Just as long as a big part of the population don’t move to one side and tip it over, they will be ok.

    3. Why would we care about the bridge at that point?

  6. My milkshake brings the SWAT team to the yard….

  7. I really can’t blame the politicians. We vote them in to take care of us like the children we are. But you fatties out there, you’re ruining it for those of us who can eat a large popcorn and burn the calories simply through the digestive process. FIX YOUR METABOLISMS.

    1. Yeah, I have visible abs and drink milkshakes at least weekly. Fuck off, slavers!

  8. In 2018, the obesity rate in the United States rises four hundred percent. The once great city of New York becomes the one weight-loss camp for the entire country. A fifty-foot containment wall is erected along the New Jersey shoreline, across the Harlem River, and down along the Brooklyn shoreline. It completely surrounds fast food restaurants. All hamburgers and sodas are mined. The BMI Police Force, like an army, is encamped around the island. There are no dieticians inside the camp, only porkers and the foods they have made. The rules are simple: once you go in, you don’t come out.

    1. It’s still fun to watch that and see the future date of … 1997.

      1. New York City was made a concentration camp in 1997, but one with the illusion of voluntary confinement. Imagine how much worse the hipster dipshit plague would be without Brooklyn to draw them in.

        1. Imagine how much worse the hipster dipshit plague would be without Brooklyn to draw them in.

          With this obviously the nexus of idiocy.

    2. Have you seen the tolls on the GW Bridge? A containment wall would be redundant. I live in NJ and NEVER go to NYC.

      1. You might be able to afford it if you start a business bringing black market milkshakes into NYC.

        1. Maybe I could row them across the river.

    3. There are no dieticians inside the camp, only porkers and the foods they have made.

      Hopefully the they there doesn’t refer back to the dieticians. The dieticians’ idea of food is a lot of what got us here.

  9. first came the food reductions
    then came the exercise camps
    and then came…?

    1. “first came the food reductions
      then came the exercise camps
      and then came…?”

      How come libertarians always think that Americans acting as voters are brainless sheep that will allow everything, while at the same adamantly believing that Americans acting as consumers will be vigilant and exact (hence making evil, statist agencies like FDA or EPA redundant)?

      1. Thanks for your input, Mary.

        1. Name is Caspar, fucktard.

          1. Thanks for your input, Mary Caspar.

          2. Good to know, Dumbname.

          3. So you’re a statist and a friendly ghost?

      2. Because the products (political candidates) are fairly unique. You generally have to take a whole policy and ability package from any given candidate. A lot of crap can fairly easily be bundled with any worthwhile features. Moreover, any given political consumer has a fairly reasonable expectation of avoiding the costs of their purchase of any particular policy and ability package. Also, political consumers are faced with a duopoly of a product that they have little choice about consuming.

        1. “A lot of crap can fairly easily be bundled with any worthwhile features.”

          One innocuous foodstuff can have many ingredients with different effects, many with separate manufacturing processes that have diverse effects on environments and the workers involved. One company can have hundreds of activities, some of which you agree and disagree with. Hell, nowadays I can’t keep a company from giving my money to fucking republicans, and I have no idea if they do. Oversight, and separating the good from the bad, is difficult in the political and commercial marketplace.

          “any given political consumer has a fairly reasonable expectation of avoiding the costs of their purchase of any particular policy and ability package.”

          I do not think that expectation is reasonable, but I agree it is prevalent, both among “makers” and “takers”.

          “Also, political consumers are faced with a duopoly of a product that they have little choice about consuming.”

          Aye. They are free to make their own products, however.

          [My main issue with abolishing the FDA and the EPA is that it renders first-time consumers of new products canaries in the coal mine, and also makes it difficult for people hurt by externalities from receiving fair compensation. Example: The Keystone pipeline – the local opposition to the pipeline in Nebraska stems from the oil industry’s poor record of paying properly for its mistakes, private property rights or no.]

          1. Oversight, and separating the good from the bad, is difficult in the political and commercial marketplace.

            Talk about missing the point. You can only buy bundled products in the political marketplace. There is no (and probably can’t be any) alternative. Oversight shmoversight. You can’t even buy the product.

            Aye. They are free to make their own products, however.

            Except the only way to get your product consumed is to have it marketed by one of the duopolists and that’s going to require that it be consistent with the rest of their line-up.

            1. “You can only buy bundled products in the political marketplace.”

              Still doesn’t mean people will buy the same sandwich if there suddenly is cyanide in it.

              “Except the only way to get your product consumed is to have it marketed by one of the duopolists and that’s going to require that it be consistent with the rest of their line-up.”

              That still doesn’t mean it is impossible to make both duopolists’ consumers demand products you want. Which is what libertarians are trying to do, albeit in a way I constantly disagree with.

              I think the Reason foundation and the readers of this publication is, overall, quite more hostile to democrats and economic illiberalism than republicans and social illiberalism. Probably because everyone pay taxes but only women as well as gay people and other minorities are targeted by republican bigotry.

              I think most people here would be quite happy with the deficit problems being solved at the expense of budget posts democrats are mostly concerned with, i.e. more regressive taxation and hasty, poorly thought-out rollback of the new deal. Just a worrying impression, I hope.

          2. Hell, nowadays I can’t keep a company from giving my money to fucking republicans

            Nobody can, since once you give a company your money, it becomes their money, dipshit.

            1. “Nobody can, since once you give a company your money, it becomes their money, dipshit.”

              I can’t even monitor if they give my money to republicans, or – worse yet – libertarians, you animal.

              1. That’s a feature, not a bug.

              2. What part of “it becomes their money” when you buy their product don’t you understand?

                1. Oh sure it is theirs, I just want to see if they spend it on electing republicans or libertarians, since that would be very bad for my country.

                  Or is the idea of corporatism suddenly not concerning to libertarians? Oh wait, I forgot, it’s only relationships between unions and politicians that they hate.

              3. You realize that in a libertarian ideal, it would be largely irrelevant which political party a company donated money to, because the political parties and the government whose favors they work so hard to sell would be toothless?

                1. Unfortunately, in a libertarian ideal the companies would end up with all the teeth.

                  You need to pit the Leviathans against one another. Government is just one of them.

              4. “Worse yet” would be “they give [your] money to Democrats”.

                Fuck off, slaver.

                1. Actually, Hammer, it would be up to the individual to donate money to the party of their choice, not have it taken out in union dues and given mostly to only Democrats.

                  1. I wasn’t aware that people did *not* make a conscious to work in workplaces that entail collection of union dues.

                    What is with libertarians and getting involved in the conscious decisions of others?

                    1. The point is, each union worker should have the option of WHERE part of their dues are spent – or not at all – in the political arena.

                      Apparently, you have a problem with that.

                      Also, no one should be forced to join a union in the first place.

                    2. “The point is, each union worker should have the option of WHERE part of their dues are spent – or not at all – in the political arena.”

                      Not if they agree to join a workplace that says union dues will be collected.

                      I am not given a say over what a company I voluntarily did business with does with my money.

                      “Also, no one should be forced to join a union in the first place.”

                      No one is forced to take a job that entails that union dues are collected. No one is entitled to buying a product and then *not* seeing the proceeds go towards buying politicians.

                    3. But non-union employees AND employers are forced to deal with unions in a unionized workplace, non-union employers aren’t allowed to deal with the employer separately, they are forced to be represented by the unions, which until recently meant forced union dues. Now that people aren’t forced to give their money to unions, most people choose not to. If the unions hadn’t helped get passed legislation forcing union representation in the first place, they wouldn’t have so many people pissed at them and wanting right to work legislation. The unions screwed themselves over, and now they’re whining about the ultimate consequences of legislation THEY helped get passed that forced everyone to deal with them.

                    4. Listen, asshole, I wouldn’t want ANY of MY dues going to even *MY* party, let alone the Teams.

                      Fuck that shit, statist. And fuck you.

      3. Who thinks who is what, now?

      4. If you think the state has the right to tell vendors what size cup to put a soda in, you are IN FACT a statist.

      5. This is actually a good question.

        There are about 40 or 50 reasons. I could write a dissertation on it.

        But they have a character limit here.

        Only a small part of people vote, many vote on one issue and often it may be for something they want to get for free such as a service or a law that favors their industry. These are at the expense of the rest of society but are often couched in humanitarian terms. People don’t normally steal but when their is no clear victim it does not seem like stealing or they fool their selves that if it’s good for them, it’s good for society. Like licensed florists in LA. Florists vote for candidates that are for it and say it’s to protect people from bad floral arrangements and few are motivated enough to vote against it unless it gets into the headlines.

        Second, once in office, they may not do exactly what they said they would and you have a small number of rich, connected people making decisions, rules, regulations, laws that everyone else must obey. Average voter is not in the loop, can’t know enough about most of the inside deals to become informed.

        If consumers, they spend their money directly, use the product directly, can give direct feedback, and can change their choice at any time they wish. Most democratic thing in the world.

      6. How come libertarians always think that Americans acting as voters are brainless sheep that will allow everything, while at the same adamantly believing that Americans acting as consumers will be vigilant and exact

        History, perhaps?

        1. You have more support for the second hypothesis than the second. Corporations, or the capital owners, have far more time and resources to spend on getting away with practices that harm others than consumers have on monitoring them. Suddenly closing the EPA and the FDA would hinge on an idealized homo economicus with a lot of time and awareness .

          I am also against allowing business owners to discriminate against gay or trans people for the same reason – some things can’t be left to the responsibility of consumers. Voters shouldn’t be capable of permitting certain transgressions, consumers shouldn’t be the arbitrators of certain things either.

          Unless, of course, you assume the free market organically removes all ills and maximizes all goods, meaning that, say, homophobic businesses would be inefficient and would be closed down. MMhm, sounds good on paper. No wonder you libertarians are so angry all the time – you have the world’s best ideology that would fix pretty much everything and no one wants to try it out of fear or plain stupidity. Or healthy skepticism.

          1. I will add that corporate entities are neither good or bad. They are simply predatory, meaning that they will get away with what they can get away with if they can make a buck. That is not evil, just understandable.

            This instinct needs something to counter-act it, and merely assuming that consumer self-interest and vigilance will be enough is very risky. If you try to remove agencies like the FDA or the EPA, and it turns out consumers do not have the resources or the capacity to monitor business practices properly, then corporations suddenly hold all the cards, and reestablishing of the agencies will be met with fierce resistance.

            Leviathan doesn’t hide itself in state bureaucracies only. Power can accumulate even in the hands of entities that are exposed to market forces and lack a formal government to collude with. It’s everybody’s war against everybody, you know.

            1. “Leviathan” corporations also would not exist without the massive regulatory state enabling them. Too Big to Fail companies would, in fact, fail, and their resources would be reallocated to more efficient uses.

              1. “”Leviathan” corporations also would not exist without the massive regulatory state enabling them.”

                Then, if there is absolutely no reason to not be a libertarian, why aren’t everyone libertarians?

                Because humans are unreasonable!

                Why would free individuals operating under market logic produce the best outcomes without any inefficiencies or accumulation of undue power that can be abused?

                Because humans are reasonable!

      7. How come libertarians always think that Americans acting as voters are brainless sheep that will allow everything, while at the same adamantly believing that Americans acting as consumers will be vigilant and exact

        Because when you vote in an election, you have almost zero chance of influencing the outcome, so you can afford to be sloppy and careless.

        But, if you purchase something in the free market, sloppy and careless means you suffer the full consequences of your stupidity, so you have the right incentive to make careful decisions.

        1. “Because when you vote in an election, you have almost zero chance of influencing the outcome, ”

          Florida 2000.

          “But, if you purchase something in the free market, sloppy and careless means you suffer the full consequences of your stupidity”

          So the first people who buy a new product become canaries in the coalmine? A bad product doesn’t necessarily blow up in your face, and pollution doesn’t start causing damage immediately either.

          1. Did you send a death threat to Ralph Nader, statist?

            If so, did your mom let you use the “big kids” crayons?

    2. Lord Hum, you beat me to it.

  10. I can already see it: SWAT raid on cafe serving lattes and foamed milk on the sly.

    Dogs die.

    1. Well, if there were dogs in the cafe, then they were clearly in violation of some health code or another and had to be shot. For the childrunz.

      1. Service dogs (FKA “seeing-eye dogs”) die.

  11. Had this conversation with a chick at a bar this past weekend (was doing a pub crawl with a group, and she was friends with one of the other participants).

    She literally didn’t see a single thing wrong with the soda ban. I mean, there wasn’t any attempt to talk around it, she was straight up, “People make too many bad decisions, and shouldn’t be allowed to harm themselves like that. It should be the job of the gov’t step in and prevent people from engaging in harmful behavior, to themselves or others.”

    There’s no arguing that. You can’t convince her of a different way of thinking, because she’s starting off from a totally different premise. The variables simply aren’t the same in her equation and mine.

    1. What was she drinking, and how many drinks did she have?

      1. she’s starting off from a totally different premise.

        Well no, unless being a fucking idiot is a premise.

    2. “You can’t convince her of a different way of thinking, because she’s starting off from a totally different premise”

      Namely, the premise that voters will not punish soda bans but will punish attempts at forcing vegetable intake or mandating gym memberships.

      As a libertarian, you distrust and deride such attempts at nuance, and will invariably resort to calling any step in a direction you don’t like as a first step towards a 1984-dystopia. As a left-winger, I am very good at failing to convince people, and let me tell you that you libertarians are not much better.

      1. As a left-winger, I am very good at failing to convince people,

        Well, you convinced me of that, at least.

      2. You do make come up with great retorts to straw man arguments that no one but you is making.

        1. Do you see a libertarian in here *not* acting as the alarmist, excitable and nuance-free “strawman” I just defined?

          1. I see hyperbole and sarcasm being interpreted by one of our resident idiots as alarmism.

            1. It’s difficult to distinguish the hyperbole and sarcasm when that is the *only* style of commenting. There is nothing to distinguish it from.

              1. you’re being engaged in a non-hyperbolic but still critical way downthread, and you consistently fail to respond to the points.

                1. and you consistently fail to respond to the points

                  That’s how it wins arguments. By ignoring the actual argument, slaying men of straw, moving the goal posts, and declaring victory!

                  Works every time!

                2. The first response was that I wanted to enforce waistlines on children, which is a crazy idea taken out of the blue.

              2. It’s difficult to distinguish the hyperbole and sarcasm when that is the *only* style of commenting. There is nothing to distinguish it from you are an idiot.

                ftfy

            2. sar?chasm (‘s?r-“ka-zm) : The giant gulf (chasm) between what is said and the person who doesn’t get it.

      3. It all adds up, statist.

        If it didn’t, Bloomberg would have stopped at salt, or smoking, or whichever of his Personal Behavior Jihads came first; instead, and instead of being satisfied with what he’s nannied up to this point… he wants to nanny MORE behavior.

        Are you that obtuse?

    3. My reply would have been “Do people own their own bodies? If so then shouldn’t they decide what goes into their bodies? If they should not be allowed to make such decisions, doesn’t that mean someone else owns their bodies? If that is the case, who? Fuck off slaver.”

      1. Republicans: “Shout ‘9/11!’, win argument.”

        Democrats: “Shout ‘racism’, win argument.”

        Libertarians: “Shout ‘slaver’, win argument.”

        1. Apparently a ‘statist’: “Ignore questions, win argument.”

        2. Reasonable users: click “filter name,” save forum.

          1. Xenocles has shown you people the way, and yet you ignore him. Woe to you! Woe!

          2. Where is that button at?

            1. Chrome users can install the reasonable app, and then filter options will appear at tho top of each comment.

            2. You need to be using Chrome with the reasonable extension.

      2. They gave up ownership for free health care.

        Unless they want an abortion. Then the rules change.

      3. If you think people own their own bodies, then you’d have to let them do heroin and pseudoephedrine without a prescription.

        1. I have no problem with that.

        2. And your point it…?

        3. If you think people own their own bodies, then you’d have to let them do heroin and pseudoephedrine without a prescription.

          You’d have to let them do whatever the fuck they wanted to do so long as they didn’t harm others.

          The alternative is to view other people as your property or the property of the collective, who are not allowed to damage that property and thus harm the owner’s interests.

          Sorry to hear you seem to be going with the latter view.

      4. I actually did go that route, sarc. She said that yes, you own your body, but you also have an obligation towards society over how it is used.

        I said, then that means you don’t really own it.

        She replied, no, it’s like owning a car: you own it, but you can’t run over people with it.

        I pretty much just went back to staring at her (very nice) chest at that point.

        1. She replied, no, it’s like owning a car: you own it, but you can’t run over people with it.

          OK… So slurping a Big Gulp is equivalent to killing people…

          I pretty much just went back to staring at her (very nice) chest at that point.

          Understandable

    4. I assume you immediately slapped the drink out of her hand, told her it was bad for her, and then to illustrate how much of a not unique snowflake she was, had everyone in the bar vote that drinking was bad for her and she needed to pick up everyone’s tab as a fine for drinking.

      That’s the fantasy I have everyone advocates some sort of nanny-statism over drinks.

      1. Honestly I wish I had thought of that.

        But GOVERNMENT SCIENTISTS have declared that obesity and soda are Enemy No. 1, so booze apparently doesn’t matter.

      2. However, her getting drunk and having sex with him clearly would be good for her, hence his dilemma.

        1. You could have given her this web addy:

          http://www.wctu.org/

          Right up her alley, if she ever decides to go full-bore fucktard.

    5. The amazing thing is that she’s saying this while on a pub-crawl–a behavior that the same type of people as those behind the soda ban would like to ban.

  12. This will lead to an Orwellian dystopia, how?

    You don’t have to imagine apocalyptic scenarios and resort to shrieking alarmism to argument against these kinds of measures.

    I’m against them because they are unworkable, not effective and generally create problems for business owners.

    Far more important to protect children from shitty parents who let them turn into little lardasses. It’s one thing when a healthy adult decides to get chubbier. But children raised without any monitoring of waistlines are basically doomed to be unhealthier and more unattractive. They deserve better.

    1. Limiting drink sizes in unworkable and creates problems, but enforcing limits on the waistlines of children would not?

      1. Getting fat as a child is a really horrible predicament to get out of. Allowing your child to get very fat is neglectful bordering on the abusive, even if there is no ill intent. Children are not adults – hell, the way some of you libertarians scream at college student voting democratic, you’d think even some adults are not adults.

        “enforcing limits on the waistlines of children would not?”

        Yes, because that is exactly what I said should be done…

        1. Then don’t do that to your children.
          As for the children of other people… none of your damn business.

        2. It takes a total lack of perspective to think that a fat child is a sign or even full evidence of child abuse.

          1. Is letting your child regularly smoke or drink alcohol child abuse?

            1. Straw man… move the goal posts… win!

              1. Quite comparable when it comes to health and life impact. Children are not adults, and they only ‘belong’ to a parent as far as the parent is capable of being responsible and caring to at least a minimal degree.

                1. ‘caring to a minimal degree’ seems to include ‘feeding the child a tad too much’.

                  you do realize that it should be a really, really high standard for the State to take away a children, right?

                  1. “you do realize that it should be a really, really high standard for the State to take away a children, right?”

                    Let me clarify, by saying that limiting ‘belonging’ doesn’t mean overtaking custody. Heck, you can help children get slimmer without making their parents better parents or mandating what they eat – this entire discussion rests on the assumption that I want repercussions for the parent or involvement in the parenting as the first resort. we don’t take away custody if a child ends up drunk a bunch of times, and that is an immediately dangerous form of behavior.

                    1. Except you did say cops should “crack down”. If that doesn’t mean arrest and/or removal of children from the home, I don’t know what it means.

                    2. this entire discussion rests on the assumption that I want repercussions for the parent or involvement in the parenting as the first resort

                      I don’t know what the alternatives would be. The government has a big toolbox, but only one tool: Force.
                      You’re acting like you want the government to do something, but not use force.
                      That makes no sense.

                    3. “You’re acting like you want the government to do something, but not use force. That makes no sense.”

                      You can help fat children get thinner with parental consent, and save obese children from life-threatening problems without parental consent. However, both approaches require funding, and if you think taxation is theft and resist the taxation then force will be applied.

                      Of course, I don’t think taxation is theft since you consent to being taxed when you decide to work and make an income in a country that informs you that your income will be taxed. But I suspect that is a pretty hopeless discussion to jump into.

                    4. Of course, I don’t think taxation is theft since you consent to being taxed when you decide to work and make an income in a country that informs you that your income will be taxed.

                      Care to name a country that doesn’t steal via taxation? It’s not “consenting” when you have no possibility of opting out of taxation.

                      If I showed up at your door with a buddy of mine, and we both pointed guns at you and demanded that you hand over a wad of cash to one of the two of us, would the fact that you had a choice of who to hand the money over to make it not-theft and thus something you consented to?

                    5. this entire discussion rests on the assumption that I want repercussions for the parent or involvement in the parenting as the first resort.

                      Gee, I wonder where anyone got that idea? Meanwhile, downthread…

                      Apparently a ‘statist’|6.13.12 @ 11:53AM|#
                      Child abuse, whether intentional or not, is most definitely my damn business. Letting your child get fat is like letting your child not do any homework, or take up smoking. You best believe I want cops to crack down on parents with smoking children.

                    6. this entire discussion rests on the assumption

                      This entire discussion rests on the assumption that the government even understands what makes for a better way to feed the kid. They don’t.

            2. Are those the same as being overweight?

              Just out of curiosity, do you consider it abusive to let your child drive at 16? Talk about your high-risk activities.

            3. Well, some European nations don’t have minimum drinking ages and the rest have lower ages than America. Does that make every European parent a child abuser?

              1. From an American perspective, yes. Have we become universalists now?

                1. Why are you here, statist? There’s a perfectly good website where you’d feel much more at home:

                  http://www.democraticunderground.com/

                  Go there and wallow amongst your own kind. The adults are discussifyin’ here.

        3. “Allowing your child to get very fat is neglectful bordering on the abusive”

          Perhaps in the US. But in a third world country, it means that you have provided well for your child.

    2. Even if it worked 100%, it’s 100% unjustified.

      As far as other people’s children goes, they’re not your children and thus none of your business.

      1. Child abuse, whether intentional or not, is most definitely my damn business. Letting your child get fat is like letting your child not do any homework, or take up smoking. You best believe I want cops to crack down on parents with smoking children.

        1. On what grounds? Children are allowed to smoke. 16 and 17 year olds do it all the time.

        2. Child abuse, whether intentional or not, is most definitely my damn business.

          Why? Are you Batman?

          1. “Why? Are you Batman?”

            Nah, I just think the law should prevent the strong from harming the weak.

            1. Nah, I just think the law should prevent the strong from harming the weak.

              So you believe in the use of force and coercion .

              You’re nothing but a violent thug.

              1. “You’re nothing but a violent thug.”

                I don’t really care to defend myself against that labeling.

                1. That’s because you know it’s true. If you believe the State has the right to use force, you are a thug.

                  At least 2pac took pride in living the Thug Life. You? You’re a hypocrite, a thug who wants people to think he’s/she’s a saint.

                  1. If you believe the State has the right to use initiate force, you are a thug.

                    ftfy

                    1. Only if you believe in the validity of the State. I have Voluntaryist sympathies.

                    2. So those of us who believe a state is inevitable are also thugs, I take it?

                    3. So those of us who believe a state is inevitable are also thugs, I take it?

                      Not necessarily, I can believe in the inevitability of my mortality, but not be a Death cultist.

                2. “You’re nothing but a violent thug.”

                  I don’t really care to defend myself against that labeling.

                  If I held your views, I also wouldn’t want to defend myself against that labeling, since defending the indefensible creates massive cognitive dissonance.

                  1. “since defending the indefensible”

                    I am as interested in defending myself against accusations of being a violent thug from libertarians as I am of convincing Xbox Live subhumans that I am not a “fag”.

            2. The cognitive dissonance in your posts is quite astounding. How do you do it?

              1. Hell, he admits a love for children… that, right there, was NOT a Freudian fuck-up.

        3. I’d rather see cops to crack down on moral panic busybodies that define “abuse” as anything other than a violation of rights or use of force

        4. Letting your child get fat is like letting your child not do any homework, or take up smoking. You best believe I want cops to crack down on parents with smoking children.

          Then by the same token, do you want police to “crack down” on people not making their kids do homework?

          Do you have any idea how many dogs will be killed if we start having SWAT raids into the family room at 8 p.m., screaming at little Johnny to finish the fucking math problem?

          Please, think of the dogs.

          1. “Then by the same token, do you want police to “crack down” on people not making their kids do homework?”

            Apparently ‘crack down’ was a poor choice of words. I still think children need protection – they should not be completely at the mercy of who they were born to.

            1. Bad BMI? Cops take your kids.
              C- grade point? Cops take your kids.
              What else can it mean?

              1. “What else can it mean?”

                Something not completely insane?

                I keep on forgetting I am only allowed to be either Andrew Ryan or Josef Stalin.

                1. “Something not completely insane?”

                  Like what? What alternative do you have for the government to MAKE people do what it wants, other than force?

                  1. “What alternative do you have for the government to MAKE people do what it wants, other than force?”

                    Anyway, you can of course make it easier for fat but not dangerously obese children to lose weight. Of course, if there is no private funding for that then public funding would be needed, and if you then insist that taxation is theft then this is a cul-de-sac and I am done arguing.

                    If I have to choose between or statism, the latter doesn’t seem a very controversial choice.

                    1. “If I have to choose between or statism,”

                      Bah, that should be “between anarcho-capitalism or statism”.

                    2. Then go practice statism for yourself, and leave the rest of America out of it.

                    3. We are all having some healthy competition in the marketplace of ideas. Ain’t my fault the anarcho-capitalists suck at marketing, or lack the power to cut out a piece of territory of their own.

                      If you are born poor, libertarians say you should deal with it. If you are born in a country that isn’t Galt’s Gulch, then libertarians say you shouldn’t have to make the effort to convince everyone to turn it into Galt’s Gulch. Heck, you shouldn’t even be expected to am-scray and create a gulch of your own – it should all be finished for you when you are born!

                    4. Look, cocksucker, you want a Utopia where everyone has the same amount of stuff, money, and no one has a McMansion.

                      Your Utopia leads to humans turned into drones, working for the glory of the State.

                      And don’t fucking lie and say “no, that’s not what I want”; you’re a liberal, which is no better than a so-con, and therefore are lower than shit.

                      Ho one is guaranteed the same outcome as the richest man on Earth. Get over it.

        5. So now it’s child abuse to feed your kid too much, or to feed them too little?

          Please tell me, Apparently ‘all knowing dude’, just how much should you feed your kid? And if you don’t do that exact amount, should I be able to send the cops or the taxman after you?

          1. I think only greatly insufficient or excessive calorie intake should lead to any intervention. I am more in support of helping children eat better and move more, but that costs money and taxation is, apparently, theft or whatever.

            1. And you can’t think of a single way that we could get children to “eat better and move more” without the threat of force via the government?

              That’s why people here might call you a statist. Just sayin.

              1. “And you can’t think of a single way that we could get children to “eat better and move more” without the threat of force via the government?”

                Sure I can. But when children become spherical there should at least be something done to help them, whether the parents want it or not. That doesn’t involve foster care, necessarily.

                1. But children aren’t becoming spherical. ‘Fat’ has been redefined. The BMI idiocy has turned tens–possibly hundreds of thousands of fit people into fat people. It’s not real.

                  This is all not real. It sertves one purpose and one purpose only–to give the state more control.

            2. taxation is, apparently, theft or whatever

              What happens when someone, say David Thoreau, doesn’t pay his taxes, 2State? That’s right, the government sends armed agents to collect the tax under threat of violence and imprisonment.

              Just admit that you support the use of force to reallocate wealth. Acknowledge your inner gangsta thug. 2State!

              1. You are free to leave the US. I, for one, encourage you to.

                Do you honestly think you are entitled to be born in a country with no taxation?

                “What happens when someone, say David Thoreau, doesn’t pay his taxes, 2State? That’s right, the government sends armed agents to collect the tax under threat of violence and imprisonment.”

                Hey, they knew the law and decided to make income anyway. Talk about not taking responsibility for your decisions.

                1. Hey, they knew the law and decided to make income anyway. Talk about not taking responsibility for your decisions.

                  Yes, they knew that the government would come to assault them in they didn’t hand their money over, so it would probably have been wiser to pay. Likewise, people being mugged in an ally know that if they don’t hand their wallets over, they too will be assaulted for what the wallets the mugger wants from them.

                  I admire your how straightforward you are in endorsing immoral behavior, though your vacuous attempt at apologetics on behalf of the state is rather disgusting, as is your abdicating responsibility in implicitly endorsing such immoral behavior.

                  1. You are conflating a decision to comply with lawful behavior with the decision to comply with unlawful threats.

                    You are born and raised in a country made possible by taxation (since a country is an arbitrary territory governed by arbitrary laws, protected by some sort of organized group of defenders agreeing on the laws) and then when it is time for you to work you think the deal is uncool? Good, then leave the country.

                    Or, you know, make an effort in convincing people to limit everybody’s taxes until only law enforcement or territory defending is funded.

                    If you don’t want to leave the country or make an effort to have your taxes lowered, you are kind of lazy. No one is entitled to be born in a country with no taxation.

                    1. “You are conflating a decision to comply with lawful behavior with the decision to comply with unlawful threats.”

                      And “Lawful” means “enforced by more thugs with bigger guns,” right?

                    2. Watch that guy. He’s got a love-boner.

                      If you have kids, make sure he’s nowhere near them.

                    3. “And “Lawful” means “enforced by more thugs with bigger guns,” right?”

                      You are free to leave the country or argue for different laws. If you decide to just demand that taxes are not collected, then shine on you crazy etc., I am not in any way calling you anything but brave, if a bit vainglorious. That’s risking something for what you believe in. Would be nice if you refrained from killing any cops though.

                    4. Again, I like how upfront you are about how it being the law makes it morally right. You’re still a disgusting piece of shit.

        6. Better change your nick dude, there is no “Apparently” about it, this last one pretty much shows “Confirmed” to be the correct qualifier.

    3. Mary had a little jam,
      she spread it on a waffle.
      And if she hadn’t eaten ten
      she wouldn’t feel so awful.

    4. Lol for teh cheeldrenz.

    5. This will lead to an Orwellian dystopia, how?

      By conceding important principles of self-ownership and limits on government power.

      I wonder how old you are. I don’t mean that as an insult. It’s just that being in the over-50 crowd myself gives me a perspective that a 20- or 30-year old may not have. When I was 20 I laughed at people who predicted the things I have seen come to pass in the last 10 years. I owe those people an apology. They were right.

      Just look at history. Government power doesn’t shrink; it just grows. It grows until it overreaches in some really disastrous way. Then we start the whole bloody cycle over again.

      1. Shame then, that libertarianism doesn’t offer me an answer when it comes to, say, preventing discrimination of certain people (“Don’t ya see?! Businesses that discriminate will either be punished by consumers or will become non-competitive!”) or preventing externalities stemming from a transaction from harming people unrelated to the transaction.

        As long as libertarianism is “NO GOVERNMENT” and “TAXATION IS THEFT” I will listen to it no more than I listen to “PROPERTY IS THEFT”. The answer to communism and totalitarianism is not an equally dogmatic inversion. Homo economicus is only a theory, as is climate change, yet libertarians are as hostile to skepticism of the former as they are of considering the latter.

        1. You know what the answer is, you just don’t like it. Didn’t your parents ever teach you that life is NOT fair?

          Just for clarity: If some moron wanted to alienate an entire group, or multiple groups of people, because he’s a racist shitbag, in today’s society someone else would open up a competing business that DID serve those groups. You know, unless the government decided to impose the first guys ideas on the rest of us (you know, like they did back when segregation was imposed on people BY THE GOVERNMENT).

          1. “If some moron wanted to alienate an entire group, or multiple groups of people, because he’s a racist shitbag, in today’s society someone else would open up a competing business that DID serve those groups.”

            Hate can be a more powerful force than greed. You are a shining example of that ^^. As such, you don’t require a government to essentially lock out an entire demographic or minority.

            “You know, unless the government decided to impose the first guys ideas on the rest of us (you know, like they did back when segregation was imposed on people BY THE GOVERNMENT).”

            And then government decided to force businesses to admit black customers, much to the chagrin of Ron Paul, our dear crazy uncle gliberty.

        2. Libertarianism “offers” no answer on a silver plate because there isn’t one. I don’t reject government control of the economy because I think it’s a bad idea; I simply know that it isn’t possible. The economy isn’t some big machine that can yield exactly the perfect world you want simply by “experts” (odd that so many people think that mediocre wankers like Obama are experts) providing the right inputs and pressing the right buttons.

          The problem isn’t just that you’re willing to trade liberty for your perfect world. The problem is that we’ll lose the liberty and not get jack shit in return for it much less a perfect world.

          The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for
          my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a
          fake.–H.L. Mencken

          1. “Libertarianism “offers” no answer on a silver plate because there isn’t one.”

            And my rejection of libertarianism doesn’t believe I think the government provides all answers either.

            “The problem isn’t just that you’re willing to trade liberty for your perfect world.”

            I didn’t know I in anyway desired perfection. I also don’t recall saying the economy should be controlled. I just don’t trust the free market to, say, be a failsafe or even superior enemy of bigotry. (I don’t trust private charity to take care of the healthcare needs of the poor, either.)

            1. Interesting. So because you’re afraid of an ephemeral free-market boogeyman, you’re willing to impose the known, quantified and horrible results of government control on everyone else in existence. What a wonderful, mature, selfless person you are!

              1. You nailed it, Hammer.

                /drumroll

              2. I thought libertarians extolled selfishness. Why should I be selfless, you anti-human nihilist?

                Inane sarcasm aside, I guess I prefer the Leviathan i know over the Leviathan I don’t. Other people are perfectly free to vote for less gubbyment, and I am not stopping them. In fact, I would be perfectly OK with a Johnson vote.

                1. “OK with a Johnson vote”

                  Bullshit.

  13. Since its obvious that these politicians heads are swelling up with power we need to cut off the money that gives them that power.

  14. Let’s just cut to the chase already and stop this tip toeing forward.

    Make all food state rationed and distributed. Each person will receive their state ration each week and only that. Food police will be dispatched to every residence weekly to make sure that no one is cheating by eating a portion of any other family members ration, or consuming non-state certified rations, growing their own food, etc. Zero tolerance, anyone caught cheating will be exectued on the spot, and all family pets shot, and grandma tased. It’s for our own good. FORWARD comrades!

    1. Wickard lives!

    2. Sort of like Jenny Craig on steroids?

      1. That is not an image I needed in my head.

  15. I suspect Michael Phelps is behind this. Since he’s soon retiring, he’s seeing to it that no American human being can ever again eat enough calories in a day to maintain a world-record-setting training regimen.

  16. Tasty, tasty beverage.

  17. I’m going to assume that they are against popcorn because of the butter and salt, not because of the tons of empty carbs. Actually the ‘butter’ is probably unhealthy because it’s not actually butter but some unstable omega 6 veg oil derivative.

    1. Popcorn, sans those disgusting additives and piles of salt, are very healthy. Starchy, but the shells are nutritious as hell, apparently.

      1. Popcorn is an empty starch, ie there’s little in the way of vitamins and minerals, but the husks contain anti-nutrients. A much better clean starch is white rice. And the research behind salt being unhealthy is really crap.

      2. Back to one of your original arguments:

        If there is a child clearly in poor health due to parental indulgence, there may be a case for the state to get involved and investigate.

        How does this justify telling adults, even skinny ones or athletes, or large healthy people (say Shaq in his mid-20’s) that they can’t purchase a certain drink or food?

        The gov’t is wrong all the time on food and there are hundreds of examples of cronyism where different official from different states get preferential treatment and advertising for crops from their state.

        The gov’t was wrong on margarine over butter due to trans fats, was wrong on eggs, is mislead on salt for most people, still pushes some foods over others in their food pyramid which, by the way, changes every 20 years.

        If we had let the gov’t regulate “unhealthy” foods in the past, all kinds of stupid decisions would have been made. It’s bad enough that most people still think eggs are not good for you if you have more than one a week. They use to think cocaine was a harmless stimulant and good for you and chocolate bad for you.

        1. If we had let the gov’t regulate “unhealthy” foods in the past, all kinds of stupid decisions would have been made.

          ^^^This. The political process is absolutely the worst way to make these decisions. Those who use the political process do not use science, logic, or even common sense to arrive at their decisions.

        2. “How does this justify telling adults, even skinny ones or athletes, or large healthy people (say Shaq in his mid-20’s) that they can’t purchase a certain drink or food?”

          Not one bit. You’ll notice I don’t support Bloomberg’s silliness.

          1. Not one bit. You’ll notice I don’t support Bloomberg’s silliness.

            No one here would be able to guess this from the way you talk, which has been, if anything, in defense of such bans.

            1. “No one here would be able to guess this from the way you talk, which has been, if anything, in defense of such bans”

              I did not know libertarians didn’t allow for distinguishing between children and adults. I am learning lots today.

              1. Liberals – and social-cons – are the ones who can’t distinguish between children and adults.

                1. Yet, I am the one distinguishing between intervening when a kid is becoming fat to the point where his or her life is in danger, versus not intervening when an adult becomes a sphere.

                  1. And how do you “intervene”? With men armed with guns?

                    1. No. Communist men armed with fascist guns greased by the fatty residue scarped from the ovens where all the men not owning effeminate cars have been burnt.

                      Of course the abuse (if we are, indeed, talking about abuse) will be stopped by law enforcement, you dolt. If a kid is allowed to skip school or huff paint and the parent isn’t doing anything the cops arrive too. Because, you know, the whole abuse thing.

                    2. That’s what I thought you’d say. And expect from people like you.

          2. You don’t support Bloomberg’s silliness, but you DO support the basic idea upon which he derives said silliness.

            Which explains why you’re a Democrat.

            Yeah, Bloomberg is, nominally, a Republican. Don’t even bother.

            1. “You don’t support Bloomberg’s silliness, but you DO support the basic idea upon which he derives said silliness.”

              My idea is that it is hardly ideal to take a laissez-faire attitude towards parents underfeeding or overfeeding a child until the child’s health is endangered. Bloomberg is talking about adults.

              1. No, Bloomberg is talking about adults while treating them like children.

                You, are talking about children as property of the state.

                1. “You, are talking about children as property of the state.”

                  Its that or property of its parents. I didn’t know libertarians were ever OK with humans becoming anyone’s property.

                  Are we actually arguing whether parents letting a kid become so fat its life is in danger is something that can’t even be arguably child abuse?

                  1. They are the charges of the parents until they reach the age of 18, or whatever it may be in varying states.

                    Liberals, OTOH, don’t think children become adults until the age of twenty-seven. If ever.

                    1. “They are the charges of the parents until they reach the age of 18”

                      Sure, but even the nuttiest libertarians are pretty big on the whole concept of child abuse laws. That is where the question is for me. Should it be considered child abuse if a child is allowed to stuff itself into circus freakshow territory?

                      “Liberals, OTOH, don’t think children become adults until the age of twenty-seven.”

                      You guys are the ones that say people should work hard and, among other things, go to college if they want to get anywhere. People tend to only risk taking an education if they know they aren’t completely fucked if they suffer health problems.

                    2. Depends on how you use the term “abuse”.

                      To a liberal, allowing a child to wander into a room while Rush Limbaugh is on the radio, would be grounds for calling child-protection services.

                      No, don’t even bother… I despise Limbaugh. I’m just making a point.

                    3. “To a liberal, allowing a child to wander into a room while Rush Limbaugh is on the radio, would be grounds for calling child-protection services.”

                      That’s hardly going to endanger the kid’s life (remember?), just his mental well-being and overall quality as a human being.

                    4. IMO, kids should not be exposed to politics until they are capable of understanding it.

                      Same goes for religion.

                      But that’s STILL not the issue here.

                    5. BTW… what set off your tirades on here? Do you suffer from vaginal discomfort?

                    6. “But that’s STILL not the issue here.”

                      No, the issue is whether letting your kid become so fat his or her life is in danger is abusively neglectful/retarded. That shouldn’t be that difficult to keep track of, yet you are all busy going “LIBS THIS” and “LIBS THAT” like some inbred cunt of a redneck.

                    7. Fuck off.

    2. Pure coconut oil works the best. Or bacon grease, but good luck with that.

  18. You mean Bloomberg’s soda nannying was just the first step down a slippery slope? I want to show you something: it’s my shocked face :O

    Fuck Michael Blookburg and the NY City Board of Health in the ass with a splintery broken off broom handle. Bunch of fuckwads.

  19. But the extra large popcorn is your best value….

  20. This stuff will only stop when voters punish offending politicians…

    And by “punish”, we don’t mean “vote out of office”….

  21. Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the
    most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point
    be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
    –C.S. Lewis

  22. All I know is that once a week my minion brings me a Hershey’s Special Dark Chocolate shake from Steak Shake and once a year I give him a good review. That’s the system and it works for us. Why should the government screw that up?

  23. Under “apparently a statist’s” perfect government, the state would crack down on people who gave their kids too much salt from 1998-2007 and not enough salt from 2007-2012, when the amount of salt they each gave their kid was exactly the fucking same.

    Face it, “apparently,” the state doesn’t know jack shit about nutrition and has no business being in the game of punishing/rewarding behaviors that may possibly contribute to a kid or adult being skinny, fat or freakishly athletic.

    And I’m sorry if I’m speaking in absolutes, but if you or anyone disagree with me, you don’t deserve to live in a free society. Go die in a fucking fire.

    1. My guess would be that apparently this person doesn’t have any kids. Either that or it’s apparently a soccer mom.

    2. “Under “apparently a statist’s” perfect government, the state would crack down on people who gave their kids too much salt from 1998-2007 and not enough salt from 2007-2012, when the amount of salt they each gave their kid was exactly the fucking same.”

      Nope, but it would crack down on people with kids suffering from salt intake that is so low or high it is actually leading to health problems.

      “Face it, “apparently,” the state doesn’t know jack shit about nutrition and has no business being in the game of punishing/rewarding behaviors that may possibly contribute to a kid or adult being skinny, fat or freakishly athletic.”

      Good thing, then, that I didn’t say anything about preemptively engineering behavior that would make kids skinnier or healthier. I did say something about endangering your kids’ health – a reactive approach that becomes valid only when a child becomes, say, as big as a libertarian’s hate-boner whenever someone mentions carbon taxes.

      [I also think the child of a Jehova’s witness should be forced to receive blood transfusions and that male circumcision should be banned at the expense of religious freedom. Taste the end of freedom and liberty!]

      1. The problem with what you are saying is that government changes what is “endangering” and “healthy” all the time, often contradicting their previous assessments.

        So to say when someone endangers their kids, you must acknowledge that the state is a pretty poor arbiter of what is well and truly dangerous.

        How someone with an ounce of brains could advocate the state having any control over how someone raises their kid, short of real physical or mental abuse, is beyond me.

        The government fucks up everything it touches, yet you want to grant it license to punish people for what they let their kids put in their bellies? I’m sorry, but you should go ahead and drop “Apparently a” from your name. It’s not necessary anymore.

        1. “The government fucks up everything it touches,

          And market forces fix everything they touch, yes yes, skip past this bit, gramps.

          “yet you want to grant it license to punish people for what they let their kids put in their bellies?”

          And, once again, I am OK with the kids eating whatever. I am not OK with letting them become dangerously mal- or overnourished. Because I am very very evil.

          1. Because I am very very evil.

            Well, you got one thing right.

            1. You should see my mantle and faceless henchmen.

              1. Those henchmen aren’t faceless – we can watch them on C-SPAN, on the Sunday chat shows, and other venues.

      2. Fuck you.

        1. No, a bigger hate-boner than that.

          1. I think Jehova’s Witnesses are pretty stupid in a lot of their views. And I know it’s not medically necessary for boys to be circumcised. But if you think that the government should force people not to practice their religious beliefs, you’re the one with the hate-boner.

            Since you have proven time and again that you are, in fact, a statist, and since you obviously do not care for others freedom if you think they are wrong or stupid, I will no longer reply to your assinine commentary.

            1. “But if you think that the government should force people not to practice their religious beliefs, you’re the one with the hate-boner.”

              No, just a love-boner for kids.

              Wait.

              Aaaanyway, fuck *you*. An human is born free, and is not to have its genitals molded by its parents. It is not to be doomed *TO DIE* by its parents, either. You absolute animal.

              1. “No, just a love-boner for kids.”

                That’s what Jerry Sandusky is on trial for.

                1. Who the *fuck* is Jerry Sandusky?

                  1. Here, and even from a source YOU would trust:

                    http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_n…..kept-quiet

                    Un-cinch your blinders, dude.

                    1. Oh yeeeaaah, that coach that was viciously defended by all those degenerate sports fans. Good day for humanity, that.

                    2. Well, there are idiots out there, yes.

                      The point is, Jerry loved those kids. He had a love-boner for them.

                      Now, where has that phrase been lately?

                    3. So, let a fellow get a thing straight here, if a kid is lying unconscious and will die within an hour without a blood transfusion, and the kid’s parents are JW’s, the kid is fucked if the parents say so?

                      And I am the barbarian here? Hoo boy.

                    4. That’s not the point of this discussion, which is about how Nanny Bloomberg is trying to engineer A Perfect Society within the reach of his power.

                    5. I see you’re walking back that “love-boner” thing. Did I embarrass you?

                    6. Am I embarrassed because you are comparing me to a rapist because I was jokingly justifying my position regarding blood transfusions for kids “belonging” to Jehova’s Witnesses as stemming from a “love-boner” towards kids as opposed to a “hate-boner” towards the religious?

                      Yes, I am very embarrassed for you.

                    7. I’m not the one using that phrase when talking about kids.

                    8. It’s the Prime Directive. Read it, live it.

  24. I have absolutely nothing of substance to add here that I haven’t already said elsewhere, but I just wanted it noted that, as a straight woman, I find Kelis’ Milkshake video to be almost indescribably awesome.

    Yes, I am indeed a traitor to my sex.

  25. What the fuck is wrong with you people?

    1. But if we just talk to the troll enough, he’ll change his mind and we can be friends!

      1. “Or she’ll hack our Facebook and post our address or call the SWAT team to our house. Either way, we WIN!”

    2. It’s wednesday and I was bored.

      1. It’s the externalities of your actions I want you to contemplate. Your “harmless” batting around of a fuckwit has enormous consequences for the rest of us. Perhaps some sort of troll feeding tax might work, or troll food credit trading…

        1. Damn. I always forget about the externalities.

          Is there any add on like reasonable for Firefox?

        2. An Internet Protection Agency, with the power to seize pristine blogs and keep them in their natural, troll-free state.

  26. Boards of Health should just disappear from the face of the earth. Here in Buttfuck, Western MA, the city BoH has just outlawed the selling of cigarettes not just in pharmacies, but in any store with a pharmacy. That’s a list that includes all but one of the six supermarkets in town, as well as Walmart.

    The “thinking” behind this is to make it harder for the childrenz to get ahold of smokes. Because that’s totally where all the kids buy them, in large chain stores whose employees religiously card anyone who looks under thirty. Basically, they’re inconveniencing middle-aged ladies like me, who buy our cigarettes while grocery shopping.

    I almost wrote to the local paper (big supporters of the measure) to say that if it’s really all about the kids, they ought to be banning tobacco sales at convenience stores, and why not throw in gas stations and liquor stores, too, since both are purveyors of flammable liquids which aren’t safe around lit cigarettes.

    I stopped myself, out of fear of giving them any new ideas.

    1. Yeah, but you said it in front of Caspar the Friendly Statist so now he’ll go and report it. He knows what’s best for everyone, thank Science.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.