New York City – Where You Can Drink Until 23 Hours A Day, But Soon You Won’t Be Able To Buy A 24 Ounce Coke

May 31, 2012 | Filed under Dumbasses | Posted by

The New York Times is reporting that, having solved all of it’s other problems, New York City is preparing to outlaw soda and other sugar sweetened drinks over 16 ounces.

New York City plans to enact a far-reaching ban on the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks at restaurants, movie theaters and street carts, in the most ambitious effort yet by the Bloomberg administration to combat rising obesity.

The proposed ban would affect virtually the entire menu of popular sugary drinks found in delis, fast-food franchises and even sports arenas, from energy drinks to pre-sweetened iced teas. The sale of any cup or bottle of sweetened drink larger than 16 fluid ounces — about the size of a medium coffee, and smaller than a common soda bottle — would be prohibited under the first-in-the-nation plan, which could take effect as soon as next March.

The measure would not apply to diet sodas, fruit juices, dairy-based drinks like milkshakes, or alcoholic beverages; it would not extend to beverages sold in grocery or convenience stores.

This is just silly. In fact it’s beyond silly, it’s pure nanny state.

Bar image via Shutterstock.

« « EPA Agents Visit Man For Sending Email
Jury Finds John Edwards Guilty Of Being A Douchebag, Nothing Else » »

Shortlink:

Posted by on May 31, 2012.
Filed under Dumbasses.
Kevin founded Wizbang in 2003. He still contributes occasionally and handles all the technical and design work for the site.

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • Taxpayer1234

    Nanny Bloomberg strikes again.

  • davidt

    How much for a waiver?

  • Commander_Chico

    I don’t agree with it, but I have some sympathy for it.  I long ago stopped drinking soda.  Like General Jack D. Ripper, I’m a water man.  So I am voting with my money.

    I am old enough to remember when 6 ounce returnable bottles of Coke were the common option.  Then the 12 ounce bottles were introduced, then the 16 ounce.  

    Now, in many convenience stores, drinks are only available in those huge 24 ounce bottles.  Nauseating.  You might find 12 ounce cans in a corner.

    Movie theaters are among the worst – the smallest size seems to be something like a quart.  Again, the small cups of soda of the past are gone, along with small prices.

    The problem is not that they sell large sodas, but that they only sell large sodas, with the price-gouging to go with it. In other words, market manipulation by the removal of market choice. Now NYC is removing market choice in the other direction. Like a lot of regulatory issues: action/reaction.

    These soda sizes are a major contribution to the size of herds of Americans.

    • davidt

       Yeah, fuck that freedom of choice bullshit.

    • Oysteria

      You don’t agree with it then go on to defend it in every way possible and simply shrug your shoulders since it doesn’t affect you personally.  And no, I won’t read or care about your response.

    • Wild_Willie

      Simply don’t buy it. ww

      • Commander_Chico

        C’mon, have you bought a soda in a chain movie theater lately?  

        The smallest size offered is huge.

        • Evil Otto

          So don’t buy one.

        • retired.military

          What is gonig to stop people from buying 2 smalls to make up for the large they can no longer buy?  Oh wait.  That is the next step in the liberal govt agenda.  Limiting sodas to one per person.  What is next after that.  Why an armed antifat agent to ensure that each person that bought a soda doesnt give it to someone else who already has one.

          • jim_m

             Soda rationing will be coming to NYC in the near future.

    • jim_m

       Now, in many convenience stores, drinks are only available in those huge
      24 ounce bottles.  Nauseating.  You might find 12 ounce cans in a
      corner.

      Yep. And those bottles have screw caps so you don’t need to drink them all at once.  Ever try resealing a can?

      Why is it that lefties are so stupid that they cannot see that just maybe some people actually do behave in ways that do not fit their preconceive notion of public irresponsibility?  It’s their assumption that every other person is a blithering idiot who must be controlled in every aspect of their life that pisses me off.

      Best of all is Chico’s statement that he is capable of using his personal choice in the matter but he has no problem with everyone else being compelled to make that same choice. Perfect example of the fascist left.

  • Pingback: LIVE AT FIVE – 05.31.12 : The Other McCain

  • herddog505

    Can somebody please explain to me why the people of New York City don’t throw this interfering busybody out of office and, preferably, into the river?  Do they LIKE being treated like mentally handicapped children?  Do they really, really crave somebody to tell them how to live their lives: what to eat, what to drink, how much to weigh, etc?

    • Evil Otto

      Read the comments in the NY Times article. While some are outraged, far too many are cheering King Michael’s nanny state. Apparently, many New Yorker’s do, in fact, like being treated like mentally handicapped children.

      • herddog505

        It makes me wonder why some people have such an objection to slavery.  Oh, sure: the beatings and long days aren’t so hot but, on the other hand, one gets womb to (early) tomb food, shelter, and (best of all) no control over his own life: no need to worry about making those tough decisions like “Should I drink that biggie-sized Coke when I go see ‘The Avengers’?”

        Jebus…

      • 914

        Well they sure vote like imbeciles year after year..

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ryan-Murphy/100001624276605 Ryan Murphy

    Why is it that people’s sex lives are about the ONLY thing that liberals feel government shouldn’t interfere in?

  • Vagabond661

    Ok a 16 ounce drink is the biggest size you can buy. Can you buy two 16 ounce drinks? Or three? If so, doesn’t that defeat the purpose? Sounds like they should be fighting stupidity rather than obesity.

    • herddog505

      Don’t give Commissar Bloomberg any ideas…

    • Gmacr1

      Coming to stores in NY soon, one soft drink a day laws…

      • Vagabond661

        Or the end game is you can buy more but it will be taxed like cigarettes and booze as a sumptuary tax.

  • http://www.locomotivebreath1901.blogspot.com/ locomotivebreath1901

    I’d much rather this liberal fascist in RINO clothing ban meddling nanny state politicians.

  • GarandFan

    You voted for him NY.  Live with it.

  • Commander_Chico

    Funny thing is that New Yorkers are pretty skinny compared to the rest of the country.  The women work to look good.

    Now, I was in Memphis a few months back, that was a different story.  Stood on Beale Street having a beer and estimating the women walking by – 190, 250, 175, 280 . . . .

    • Conservachef

       Chico,

      I’ve never been a big fan of Beale St. I like some of the places nearby (Did you visit the Flying Saucer?) but for streets-o-booze, I’d take Bourbon over Beale any day.

      btw- I live a couple of hours away from Memphis, have some friends there. If you head back there, I know some good places to eat.

      • Commander_Chico

        Thanks, I love the area, but have not been to Bourbon Street, look forward to it.  

        • Conservachef

           Bourbon has all of that New Orleans, debauchery feel to it. To me, Memphis’ Beale St. just has a drunkenness feel to it.

          Of course, I like New Orleans, so I may be a little biased..

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_G7YIUZMXOD5JGZZTCYMVA75KFU Shadow

      There are many beautiful women in The South who work to look good.  They must have taken a look at you and stayed out of sight.

      • Commander_Chico

        Yes, they can’t resist my power.  I always found that the more churches, the easier it was to pick up a girl at the roadhouse and get laid.

  • Guest

    This is a movement that’s spreading. You know it’s an idea whose time has come — conservatives hate it.

    • Finrod Felagund

      “a movement that’s spreading”– just like diarrhea, and smells just as bad.
       

      • Guest

        Mayor Bloomberg is a Republican, and he’s behind this. Obesity is a growing problem for our nation.

        You want to reduce the costs of health care? Reduce this nation’s love affair with sugar. It’s a national imperative.

        • Finrod Felagund

          Fail.  Bloomberg WAS a Republican, from 2001 to 2007.  He was a Democrat before that and an Independent now.  Bloomberg never was anything more than a RINO even when he was calling himself a Republican.

          Health care?  Take care of your own damn health.  We don’t need Bloomberg or Obama to do it for us.  If you’re so concerned about obesity, go move to North Korea, where I hear it’s no problem at all.
           

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_G7YIUZMXOD5JGZZTCYMVA75KFU Shadow

           Doesn’t matter if a tyrant has an R or a D behind his name, ruling by fiat will not stand in The United States. 

        • Vagabond661

          If you want to reduce the cost of health care, get the government out of it. Once they are involved in anything, it doesn’t make the item cheaper, it makes it more expensive.

        • 914

          “Mayor Bloomberg is a Republican, and he’s behind this. Obesity is a growing problem for our nation.”

          I’d say idiocy is the bigger problem.

        • retired.military

          Chickenshit.

          What do you propose.  Sugar rationing?   Maybe they can use armed EPA agents to enforce it. 

        • jim_m

            It’s a national imperative.

          It’s a national imperative to tell people what and how much to eat?  WTF!?!?

          Tell you what Grumpy, why don’t you goose step your way to utopia in some other country?

    • Evil Otto

      Check it out, everyone. Grumpy hates us so much that he’s willing to support even the stupidest, most intrusive limits on his freedom so long as we’re against it. Congratulations, Grumpy… You’ve officially become an Ayn Rand villain.

      Are you really that much of a slave that you think the government should be able to tell you how much frikkin’ soda you can drink? Is there even a dying ember of a free man left inside you?

      Yeah, we understand already. YOU HATE US. You’ve made that perfectly clear. It’s pretty much all there is to you. Just once, though, can’t you put aside your obsessive hate and stand for something?

      Yeah, didn’t think so. See ya round, troll.

      • Guest

        They aren’t telling you how much you can drink – they’re telling some businesses how much they can sell to one person in one cup.

        You can drink all you want. Just buy two – or three – or four if you want.

        Seriously – is that beyond your reasoning abilities – that nobody is restricting how much you can drink – just how much you can buy in one cup? Is the hate so strong inside of you that you can’t just stop and think for a second?

        • 914

          “They aren’t telling you how much you can drink – they’re telling some businesses how much they can sell to one person in one cup”

          Kinda defeats your ‘national imperative’ then don’t it?  

        • Vagabond661

          Gee grumpy, why doi it at all? If there are no restrictions on quantity, why limit how big a container is? Why not sell gasoline in quarts instead of gallons? Won’t that wean us off oil using the same logic?

          • Guest

            Apparently you didn’t bother to read the article linked in the post above.

            In recent years, soda has emerged as a battleground in efforts to counter obesity. Across the nation, some school districts have banned the sale of soda in schools, and some cities have banned the sale of soda in public buildings.

            In New York City, where more than half of adults are obese or overweight, Dr. Thomas Farley, the health
            commissioner, blames sweetened drinks for up to half of the increase in city obesity rates over the last 30 years. About a third of New Yorkers drink one or more sugary drinks a day, according to the city. Dr. Farley said the city had seen higher obesity rates in neighborhoods where soda consumption was more common.

            The mayor, who said he occasionally drank a diet soda “on a hot day,” contested the idea that the plan would limit consumers’ choices, saying the option to buy more soda would always be available.

            “Your argument, I guess, could be that it’s a little less convenient to have to carry two 16-ounce drinks to your seat in the movie theater rather than one 32 ounce,” Mr. Bloomberg said in a sarcastic tone. “I don’t think you can make the case that we’re taking things away.”

          • Vagabond661

            So? Why does the government (and you) think it has the right to regulate this? I bet a third of new yorkers eat either hot dogs burgers fried chicken or pizza every day too. Regulate the sizes of them and you can wipe out obesity altogether. NOT!

          • jim_m

             So you and the Mayor agree that this is nothing but a blatant attempt to meddle in people’s lives with no real expectation of changing anything but making people a little more miserable and little more resentful of government and a little more used to government overstepping its bounds and dictating to us how we should live.

            One more step down the road to fascism and grumpy is cheering all the way.

        • Evil Otto

          Maybe I don’t want to buy two or three or four. Maybe I don’t want to carry multiple drinks with me… AND WHO THE HELL ARE MICHAEL BLOOMBERG OR YOU TO TELL ME OTHERWISE? If I want to go in and buy a 24 oz Slurpee, I can’t. If I want a 48 oz soda, I can’t buy one. And you’re going to claim they’re not telling me how much I can drink? The whole purpose of this proposed rule (I hesitate to call it a “law”) is that the Higher Authorities™ have decreed that soda is bad for you and thus its consumption must be limited, for my own good of course.

          Don’t lecture anyone on hate, you bizarre kook. Your whole purpose here is your deep, all-consuming hate of conservatives. You spend HOURS here, trolling. It’s rather pathetic… you can’t stand us, but you need our attention.

          You’re telling me that there’s not even part of you that doesn’t resent this sort of arbitrary, ridiculous nanny-state rule? You’re happy to comply, because it’s for the Greater Good™? C’mon, Grumpy, is there anything American left in you?

          • Guest

             lol… Nobody can cure your stupidity, but we can make it stop costing the rest of us money.

          • jim_m

            “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would 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”

            The thing is that you really think you are doing people a favor by being a fascist.

          • Evil Otto

            Yeah, yeah, “yoo are teh stoopid.” Get some new material, drone. You’ve never dazzled anyone with your wit, you sad little obsessive statist.

            but we can make it stop costing the rest of us money.

            So only conservatives drink soda?

            You just claimed that no one was telling people how much they can drink… and now, here you are, telling me that you can stop “it” from costing the rest of “us” money. Well? Which is it? If this isn’t a ban, then it isn’t going to save anyone any money. If it is, then my original question stands: what gives you and the rest of you wannabe tyrants the right to tell me what size of soda I can buy?

            I’m asking too much of you to figure out the logical contradictions in your own comments. It doesn’t matter… you hate us, and that’s enough.

        • retired.military

          Chickenshit

          Thanks for proving just how useless the law is.   Since it is so useless why have it at all?

      • herddog505

        I’ve often said that one could line libs up against the wall and shoot them, and they’d go with smiles on their faces and songs in their hearts so long as they could look down in the mud and see that conservatives went first.

    • Gmacr1

      The only place this will spread is in cities and states that are under control of Democrats.

      • Guest

         Right, cause the lobbyists will have already bought off all the Republicans

        • Sky__Captain

          Link, please.
          Or that is a lie.

          Provide a link, or retract.

          EDIT – I misread Grumpy’s post. I apologize.
          However, his assertion is just that – an assertion of the type libtards usually make.

        • retired.military

          Last I checked Obama got more lobbyist and wall street money than republicans did.

  • ackwired

    Whether it is sugar, alcohol, or drugs, prohibition is a bad idea.  It causes more problems than it solves.

    • herddog505

      Yes.  Further, once we get into the habit of banning this or that, where does it end?  And, most importantly (as davidt points out above), what about liberty?  Can we be said to be a free country if, even for the most altruistic of reasons, we can order people to eat this or not eat that?

      • Guest

        You can drink all you want – buy two or more. Sheesh…..

        The ban isn’t on drinking sugar sodas – its a ban on selling sizes over 16 ounces at some venues.

        The proposed ban would affect virtually the entire menu of popular sugary drinks found in delis, fast-food franchises and even sports arenas, from energy drinks to pre-sweetened iced teas. The sale of any cup or bottle of sweetened drink larger than 16 fluid ounces — about the size of a medium coffee, and smaller than a common soda bottle — would be prohibited under the first-in-the-nation plan, which could take effect as soon as next March.

        The measure would not apply to diet sodas, fruit juices, dairy-based drinks like milkshakes, or alcoholic beverages; it would not extend to beverages sold in grocery or convenience stores.

        It’s not a ban on drinking, you can drink all you want.

        • Hank_M

           That helps.

          So its’ a stupid inconvenience being implemented so that the powers that be can feel good about themselves addressing the “obesity” problem.

          • jim_m

             The point is that it gets Americans used to the idea of the government telling them how they can live their lives.  You get used to the government telling you what you eat, where you can work, what degree you can get, etc.

            Just one more step toward government control of every aspect of our lives.

        • 914

          Kinda defeats your ‘national imperative’ scheme then don’t it?  

           Its about nanny control over the people. See how much they will stand, then take some more of their liberty’s.  

          Nothing more nothing less..

          • jim_m

             The imperative is government control. Nothing less.

        • herddog505

          Then what’s the point?

  • Hank_M

    A few thoughts…

    First they came for the smokers, now they’re after the “obese”. Many will support these efforts. But eventually, something you like will be targeted and it will be too late.
     
    I know Bloomberg is a repub, but the vast majority of those who seek to impose controls on how people live are leftists.

    I find it somewhat ironic to hear leftists talking about the cost of obesity with respect to health care, and how it affects us all. Really, libs concerned about the cost of something.
    Don’t be fooled. It’s all about control.

    davidt is exactly right, as it ackwired.

    What happens if a pregnant woman wants a 24 oz beverage? Are they denying her her choice?

    What happens if a 30 year old college student at Georgetown wants to buy a 24 oz beverage while in NY to wash down her birth control pills?

    • Gmacr1

      As pointed out above by Finrod Felagund Bloomberg is not a Republican.
      I call him a politician of political convenience, a party hopper for times when he needs the votes.

  • Pingback: Nanny Bloomberg Wants To Ban All Large Sugary Drinks » Pirate's Cove

  • herddog505

    You know, after reading some of the comments, I think we’ve misunderestimated Bloomers.  After all, if people have to buy two or more drinks to slake their thirst instead of only one… WELL!  Does anybody know if he owns stock in Coca Cola?

    On the other hand, doesn’t that double the amount of bottles and cups going into the landfills?

    • 914

      Yep! Next up a landfill surcharge for each additional cup you selfishly dare to use and abuse.

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      Yep, it’ll increase the quantity of trash.  Might be a win for the folks who haul out the trash, too.

  • Par4Course

    This is insanity and confirms my suspicion that Bloomberg is an idiot.  If this goes through, can a New Yorker buy two 12 oz. drinks at one time?  Does the rule apply only to sugar-sweetened drinks or will Coke, Diet Coke and Coke Zero drinkers all be treated the same?  If two friends want to share a drink, will they be subject to the same rules as an individual customer? Will this apply to 2-liter bottles?  Etc. ad nauseum.

    • Guest

       It applies only to the size of the drink sold in some venues.

      Maybe next time you should read the article before commenting on it? Just saying..

  • herddog505

    Further evidence (if any was required) that Bloomers is an idiot:

    At Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s press conference touting his efforts to stop the sale of large soft drinks in restaurants, one reporter in attendance brought up the interesting fact that his administration also supporting “National Donut Day” tomorrow and inquired as to whether that muddled the mayor’s message on the issue.

    Indeed, at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow morning, Entenmann’s will be unveiling “Custom-made Entenmann’s large donuts, 1-foot in diameter” at Madison Square Park at the same time they unveil a “Proclamation Letter by Mayor Michael Bloomberg.”*

    There are unconfirmed reports that Bloomers testily replied, “No animal shall eat a donut WITH A SODA.”

    ====

    (*) http://politicker.com/2012/05/mixed-message-with-soda-ban-and-national-donut-day-endorsements-video/
     
    via HotAir:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/31/america-unites-in-contempt-for-loathsome-nanny-state-mayor/

  • Sky__Captain

    Video of Mayor Bloomberg:
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/05/31/bloomberg_on_sad_ban_were_simply_forcing_you_to_understand.html

    “We’re simply forcing you to understand that you have to make the conscious decision to go from one cup to another cup,…”

    Excuse me? Exactly where is it written anywhere that government should FORCE anyone to understand anything?

    • Guest

      It applies when you’re too stupid.

      For example, if you’re too stupid to understand that you need to wear a helmet on a motorcycle there are some state governments that have decided they will force you to do it.

      Every state (I believe) has seat belt laws for automobile drivers and passengers — and they have the nanny-state nerve to REQUIRE that you have a government approved child seat for children under a certain height.

      Why does government do that? Because the stupidity of some people costs the rest of us money. You’re too stupid to wear a helmet on a motorcycle so we the public end up paying when you get in an accident and you have to go on state disability for the rest of your life. We, the people, have to pay more taxes to support the stupidity of morons who refuse to wear a helmet, so laws are passed requiring you wear a helmet.

      • Sky__Captain

         I agree the people of NYC are stupid.
        They keep electing liberals to the office of mayor (with the exception of Guilani).

        A lot of the rest of the country still does believe in limited government, unlike the libtard areas.

      • Jwb10001

        So non stupid people have to lose their freedoms? How about we don’t socialize everything imaginable and have stupid people face the consequences of their own stupidity.

        • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

          Well, THAT isn’t fair!  What if someone hurts themselves while using a lawn mower to trim their hedge?   Or stands on the top rung of a wobbly ladder?  Or tries to trim their hedge with a lawnmower while standing on the top rung of a wobbly ladder without wearing a bike helmet? Huh?  Huh?  Did you think of THAT, Mr. Smarty-pants? THAT’S WHY WE NEED PEOPLE LIKE BLOOMBERG!

          /sarc

          I swear, if the left could implement Jack Williamson’s story “With Folded Hands”, they would.  For our own good.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/With_Folded_Hands

          • Guest

            If you read the article you just commented on, including the link, you’d know that the NY Health department stats justify this move.

            But then if you actually read the articles you comment on you wouldn’t be a poorly informed conservative… can’t have that.

          • Jwb10001

            really? it’s so easy to let your government get away with crap like this when it’s your side.
            I bet you opposed every single thing Bush did for “security” even though the governement told us it was “justified’ While you’re giving government all this power you should remember it may not always be a government you like.

          • jim_m

            Grumpy, like all of the left, is perfectly happy with dictatorship as long as it is their side that gets to decide what the rules are.  Grumpy doesn’t care who gets sent to the concentration camps as long as it isn’t him. In fact if he thinks that as long as the conservatives go first it is a good thing.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            No, they DON’T justify anything except taking the freedom of choice away from people.

            For their own good, of course.

        • Guest

          Yep – it’s for the greater good. Just like you lost your freedom to smoke in some in restaurants, your freedom to not wear seat belts and you have to wear a helmet (in some states) when riding a motorcycle.

          Poor baby, how will you ever be able to survive without your 7-11 Big Gulp?

          Oh, wait, this ban doesn’t effect convenience stores.

          How will  you ever be able to survive having to carry 2 sodas into the movie theater? Poor baby….

          • Jwb10001

            If this does nothing to limit a person’s intake of soda how the hell does it address the pressing issue of obesity? You’ve been pressed on this issue a number of times and can’t seem to formulate a resonable response, better go find some new talking points.

          • Guest

             If you read the article that’s linked you’d know why.

            But instead you’d rather be stupid and ask dumb questions.

            Yes, you get ignored. Try getting informed and then commenting.

          • Jwb10001

            oh are you going to ignore me…. jeez I don’t know how I can go on…

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            I was iffy about the smoking ban – don’t like the smell of it myself, but what about those who do?  Seat belts – I’ve been wearing them ever since the ’60s, they work well when people actually wear them - and I DON’T like the idea of air bags.  Who wants to have an explosive charge staring them in the face? 

            Don’t wear a helmet?  Your choice – ain’t my brain splattered on the street.

            Grow a pair, man – take control of your own life and desires, instead of depending on having someone else keep you from doing things.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Oh, and you DO know that theaters get their revenue from concessions, don’t you?  That the ticket revenue goes to pay for the movie ‘rental’ at the venue?

            Yeah, I’m sure folks will be just as happy to pay $6 for a teeny, Bloomberg-authorized cup of soda instead of a 32 ouncer.  Or maybe they’ll just go – “Ah, screw the popcorn and drinks…” – and there goes concession revnue.

          • jim_m

             you DO know that theaters get their revenue from concessions, don’t you?

            There go a few more jobs lost to government regulations. But as long as the government is gaining control over our lives it really doesn’t matter how many jobs it costs.

          • Commander_Chico

            I’d prefer that they sell a $2, 12 ounce cup instead of the smallest size being a $6 32 oz one.

            they can sell the 32 oz one, just give people a choice of a smaller one.

          • jim_m

             But it’s OK with you that if you cannot get your own way that people be forced to do what you want against their wishes.  Nice.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Huh.  Looks like I was wrong.  They do get a fair amount from ticket sales after all.

            http://www.seancast.com/2009/11/movies-theaters-money-myth/ 

            Oh, also – 10% of the cost at the concessions stand goes for supplies. The other 90% is profit.

          • Vagabond661

            you mean to say your greater good. the greater good would be for fewer unborn babies to die because of abortion. what is your stance on that?

  • LiberalNightmare

    Liberal Over reach.

     

  • http://EasyOpinions.blogspot.com/ Andrew_M_Garland

    Future news:

    At the press conference, Bloomberg commented on his non “war against soda”:

    “We are not waging a war against soda. We merely suggested through the force of law that people should think about how much soda they were drinking. As our slogan said  Count the cups, don’t slurp it up.”

    The political backlash has been dramatic. An informal “Trash ‘Em” campaign left thousands of 16 ounce cups littering public buildings, each one spilling a few ounces intentionally left in the cup. The sticky mess was amazing.

    One protestor yelled from across the street “You don’t think we have any discipline Mr. Bloomberg? We are happy to drink less soda and leave it on your doorstep.”

    Bloomberg continued:
    “We will not be stopped by these childish protests, punishable as Class C felonies by 2-4 years in the state penitentiary. The cup size limit will be enforced.

    Further, we have mandated that cheeseburgers may no longer be accompanied by any paper products such as plates or napkins. If you want to eat your fattening cheeseburger, bring your own napkin.

    Plain hamburgers are not affected. Rules are being drafted for which toppings may or may not trigger the paper ban.

    Really, people. Just think a moment before fattening youselves up. Government cares about you. I care about you.”
     

    • Jwb10001

      In a continuing attempt to mother the shit out of everyone the mayor has implemented a plan to put cut off devices on all tvs, game players and cell phones to elimate the reasons to lay around the house slupping up soda 16 oz at a time.

  • http://profiles.google.com/ozcar.da.grouch Ozcar Grouch

    Reminds me of a joke I heard long ago:

    Man to woman:  Will you sleep with me for $1M?

    Woman:  Sure!

    Man:  How ’bout for $1?

    Woman:  Of course not.  What to you think I am?

    Man:  We’ve established that, now we’re dickering over the price.

     

  • Pingback: New York Mayor Bloomberg Wants To Downsize Apartments | Wizbang

  • Pingback: Cancelled New York City Vibrator Giveaway Leaves Crowds Buzzing | Wizbang