Now they are going to ban free refills on drinks?
Options
Replies
-
they should definitely drop the price then. I'm not continuing to pay $3.50 for a glass of ice cubes with a sprinkle of pop......if they only fill it once.
This is true! And I would think they most likely would.0 -
:grumble: Hmmm this ban has Michelle Obama written all over it
It's a proposal in it's infancy stage from the mayor of Cambridge, Massachusetts. It is not a ban nor has anything to do with Michelle Obama of all people O.O There can be legitimate criticisms of initiatives like these but come on now, that's reaching pretty far.
That's not reaching pretty far to think of her. I did too until I read it. She has already banned McDonald's from giving out caramel for the apples. Heaven forbid kids should have caramel to dip their apples in!
Uhhh, how did Michelle Obama ban McDonalds from giving out caramel for apples? She doesn't have the authority to do that.
It's called political pressure.
http://quitenormal.wordpress.com/2011/07/27/mcdonalds-caves-to-michelle-obamas-bullying/
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/07/26/the-unhappy-meal-makeover/
Taking away a little caramel, meanwhile stuffing her big fat face with burgers, shakes, ribs, etc. She's a hypocritical b! who used her position to bully a company into changing their menu. In reality, it'll make kids fatter-now their parents buy them a happy meal and a side of fries, so they're just adding more food to it. But at least they're making an extra sale and the gub'ment can dip their paws into the taxes...
http://shine.yahoo.com/shine-food/michelle-obama-eats-1-700-calorie-meal-is-she-a-hypocrite-2510112.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nohM3Ui4JY
stuffing her big fat face?
are we looking at the same person..
shes beautiful.
And by the looks of her she doesn't eat 1700 meals everyday...
She is beautiful.
u
Ya, she is sure a big fatty, eh?
From Michelle Obama
"I think I've always been very consistent on that front because that's how I live my life. "I mean, It's about balance. It's always about balance. I felt As a mother if somebody came and said 'you can never have a hot dog' or serve your child a slice of pizza, we'd never get a handle on this issue cause I think that's sometimes how people feel, that's it's all or nothing.
It is not necessary or "realistic" to eat healthy food every day and Super Bowl Sunday is a day made for an exception, Mrs. Obama said
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2011/02/michelle_obama_defends_super_b.html
MO is a realist. There are people who eat garbage all day everyday, her message is to make the overall diet more healthy, not cut out all junk food forever. No one can live like that. And there is nothing wrong with her message.0 -
did someone mention corn subsidies? or the antibiotics needed for cows to digest corn-a non natural food for them??Do you really think there has been a time in the last century when the government HASN'T at the least influenced, at worst conspired to change without you knowing, what you eat?
Are you aware what food lobbyists do? Do you know the power and influence they have over your government? Do you know the lengths your government will go to in influencing global health/food agencies?
At least banning free refills is honest, upfront and out in the open.
Oh and those who ***** on about communism make me howl!!!!!0 -
:grumble: Hmmm this ban has Michelle Obama written all over it
It's a proposal in it's infancy stage from the mayor of Cambridge, Massachusetts. It is not a ban nor has anything to do with Michelle Obama of all people O.O There can be legitimate criticisms of initiatives like these but come on now, that's reaching pretty far.
That's not reaching pretty far to think of her. I did too until I read it. She has already banned McDonald's from giving out caramel for the apples. Heaven forbid kids should have caramel to dip their apples in!
Uhhh, how did Michelle Obama ban McDonalds from giving out caramel for apples? She doesn't have the authority to do that.
It's called political pressure.
http://quitenormal.wordpress.com/2011/07/27/mcdonalds-caves-to-michelle-obamas-bullying/
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/07/26/the-unhappy-meal-makeover/
Taking away a little caramel, meanwhile stuffing her big fat face with burgers, shakes, ribs, etc. She's a hypocritical b! who used her position to bully a company into changing their menu. In reality, it'll make kids fatter-now their parents buy them a happy meal and a side of fries, so they're just adding more food to it. But at least they're making an extra sale and the gub'ment can dip their paws into the taxes...
http://shine.yahoo.com/shine-food/michelle-obama-eats-1-700-calorie-meal-is-she-a-hypocrite-2510112.htmlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nohM3Ui4JY
stuffing her big fat face?
are we looking at the same person..
shes beautiful.
And by the looks of her she doesn't eat 1700 meals everyday...
She is beautiful.u
Ya, she is sure a big fatty, eh?
From Michelle Obama
"I think I've always been very consistent on that front because that's how I live my life. "I mean, It's about balance. It's always about balance. I felt As a mother if somebody came and said 'you can never have a hot dog' or serve your child a slice of pizza, we'd never get a handle on this issue cause I think that's sometimes how people feel, that's it's all or nothing.
It is not necessary or "realistic" to eat healthy food every day and Super Bowl Sunday is a day made for an exception, Mrs. Obama said
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2011/02/michelle_obama_defends_super_b.html
MO is a realist. There are people who eat garbage all day everyday, her message is to make the overall diet more healthy, not cut out all junk food forever. No one can live like that. And there is nothing wrong with her message.
m gonna be evil and repost a pic and add. STOP BEING SENSIBLE. SOME OF US DON"T LIKE THAT0 -
m gonna be evil and repost a pic and add. STOP BEING SENSIBLE. SOME OF US DON"T LIKE THAT
You are evil!! lol0 -
Have you never looked at her? She is overweight. She should really get herself in check before she starts lecturing and using her position to bully about "health!"
http://lmliberty.us/2011/12/22/michelle-obamas-fat-*kitten*/
http://bobjenz.com/post/1082225705/and-in-3rd-place-michelle-obamas-*kitten*
http://glossynews.com/society/201010041039/michelle-obama-wins-big-*kitten*-award/
http://theconservativedefender.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/michelle-obama.jpg
OOPS. Forgot her girdle or something: http://www.zimbio.com/photos/Michelle+Obama/Barack+Obama+Launches+Election+Bid+Rallies/9XCjZ2Nw7gt
Give me a break. She's overweight and in total denial. And she's only getting fatter and fatter at the taxpayers' expense! Using gub'ment money to take luxury vacations and eat crap that we have to pay for...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2029615/Michelle-Obama-accused-spending-10m-public-money-vacations.html
How horrid are you? Oh and using the Daily Fail as part of any argument is social suicide.0 -
NO IT'S TRUE. the FIRST thing she did when they got the white house was co-opt the tunnel under the white house that was built in case of nuclear war... it was AFTER that she planted the functional garden and started let's move...OF COURSE SHE HAS THE POWER. she's practically the witch queen of new orleans. she practices hoodooo in the basement of the white house.
Lol, okay, definitely sarcasm. I am relieved, because people actually believe this crap.0 -
This is still going, but the spanking thread gets closed? hmmmmm..0
-
:grumble: Hmmm this ban has Michelle Obama written all over it
It's a proposal in it's infancy stage from the mayor of Cambridge, Massachusetts. It is not a ban nor has anything to do with Michelle Obama of all people O.O There can be legitimate criticisms of initiatives like these but come on now, that's reaching pretty far.
That's not reaching pretty far to think of her. I did too until I read it. She has already banned McDonald's from giving out caramel for the apples. Heaven forbid kids should have caramel to dip their apples in!
Ban = applaud a private business decision. Got it.
McDonald's has made continuous changes to their menu to combat the supersize me image. You keep almost making good points, but then you ruin it with something you clearly read off beck's chalk board0 -
Good point. Just for clarification, if a merchant WANTS to offer free refills to induce customers to come purchase food and drink from his business, he should be allowed to continue to offer this enticement. its the REGULATION of this that bothers me.
If a merchant does not want to offer it, he certainly does not have to do so...its THEIR business! They have that CHOICE.
I agree with a merchant charging for refills, too! If it is THEIR choice to do so.
One more thing before I have to go (I know this wasn't addressed to me but you make a good point so I have to stick my oar in
Who do you think picks up the tab for the negative externality of increased social / health costs which accrue as a result of the merchant's production and inducements to buy? Is it the merchant? No. It is the tax payer.
Yes, it is the tax payer, but that would not be the case if personal responsibility were also applied to insurance. You should have a CHOICE as to whether you buy health insurance, where you buy it and how much of it you get.
Again, if insurance were not REGULATED by the government, then it would not be a tax payer issue.
You do have that choice, you may not have it in 2014, but you do have it now. That choice actually is a huge part of the problem with our health care system. People are allowed to choose not to purchase health care or to only purchase a limited amount, but they can't chose not to need it. If some who didn't buy health insurance gets in a care wreck or has a heart attack, they get health care provided to them. It's more expensive that way and if they don't qualify to have the costs offset by the government, the cost to the hospital is offset by others who buy health insurance. What we have no is a health care collective. The whole REASON we have such high costs to offset is because not enough people buy in to the system.0 -
Telling us what/how much we can drink is just one tiny step toward our country becoming a communist nation....
Now tell me...How do you feel about the government restricting drugs and Narcotics?
What i came to post, stop regulating what i can put in my body. Prohibition never works0 -
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Ben Franklin
You're misusing that quote. It applies to the patriot act, or The ndaa. This isn't a security issue. You're slippery slope argument was also very flawed. There is a slippery slope, but you have to put that argument in the right frame of reference to make it. I'll start you off and you can try again.
"health care is something no person can claim they will never need. People ending up needing more than they buy (insurance) has cost this country a lot of money. So since everyone could need it, we can make everyone buy it and there will be less strain on the government."
Now, to properly make a slipper slope argument, you need to use that exact wording above, but replace "health care" with something else that works.
I'll give you one, education. It fits ( do it in your mind) so the slippery argument is the government can make everyone pay directly to send their children to school, while reserving public school for those under the poverty line. See how that works? It's. It hard once you get the hang of it.
Of course we wouldn't even be talking about "obamacare" if he had listened to the outstanding mandate for a public option that he promised and was elected on by such a wide margin. SCOtUS was very clear that wouldn't have raised a single constitutional issue. But he didn't, he incorporated part of the republican platform (the individual mandate) into the plan instead. And he STILL gets zero credit for compromise or bipartisanship. :noway:0 -
I love when people take a health issue and equate it with communism. I mean. . . Really? Unlimited soda is a symbol of freedom in the face of communist tyranny? If that's the best America has for a symbol of freedom, then it's in pretty bad shape, indeed.
Diabetes. . . Heart disease. . . Cancer. . . These are the diseases of an overfed, sedentary population. Obesity is quickly becoming an epidemic in North America, one that will cost billions to treat. Where do you think those billions are going to come from? They'll come from you in the form of taxes and increased health insurance costs. You might talk of individual freedom but the truth is you will be paying collectively for these illnesses. And all to fight diseases that are largely preventable. Remember that when you decide whether unlimited soda is truly a freedom worth fighting for.Telling us what/how much we can drink is just one tiny step toward our country becoming a communist nation....
You are obviously too simple to understand that it is not about the soda, it is about individual liberty and the freedom of choice. Even the freedom to make a bad one. If you are always forced to make the right choice by the government then down the road the only choices will be those of the government and which of the annointed ones will we grant the power to decide what the right choices are? What if this were a subject that impacted your personal freedom? Would you be so cavilier about this then? It is always about the path that this small decision will take you down. If you don't stop the insanity early it becomes institutional.
Ok, this "personal liberty" **** has gone too far. Individual rights are not implicated in this proposal. You have NO right to free soda. The restriction is not on individuals. You may buy a 2 litter and refill your glass until it is gone. No proposal against that. You may buy as many refills as you want. You may base your entire diet on soda. No proposal against that. The only people who have standing to challenge this proposal as a restriction of their rights are restaurant owners. Their standing is the forced business practice disadvantages them in such away against restaurants in surrounding cities that the government is infringing their property rights without due process.0 -
Okay, I'm trying to figure this out:
Government wants people to be healthier. Government tries to control how much soda they can have when they go out to eat.
Government does not outright ban smoking, high fructose corn syrup, and alcohol.
Conclusion: This is a joke and a ridiculous publicity stunt of some sort, neither serious nor really meant to be taken seriously, and if it came down to it, the Supreme Court would throw this law out so fast no one would have time to ask for a refill.0 -
I secretly predicted this thread would devolve into a mad scrabble to defend and/or criticize political parties based on perceived knowledge or actual ignorance.
0 -
Okay, I'm trying to figure this out:
Government wants people to be healthier. Government tries to control how much soda they can have when they go out to eat.
Government does not outright ban smoking, high fructose corn syrup, and alcohol.
Conclusion: This is a joke and a ridiculous publicity stunt of some sort, neither serious nor really meant to be taken seriously, and if it came down to it, the Supreme Court would throw this law out so fast no one would have time to ask for a refill.
Of course! But I don't think it's a stunt. I think politicians really believe we're this stupid. Government doesn't give a rat's *kitten* about people's health. It's about money. Everything with government is about money. The future of sugary drinks/candy/anything "they" can deem unhealthy is cigarettes, ie: taxes, taxes, taxes.
I want to join the "Leave me & my body the hell alone" party.
*disclaimer: I got tired and stopped reading responses some time ago. So shoot me if I'm repeating someone else's statements.
0 -
I love when people take a health issue and equate it with communism. I mean. . . Really? Unlimited soda is a symbol of freedom in the face of communist tyranny? If that's the best America has for a symbol of freedom, then it's in pretty bad shape, indeed.
Diabetes. . . Heart disease. . . Cancer. . . These are the diseases of an overfed, sedentary population. Obesity is quickly becoming an epidemic in North America, one that will cost billions to treat. Where do you think those billions are going to come from? They'll come from you in the form of taxes and increased health insurance costs. You might talk of individual freedom but the truth is you will be paying collectively for these illnesses. And all to fight diseases that are largely preventable. Remember that when you decide whether unlimited soda is truly a freedom worth fighting for.Telling us what/how much we can drink is just one tiny step toward our country becoming a communist nation....
You are obviously too simple to understand that it is not about the soda, it is about individual liberty and the freedom of choice. Even the freedom to make a bad one. If you are always forced to make the right choice by the government then down the road the only choices will be those of the government and which of the annointed ones will we grant the power to decide what the right choices are? What if this were a subject that impacted your personal freedom? Would you be so cavilier about this then? It is always about the path that this small decision will take you down. If you don't stop the insanity early it becomes institutional.
Ok, this "personal liberty" **** has gone too far. Individual rights are not implicated in this proposal. You have NO right to free soda. The restriction is not on individuals. You may buy a 2 litter and refill your glass until it is gone. No proposal against that. You may buy as many refills as you want. You may base your entire diet on soda. No proposal against that. The only people who have standing to challenge this proposal as a restriction of their rights are restaurant owners. Their standing is the forced business practice disadvantages them in such away against restaurants in surrounding cities that the government is infringing their property rights without due process.
Personal liberty has gone too far?
Lets say you own a burger shop and you want to offer free drink refills to your customers. This is a traditional promotion that has existed for decades. Now the government makes it illegal for you to offer free beverages as an incentive to your customers.
That is an infringement on the way a business person conducts business in their own establishment.
What part of this do you not understand?
Its not about "free drink entitlement" mentality. Its about being able to run your burger shop or pizza joint the same way you always have.0 -
Isn’t there more important stuff to worry about?? LIKE THE PRICE OF GAS OR PEOPLE UNABLE TO FIND A JOB WITH 60K IN COLLAGE LOAN DEBT?!
How does one get 60k in college loan debt and not know how to spell "college?"0 -
Every time I hear a stupid idea like this, I am reminded to always vote Republican.
I like this :laugh:
Yes, because regulating morality is better.
Exactly. In the state I live in the Republican govt. controls alcohol purchase by have state liqueur stores. If you want alcohol thats not beer you have to go there and pay the exorbitant amounts. They even control how much alcohol each beverage has in it, I have seriously seen a Corona here with 3.5% alcohol and gone to Nevada and seen a Corona with more than that. (I don't even drink beer). Restaurants are banned from having drink specials. No happy hour or half price margaritas at the Mexican Restaurants or Applebees or other things like that.
Right now they are trying to ban sex ed in schools. They are also trying to get the Federal Govt to give them a bunch of public land to use as "state land" even though they can't afford to run the state parks let alone have enough money to run the federal parks too.0 -
Oh yeah...because I totally go to a restaurant for the free refills. That got me in the door.
And yes they can regulate that sort of thing...if they were marketing "free guns with any happy meal" the government would step in. How is it any different? Guns don't kill people...idiot people do. Soda doesn't kill people...idiot people kill themselves.
Because the use of a gun can infringe on the rights of others (ultimately their life and thusly liberty and the pursuit of happiness) whereas, a soda infringes on no one elses rights except for the person that consumes too much of it.
That's actually not true. Tax payers and People who buy insurance subsidize the people that do not, so when those people who chose not to buy in to the health care system slip into a diabetic coma and need medical attention, it affects everyone else.
You have the magic answer. Only people with proof of their own health insurance can get Free refills on soda :laugh:0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions