Now they are going to ban free refills on drinks?

thefreebiemom

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

The only thing out of all that you posted that annoys me is the vacation thing. I mean really??? You don't think that they have their own money besides what Obama is getting paid to be president? I mean its not like he was a lawyer/college professor before he got into politics or anything, or that he even had 2 books that made tons of money? Did you see his tax returns when he made them public before getting into office? Yes, they may have to have secret service detail and use Air Force one but all Presidents had to do that too, and the security detail would be on detail whether they are on vacation or not.

If you are going to say that they don't use their own money while he is President then you have to say that for every president. The only reason no one complained about Bush's vacations costing money is because he owns his own ranch from his family oil money. But he sure did take a lot of vacations as well. I am also sure he was informed and ready at a moments notice for anything needed from him as well just like Obama probably is. If Obama owned a big vacation spot people would probably still be complaining because apparently what is okay for one President to do is not okay for another one to do if they are of the opposite party.

It just drives me crazy when one group complains and accuses someone of doing something just because they are from a different party but give no mind to the people that do things of their own party.

In Utah our governor (Republican) just took a "diplomatic" trip to China to increase our information and cooperation business wise for dual immersion programs. Yeah, he didn't just go over there and sit in meetings all day. He gallivanted all over China with state tax payer money.

I remember this same type of thing when Obama was trying to push to get the Olympics in Chicago. So what??? That would be good for the whole country not just Illinois. It would be good for the airports and cities that people go through to get there and good for any other states cities that people visit while they are here. Any increase in tourist business from other countries is awesome, but no everyone downed on him about it just because he was from Illinois. If it had been any other state that was up for consideration for that years time slot then it would have been fine. If it had been Dallas or something while Bush was President then he wouldn't have gotten any grief for it. Now supposedly Salt Lake it supposed to be up for consideration again soon I wonder if Romney gets elected if he will get grief for trying to help push SLC into getting chose over another country since he has such a stake in the LDS church.

If you want to complain about a specific policy or something that Obama actually DID or did not do then that is one thing, but this silly nonsense about vacations/birth certificates/Muslim trash is so annoying and takes away from any valid argument about actual policy.

**** I forgot to mention I am not a hard core democrat. I am moderate and there are many things from the Republican side I agree with and some on the democrat side I agree with. I have voted for many people from all different parties in my past if they were the right candidate.

thefreebiemom

: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 board

Like making the fries smaller in the happy meal and putting apples in all happy meals instead of as a substitute. I imagine caramel was probably not easy to clean up off the playground and floors and tables either.

thefreebiemom

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.

The only disagreement with you I have is the car wreck thing. That would be covered by auto insurance and they probably get to charge higher rates to insurance companies then they do to regular health insurance companies.

thefreebiemom

"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:

Yes yes yes!!! That is one of the reasons I voted for him as opposed to McCain. I had it in my mind to vote for McCain in the beginning until I heard their debates and what McCain's ideas for health care reform were.

The whole idea was to just give a lower cost option for people to BUY health insurance. The same kind the congress gets. I would have loved to have bought that health insurance. It was never going to be FREE insurance. That's Medicaid, which a majority of people do not qualify for.

Now he has the mandate in there instead, which is something Romney did, which sucks, but somehow people think that Romney will actually get rid of Obama's health care plan if he gets into office. Sorry to break it to everyone but I highly doubt it. That would be like saying his idea was stupid and is a fail. He touts all that stuff about its different because that was a state and this is Federal but come stand up time he won't follow through with getting rid of it.

jerber160

re GW

I am also sure he was informed and ready at a moments notice for anything needed from him as well just like Obama probably is. "


I have to disagree here. the Katrina debacle was a gigantic bumble of misinformation and disbelief. He EARNED disdain here in a way that was not fabricated...

hanneberries

I genuinely don't see why this is a negative thing. Why shouldn't you be paying for what you drink? And anyway, it's the government trying to take steps towards stopping the obesity epidemic. I applaud them for taking steps in the right direction. If people want more soda, they'll have to think more about it, since it won't just be instantly refilled for them. They'll have to pay for it, as they should.

They aren't saying you can't have a refill. Just not endlessly free ones. I don't see why that's a bad thing.

tsh0ck

So it is ok for the government to tell places of business how to charge for menu items, then? Where is the line? Will they force owners to charge double to add bacon to a burger or triple it if they want extra fries?

future_runner

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.

I understand all of it, that is why I wrote the above post. It says exactly what your example discusses. I meant people on here saying their personal liberties are being infringed by this proposal has gone to far. Please REREAD my post, because it sounds like you only read the first line.

To summarize in case that is too much for you though:

Restaurant owners have standing in a due process challenge against the proposal. Patrons or potential patrons rights are not implicated. So all the people on this thread who do not own a restaurant in that city that have tried to assert their personal liberties are being taken away are dead wrong.

tigersword

So it is ok for the government to tell places of business how to charge for menu items, then? Where is the line? Will they force owners to charge double to add bacon to a burger or triple it if they want extra fries?

Of course not, the government will regulate the fact that you can ONLY have 1 slice of pepperoni per slice of pizza, because, otherwise you'd add too many calories per slice. I mean, come on, they're only trying to stop the obesity epidemic.

Oh, and only 1 piece of bread per sandwich, and butter is outlawed, way too many calories.

People keep saying who cares, because it's unhealthy. The problem is, who decides what is and isn't healthy? According to the USDA, high fat is unhealthy, so will they limit how much fatty food you can consume, like avocado, peanut butter, or olive oil? Who gets to decide what's healthy and not healthy? Just scan through some threads around here, and I guarantee you will find hundreds of different foods mentioned as being both healthy and unhealthy depending on who made the comment.