I could care less what they do in Boston. I am not forced to live there and I am not forced to travel there. My kids and I will enjoy our sugary drinks right here in Ohio.

Writerbuckeye;737492 wrote:Simple answer Mella: Too much nanny statism going on.

Oh, I agree. It is just interesting when people start throwing around the liberal/conservative terms. I have a sister in-law who is now a conservative Republican who thinks a person can not be a Christian and a Democrat but when she was 18 years old and pregnant from a drug using baby daddy she did not mind the free handouts from the government.

mella;737647 wrote:Oh, I agree. It is just interesting when people start throwing around the liberal/conservative terms. I have a sister in-law who is now a conservative Republican who thinks a person can not be a Christian and a Democrat but when she was 18 years old and pregnant from a drug using baby daddy she did not mind the free handouts from the government.

Funny how that works. I know a lot of people who are a lot like your sister-in-law right now ... except when you start talking about SB5, as they're teachers. It's amazing how one's ideologies are only as solid as their distance from affecting that person.

mella;737647 wrote:It is just interesting when people start throwing around the liberal/conservative terms. I have a sister in-law who is now a conservative Republican who thinks a person can not be a Christian and a Democrat but when she was 18 years old and pregnant from a drug using baby daddy she did not mind the free handouts from the government.

O-Trap would disagree with your sister-in-law.

As a Christian myself it really depends on what brand of Christianity you believe. I think it's reasonable to say that odds are that if you are an evangelical Protestant Christian, you are most likely a political conservative. Conversely if you are a Quaker, chances are you voted for Obama.

The beauty of this country is the wide variety of belief systems we enjoy. We are hardly a homogeneous society compared to much of the world. Because of that exposure to so many value systems, it's not surprising to me that someone can go from hanging out with crack-heads and sucking off the public dole to religious conservative in short order.

I've seen first-hand how a woman who claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ completely disregard her wedding vows and walk out on her husband to cohabitate with her alleged platonic yet highly-lesbian friend...and STILL be quite active in her conservative evangelical church.

Trust me. Anything is possible.

Stupid idea. Instead of focusing on the foods and drinks, focus instead on getting people active and moving.
Cities can do what they want, but come on this makes little sense. The more important thing is to instill a culture of exercise.

On a sort of related note, it is amazing when I head back to Ohio from DC how I notice how many people are overweight compared to power hungry and active DC.

ptown_trojans_1;737683 wrote:Stupid idea. Instead of focusing on the foods and drinks, focus instead on getting people active and moving.
Cities can do what they want, but come on this makes little sense. The more important thing is to instill a culture of exercise.

On a sort of related note, it is amazing when I head back to Ohio from DC how I notice how many people are overweight compared to power hungry and active DC.

Portsmouth will do that to you.

I don't think that most people consider public workers salaries as free hand-outs. I understand that the salaries and benefits are paid with tax money and people need to be fiscally responsible. I consider welfare a handout but I also think that at times it is a "necessary evil" if it can help a person or family out of a tight spot. That's why I am in favor of a hard 5 year limit on welfare.

You know I am a teacher and I can hold my own in any classroom. I am a very good science teacher, I don't need a union to justify my job or my salary and I don't care if the only 2 drinks offered in school are milk and water, so ban all the sugary drinks you want because that has nothing to do with education.

If I lose my job as a result of "making too much money" then the only thing that you accomplished was to make this country weaker. Face it, you need me, no you want me in that classroom......


Sorry, I was channeling my inner Jack Nicholson.

believer;737682 wrote:O-Trap would disagree with your sister-in-law.

Indeed I would. I know many Democrats who love Jesus dearly.

I am not one of them, but I know 'em.

mella;737691 wrote:If I lose my job as a result of "making too much money" then the only thing that you accomplished was to make this country weaker. Face it, you need me, no you want me in that classroom......

Hell, I don't want you out of the classroom at all. However, if salaries remain too high to pay, as a result of a Union not allowing cuts, then someone will have to go.

If the administration was allow to cut salaries in a down market (with less coming in to pay for the salaries) so as to keep everyone employed, then you'd not have to worry, I don't think.

I say sell more sugary drinks to raise money and then increase the price on insulin to raise even more money.

mella;737739 wrote:I say sell more sugary drinks to raise money and then increase the price on insulin to raise even more money.

LOL!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/education/ct-met-school-lunch-restrictions-041120110410,0,4567867.story

It is none of the principal's business what kids eat for lunch ....... this shit is getting out of hand.

More change // more socialism. SICK

Let me get this straight. The Mayor is banning sugary drinks in the vending machines of city-owned buildings. People can still bring their Coke and Pepsi to work with them, presumably to wash down the fried chicken and french fries. This is socialist in what way?

Too much sugar without education is a death sentence for many

stlouiedipalma;738202 wrote:Let me get this straight. The Mayor is banning sugary drinks in the vending machines of city-owned buildings. People can still bring their Coke and Pepsi to work with them, presumably to wash down the fried chicken and french fries. This is socialist in what way?

I think the contention that it is "socialistic" (misplaced, for what it's worth) stems from the notion that it is being done to try to force people who frequent the buildings to take care of themselves.

Not agreeing.

I don't think it "forces" you to do anything. Why isn't there vending machines of bud light?

rydawg5;738265 wrote:I don't think it "forces" you to do anything. Why isn't there vending machines of bud light?

I agree. I wasn't speaking of my own opinion. I don't think it's "socialistic" at all.

A stupid thing to focus your attention toward? Yeah, but not remotely socialistic.

rydawg5;738265 wrote:I don't think it "forces" you to do anything. Why isn't there vending machines of bud light?

FWIW, you might be onto something.

Million dollar idea...

If the good people of Boston are stupid enough to let this go on, then they must like it, therefore, deserve it.

CenterBHSFan;738289 wrote:If the good people of Boston are stupid enough to let this go on, then they must like it, therefore, deserve it.

Stupid is as stupid does. Right on, Center!!

To disagree with O-Trap...I agree with Quaker that it is a form of socialism, in that a product is regulated by the controlling authorities such that it is verboten to be used without their almighty consent. On a scale of 1 to 10, however, it is only a minor blip of 1. The problem, is that we've been getting minor-blipped for about 50 years and some of us are damn well tired of it!!

BGFalcons82;738306 wrote:Stupid is as stupid does. Right on, Center!!

To disagree with O-Trap...I agree with Quaker that it is a form of socialism, in that a product is regulated by the controlling authorities such that it is verboten to be used without their almighty consent. On a scale of 1 to 10, however, it is only a minor blip of 1. The problem, is that we've been getting minor-blipped for about 50 years and some of us are damn well tired of it!!

It's been a few days since I read the article, so maybe I'm off. Forgive me if that's the case. Are people forbidden from using it, or is it simply not being provided on the premises? Can you still bring it from home?

If you can, then I've got no beef with it. If you can't, then I take issue.

I cannot buy cigarettes out of vending machines anymore therefore I will scream and yell about SOCIALISM!!!!!

This isn't socialism, at worst this is a bit dumb (only if it includes things like parks, sporting venues, etc). But I don't see why we should provide unhealthy foods and drinks for our children and even our citizens.

Of course if they want to bring sodas or anything like that they should be perfectly free to do so.

I just don't get the outrage of "WHAT!!!! I CANT BUY COKE AT THE TOWN HALL ARRGGGG COMMUNITSTSSSS!"

I Wear Pants;738341 wrote:I cannot buy cigarettes out of vending machines anymore therefore I will scream and yell about SOCIALISM!!!!!

This isn't socialism, at worst this is a bit dumb (only if it includes things like parks, sporting venues, etc). But I don't see why we should provide unhealthy foods and drinks for our children and even our citizens.

Of course if they want to bring sodas or anything like that they should be perfectly free to do so.

I just don't get the outrage of "WHAT!!!! I CANT BUY COKE AT THE TOWN HALL ARRGGGG COMMUNITSTSSSS!"

lol'd.

That was the gist of my point. To focus attention on this seems dumb to me (I'm thinking this should be way lower on the priority list), but if you're allowed to bring it and consume it, then what's the infringement?

But I don't see why we should provide unhealthy foods and drinks for our children and even our citizens.

Because they aren't "OUR" children and because people should be free enough to choose whatever soft drink they like. It's just another example of the "Nanny" state.

Why do some people think they know what is best for everyone else?

If they want to help the fight against obesity they should ban the use of elevators and escalators. They could also designate parking garages be a minimum of 1 mile from the public building. Why not force people to exercise?

Prescott;738369 wrote:Because they aren't "OUR" children and because people should be free enough to choose whatever soft drink they like. It's just another example of the "Nanny" state.

Why do some people think they know what is best for everyone else?

If they want to help the fight against obesity they should ban the use of elevators and escalators. They could also designate parking garages be a minimum of 1 mile from the public building. Why not force people to exercise?

So you want a nanny state that provides you with every drink and snack option possible then. That makes a whole bunch of sense.

No one has said people shouldn't be able to choose what drink they want. But a city saying "hey, we don't want to provide liquid sugar from our vending machines but feel free to bring a soda or whatever if you want" is not an example of a nanny state.

Why do you think that cities and towns should be required to provide sugary drink options?