AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Free Dating

Seriously there are more important things to focus on......

posted 3/12/2013 11:34:50 PM |
1 kudogive kudos what's this?
    report abuse
tagged: rant

than whether or not citizens' in your city have a chubby waist line.

I saw on the news that New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg's ban on super sized soda's got knocked down by the courts before it even went into effect, and now he's talking about appealing.


Correct me if I'm wrong here, but, aren't we supposed to be making that kind of a decision for our selves? Since when does any elected official have the authority to decide what we eat or drink? All because of people being fat? Since when is it's his business to but in on the citizens private lives?

I'm sorry, but this falls under the same category of "myob" (mind your own business) as elected officials attempting to tell women whether or not they can make their own decisions with regards to abortion, (yes, I very much pro life, but I'm also of the free), telling people they cannot marry because either they are not of the same race, or if they are same sex....

Get out of our personal lives and start focusing on things like keeping enough police or fire fighters on the payroll.

Copy & paste to friend: (Click inside box; Ctrl + C to copy; Ctrl + V to paste)

   read more blogs!

Blogs by sugarnspice005:
It thundered outside!
Why lie?
This and that
This time of the year sucks.
Seriously there are more important things to focus on......
I've made it into the 21st Century
Springtime projects
Well, that was a "Rocky" night last night.
Well, that was a "Rocky" night last night.


post a comment!


Mar 12 @ 11:45PM  
Nothing but a nanny state up there anymore. The little dictator needs to get the hell out of peoples personal business.

You would think he would focus on more important things like fighting crime and getting his city's economy going and lowering taxes.

Mar 13 @ 6:05AM  
I find it all to be rather assinine. Concerning his political initiatives, NYC mayor has too munch junk in the trunk

Mar 13 @ 7:44AM  
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but, aren't we supposed to be making that kind of a decision for our selves? Since when does any elected official have the authority to decide what we eat or drink? All because of people being fat? Since when is it's his business to but in on the citizens private lives?

I agree with you. However, I'd like to see the outrage over Bloomberg's proposal tempered by a discussion of personal responsibility.

Yes, it's our choice what we eat and drink. And statistics make it very clear that a lot of people are making really shitty choices. Americans are increasingly overweight. Incidence of diabetes is on the rise.

We all pay for it. Insurance costs reflect the total claims made by those covered under the policy. Those who refuse to make healthy choices cost the rest of us money.

A whole lot of people are in denial about their weight, particularly men. It amazes me to see some of the profiles claiming to be "athletic and toned." You plug the height and weight into a BMI calculator, and they're actually on the high side of overweight, bordering on obese.

So before we waste too much energy being outraged over a prophibition against selling of huge cups of sugary crap, let's all take a good honest look at our own choices. If we don't want a nanny, we should stop behaving like children.


Mar 13 @ 9:18AM  
I totally get what you are saying Twist, but, this is a free nation, supposed to be "less government" in the private lives of people. If people want to drink those sugary drinks, government shouldn't be monitoring them like children telling them "that's enough". I'm sorry, but if it's going to start with telling people they can't have that 44 oz. soda, what's next? Telling people they can't smoke in their own homes? Or telling them they can't have that pizza with extra cheese? Because it's all bad for them? No, I'm sorry, but I don't believe that is what our country is about, government playing parent to us. I already have a mother and a father, and they haven't made my decisions for me in over 30 years now.

I firmly government officials have other duties to see over than what citizens in this country eat or drink.

Mar 13 @ 9:46AM  
I agree with you - government mandates aren't the answer. Personal responsibility is. And all I'm saying I'd that I'd like to hear a little more on the subject of making smarter choices

We are still pretty much free to eat ourselves into obesity, and were doing it. It's actually a national security issue. As of 2005, 2727% of Americans age 17 to 24 were too fat to qualify for military service. That should concern everyone.

Mar 13 @ 9:59AM  
Yes, people should be more aware of and more responsible with what they are doing to them selves. We just don't need government playing nanny with us.

I'm all for awareness, and I'm all for being responsible. In my opinion, Bloomberg is taking the wrong approach. It is not his place to tell people they cannot have that 44 oz soda. His intentions are good, but, no, it's not up to him to monitor the waist lines of the people there. That is a personal responsibility, and yes, there are too many who are not being responsible. But it's not just what we eat or drink, it's also the lack of motivation to exercise too. It is possible to enjoy that 44 oz sugary drink as long as it's not enjoyed while sitting on one's ass all day. Get up and go for a walk or on a treadmill...something that not too many of us do anymore.


Mar 13 @ 4:32PM  
What with high taxes in NY & NYC and now dictating what people can eat, when the last person moves out of the state, Mayor Michael Bloomberg's last move will be to shut off the rest of the lights!!


Mar 13 @ 4:35PM  
Education is the key to all this . Teach them when they start school and continue till they leave school might help . But that takes money and time .

Mar 13 @ 8:36PM  
I worked in the mall for 14 years in the children's department,
Here is what I saw, Children who at age 6 had to wear clothes meant for a preteen simply because they were too fat to get into clothes meant for their age, At least 60% or more of the children coming in were overweight, And what did their mothers and fathers get them to snack on at the mall? Pretzels and cookies, If I had my way their parents should be arrested for child abuse, I think there should be a national ban on those super size sugar drinks, Apparently Americans lack the means to control themselves and just like there is a cut off at a bar for alcohol there needs to be a cut off on the size of sodas, At least the person would have to think about how much soda they are consuming if they had to buy more than one, Just my opinion,

Mar 13 @ 9:13PM  
I heard the other day that a soda contains as much sugar as, it was either 3 or 4 donuts. So maybe they should either ban donuts or put a limit on how many one can buy...or you can either buy 4 donuts OR 1 soda....good gaud, what next???

So one can't buy a super large soda...they just get 2 or go back to the fountain and refill. What next? Pop prohibition? You can't buy a sack of candy unless you buy a stalk of celery or head of lettuce, too?

I see the point...we are a grossly overweight nation and I'm one of them. Poor choices, poor eating habits, not enough exercise but yanno what? That's my freedom of choice and it makes MY insurance go up but I think a government official trying to ban large sodas is like trying to empty the beach one grain of sand at a time. I just think there's other things that should have more priority.


Mar 13 @ 11:56PM  
I've worked at a hotel for about 17 years now. I've seen families with their kids there throughout the years. Yes, there are those kids who could use a lot of exercise, but there were also a lot of healthy, height/weight proportionate also.

For any government official to step up and take away the right of the people to decide for them selves how they live their lives, it's like where does it stop? I mean, what next? Is it ok for them to tell us we can't smoke in our homes? I've heard people say that there has been talk about not letting people smoke in their own cars.

Yeah, there is this thing called responsibility, and it's obvious there's a lot of irresponsibility going on, but, limiting people to how much soda they can drink isn't the answer. pinklipstik2 had it right with educating people.

I just feel there are more important things elected officials should be focusing on rather than playing nanny to their constituents.

Mar 14 @ 5:30AM  
Here's an interesting article on the effect of excess sugar intake on health. This guy contends that obesity by itself isn't the issue so much as the amount of sugar in a person's diet.

If true, that would mean that even someone who exercises regularly would be well advised not to consume sweets and sugary drinks.

Effects of sugar on health

Mar 14 @ 9:48AM  
I think it's funny to even try this. I use to be a smoker. Amazing how it was okay to infringe on the rights of a select few. I didn't mind with the no smoking in places,but to tell me where is BS.

You know the country goes with what New York and California do. If they can tell you how to smoke and drink, then it's a matter of time before food is rationed.

The people of the US need to stand up for themselves......Bloomberg is doing what the govt. Wants, Test the waters to see how far they can push the envelope.

Don't think there isn't a plan in action to tell all us what to do.

Mar 14 @ 10:25AM  
Good article Twist. I know a few people who are Type 2 Diabetic. Something I noted in that article:

"But sugar isn't the only problem," Katz added, saying that starches and other high-glycemic-index foods can be just as harmful to health.

No, sugar isn't "healthy", but, moderate, sensible, use of it shouldn't be an issue for most. The passage I quoted points out that there are starches that are just as harmful, so, what's next? Ban all foods with starches? There are some so called "good foods" that are starchy, corn and potatoes for example. Yes, corn. I learned that from a nutritionist advising my Dad on what to avoid when his cholesterol levels were starting to climb.

Government cannot be holding our hands telling us what we can or cannot consume. It's ridiculous. I totally agree about putting the information out there, but not them basically taking it upon them selves to tell people how much they can or cannot have. That is simply not their decision to make. For themselves and their families, yes, but not for the rest of us. That is our own decision to make.


Mar 14 @ 1:15PM  
While I don't care much for Bloomberg's law, it's an exaggeration to say the law is mandating what or how much we can eat and drink. Nothing stops anyone from buying all the soda they want. The law sets a maximum size of a single container that can be sold by some merchants in some settings. There's no limit on the number of times they can serve you, even in those settings.

Mar 14 @ 1:37PM  
True, maybe there is no limit on how many a consumer can buy, but still, I just feel elected officials have more important things to focus on than what we are eating or drinking. I don't condemn the guy for being concerned and wanting to help, but, you just can't govern stupid.

Prohibition didn't stop people from enjoying alcohol, War on Drugs hasn't stopped people from wanting to get high, and this isn't going to stop people from wanting their soda.

Like I said, there are more important issues to be concerned with than telling people 44oz sized drinks are bad for them.

Mar 14 @ 2:22PM  
It's not the first time Bloomberg has taken it upon himself to ban stuff.

And I'm sure there will be more stuff he'll TRY to ban.

Just because he has a problem with a lot of things, doesn't mean others have as well. Too much intrusion on his big government approach.

Personal responsibility is the right approach with what Bloomberg is banning.

free dating | mission statement | testimonials | safety warning | report abuse | safe list | privacy | legal | 2257 | advertise | link to us

© Copyright 2000-2016 Online Singles, LLC.
Seriously there are more important things to focus on......