Bloomie says your rights need to be infringed from time to time.

1. 60

   Barefootfaeposted 11 years ago

   http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/25/m … r-freedom/
   
   I think he means more than soda.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I think he means all the time.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      He explained it well, in the context that he used.  But it was nothing that every citizens didn't already know.
      But he succeeded in avoiding facing the real issue-----his outright tyranny in the large-soda issue.   He must be a liberal all around, 'cause they learn distraction very easily.
      
      I wonder if I have the right to say he's a manipulative jerk.    Well, I reckon so.  lol.      I bet he has some rights that need to be infringed upon!

      replyreport
2. 76

   psycheskinnerposted 11 years ago

   However it is true that society infringes freedoms all the time.  Locking people up from criminal acts, taking kids from parents who abuse them etc.
   
   The question is which freedoms can be restricted for what reasons.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, thats what he means, good reasons to infringe on our rights like banning a soda of more than 20 ounces.
      
      The more they speak the more they expose their true intent!

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Which freedoms do you think should be restricted?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I doubt you would get an honest response it seems liberals never say what they really want it has to be exposed.

         replyreport
         1. 82

            GA Andersonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Well then, how about a traditionalist's contrary response?
            
            Bloomberg(sp?) isn't restricting anything. He isn't outlawing anything.
            
            He's just leading a group that supposedly represents the consensus of their constituents.
            
            The members of that group were elected by various segments of the societal group that is New York.
            
            Every societal group has a right to make whatever laws they want, (within constitutional limits of course) as long as those laws are approved by the consensus of the societal group as a whole.
            
            So, if the group's elected representatives are representing their constituent's interests - then why shouldn't they be allowed to determine the laws that govern their society? If you don't like the rules, either find enough like-minded citizens to change the rules - or get out and find a place more to your liking. Just because a rule/law sounds silly to you doesn't mean it's silly to everyone - as is obvious by his support that got the soda ban passed,
            
            Sounds nice, and basically it's true.
            
            But, the reality is that voters usually get what they deserve when their voting decisions are based on popularity contests, or what they hear on the 10pm news, or from their buddy at the bar.
            
            If the people of New York didn't want their salt and soda intake regulated for them, they would not have voted for the people they did, err... right? That is how it works isn't it?
            
            But I have to go now. Our city council is voting on a black sock ban for city workers that wear boots to do their job. Seems they make your feet sweat more than white socks, which causes severe foot odor, and can lead to fungal infections - which of course will mean higher medical costs, causing the city health ins. premiums to go up, and more lost work days, and possible disability claims. Everybody agrees this is just a common sense law, right? At least that's what Buddy the bartender says.
            
            I would ask Bob, but he moved to Appalachia.
            
            GA

            replyreport
      2. 76

         psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I just gave two examples.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            That the only two?

            replyreport
            1. 76

               psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               I am not sure why an exhaustive list is necessary to make the point.  Society restricts freedoms.  people who live in society have restricted freedoms.  It is a question of type and degree that separates utopia from tyranny.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  And when is tyranny tyranny? Locking someone up for actions they did is quite different than telling you what you can have or cant have because we know whats best. What happened to our body our choice? I have a feeling you are ok with Bloomberg restricting a drink size but would have a cow if he infringed on abortion, somehow that would be baaaaaaaad.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     On that basis of "our body our choice" I guess you support the immediate legalization of Meth and Crack?
                     I don't support the ban btw.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Absolutely I support it, why not?

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Cool

                           replyreport
3. 68

   innersmiffposted 11 years ago

   If we are to accept this we have to take it that the right didn't exist in the first place. One cannot simultaneously argue for the right to life and the right to kill people sometimes. Do we have the right to do as we wish with our own body or not? When thought about rationally there can be no middle ground without putting in place some arbitrary distinction, like the amount of soda in a cup. Say the ban is on drinks over 500ml - what is the moral difference between 499ml and 500ml? There is no difference, so invoking 'rights' in support of the ban is absurd.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      One can indeed argue simultaneously for the right to life and the right to kill people sometimes.   That's common knowledge.

      replyreport
4. 76

   psycheskinnerposted 11 years ago

   I disagree, rights are always conditional.  We do generally speaking have the right to life but it is not an absolute right.  Try stabbing a cop and most people will agree s/he has the right to shoot you dead. And of course several states have the death penalty.  If you have a disease that a really expensive treatment could possibly cure, and no money or insurance, you will probably die. There is a difference between a right and an immutable right.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      They are only conditional so long as one doesn't violate another's rights. A cop shooting someone who has stabbed them is self-defending, as is their right, and the attacker has to accept the consequences of the violation of their right to their body, which may mean death. I personally don't think the death penalty counts, and needs to be abolished.
      
      And having a right to live doesn't mean that you're impervious. The right to life simply means that you own your life and you and only you has the ultimate responsibility for it, and for making appropriate steps to keep yourself healthy.
      
      What is the point of having a recognised right in a society if it's going to be infringed basically whenever the state wants?

      replyreport
5. 0

   Brenda Durhamposted 11 years ago

   What is it with so many politicians  anyway?
   Ya give them a little power, and they may do a few good things with it, but then they turn into control freaks.   Or were they just control freaks from the start?

   replyreport
6. 60

   Barefootfaeposted 11 years ago

   

   replyreport
7. 77

   Uninvited Writerposted 11 years ago

   Yes he's bad because he wants to deny people buying large sugary drinks but those who want to deny people the right to get married even if they are gay are okay?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Didn't say that now did I?
      Matter of fact I have stated more than once they can do what they like.

      replyreport
      1. 67

         Cody Hodge5posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         So you would be in favor of gay marriage?

         replyreport
      2. 77

         Uninvited Writerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I wasn't specifically referring to you.

         replyreport
      3. 76

         psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Except that so long as gay marriage is not legal, actually they can't.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            That isn't true, homosexuals can be married in several states and the District of Columbia.

            replyreport
   2. 60

      BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      So he's ok but they represent tyranny?

      replyreport
8. 94

   habeeposted 11 years ago

   I was wondering...can you buy a large DIET soda in NYC?

   replyreport
   1. 67

      Cody Hodge5posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I think so....I was watching Morning Joe the day the ban was set to go into effect and they were showing signs at Starbucks saying that customers had to add their own sugar if they got a drink larger than a certain amount.
      
      So I think you would technically be able to buy anything you want if it didn't have sugar in it.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Last I heard a court struck down his ban. I don't know if it was ever started.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Uninvited Writerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I heard it was voted down too. So... sort of a wasted argument.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I'm not sure its a wasted argument the attempt seems a little bit much to me. I'm glad he removed the (R) next to his name so he could be correctly identified.

            replyreport