Speaking Truth to Power... about drink sizes?

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

And here's Sarah Palin at CPAC, demonstrating the childish reactionism that we've come to expect.

Bonus facts:
1) The NYC drink ban didn't include Big Gulps
2) It was struck down by a judge anyway
3) The lovely people of facebook have christened Sarah Palin as "Bible Spice"

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

If your chief response is "the ban didn't involve Big Gulps," you've utterly failed to understand the point of the protest against a nanny state that believes it has the right to tell you how much of a legal food you can purchase.

If you need to fall back on the "a judge struck it down" defense after that, you miss the point that it was only struck down on procedural grounds (was done by fiat, was not done equally as a result) and that the point remains that there are people who think this is good policy.

[wind-shadow2008.livejournal.com]

And if your chief response to this image/story is " Palin, the Prodigious Pandering Puppet"??

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It's no sillier than any other silly protests about Palin.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

It's no sillier than any other silly protests about Palin.

She's a demagogue in the most classic sense and an embarrassment to the GOP. If anything, her performances since 2008 have reinforced that the American public chose correctly. I remain puzzled at your fondness for such low-hanging fruit to represent your interests.

[pacotelic.livejournal.com]

Big Gulps could just be dealt with by a fine, after all.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Or we can just leave it alone. That's a better option.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

It's cheap theatrics in place of genuine policy discussion. Sarah also took time to rile up gun nuts and birthers, I suppose you approve of that as well.

Conservatives could earn respect if they focused on positive solutions instead of such diversions.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

It least its not as bad as wearing band aids to mock Kerry's war wounds.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It's cheap theatrics in place of genuine policy discussion

Sometimes cheap theatrics at a overtly political event matters.

Sarah also took time to rile up gun nuts and birthers, I suppose you approve of that as well.

I have my doubts on the latter, but good on the former - the "gun nuts" need to wake up a bit.

Conservatives could earn respect if they focused on positive solutions instead of such diversions.

They'll never earn the respect of those who don't see such nannying measures as the stupidity they are, nor should they try.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

They'll never earn the respect of those who don't see such nannying measures as the stupidity they are, nor should they try.

I accept that Palin lacks the depth to discuss policy in any meaningful way, more concerning is your belief that focusing on minutiae like the actions of a city mayor is relevant.

The latter part of your comment reflects the hubris that has landed the GOP in the position of election losers yet again so maybe instead of doubling down on their errors, perhaps a strategy change is in order?

[cinnamontoast.livejournal.com]

There are two sides to the issue though.

Doesn't NYC have every right to deal with local issues in the way that they see fit? The way that the city council for The Bronx, Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island wish to deal with them? (I know that there is debate over how actual citizens feel about the ban, but borough citizens elected their council representatives.)

Look, I hate Democrat matriarchal politics in every way - It's one of the reasons I left NYC. But I don't like the GOP patriarchal politics either. The point is that I left. If they want to nanny up the City, that's fine. I don't have to live there. But, the GOP seems to think it's just fine to interfere in local politics as long as it's about god, abortion and immigration.

Telling people that they can't get a huge soda at a bodega in NYC is a far cry from overturning a Supreme Court decision that ensures women have privacy in their reproductive decision making. Palin didn't even know that's what Roe v Wade was about. That's what people are mocking.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Doesn't NYC have every right to deal with local issues in the way that they see fit? The way that the city council for The Bronx, Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island wish to deal with them? (I know that there is debate over how actual citizens feel about the ban, but borough citizens elected their council representatives.)

Yes and no. Do they have the legislative right? Maybe, I haven't looked close enough to the relevant statutes. Should they? No, they shouldn't. Just because a group has the right to do something doesn't mean they necessarily should.

Telling people that they can't get a huge soda at a bodega in NYC is a far cry from overturning a Supreme Court decision that ensures women have privacy in their reproductive decision making. Palin didn't even know that's what Roe v Wade was about. That's what people are mocking.

While I'm not sure your statement about Palin is true, the soda ban is really something that speaks to the (overdue) newfound distaste of onerous regulations that the more liberty-minded conservatives that Palin appeals to have come out against. After all, if they can do it to soda, they can do it to health care...

[cinnamontoast.livejournal.com]

And if they take away a woman's right to privacy in medical decisions at the federal level? I think that's far more of a direct threat than what local politicians are doing within the confines of the five boroughs of NYC. I don't think that they can see the forest through the trees. That's the joke.

As I said, I don't like either. But Bloomberg and the matriarchs dictating onerous personal bans on a local level was solvable for me. The soda thing isn't the first ban - This all started with Giuliani's 'quality of life' thing in the '90s. (Another Republican swimming with Democrats.)

And what I'm saying about Palin is absolutely true. She did not know that Roe v Wade was about privacy. When asked during an interview, she advocated overturning Roe v Wade with one breath, and with the next stated that she absolutely believed in the right to privacy, with none of her misfiring synapses making a connection between the two. It was absolutely stunning.

[caerfrli.livejournal.com]

Bloomberg is not a Democrat

[kittymink.livejournal.com]

Yes. I hate Bloomberg and liberal nanny-statism but I would think there are way more serious violations of liberties that so-called conservatives should be getting their dander up about than some law about how much sugar water you can buy at a time in NYC

[bikinisquad3000.livejournal.com]

This had nothing to do with telling you how much you had a right to purchase. The protest is not the part being misunderstood, the ban is.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

How is the ban being misunderstood, then?

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

If your chief response is "the ban didn't involve Big Gulps," you've utterly failed to understand the point of the protest against a nanny state that believes it has the right to tell you how much of a legal food you can purchase.

Where in the Constitution are soda sizes protected?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Soda sales from store to consumer aren't interstate commerce.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Well so much for States Rights.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Relevance?

[goumindong.livejournal.com]

I find it interesting you differentiate between "legal" and "illegal" food. The government regulates how much alcohol we can consume (portion sizes, density) should it not be able to regulate because the drug is sugar instead of fermented sugar?

I am looking for your justification which shows that one of these is not a right that the state has and one of them is a right that the state has.

I am not looking for an answer that tells us whether its a good idea or not, because there are plenty of things the U.S.G. has the power to do that are not good ideas.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

You may be assuming I consider those restrictions legitimate as well. I do not. I don't see any sort of obvious right to those restrictions, putting aside the "can" and "should" thing.

[blueduck37.livejournal.com]

My chief response is that Palin, like many of the CPAC speakers, is a grifter who has exploited gullible conservatives for millions of dollars and they still don't care.

[weswilson]

"I sense a C that has upset you... is there a C that you feel is in danger? Is it a car... I mean... is it the Constitution?!?! I'm getting a reading from the Constitution... it says that it's worried you haven't been a good patriot... Oh dear, give me a hug... We all know that hurt.... But she says there's something you forgot... is there something you forgot about that the Constitution would warn you about? You haven't forgotten anything? Could it be something with an H? No? Maybe it's a G... Do you own anything that begins with a G? OH! a gun! Is there something about your gun you forgot? What, you haven't touched it in a while? Maybe it's in bad shape... maybe the Constitution is telling you that you need a new gun!"

She's like a cold reader for conservative simpletons.