Foes of NYC soda size limit doubt racial fairness. “The NAACP’s New York state branch and the Hispanic Federation have joined beverage makers and sellers in trying to stop the rule [banning sales of high-sugar drinks in containers larger than 16 ozs] from taking effect March 12.” Is Nanny Bloomber a closet raaaaacist? Just like Obama’s typical white grandmother, we surmise.

Please follow and like us:

Leave a Reply

12 Comments on "Foes of NYC soda size limit doubt racial fairness"

Notify of

January 23, 2013 6:37 am

Yep, I believe Nanny Bloomberg is probably racist.

January 23, 2013 7:34 am

I can see it now. Speakeasies will spring up all over the city where you can fill a giant Thurst-Buster for $5 bucks, if you know where to go. The law says nothing about carrying around a king sized soda, just selling it, so the black market for big cups will thrive.

January 24, 2013 7:19 am

Mountain Dew syrup will be selling at a premium.

Not so silent
January 24, 2013 9:37 am

They will make an injectible version, or a powder version to snort…

January 25, 2013 10:20 am

Hmmmm. Snortable Mountain Dew. You may be onto something there.

January 23, 2013 8:07 am

No, pushing oversized, semi-poisonous drinks on minorities who can’t afford them is racist!
Hee hee, no matter what you do, IT’S RAAAAAAAAAAAAACIST!

January 23, 2013 8:09 am

They say one reason for trying to keep obesity under control is that the government pays for about 60% of the medical costs related to obesity.

As a Libertarian, I must ask. Why is the government paying for this?

January 23, 2013 8:47 am

Always asking the tough questions aren’t you? Seriously though – this is the part that gets me. There is not even an issue in so many people’s minds about WHY the government is responsible. They just TOOK that responsibility, and the people who objected were ignored. Now it is just accepted that this is the government’s role.

If you look historically, you will see that they learned this tactic from the US Supreme Court. Their original role did not include being the deciding authority on whether laws were constitutional. They simply TOOK that power, and that was it. Tell me anyone who questions the Supreme Court’s authority now? Almost no one, and surely anyone who did publicly would be ridiculed by the media.

Politicians read and know history much more than most of us, and they clearly understand this method. It’s a variation of the “it’s easier to ask for forgiveness than permission” theory, but it works well in politics. So long as a HUGE majority of people don’t object (75%+) to anything, the politicians can just do it.

January 23, 2013 9:52 am

My dear lady Karmma, insightful and accurate, as always.

January 23, 2013 1:26 pm

Bravo.. not so many know about Marbury vs Madison. Tis a curious thing, how easily the power of judicial review stuck. I remember trying to find it in the Constitution, trying to prove a point in an argument years ago.. Lo, not there

January 24, 2013 8:14 am

I had a bit of an argument with a FB friend, who isn’t even a liberal, last night. He was claiming that Florida’s drug testing of welfare recipients was un-Constitutional. Knowing that I’m a big fan of the Constitution, he threw the 4th Amendment at me, thinking I would have to cave.

I told him that if we were paying attention to the Constitution, there would be no welfare state to begin with, and we wouldn’t be having the conversation. He folded.

January 24, 2013 6:48 pm