Guest Raidne Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 ...Change Redskins to Washington Voteless or Washington Disenfranchised. (okay, not really, but I couldn't resist...)Hey, it's already on the license plates. Too bad the Patriots is already taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 Chris Christie vs. Rand Paul. I'm kind of enjoying it. http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/christie-paul-should-cut-kentuckys-pork-barrel-spendingBonus points to Christie for mentioning that Paul's state is a welfare case suckling at the federal teat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted July 30, 2013 Author Share Posted July 30, 2013 Chris Christie vs. Rand Paul. I'm kind of enjoying it. http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/christie-paul-should-cut-kentuckys-pork-barrel-spendingBonus points to Christie for mentioning that Paul's state is a welfare case suckling at the federal teat.Never liked Paul, so I am rooting for Christie in this spat. But for the Democrats, we will probably have an easier fight in general election if people like Paul wins the nomination. Not that I think Paul will, but still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Progressive Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 Christie is the kind of republicans you could reach a reasonable compromise with, so I'm all for Christie slapping the shit out of that libertarian dipshit Paul.I also don't think Christie would win the Repub nomination because he dare to praise Obama, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 So here's a fun fact per CRS, the way Obamacare is structured and with the funding sources it draws from, a government shutdown would do very little to impact its implementation. Republicans could keep the government shutdown going as long as they want (spoiler: it won't be long at all, if it even happens) and Obamacare will still roll right on out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 Never liked Paul, so I am rooting for Christie in this spat. But for the Democrats, we will probably have an easier fight in general election if people like Paul wins the nomination.Given that I have a better shot at winning the Republican nomination than Chris Christie, I suppose we'll never know. However, barring the (highly unlikely) nomination of a vanity candidate like Donald Trump, or a nutcase like Michelle Bachman, one Republican will get pretty much the same support as another. As far as I can see, the best indicators for how voters will go in any presidential election are partisan affiliation and the state of the economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Progressive Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 Appeal court rules against NY's soda size-restriction .................. oh well, it was a good try.http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/31/nyregion/appeals-court-rules-against-bloomberg-beverage-rules.html?_r=0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted July 30, 2013 Author Share Posted July 30, 2013 Appeal court rules against NY's soda size-restriction .................. oh well, it was a good try.http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/31/nyregion/appeals-court-rules-against-bloomberg-beverage-rules.html?_r=0That was an over-reach, and an ineffective way to tackle a real problem. So not too sad that it got shot down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 That was an over-reach, and an ineffective way to tackle a real problem. So not too sad that it got shot down.How is it ineffective? Portion control is incredibly effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Progressive Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 That was an over-reach, and an ineffective way to tackle a real problem. So not too sad that it got shot down.I could see the over-reach argument, but I think the proposal would have been quite effective at curbing obesity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted July 30, 2013 Author Share Posted July 30, 2013 Yes, portion control is incredible at helping people control their weight, provided people stick to them. The ban on large-sized soft drinks does no such thing, as people can buy multiple ones if they want. Or refills. It's a superficial fix that doesn't really solve the underlying problem. They'd have had a better impact if they had hard-line capp'd the percent of sugar in any soft drinks, for instance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 Yes, portion control is incredible at helping people control their weight, provided people stick to them.The ban on large-sized soft drinks does no such thing, as people can buy multiple ones if they want. Or refills. It's a superficial fix that doesn't really solve the underlying problem. They'd have had a better impact if they had hard-line capp'd the percent of sugar in any soft drinks, for instance.But people don't do that though. Shit, why do you think they even offer free refills? Cause the majority of people don't take advantage of them.The reason large drinks are bad (and some of this extends to other issues) is that people buy them based on the allusion of saving money. "The medium is $1, but the large is only $1.30. I'm saving money!" This is actually an incredibly powerful force in marketing. Even though they don't need or want the larger size, they'll get it because "It's more, for cheaper!".And once they have it, the portion issue comes into play. They have it, so they drink it.If you take the larger sizes away, people will just buy the smaller sizes and go on with their day. The vast majority will not attempt to substitute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormund Ukrainesbane Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 But people don't do that though. Shit, why do you think they even offer free refills? Cause the majority of people don't take advantage of them.The reason large drinks are bad (and some of this extends to other issues) is that people buy them based on the allusion of saving money. "The medium is $1, but the large is only $1.30. I'm saving money!" This is actually an incredibly powerful force in marketing. Even though they don't need or want the larger size, they'll get it because "It's more, for cheaper!".And once they have it, the portion issue comes into play. They have it, so they drink it.If you take the larger sizes away, people will just buy the smaller sizes and go on with their day. The vast majority will not attempt to substitute.Bill Maher hates you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 Bill Maher hates youBill Maher is an antivaxxer.Fuck Bill Maher, he kills children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Progressive Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 There are conflicting studies on the issue, but here's a recent one supporting terraprime's argument:http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0061081Our research suggests that businesses have a strong incentive to offer bundles of soda when drink size is limited. Restricting larger-sized drinks may have the unintended consequence of increasing soda consumption rather than decreasing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigima Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 I am okay with the ban going away, because that feels a bit too micromanaging of people's lives to me, but the research says it really does make a difference, Terra. You can get a refill or buy another... but usually you don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted July 30, 2013 Author Share Posted July 30, 2013 Bill Maher is an antivaxxer.I blame Pod pot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKitttenGuard Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 Bill Maher is an antivaxxer.Fuck Bill Maher, he kills children.Source? I been following Bill Maher for years and heard plently but I do not recall him being anti-vaxx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkynJay Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 Source?I been following Bill Maher for years and heard plently but I do not recall him being anti-vaxx.His words on the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Walker Texas Ranger Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 His words on the subject.Just skimming over it, it seems like he's talking about the flu vaccine, not MMR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.