Contributors

Thursday, July 12, 2012

Don't Super Size Me!

Last month New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg made a big splash when he banned the sale of sugary sodas larger than 16 ounces. Late-night hosts like Jon Stewart went ballistic with their outrage, lampooning the decision incessantly.

Bloomberg's action is one of several he has taken to address a problem that has been well known for years, and made notorious by the documentary Super Size Me, in which director Morgan Spurlock ate nothing but McDonald's food for a month. (It took him 14 months to lose the 20 pounds he gained in that single month.)

There are solid reasons for people to cut back on their consumption of soda (including diet soda), as I've noted on this blog before. Americans are becoming severely—even morbidly—obese, resulting in rampant diabetes and the attendant miseries of amputation, blindness, heart disease and stroke. Pervasive diabetes is a major contributor to skyrocketing health care costs.

The problem with oversized drink containers is that they cause people to consume far greater quantities of soda than they would otherwise, in large part because once they've drunk their fill no one wants to let the extra "go to waste." Instead it goes to fat.

A common trick for dieting is to use smaller plates and glasses. People eating a meal from a small full-looking plate feel like they're getting more food than if they eat the same amount from a large empty-looking plate. If you've ever gone to a fancy restaurant and said, "I paid how much for that?" when they brought out gigantic plates with apparently tiny portions you know exactly what I mean.

Because of this quirk of human cognition, limiting your choices at the theater concession stand to 8-, 12- and 16-ounce cups, you will never feel deprived by the absence of 32-ounce sperm-whale size. You will drink a more modest 16 ounces and feel completely sated and a little less bloated. And you won't have to visit the rest room half way through the movie.

What's more, the capacity of an average human stomach is 900 mL, or 30.4 ounces. Since no one likes flat, warm, watery soda the 32-ounce size is overkill for anyone except gigantic NFL linebackers who burn 5,000 calories a day by just breathing.

It's ironic that people are screaming bloody murder when Bloomberg reduces the maximum size of soda containers, but when the companies that sell food cut down on the size of the containers and charge the same price no one utters a peep. That's because the companies know the plate-size trick and use it to fool us into thinking we're getting the same amount of food.

For example, the standard size of "family-sized" ice cream containers used to be half a gallon. Several years ago most dairies cut the size of half-gallon containers to 1.5 quarts. They changed the dimensions of the container to make them look bigger, usually making them taller and thinner and putting a half-inch empty space at the bottom of 4.5-inch tall containers. Some dairies then upped the size to 1.75 quarters, to give "almost 20% more!"

Ninety-six-ounce bottles of orange juice have been redesigned with different shapes, bigger spouts and 89-ounce capacities. Half-gallon cartons of lemonade have been reduced to 59 ounces. These companies aren't doing this for our health: they're selling us less food for the same money while using deceptive packaging to hide the fact that they're ripping us off.


And when you're in the juice aisles in the grocery store you have to be extremely careful to make sure that you're actually getting juice: most of the products sold these days contain only a small percentage of real juice. They consist mainly of filtered water and high-fructose corn syrup. To deceive us into thinking these contain real juice, the bottles are often emblazoned with a huge "100%" over a tiny "of daily vitamin C from ascorbic acid," which is typically a chemically produced nutrient.

No matter how you slice it, Bloomberg isn't tromping on anyone's freedom. He's not stopping anyone from buying 32 ounces of soda: just buy two 16-ouncers if your gullet is really that big.

There's nothing wrong with occasionally drinking moderate amounts of soda, or eating ice cream and baked goods if you're physically active enough to burn off the excess calories. But having a Big Gulp every day will put you on the Type 2 train to an early death. And cost the rest of us billions of dollars in extra health care costs and lost productivity.


Who's the real villain here? Bloomberg, for trying to deal with a serious problem like obesity that's killing millions of people and costing us hundreds of billions of dollars each year in medical costs?


Or companies that use deceptive packaging to mislead us and charge us more? Companies like McDonalds, whose share holders demand that profits spiral ever upward, which can only occur if Americans eat more junk food and gain more weight? Companies like PepsiCo (which owns juice bottlers in addition to its soft drink concerns) who have been silently weaning us off pure, nutritious juice to more profitable watered-down "juice drinks" and sodas filled with empty calories from corn syrup?

42 comments:

Anonymous said...

Who's the real villain here?

Well, actually you and people like you are the real villains. Constantly supporting nanny state intervention. Who the f*ck are you to tell me how much I can buy? How about, I buy a 32 oz soft drink to share among the family so we only buy one drink? How about read the labels on the products you buy? How about get some discipline and education before enforcing choice via fiat?

How about it is none of your F*cking business f*ckhead!

Bloomberg, Newsome, and any other politician who has much bigger issues and responsibilities should get their priorities straight.

Mark Ward said...

A fantastic example of why Nikto is a writer in this blog. I'd like an answer to the question he raised: why is that no one squawks about nannying when private companies alter their container size? One could argue that corporations are (ahem) forcing me to eat and drink certain portions:)

And who is stopping anyone from buying 2 16 oz drinks? Or taking advantage of free refills? It doesn't matter what size cup you get if their are free refills, right?

The problem here (once again) is emotion about government. If only we didn't have to manage the hysteria of mother...

Haplo9 said...

>why is that no one squawks about nannying when private companies alter their container size?

/facepalm

juris imprudent said...

corporations are (ahem) forcing me

Only a drooling idiot would attempt that argument.

6Kings said...

The problem here (once again) is emotion about government.

No you moron, the problem is government getting involved in people's choices which isn't their function in the first place. It is petty, misplaced, and intrusive. How about fixing real issues like organized crime, fiscal problems, and corruption?

No matter how you slice it, Bloomberg isn't tromping on anyone's freedom.

Really? If government is telling me how much I can buy and restricting possible choices, I am more free?! You have to be mental to argue that.

last in line said...

You said Sperm. huhhuhhuh

Mark Ward said...

the problem is government getting involved in people's choices which isn't their function in the first place.

All people's choices, 6Kings, or just the ones you approve of? This statement is completely ridiculous.

Let's suppose for a minute that there were no more laws like this one. In fact, all "nanny state" laws were gone. Now we have a culture where people are free to make the choices they want to make. They can eat like a pig and smoke wherever they want.

Now the pig eaters and smokers are infringing on my life. Because they eat like pigs, my insurance goes up and I have to pay for them. Because they smoke wherever they want, I can either get lung cancer or not go out. How's is that freedom for me?

What you completely fail to recognize is that other people's choices (regardless of government) affect our lives every day. Why? Because we live in a culture with other people and not one of rugged individualists. The government is there to play referee when those choices adversely affect other people.

I have sadly come to the conclusion that many of you simply don't like other people. It makes sense when you think about it and it certainly explains the juvenile behavior.

juris imprudent said...

Now the pig eaters and smokers are infringing on my life.

No they aren't, because you buy an insurance plan that is only available to moral, healthy people like you. It costs less which is your incentive to stay moral and healthy. The pigs have to pay for more expensive plans do to their choices.

You only patronize businesses that cater to your kind of person - non smoking, healthy eating and tea totalling (since alcohol is morally bad too you know). Perhaps you pay more for that but you consider it a worthwhile trade-off to avoid being around those disgusting pig people.

When you die (possibly having lived a year or two more than those disgusting people you completely despise) you will find out if living a life with a stick up your ass paid off better than those who did shit you don't like. Or perhaps you are nothing more than worm food and the whole joke is on you.

Mark Ward said...

/facepalm

The Chipotle near my house only offers 16oz cups for soda. I asked them why they did this (right after Bloomberg came out with his law) and they told me that they want people to not drink as much soda. They do offer free refills so people can drink as much as they like but Chipotle has found that people drink less (just as Nikto said) if they have a smaller cup or more if they have a bigger one.

Now, Hap, aren't they making a choice for me? I choose to go to Chipotle but now they are telling me what size drink I can have. I could go to another Chipotle but then I would be spending more on gas. Or I could not go at all. But then I wouldn't be able to get something I want. So, why don't you have a hissy fit here but do when it's the government? Obviously, I already know the answer.

Personally, I don't care what size cup I get regardless of whether or not it's company policy or government law. But it sure is fun to see you guys get all riled up over this and say that this photo is the next step after laws on 32 oz cups.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Tjzy0KC3304/SwVFsjnbJBI/AAAAAAAAATc/Hz6LmONg72A/s1600/communism_by_rapierwitt2.jpg

Look out!

Haplo9 said...

>Or I could not go at all.

Brilliant! You've found a solution, and the only consequence to you is that you don't get exactly what you want. Now - can you do the same thing where government is concerned? Can you not pay your taxes? Can you opt out of Social Security? Can you not obey laws you think are unjust? Can you ignore regulations that are clearly created simply to give larger businesses a competitive advantage? Certainly you can choose not to do those things - the consequences of choosing not to do those things just a *slight* bit more impactful than not getting what you want - wouldn't you agree? Or are you not able to figure out the difference between going to jail and not getting something you might want?

The facepalm comes because this has been pointed out to you at least 10 times, and you're still apparently incapable of learning it.

On this subject, the difference between government and corporations is that you can't generally choose not to participate when it comes to the government. Government uses force, corporations can not. In the case that corporations can use force, that is generally because.. the government grants them that force. Why is this so hard for you to understand? It's like your brain is read only at this point in your life.

Mark Ward said...

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

The frustration is entirely on my part because you can't see that if I want Chipoltle, I have to deal with their rules. They are making a choice for me regarding drink cup size. No doubt, I could make the choice not to go but that's still depriving me of something I want-the food I like from Chipotle. In a way, they are forcing me to do something I don't want to do...not eat their food. Eating at their establishment has now become conditional. I have to accept their drink cup size.

Hmm...what else is conditional? Being a US citizen. If you don't like our government and tax system, then leave. No one is stopping you. The government is not forcing you to stay, right? Contrary to your paranoid fantasies, this is not a totalitarian society that blocks people from leaving. They are saying that if you live here, you have to pay taxes and live by these rules. Sort of like if you are a teenager and live in your parent's house, you have to live by their rules, right?:)

Haplo9 said...

>In a way, they are forcing me to do something I don't want to do...not eat their food.

And again, I ask: can you not understand the difference between not getting something you want and going to jail? Is the distinction just too hard to grasp?

>Contrary to your paranoid fantasies, this is not a totalitarian society that blocks people from leaving.

And nowhere did I claim it was. I'm simply pointing out the fundamental difference between government and corporate power. Cmon Mark, no evasions about leaving the country, no handwaving, no bullshit: really? You don't see the difference?

>Sort of like if you are a teenager and live in your parent's house, you have to live by their rules, right?:)

This is interesting, because you've made this implication many times. Is the government like parents to you? Is Obama like your father? I sure don't think so, but you've intimated this many times. Why?

Mark Ward said...

can you not understand the difference between not getting something you want and going to jail?

Of course. But if you don't like NYC's laws on soda cups, you can choose to go elsewhere. You won't go to jail. You're setting up a false equivalency again, Hap. You're also being paranoid. You think that if a local government can tell you what size drink to buy, the next step is totalitarian control over the entire government. Don't you think that is completely ridiculous?

Cmon Mark, no evasions about leaving the country, no handwaving, no bullshit: really? You don't see the difference?

You are the one equating the soda cup law with something...else. I simply pointed out that you can leave this country if you don't like the laws. Just like I can leave and go to a different Chipotle or restaurant.

Let's take a look at this on very simple terms.

Do you live in NYC? If not, it's not your concern because it's a local issue. State and city rights, correct Hap?

If yes, can you still buy soda? Yes. Can you get free refills on the soda? Likely, but I don't know for sure. Every restaurant offers this now so even though you can't get a 32 OZ cup, you still can get bottomless soda. So can I at my local Chipotle. The government is not stopping you from buying soda.

So, why are you bitching? Why is anyone on the right bitching about this law? THAT is very hard for me to grasp given the facts of the situation.

Is the government like parents to you?

No, but you act like it is and that's the problem. You don't like some of the rules and, just like a teenager, your emotions get the better of you and you make wild accusations about fascism and the nanny state. When stories like this come out, you rage about freedoms being taken away when that really isn't true. You say the government can force you to do things and corporations never can. Yet, YOU and I have the power to change the elected officials in government. We have no power to change what goes in corporations unless we have money to buy stock.

Don't like the fact that the government does something? Get off your ass and do something about it. Stop wasting time posting here and support representation that will change the laws to your liking. Again, we don't live in a totalitarian society. You have a choice. You always do.

Of course, the problem is other people. If only you didn't have to deal with them...:)

juris imprudent said...

No, but you act like it is and that's the problem.

When the govt sets rules limiting my behavior because it is "bad for me" - that is parenting. Either you believe that is appropriate (which means you do want the govt to be a parent in absentia) or it isn't. You can't fucking evade that. Be honest for a change - we can have an honest disagreement without being uncivil to each other. But projection, evasion, lying and dissembling get zero tolerance from me.

Mark Ward said...

What about when corporations set that rule? Chipotle decided all on their own what was bad for me. Where is the outrage? Oh yes, I have a choice to go elsewhere. But I still have to alter my behavior based on a choice that someone else made for me.

Of course I think it's appropriate for the government to make laws based on the greater good. Don't you?

Let's get back to the issue of soda container size in NYC. Look at my "Ifs-thens" in my above comment and tell me what you think now.

juris "bully weasel" imprudent said...

Chipotle decided all on their own what was bad for me.

No they didn't - they decided to offer larger portions to increase their profits. That is their job - not looking out for weak-minded chumps that can't take ANY responsibility for their own choices.

You don't buy shit from Chipotle with absolutely zero consequences. Hell, you could even buy a burrito and just get a cup for water. You do not have the same choice about obeying laws - if you disobey there are consequences.

Are you really that fucking stupid? No, I don't mean that rhetorically -- I want an answer.

Of course I think it's appropriate for the government to make laws based on the greater good. Don't you?

That isn't the same thing - nice attempt to change the issue. The "greater good" is not the same as that which is "bad for me". Again - are you that fucking stupid? No, I don't believe you are - but I do believe you are just so childish and dishonest that you can't admit to agreeing. You can't ever admit to being wrong about govt being the most perfect and just and righteous thing in this world.

Larry said...

But "Wahhh!!!" Marky want a widdle cup! Marky can't fill his glass up halfway. Those little Nazis running Chipotle are ruining it for Marky! And when Marky wants them to someday serve a tofu burrito, and they don't? Well, just watch out, Minnesota! He'll have his poutrage on and turned up to '11'. My God, those power-mad little hitlers over at Chipotle! Why, there ought'a be Federal law!!!!

juris "bully weasel" imprudent said...

Why, there ought'a be Federal law!!!!

With National Cup standards and a bureaucracy of inspectors and analysts! Think of the jobs! We can tax and federally-employ our way to economic nirvana while increasing freedom by taking away choice!

Larry said...

And Mark, you ninny, you have a hell of a lot more chance to influence what a restaurant serves than you do of influencing a government. So quit your your whining and start doing something constructive to let Chipotle know how you feel. If you get enough other people that feel the same way to make their feelings known, chances are they will make a change to keep their public happy. But ohh nooos! It takes a government, at least in your mind.

6Kings said...

You think that if a local government can tell you what size drink to buy, the next step is totalitarian control over the entire government. Don't you think that is completely ridiculous?

Come on frog, it is only another degree, water is warm...geez, it isn't like it's boiling or anything! Don't be ridiculous!

Haplo9 said...

>>Is the government like parents to you?

>No, but you act like it is and that's the problem.

Nope, you just made that up. In fact I'd go out on a limb and say that because you are so awful at understanding reasoning that is not your own, you have to make up lurid explanations for why people think the way they do. As we've seen many times, it's just what you do. This is no different.

>So, why are you bitching? Why is anyone on the right bitching about this law? THAT is very hard for me to grasp given the facts of the situation.

I'm not bitching; I'm simply pointing out the fundamental difference between government power and corporate power. You're throwing up irrelevancies and smoke screens to try to avoid that very simple point. Yes, you can vote and advocate for changes. That has nothing to do with how the results are enforced. (Though it does open a side but separate question of whether there are things that should not be subject to a vote, which, as is often the case, I have no idea where you stand on the question due to your penchant for blather.)

rld said...

We won't leave the country, we'll just vote out the people who make dumb laws like we did in 2010. Get ready.

Mark Ward said...

You don't buy shit from Chipotle with absolutely zero consequences.

Here are the questions, juris. Did the decision by Chipotle to offer only the smaller cups alter my behavior? Did it limit my choices in any way? And there are consequences because I like Chipotle and if I don't go there, than I don't get what I want. Isn't that what you whine about all the time? Not having the freedom to get what you want?

You do not have the same choice about obeying laws - if you disobey there are consequences.

So, how exactly is having access to only a 16oz cup obeying/not obeying a law? What happens if I decide to not buy soda anymore? Will I go to jail? Your analogy doesn't work with the cup flap.

. The "greater good" is not the same as that which is "bad for me".

But, again, how is making a law about cup size translate into men with guns from the federal government coming to take me away? Why is it OK for Chipotle to make a law for the greater good and not the federal government?

Mark Ward said...

Come on frog, it is only another degree, water is warm...geez, it isn't like it's boiling or anything! Don't be ridiculous!

Just like I thought. Irrational and paranoid. This is why you guys suck at running the government. It's all about made up shit that doesn't exist. And it never will.

Mark Ward said...

I'm simply pointing out the fundamental difference between government power and corporate power.

And I'm trying to point out that in this case with cup size, there is no difference. Both Chipotle and the government of NYC made a choice based on what they thought was best for their customer's health. Why is one OK and the other bad? My view is that it's because of your paranoia about the government but I'm happy to be proved wrong.

You're throwing up irrelevancies and smoke screens

Now - can you do the same thing where government is concerned? Can you not pay your taxes? Can you opt out of Social Security? Can you not obey laws you think are unjust? Can you ignore regulations that are clearly created simply to give larger businesses a competitive advantage?

Really, Hap? I'm sticking to the subject of the law in NYC banning 16oz cups. Again, what is the city government forcing me to do under penalty of jail?

juris imprudent said...

And I'm trying to point out that in this case with cup size, there is no difference.

How can you actually say that? Are you just incapable of realizing when you are wrong? Are you so utterly insecure that to admit an error would shatter your ego? I can't believe that you honestly think this. You really are that fucking stupid, aren't you?

Why is one OK and the other bad

Because one is something you don't have to do and the other does not give you an option. I don't have to buy anything from Chiplote, but I can't evade what the state does. Do you not grasp that concept at all?

But, I'm beginning to get the sense that you don't think the law should be obeyed - at least when there is a favorable partisan spin to not doing so. Perhaps you consider the law to be just something that you do some of the time, when it is convenient and suits what you want anyway. The law is just a symbol, right - and justice a game (rigged or random depending on the day).

Mark Ward said...

I don't have to buy anything from Chiplote, but I can't evade what the state does. Do you not grasp that concept at all?

You don't have to buy soda from restaurants in NYC either, right? As with Chipotle, you can choose to go somewhere else. It might be a long drive but if you want that 32oz cup...

Remember, you can also stay home, cook, and drink as many cans or bottles of soda that you want. Or you can simply take advantage of the free refill option the 16oz cup. Again, what sort of jail time am I looking at here if I go to a different city to drink a Big Gulp?

juris "bully weasel" imprudent said...

You don't have to buy soda from restaurants in NYC either, right?

You just can't be an adult, can you? How fucking pathetic.

GuardDuck said...

Chipotle is free to sell you a large or small soda as they wish, but not in New York. The freedom is taken away by proxy.

Haplo9 said...

And the beat continues.. It's been this way for 5 years now. Why should we expect anything different? I guess it's still utterly amazing each time he does it though..

Mark Ward said...

Yes, it surely has, Hap. As soon as I make a point or points that doesn't allow you to "win," it's back to your stock BS. I've asked you several questions in this thread and you haven't answered many of them. Acknowledge that I am right about the issue of states rights, for example, or that no one is being deprived of soda. Admit that you are overreacting and we might be able to get somewhere. Until then, none of this is my fault.

GD, do you live in NYC and own a restaurant? If not, it's not your concern. Or have you changed your mind on states rights? And all the drink sellers have to do in NYC is charge more and offer free refills...just like Chipotle does in my town.

6Kings said...

And all the drink sellers have to do in NYC is charge more and offer free refills...just like Chipotle does in my town.

So the purpose of the law was to stem the obesity epidemic and you have just shown that is does not do that. It in effect raises costs, possibly creates more waste (buying multiples), and is easily side-stepped. Is that good law to you?! That is nothing more than a waste of time and energy and stifling a businesses options for sating demand while not doing what was intended at all. Great cheer leading another loser Democrat inspired failure.

Larry said...

It's not a failure, 6kings, not at all. Think of all the bureaucratic enforces that will be needed to enforce the new laws. And haven't we been told that people in (supposedly) low paid government jobs do more to stimulate the economy than any other class of people except the unemployed collecting benefits, especially if they're getting food stamps.

juris "bully weasel" imprudent said...

Acknowledge that I am right about the issue of states rights

Lame try to turn this into a discussion of federalism, which it has not been from the beginning.

Until then, none of this is my fault.

Gods, what a fucking dull child you are.

Mark Ward said...

juris, I suggest you go back and read the comments from the beginning. I tried to stick to the issue of soda cup size and the next thing we knew, men with guns were coming to force us to do things. Again, YOUR paranoia, not mine.

That is nothing more than a waste of time and energy and stifling a businesses options for sating demand while not doing what was intended at all.

Still a failure to offer an alternative solution to how other people's poor diet choices affect all of us. If you don't want the government involved, fine. Then what's your solution?

juris "bully weasel" imprudent said...

Again, YOUR paranoia, not mine.

Bullshit - you ran off in every direction once you cornered yourself. Oh and fuck you and your stupid, cheap, pop psychologizing.

You are the one that can't grasp that there is a difference between a law and a choice.

You are the one that has to find fault - and almost always in others.

An introspective person might stop to think about that.

Mark Ward said...

You are the one that can't grasp that there is a difference between a law and a choice.

And you are the one that can't see that when a corporation makes policy, it can take away a choice from me and alter my behavior when I don't want it altered.

I have a choice in nearly every law that is made with my vote. We don't live in a totalitarian state, juris.I know it's fun to play make believe but you do have a choice. Why you can't see this is exactly the reason why it's so frustrating to talk to you guys. You live in a very fictional world.

Larry said...

You have a choice with every dollar you spend, too, idiot. And if your cause loses in the legislature and courts, then you can't just go to another restaurant. Depending on whether it was city, county, state, or federal, you've got increasingly difficult ways to escape it. Claiming Chipotle is just the same thing as government is the same kind of cretinous relativism that results in claiming the execution of the Rosenburgs for spying made the US just as morally bad as the Soviet Union. Which might be the case for somebody completely lacking in any sense of proportion and reality. In the real world, if Chipotle pisses you off bad enough and you can't organize enough people to convince them to change their mind (and if you can't even do that, how the fuck would you expect to influence city hall, let alone Congress?), then you can start your own restaurant that serves what Chipotle won't. Of course, if it's government that caused it, then you can't do that (especially since you've already proven you can't influence squat). Capiche?

Otherwise, this sums up the qualities of your arguments in this thread.

juris imprudent said...

And you are the one that can't see that when a corporation makes policy, it can take away a choice from me and alter my behavior when I don't want it altered.

Mommy didn't breastfeed you did she? Wahhh.

The corporation didn't take any choice away from you - they gave you more. Which apparently frightens you - too much to decide, please just give me what I need. [suckle, suckle]

I have a choice in nearly every law that is made with my vote.

Please - you are just getting too stupid. Once a law is passed, your vote for the legislators doesn't mean shit, unless you are voting for ones that will repeal the law. In the meantime - YOU HAVE TO FUCKING COMPLY WITH THE LAW or DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES. Can I make it any clearer? Or was I right that you are one of the progressive fucktards that believes the law is a symbol - that it sends a message - that you don't care about the consequences because your precious fucking intentions are so pure. Fuck you for saying I'm the one in a delusional state - yet another projection from the mind of Markadelphia.

GuardDuck said...

If not, it's not your concern. Or have you changed your mind on states rights?

Uhhhm, am I not allowed to participate in a discussion of the relative merits and disadvantages of encroaching nanny state legislation? It may not by my neck of the woods, and while I would not deign to intervene in NYC's self determination, I also would not remain silent on such an issue lest that silence be deemed acquiescence by others who wish to follow such patterns.


And all the drink sellers have to do in NYC is charge more and offer free refills...just like Chipotle does in my town

Those evil capitalists will flagrantly skirt the law by exploiting the soft drink loophole? What!? But surely you or Nikto will decry such an action as proof that corporations are evil, right?



Oh, and just because I haven't said it yet - your entire argument in this thread is mind boggling stupid, lacking in even the most rudimentary logic and rife with examples of your inability to process coherent thought.

I would be embarrassed and shamed if I were you.

6Kings said...

See GD, we are doing our civic duty in exposing liberal/progressive doublespeak for the greater good. In the future, there will be songs written about how vapid and foolish the liberal/progressive thought was back in the day.

juris imprudent said...

I would be embarrassed and shamed if I were you.

Hell, I am embarrassed for him and for even arguing this with him - and my only part in this play is setting up the straight lines.