More hypocrisy from The left: Sweet-shop owning MP bashes Coca Cola

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's pretty hypocritical really. I presume he actually encouraged people to come into his shop to buy sweets, and he made money off them. I'm not knocking him for that, but it's a bit silly for him to slate someone else for encouraging people to buy a fizzy drink.

Do you understand scale, proportionality?

Original Quill wrote:

tommy wrote:they'll probably die of something before the diabetes wrecks them anyway.

Or, you hope....don't you mean?  Why do conservatives always hate people?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Or, you hope....don't you mean?  Why do conservatives always hate people?

I didn't say that.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:well aside from ragga and ben chewing each others heads off...

Lets look at this a bit closer.

Here in this one article is condensed 90% of whats wrong with the "lefty" and their policies

1) clearly the lefty wont be happy untill all personal choice is removed,you will only eat and drink govt "approved" food stuff, you will only carry out govt approved "hobbies" and so on (becasue as we know from their propaganda, only lefties know whats best for us all)

2) they will do this by slowly demonising first the object of their dislike, in this case sugary drinks
then they will switch to unwarranted attacks on their opponents (like calling their faith (so much for "equality) you are only "equal" if the lefty says you are))

3 in order to fully appreciate the grab for total (and BTW UNEQUAL) power one needs to understand that in order to advance their agenda they have started by destroying the old "social restraints" that helped prevent the very problem they are "claiming to "cure"" vis in their "equal world you and I (joe public) are of course judged "sixhirb" for calling a "fat bastard" a fat bastard. It is judged "bullying fot the school kids to refer to the class porker as "billy bunter" and there is thus no social shame in being a "fat bastard"

Instead they interfere and would make (in this instance) the man who likes a glass of coke here and there pay dearly for his pleasure....or remove it all together.

yet...when it comes to the "pleasure " of the lefty....most (but not all) of whom are young and tonally challenged, if i for instance, suggested banning "rap" which CAN be shown, by simple analysis of the lyrics therin contained, to be largely anti social, pro drug pro violence, there would be an entire tsunami of protest ...I would ber "labeled" anti cultural, probably racist, and "oh no we cant do that"

one thing IS for sure though, Corbyn and his troops have STILL to learn the leson that what we want is a govt that GOVERNS......NOT one that just "fiddles" and interferes....

Once again, you're full of shit.

probably...see my signature

btw...are you bullying me

1) Liberals hate personal choice so much that we've been the vanguard of legalizing gay marriage, recreational marijuana usage, legalizing interracial marriage, women's suffrage, etc. ...

yeah yeah...they love liberalising anything THEY approve of......
but nothing else......which is my point here ....the lefty determine whats good for us, without consultation...and would like to allow only that...

2) I enjoy sweet beverages myself, but we do need to look out for each new generation of people and make sure they aren't deceived by these global corporations into thinking their products are healthier than they really are. I'll post this link again for anyone who doesn't think they do this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/16/companies-lied-to-you_n_5318940.html

so...educate the kids to be advert immune, it can be done...

as an aside but still somewhat relevant....how many folks died from drinking coke? (not from diabetes...which can be casued by many bad dietary habits)  I mean islam killed what ...3,000? in the twin towers alone plus how many millions elsewhere yet I dont see you wanting THAT banned.....Christianity like wise, judaism the same, even atheists are guilty of mass murder (remember that guy Stalin and his cronies)...how many jews, catholics protestants russian orthodox did they murder...FOR PRACTICING their faith....?

strangely, pagans and wicca seem to be quite "user friendly"  

Is the above a "twisted argument"...possibly, but you should perhaps consider why I make the point....when you start talking about banning something ...or controlling something, you had better be prepared to defend your justification of it.

after all lets take one possible "justification"

you have to control it becasue "some" folks misuse it....and they cause harm to themselves...and cost to others.......fine thats true
now apply THAT logic to religion.......which actually casues harm to OTHERS and costs to ALL.....

i really dont think you dare



3) Do you really think kids teasing a classmate about his/her weight are doing it because they want to help the kid be healthier?! They're doing it because they're tribal little snots. It is bullying, not guidance. Kids need guidance, not bullying.

I dont care WHY they did it in this context...the fact is they DID...and it had the required effect....(granted it also had other , negative consequences too....but so does YOUR way)

By the way, your point about rap falls flat on its face as well, seeing as efforts have been made to keep inappropriate content (whether music or movies/TV or video games) out of the hands of people too young to handle it. Nobody's trying to ban soda from being consumed by very young children.

Eilzel wrote:I don't see why you are making this into a tired old attack on the left victor.

because as ever the left are intent on removing /repudiating the principle of personal responsibility and choice, to replace it with "the nanny state" lets face it its not just this issue is it.....why dont you ban contact sports....? or any number of other things.?
you could start with banning cycles of roads....how much would THAT save the nhs?


Do you think sugary drinks arm serious harmful to national health or not?

yes  but education...not bans is the way

Do you think a similat campaign against smoking has ben effective or not?

dunno...its too early to say yet...meanwhile revenue has fallen greatly, but the negative effects are set to continue at the same level for at least 30 years...go figure....at least i have the satisfaction of knowing that YOU will pay for the consequences of this, in the form of increased taxation ....VAT was increased last time as a direct result of the loss of revenue from tobacco products. of course they same thing should be applied to alcohol as well...AND to the places that sell it....whopping taxes on night clubs and pubs...related directly to the volume of alcohol sales....

Do you agree that allowing the huge consumption of junk food and drink to continue unchecked will lead to amajor health crisis or not?

possibly, but so will many more people living to a grim old age.....only to be dumped in a miserable prison camp called a care home ......which is worse ???

Eilzel wrote:Actually as an militant atheist I would prescribe the same measures against religion as I would with sugary drinks lol

That is raising awareness and education.

You must have imagined the part when anyone sugary drinks be banned. No one but the raggs even raised the idea.

We have said pictures on packaging and TV advertisements and the time they should be allowed to broadcast. The first two are a form of education, which has been successful with smokers.

No bans.

And if you paid attention, I never tire of saying we should be more open in educating people against religious poison. So for me (if not all the left) I want what you want in regards to Islam.

Eilzel wrote:Exactly Sass, reduce their ads and have our own. The anti-smoking ads are pretty effective, they should do the same with sugary drinks.

actually they were NOT effective in the long term...the number of smokers did INITIALLY fall but then rose again...the ban on smoking in public places had more effect, but again its rising, stemmed only by the availability and usefulness of "vapes"....the increse of course is liable to be evidentially proveable to be due to the stresses many find themselves under due to "austerity"

Vic, me mentioning my militant atheism was more starter for point that I would have a campaign against religion. That said, my approach to Islam is likely still much less drastic than yours lol

sassy wrote:By taxing the companies, I mean taking the tax out of their profits and NOT allowing them to put the price up.

sassy wrote:How would that be a deterrent on junk food (which is rather the point) and how would it put money into the health system, which it's products are costing a fortune in ill health?   The point is to stop them advertising so much.

Eilzel wrote:Exactly Sass, reduce their ads and have our own. The anti-smoking ads are pretty effective, they should do the same with sugary drinks.

Vic, me mentioning my militant atheism was more starter for point that I would have a campaign against religion. That said, my approach to Islam is likely still much less drastic than yours lol

sassy wrote:Well you see, when kids go into a shop and can see sticky buns, fruit, sweets, fizzy drinks, fruit juice, flavoured water, nuts, dried fruit etc, I want them to make their own choice.  BUT THEIR OWN CHOICE, not a choice that has already been formed by hours and hours of advertising being pounded into their little heads, otherwise it isn't their choice, it's the choice of the companies with the best advertising.

sassy wrote:By taxing the companies, I mean taking the tax out of their profits and NOT allowing them to put the price up.

sassy wrote:Oh don't be so silly Victor, this is the health of our kids and grandkids we are talking about and having the money to look after their health.  If that means bloody great firms who have been damaging it for a long time and have made more money from it than it's possible to count, have to pay for some of the harm they have done, bloody good show.

Eilzel wrote:You're still making this about responsibility raggs, me and sass are talking about the health of the nation, specifically kids, regardless of responsibility.

Plus, if a kid has irresponsible parents, does that mean society should not also care about that kid? The parents might be happy bringing up their child on high sugar diets, the kid cannot make as well informed decisions however. If we cease advertising aimed at youngsters however and even heavily advertise the damaging effects they may choose to avoid such products for themselves.

But I understand you don't care about other people's kids.

Eilzel wrote:But if healthy alternatives are all on between kids tv, along with negative ads for soft drinks- the kid may request something else

Eilzel wrote:*sigh* had it been left to the likes of ypu smoking would still be advertised everywhere and be more widespread. Fortunately there are various types of people, including progressives and conservatives. With latter nothing changes, fortunately the former has a habit of improving things regardless

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:*sigh* had it been left to the likes of ypu smoking would still be advertised everywhere and be more widespread. Fortunately there are various types of people, including progressives and conservatives. With latter nothing changes, fortunately the former has a habit of improving things regardless

Nonsense. I have no problem with tobacco not being advertised, or being banned in public buildings either. I've even said that people shouldn't smoke outside church doors. You should really stop accusing people of things they haven't said.

So then, do you want to address the points I've made in other posts, or are you going to sit there boasting about being "progressive"?

The point is that you can't pin anything on Coca Cola or any other sugary fizzy drink because other things contain sugar too, and other foods which don't contain sugar are also high in calories. Tobacco is tobacco, so there was nothing to distinguish one cigarette from another. Therefore, it was easier to have a blanket ban on advertising it.

If you're going to claim that consuming sugar leads directly to diabetes, I hope you can back that up.

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nonsense. I have no problem with tobacco not being advertised, or being banned in public buildings either. I've even said that people shouldn't smoke outside church doors. You should really stop accusing people of things they haven't said.

So then, do you want to address the points I've made in other posts, or are you going to sit there boasting about being "progressive"?

The point is that you can't pin anything on Coca Cola or any other sugary fizzy drink because other things contain sugar too, and other foods which don't contain sugar are also high in calories. Tobacco is tobacco, so there was nothing to distinguish one cigarette from another. Therefore, it was easier to have a blanket ban on advertising it.

If you're going to claim that consuming sugar leads directly to diabetes, I hope you can back that up.

My point there was, someone like you (ie: conservative, small c) will have been saying the same things you are saying now, only about smoking, not sugary food and drink, 20 years ago. I'm not saying YOU say that NOW.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

My point there was, someone like you (ie: conservative, small c) will have been saying the same things you are saying now, only about smoking, not sugary food and drink, 20 years ago. I'm not saying YOU say that NOW.

I never did say it , so your argument doesn't hold up.

Any chance of you addressing my other points?

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I never did say it , so your argument doesn't hold up.

Any chance of you addressing my other points?

OMFG. You make me want to shoot my own brains out

No I won't. Because I value my brains, and don't want to have to find a gun. I said it yesterday I'll say it again, I'm done

Lord Foul wrote:yeah well thats another good lefty tactic...tax it out of peoples reach.....

so then even folks that just like a can or two now and again get stung too....seen it too often now....

if we want to take that track...


tax cyclists at a high rate ...becasue the greatest majority of accidents involving cyclists are actually the cyclists fault, despite the police attitude of automatically blaming the car driver.

tax religious houses at a vast rate...

etc etc etc....

of course I realise sassy that you need to find another demon to tax to replace the losses due to falling tobacco revenue...funny that.....

when you have done with coke...what next? eh?

perhaps a 50% tax on meat

then what....

perhaps you can tax women by the inch bust size? and men by the inch  as well...after all sex is responsible for vast NHS costs

how "nannyfied" do you want to get?

Lord Foul wrote:could you afford the "inch tax" FTL?  

and i just know it would end up being called the "tit tax"

oooh theres a thought...tit tax......how tall are you veya??????