Mike Bloomberg's Prohibition 2.0
Mollie Hemingway, Ed. ·
May 31, 2012 at 4:38am
Remember when the federal government banned alcohol? And how everyone looks back on that decision as a horrible mistake involving government overreach and idiocy?
That was a time of restraint and wisdom compared to this.
If you were still under the delusion that America is the land of the free or the home of the brave, you should be no longer.
- Comment (60)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments:
Jan '11
Re: Mike Bloomberg's Prohibition 2.0
I love your country to bits, but when your elected officials do something boneheaded like this I am doubly disturbed. One, it pains me to see the land of liberty become a little less free. Two, I know that in five years some idiot back here will use this as an excuse for a similar ban in Iceland.
If it wasn't for Bloomberg's ilk we'd still be allowed to smoke in Icelandic bars.
Jul '11
Re: Mike Bloomberg's Prohibition 2.0
That gives me a big gulp Mollie. Bloomberg is such a nanny state fool.
Oct '11
Re: Mike Bloomberg's Prohibition 2.0
Great, so now instead of buying one 2 litre bottle of coke for $1.99, I'll have to buy four 16 oz bottles for $.99 each. Awesome.
Re: Mike Bloomberg's Prohibition 2.0
Which is probably why some retailers will love this "ban."
Oct '11
Re: Mike Bloomberg's Prohibition 2.0
Good point.
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Which is probably why some retailers will love this "ban." · 1 minute ago
Re: Mike Bloomberg's Prohibition 2.0
Feckless crapweasel.
(H/T Jonah Goldberg for this inestimable contribution to the English language, seemingly divinely inspired to describe Mr. Bloomberg and those of his ilk).
Edited on May 31, 2012 at 4:58amOct '11
Re: Mike Bloomberg's Prohibition 2.0
This paragraph cracks me up:
In other words, some people call him Nanny Bloomberg for infringing personal freedoms, but other cities are copying him so he's not a nanny.
"But"? Wouldn't "indeed" be more appropriate?
Nov '11
Re: Mike Bloomberg's Prohibition 2.0
The people of New York get the idiotic policies they deserve for electing this utopian tool.
Oct '11
Re: Mike Bloomberg's Prohibition 2.0
This section make my blood boil:
So Bloomberg admits that this will not actually reduce consumption. Then what's the point? Oh, right, higher prices.
Oct '11
Re: Mike Bloomberg's Prohibition 2.0
I voted for him.:-( But in my defense he was less despotic in his second term than he is currently. And he was running against a Democrat.
Sep '10
Re: Mike Bloomberg's Prohibition 2.0
Crapless Feckweasel.
(Which sounds just edgy enough to tiptoe up to the CoC and then slink back at the 1 yard line).
Oct '10
Re: Mike Bloomberg's Prohibition 2.0
"The measure would not apply to...fruit juices, dairy-based drinks like milkshakes, or alcoholic beverages; it would not extend to beverages sold in grocery or convenience stores."
Because none of those has abundant calories or contributes to weight-gain, right Hizzoner? What a piece of human debris.
Feb '11
Re: Mike Bloomberg's Prohibition 2.0
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.:
…
If you were still under the delusion that America is the land of the free or the home of the brave, you should be no longer. · · 1 hour ago
No no no no no no no. That’s not the right response to this. That’s not the American response to legislation that restricts your rights. The American response is to say: Alright, let’s figure out how to stop this, reverse it, and expand liberty.
You don’t say: “well, gosh, looks like we aren’t brave any more.” And then curse the liberals or the culture or the kids.
Jun '10
Re: Mike Bloomberg's Prohibition 2.0
This is enough to make a guy or gal sit down with a 44 ounce Coke, a bag of kettle potato chips, a quart of ice cream, and have a good cry.
Jul '10
Re: Mike Bloomberg's Prohibition 2.0
I thought Yer's was Mountain Dew?
Jun '10
Re: Mike Bloomberg's Prohibition 2.0
ya'll voted him back in, so you get what you deserve. Why do you live there?
Jan '11
Re: Mike Bloomberg's Prohibition 2.0
When conservatives warn that government is supposed to restrict itself to its "enumerated" powers, liberals argue that the "promote the general welfare" clause was listed in the Constitution. So, they argue, government has the right to do anything in the general welfare. Of course, such a broad interpretation completely strips the concept of "enumerated powers" to being meaningless.
So, if we're going to play "Alice in Wonderland" games with the language, interpreting any words any way we feel like, I say we interpret the words "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" to mean "politicians are idiots who aren't allowed to legislate on every aspect of individual life."
In the spirit of compromise, I'll consider dropping the "-are idiots-" part.
Aug '10
Re: Mike Bloomberg's Prohibition 2.0
Amen. And if that doesn't work, the other classically American response is to start up a black market, turning a huge profit selling bulk soft drinks imported from other states.
Dec '10
Re: Mike Bloomberg's Prohibition 2.0
That seals it.
I'm gonna partner with Dave Carter to run whole van trailers full of bootleg two liters of Mtn Dew up to NYC.
We'll make a bundle and confound Bloomberg in the process.
It's win/win!
Oct '10
Re: Mike Bloomberg's Prohibition 2.0
This may be a small and absurd action, save it simply adds to the exodus of taxpayers from that state. Makes about as much sense as taxing toilet paper to reduce, Opps, No new ideas, Please.