I hate Mayor Mike....
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=190287
Printed Date: 03 May 2024 at 1:51pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: I hate Mayor Mike....
Posted By: Ceesman762
Subject: I hate Mayor Mike....
Date Posted: 31 May 2012 at 10:47am
|
Seriously? http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/supersize_smack_TebHeJsmQxoOjqawvfuXRL" rel="nofollow - http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/supersize_smack_TebHeJsmQxoOjqawvfuXRL ------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Replies:
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 31 May 2012 at 11:04am
| Yeah, enjoy the copious amounts of extra trash this will produce! |
Posted By: Apu
Date Posted: 31 May 2012 at 11:21am
|
...Are you kidding me? What the hell, are We the People not allowed to make ANY choices for ourselves anymore?! This infuriates me more than I can possibly emote through the web. If somebody wants a 64oz soda it should be their choice! Who are you to tell me what I can and can't put in my own body as long as it doesn't effect anybody else. I know there are obviously plenty of laws saying what big brother thinks is good for me and what isn't but this is just too far. I agree with the comments on the page. We can't let this happen. If this law is enacted, it will be the beginning of the end of everything I love about my country. ------------- I need a new Sig... |
Posted By: Ace_Of_Spades
Date Posted: 31 May 2012 at 11:46am
|
it's about money, not the health of citizens. Think of it this way. McDonalds charges $1.00 for a small where as a large drink and fry added onto your meal is just $1.00 extra. OR you can get a small drink for $1.00, or you can get a large drink for just $1.50 and it is twice the volumn of the small, so it should be $2.00. However, people recognize, or rather correlate the thought of them getting more for less, so they get the large.
It's not the size of the drink he/they care about, it's the fact he/they want The People to pay more for less.
The good think is that Monsters at exactly 16oz. So all of us energy drink addicts are safe...  ------------- 
J. Thompson #5150- http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.php?t=2945831 - Happiness Is A Tupperware Fed Weapon |
Posted By: Ace_Of_Spades
Date Posted: 31 May 2012 at 11:49am
|
He is trying to argue the fact that the container itself is what makes us fat rather than the contents in the drink itself which is just plain ignorant.
It's like me petitioning for the banning of spoons because they made me fat. -------------
J. Thompson #5150- http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.php?t=2945831 - Happiness Is A Tupperware Fed Weapon |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 31 May 2012 at 11:50am
|
Wow. This is about as misquided as making school lunches ultra low carb/low cal. I can't beleive something like this is even able to get passed. ------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 31 May 2012 at 12:57pm
|
What gets me, is that you'll still be able to get a triple venti caramel latte from starbucks (which will run you 370 calories) but you can't get a 20oz coke (which is only 240 calories) So in short, Bloomberg is an ass. |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 31 May 2012 at 1:18pm
This. ------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
tallen702 wrote:Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 31 May 2012 at 1:33pm
|
Slightly off topic I've always thought the large drinks too damn big. I don't recall it being different overseas, but a large gets you a large drink. I want a medium. A super size gets you a bloody super tanker load of cooldrink. I want a medium. Try get a company to give you a burger, extra large fries and a medium drink. Even if you say you'll pay for the super size, but just pour a medium. Gets my goat. KBK ------------- Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2 |
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 31 May 2012 at 1:51pm
|
I'll take 4 16 oz. cokes please.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 31 May 2012 at 2:04pm
What bugs the balls off me as an upstater is how much pull this jerk has with this policies over the rest of the state. If NYC does something, Albany's not far behind. So as soon as he starts with full-blown retardation, you can bet the beer money right now that the rest of the state is going to feel the ripples. ------------- ? |
Posted By: deadeye007
Date Posted: 31 May 2012 at 2:41pm
You would have to ban the table spoons. Teaspoons are safe because they wont allow as much contents to fit in them. From what I heard (Didn't read the law or article yet). It was poorly written and would even cover stores trying to sell 20oz bottles. It would be unenforceable because every store and restaurant in NYC would have to change the size of their drinks. (I think a standard cup you get at a restaurant is 20oz) ------------- Face it guys, common sense is a form of wealth and we're surrounded by poverty.-Strato |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 31 May 2012 at 3:29pm
| This is just dumb. I understand the desire for regulation, but this is the stupidest implementation you could ask for. |
Posted By: GI JOES SON
Date Posted: 31 May 2012 at 9:08pm
| the funny thing is a lot of fast food places these days do free refills...so...yeah. |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 31 May 2012 at 11:15pm
Great point. Further proves the idiocy of this idea. |
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 01 June 2012 at 12:33am
Sweetened coffee is capped also. I think this law is great. We need to combat obesity and diabetes. Only government intervention will work. |
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 01 June 2012 at 6:50am
|
So when do they start selling you guys TVs that only work two hours a day? Gotta protect your eyes for you. ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 04 June 2012 at 1:51pm
|
The start of "Bring your Own Big Gulp cup"? ------------- 
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 04 June 2012 at 1:59pm
|
Local news covered this oddly enough over the weekend. I have to admit I was shocked that they were able to do it with a straight face. Honestly, it almost seemed like they thought it was a good idea. One of the closing comments on the story was the statement that "if this law passes, many more states will likely follow suit." Really? I can't believe there isn't more uproar about this. Have we really just given up? I don't even drink soda for the most part, but instead choose unsweetened iced tea and I typically grab the largest sized cup they have. Will I now only get to grab a 20oz cup? Seems silly to me. ------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 04 June 2012 at 2:11pm
|
Well, when parents can't take care of their children, the state steps in and takes the children away. There are way too many fat kids for the state to handle, so they have to deal with bad parents in ways like this. I see where they are coming from, but I think it would make more sense for them to ban the large drinks for kids, rather than everyone. -------------
|
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 04 June 2012 at 2:15pm
It is not just kids they are targeting with this law, adults as well. ------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 04 June 2012 at 2:17pm
I'm going to go ahead and facepalm this. ------------- ? |
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 04 June 2012 at 2:23pm
Yeah roger. I suppose I should elaborate. I'm cool with them banning it for kids. Adults is a bit too far. -------------
|
Posted By: Ace_Of_Spades
Date Posted: 04 June 2012 at 2:45pm
|
The idiotic part of the whole thing is that the fat people will just order two instead of one... Moreover it won't stop the people who dine in to get refills. It's VERY poorly thought out. -------------
J. Thompson #5150- http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.php?t=2945831 - Happiness Is A Tupperware Fed Weapon |
Posted By: scotchyscotch
Date Posted: 04 June 2012 at 3:52pm
|
Ok obesity is a problem almost anywhere in the developed world. Now the argument in the UK for these kind of ideas is that it costs our NHS billions to treat the huskier gentlemen. I'm not sure how it works in the US but I would imagine that if the majority of healthcare is paid for privately, which is my baseless assumption. Then where does the state figure they have to stick their oar in? I say this as a UK resident and we have been facing all this kind of thing for a while and it is always difficult to argue against it when the public money is being used for the healthcare system. Supersize meals at Mcdonalds are a thing of the past, and a deck of smokes has doubled in price in the last 5 years. Any promotional deals on alcohol are now banned in Scotland and they've just passed a bill for minimum pricing on alcohol to IIRC 50p/unit. It's a bit weird because they only seem to attack the big chains, your local chippy will still deep fry anything they can get their hands on without any issues and other takeaways use the cheapest crap ingredients to make things that would still eventually kill you even if they used better/healthier ingredients but Mcdonalds and KFC still seem to have this awful stigma for being bad for you.
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 04 June 2012 at 3:53pm
|
This is what liberals do... They tell YOU how to live, while Bloomberg who is a big wine drinker, doesn't change the rules on HIMSELF and his wine... I bet he hasn't drank a pop in years. Even though his wine has the same amount of sugar. Did you hear that in NJ they are now going to give you a $1,000 ticket if your dog/cat isn't seatbelted in your car... Freedom, ehh. ------------- They tremble at my name... 
|
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 05 June 2012 at 1:15am
|
The thing is people have proved they aren't responsible enough to NOT do it. Over 25% of the States would benefit from imposed eating laws. Over $150 Billion in heath care for fat asses would be saved..... KBK ------------- Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2 |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 05 June 2012 at 1:12pm
|
I'd be fine with the government taking an active role in regulating the weight of its people. I'd get a tax break for all my working out. This is ridiculously stupid though. It's like banning .38 specials in an attempt to stop crime. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 05 June 2012 at 1:34pm
What in hell is wrong with you? Don't give them any ideas. ------------- ? |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 05 June 2012 at 1:39pm
Megalomania Mike is a member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns. And has been rumored to send people to pull a straw purchase in other states to "show how easy it is to get guns". ------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 05 June 2012 at 1:58pm
|
I might be ok with a "luxury tax" for sugared drinks over 20 oz. However, it would have to be tightly controlled and non-sweetened teas and diet sodas would have to be exempt. ------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 05 June 2012 at 2:24pm
In Canada they prohibited .22 handguns. http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/rp-eng.htm" rel="nofollow - Actually. They pretty much banned everything. |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 05 June 2012 at 2:50pm
Hey! I did not see Bushmaster, RRA or Olympis arms! There is still hope for you! ------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 05 June 2012 at 3:06pm
|
Don't like the laws, vote. If all else fails, move. Can't move, ask for a benzo prescription. |
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 05 June 2012 at 4:14pm
------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 05 June 2012 at 4:38pm
|
That is not a good answer for a 140 BILLION Dollar problem. And it is a crappy example. In your " free country" there are plenty of things you cant do that the goverment controls for your benifit. Pretty much any law actually......... Enforced guidelines arw already in place for other food additives. I dont see a problem with this. I do agree it is a little silly, but next you'll be arguing agsinst laws prohibiting asbestos. ------------- Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2 |
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 05 June 2012 at 5:40pm
If we have proven ourselves incapable of choosing our own diets, we are hardly capable of choosing our government representatives.
------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 05 June 2012 at 10:33pm
Hah! Nice! Now all I need a restricted license on top of a PAL plus 3 grand and I'm all set! Too bad its only legal with a 5 round mag. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 05 June 2012 at 11:01pm
| What about bans on soda in public schools? |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 05 June 2012 at 11:10pm
We have government-sanctioned healthcare for the poor, those with disabilities, and the elderly. Interestingly enough, there is a correlation between both obesity and obesity related illnesses and socio-economic status. Note, my opinion on the NYC drink size limit is still not really settled one way or another.
|
Posted By: Mispeld
Date Posted: 05 June 2012 at 11:37pm
|
The thing I find funny is that the artificial sweeteners in diet drinks premote fat storage more so then regular drins. ------------- 
|
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 06 June 2012 at 10:01am
|
Link? -------------
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 06 June 2012 at 10:47am
Regarding artificial sweeteners, i have read a few articles that do say that there are arguments that they confuse the body and can actually make people gain weight rather than lose it. I question this as I used to put down 3-4 Big Gulps a day of Diet Coke during my late teens/mid 20's and was still rail thin. I did stop drinking diet soda at some point as I quit drinking sodas pretty much alltogether. ------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 06 June 2012 at 11:10am
|
My research was very brief this morning, but what I saw only suggested that artificial sweeteners increase your apetite, which can cause a higher caloric intake, but not that it makes you store more fat. -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 06 June 2012 at 1:12pm
I agree with you. I was more or less trying to get a sense of where people's lines are as far as soda access, as the opinion about size restrictions for adults has been largely negative here. I'm a proponent of soda and sports drink bans in public schools.
|
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 06 June 2012 at 1:29pm
|
One problem with banning soda in public schools is that some school systems have contracts with the soda companies for vending machines. My old one was that way. They went through some pretty substantial budget cuts and made up for some of it with a multi-million dollar deal with Coke for exclusive vending rights. -------------
|
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 06 June 2012 at 2:57pm
| Might a well sell their student records to companies, to make up for budget cuts. |
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 06 June 2012 at 3:02pm
|
Might as well sell their students into sex slavery, amirite? What? -------------
|
Posted By: *Stealth*
Date Posted: 06 June 2012 at 3:35pm
We as a society have quite firmly proven we aren't capable of choosing our Diets. Like Kayback hinted at, with such overwhelming government assistance in terms of Healthcare, it is an obvious step to begin imposing regulations such as this. Obesity will in short order become the number one cause of preventable death in America, and much like we target tobacco use now, we will be making dieting mistakes a major inconvenience for those involved. I'm not trying to say I agree with it on a personal level; unfortunately, however, government assistance naturally leads to government regulation. ------------- |
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 06 June 2012 at 3:40pm
|
I agree with it on a personal level. I hate seeing fatties...unless they are hoisting boxes high above their heads. -------------
|
Posted By: *Stealth*
Date Posted: 06 June 2012 at 3:44pm
|
Also, I should say we have also proven fairly consistently we can't pick good representatives either. This may or may not be due to the stock of people who choose to run for government. Which leads us to that famous "Hitch Hikers guide to the galaxy" quote : the only people fit to govern others are those who want nothing to do with it. ------------- |
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 07 June 2012 at 3:05am
|
I don't agree with many things, on a personal level. I am more an anarchist than anything else, but honestly, idiots need guidance. And there are an awful lot of idiots out there. That being said, I'm honestly of the opinion that laws like this won't affect "normal" people, and the people they are designed to help will ignore them anyway. KBK ------------- Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2 |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 07 June 2012 at 8:47am
The problem with that is, the schools don't seem to be smart enough to figure out what is 'good' and 'not good' http://www.theblaze.com/stories/n-c-food-inspector-sends-girls-lunch-home-after-determining-its-not-healthy-enough/" rel="nofollow - http://www.theblaze.com/stories/n-c-food-inspector-sends-girls-lunch-home-after-determining-its-not-healthy-enough/ Remember, the 'state' who is watching out for obesity and unealthy kids, came to this conclusion not too long ago: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45306416/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/pizza-vegetable-congress-says-yes/#.T9Cicpjz4a4" rel="nofollow - Yummy So here I am wondering- how, with decisions like the two I've linked above can we trust state organizations with deciding what we can and can't (or our kids can and can't) consume? I know there's some crappy parents out there, but believe me, governmental organizations aren't any better. ------------- ? |
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 07 June 2012 at 9:04am
| Another option is to just raise the cost of the drinks. Fewer people will buy a coke if its $3.00+ a bottle. |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 07 June 2012 at 11:20am
>_> Not sure if I should be offended. ------------- Que pasa? 
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 07 June 2012 at 11:48am
-------------  irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 07 June 2012 at 12:51pm
Actually, here's the honest-to-god lowdown on sports drinks and sodas in schools. They're profitable. The school contracts with a vending company to put the machines in. The vending company will forego their usual 70% commission rate on the profit knowing that the kids don't have an opportunity to buy it from a competitor and go 50/50 split on the sale price of a soda/sports drink with the school. That means for every $1.50 spent on a 20oz Coke at a school, the school itself is pocketing $0.75 and the vending company is pocketing $0.20 after costs. At a time when schools are woefully underfunded and teachers are spending money out of their own pockets for supplies in the classroom, schools are turning to these rather lucrative sales to bolster their funds for things like new computers, new textbooks, uniforms, sports equipment, etc. The whole catch 22 is that if you pull the stuff the students WANT to drink and eat from vending, they won't spend the money meaning less funds for the school meaning a lower quality of education. Much like everything else in the Green and Health-Conscious movements today, if you narrow the focus, you loose sight of the bigger picture. |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 07 June 2012 at 12:54pm
| Also, if you want to see how to provide a good mix of foods kids want to eat, and good-for-you foods as well as the necessary data to allow them to make the decision of what to eat, click http://www.sagedining.com" rel="nofollow - here . My company does a hell of a fine job educating students using a simple "spotlight" program. |
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 07 June 2012 at 2:52pm
| Pretty sure The Simpsons already covered this. |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 07 June 2012 at 3:30pm
Youtube embed or shens! ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 07 June 2012 at 4:30pm
|
I was at the local public school for an event for my kids last weekend... They had three pop machines in the hall, (all were sold out) prices were $1 per can of pop water cost the same... I was thirsty, so I kept looking I walked into the teachers lounge and their pop machine was $.65 per pop... Totally full, of course. Typical, kids get scammed, but teachers get it 20 feet away for less... Reminds me of the public tax assessments in our area when I looked at the superintendents land, vs his neighbors... His house that was just like his neighbors, except had been upgraded with a full remodel. But, it was $150,000 less in tax value than his neighbor... Special rules for special fools. Notice bloomberg doesn't make this affect his precious wine that he drinks with his meals... Even though it has the same amount of sugar. He just jacks up the price on the "kids" in the hall, while behind the special door, his friends get special treatment. ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: Mispeld
Date Posted: 07 June 2012 at 4:55pm
|
So the adults responsible for teaching kids get a discount, but that's scamming the kids? Really? I guess military discounts and such scam everyday people to huh? -------------
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 07 June 2012 at 5:37pm
If the ruse is to 'prevent childhood obesity' then there's no reason to make any changes to the sales of wine. Remember, the kids can't protect themselves, and the parents are too stupid to be of any use. it's all about the CHILDREN man. ------------- ? |
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 07 June 2012 at 6:23pm
You keep saying that. Do you know how alcohol is formed? Unless he's drinking very late harvests, he isn't getting that much sugar..... ------------- Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2 |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 08 June 2012 at 11:13am
Also, the new NYC law, which really doesn't have anything to do with schools, just limits the size of beverage sold to be immediately consumed, not the sale of the item itself. Not many times does anyone, except maybe me when I'm having a bit of an existential breakdown about what I'm doing in my life, buy and chug down 64 oz. of wine at a time. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 08 June 2012 at 11:48am
I decided to look it up. One 6 ounce serving of red table wine:  One 12 ounce can of Coke Classic:  |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 08 June 2012 at 11:52am
|
^^^Bloomberg's Box o' wine???
------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 08 June 2012 at 2:47pm
|
Hahaha. A 6 oz. glass of coke only has 54 times as much sugar as a 6 oz. glass of wine. They're practically the same! Wake up people! edit- wine not win. Although it could be construed as such.
------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 08 June 2012 at 2:51pm
|
You guys are missing the point. He drinks wine. He thinks he's better than you! -------------
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 08 June 2012 at 3:26pm
|
Boy, see what a monkey wrench a little bit of googling can throw into an argument?
------------- ? |
Posted By: *Stealth*
Date Posted: 08 June 2012 at 6:05pm
|
To be fair, the wine has about 13% more carbs, and 100 some more calories at the same amount. And I had no idea wine packs that much protein, damn. ------------- |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 08 June 2012 at 6:11pm
Decimal points are for communists! They have the same sugar. |
Posted By: SSOK
Date Posted: 08 June 2012 at 10:07pm
|
Most of the sugar in wine/beer/cider/hooch/alcohol is consumed during fermentation. Yeast eat sugar, poop booze. I don't know about you guys, but I graduated highschool in 2009 and it was an interesting time to be in highschool because I got to watch the "school food" laws take place. I forget the specifics, but my freshman year the food was relatively decent and definitely edible. I remember being able to buy chicken fingers, french fries, pizza, and a whole plethora of bad-for-you food, as well as a lot of less obese food. My second year a lot of the school food laws took place, and it was terrible. I am trying to not sound like a whiney American white kid, but the States effort to force schools into "healthy" lunches really killed any desire to eat food in school, and a fair percentage decided to stop eating school food entirely. I remember everything possible was turned into whole wheat, albeit a cheap crappy whole wheat. The school continued selling the generic hamburgers/pizza etc, but after everything became "healthy" it became disgusting. My guess is, "unhealthy but definitely edible" food is pretty cheap to sell, and the more healthy offerings were more expensive so we got stuck with the lower end crap. I remember salads were downright terrible. I think by my seinor year my lunch was a bagel. During lacrosse season I would eat cookies about an hour before practice. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 09 June 2012 at 2:29am
|
The thing about food at school is generally you don't need to change what is served. Portion sizes might be a different story, but a normal, growing person who is active in after school sports can easily burn off the calories from even the most "unhealthy" meal. Given no silly additives and a more or less decent salt level "nice" unhealthy foods can be served. Basically burn the same number of calories you are taking in and it isn't a problem. I don't see why an entire school should be forced to eat bad food because of some lazy kids/parents. I also don't agree with the concept of a few defining the rules for the many. Especially in school make the fatty kids realize they are being picked on by singling them out for "special diets" and most of them will change their attitudes due to peer pressure. Telling them it is ok to be fat and trying to control the what, one possibly two meals they eat in a day isn't going make them change. There is probably a reason I'm not a child psychologist. KBK ------------- Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2 |
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 09 June 2012 at 2:39am
Not to nitpick but have you ever cleaned up an accident which involved unsecured animals and speeds in excess of about 100kph? It ain't pretty to have an unsecured animal that can weigh as much as a kid slam around the inside of a vehicle when you come to an immediate stop. Also, who drives around with a cat in their car that ISN'T in a box, tied down, and probably on tranq's? KBK ------------- Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2 |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 09 June 2012 at 8:24am
------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 09 June 2012 at 9:10am
More than that- is that pets can CAUSE accidents if they're not belted in. (duh?) I responded to a wreck one day where this little toy dog had climbed into the lap of the driver who tried to shoo it away. while she was distracted, she customized the front end of her car with a utility pole. Dog was perfectly fine, woman had a crack in her face. Banning unsecured pets in a car makes even more sense to me than banning cell phone use to be honest. ------------- ? |
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 09 June 2012 at 9:15am
|
You laugh? Goats and cows are legitimate driving concerns on the N2 highway near the airport here. That being said there are still plenty of wild Kudu, Impala and even some Springbok around. Not here mind you, there are probably small duiker around here. In the mountain passes it's Chacma Baboons you have to worry about. I gotto do cleanup on a Flying Squad K9's intercept car tha had ended a high speed chase in an accident. The screen separating the K9 from the humans was imprinted with the outline of a German Shepard. It was rather grisly. KBK ------------- Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2 |
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 09 June 2012 at 9:22am
|
Reb- that's a good point too. Hadn't thought of that. ------------- Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2 |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 09 June 2012 at 11:34am
|
Not laughing just curious. Well,atleast up to the angry zulu part... ------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 09 June 2012 at 11:55am
You know, I've seen people in all sorts of messed up conditions, and I hunt and shoot animals. But seeing something like that would bug me. ------------- ? |
Posted By: little devil
Date Posted: 09 June 2012 at 12:03pm
How would one go about securing a great dane in a sedan? Not very possible...
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 09 June 2012 at 12:28pm
In continuation of the thread derailment- its not only possible, but easy. There's seatbelt attachments that work on large breed dogs. My sister uses one for her St. Bernard all the time. ------------- ? |
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 09 June 2012 at 1:52pm
Duct tape. -------------
|
Posted By: SSOK
Date Posted: 10 June 2012 at 12:29am
|
I'm a accually quite pissed off that I have to restrain a dog in my truck. Because I can't. My rents have a chihuahua that is pretty cool to drive with. Go ahead, pick on me, but the rats personality is awesome. Anyway, my dad bought a rediculous looking basket thing that straps to a bucket seat and clips into a dog harness. Thing is, I have a regular cab F150 with a bench seat and I can't hook that (or anything I can find) to my seat. So I will choose to break that law. Boo, hiss, I know. -------------
|
Posted By: RoboCop
Date Posted: 10 June 2012 at 12:57am
|
This seemed to get way off topic but I will add. My dog weighing in at about 66 pounds always wants to get in the front seat and I can't concentrate on keeping him back. I have him on his leash where he can lay down and have some slight movement with his face barely able to get near me. It's a leash and not a harness. I don't know if there are any rules with that because I know if I get in an accident, his neck is going to snap like it's nothing. I wouldn't mind buying a leash and harness that actually connected into the seatbelt latches, but I have never seen one of those. Luckily, my dog transportation days are slowing down. |
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 10 June 2012 at 2:38am
|
Ssok so long as you accept responsbility and don't complain when you get fined ------------- Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2 |
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 10 June 2012 at 7:19am
Next question. -------------
|
Posted By: RoboCop
Date Posted: 10 June 2012 at 3:26pm
| People with pets on their lap while driving should crash into a concrete wall. It's just not safe. |
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 10 June 2012 at 5:53pm
|
^^^ You're right, crashing into a concrete wall isn't safe.
-------------
|
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 10 June 2012 at 11:12pm
|
What if you are a wrecking ball operator? -------------
|
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 11 June 2012 at 12:53am
|
Then you shouldn't have a pet.
-------------
|
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 11 June 2012 at 1:59pm
|
What if it's a seeing eye dog? -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 11 June 2012 at 2:07pm
| Someone needs to make a sitcom with a blind wrecking ball operator. |
Posted By: RoboCop
Date Posted: 11 June 2012 at 3:51pm
|
Then the dog should operate it. Then we will say, "the dogs took our jobs!" IB4 dogs don't have oposable thumbs |
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 12 June 2012 at 12:01am
Fixed. -------------
|
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 13 June 2012 at 11:14am
|
Mike will not like this...... http://finance.yahoo.com/news/burger-king-bets-bacon-sundae-173443889.html" rel="nofollow - http://finance.yahoo.com/news/burger-king-bets-bacon-sundae-173443889.html ------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 13 June 2012 at 11:27am
|
Mike is a little busy trying to ban popcorn and milk... http://www.myfoxny.com/story/18774940/health-panel-talks-about-wider-food-ban" rel="nofollow - http://www.myfoxny.com/story/18774940/health-panel-talks-about-wider-food-ban
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: SSOK
Date Posted: 13 June 2012 at 10:45pm
This is how I normally drive, for those who are interested: -------------
|
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 13 June 2012 at 11:09pm
|
^^^ You're much smaller and fuzzier than I always imagined.* *But better groomed. -------------
|