He is out of control .


Outlawed are food donations to homeless shelters because the city can’t assess their salt, fat and fiber content, reports CBS 2’s Marcia Kramer.

Glenn Richter arrived at a West Side synagogue on Monday to collect surplus bagels — fresh nutritious bagels — to donate to the poor. However, under a new edict from Bloomberg’s food police he can no longer donate the food to city homeless shelters.


Michael Bloomberg Strikes Again: New York City Bans Food Donations To The Homeless « CBS New York (http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/19/bloomberg-strikes-again-nyc-bans-food-donations-to-the-homeless/)

Not surprised. Nannies aren't known for exercising common sense any more. It's like my buddy that feeds the homeless every Sunday night when no one else does, the nanny says he needs a "certified kitchen" so they don't get poisoned or something. Never mind no one has gotten sick in the 4 years or so he's done this... better they go hungry than eat food that isn't nanny-approved.

Same with Obamacare, better that Sandra Fluke get her contraceptives than the church feed the homeless. Makes no sense to me, birth control pills aren't very filling I don't imagine.

I think Bloomy is the one that needs to assess the fiber in his diet. Maybe if he weren't so constipated he could see the faces of hunger instead of a label.

Some people don't know when to quit

Anyone hungry that was unable to eat at a shelter because the donated food was unacceptable need to line up at his front door of his home.

Oh wait, he can't feed them from his food either. Needs to turn them away. Any food left over rotting from the Marathon?

New black market to be created, donated food.

Close behind Nanny Blomberg is always a California city...


From the City Council that declared war on trans-fats and fast-food restaurants comes the latest way to make residents feel, well, guilty about what they eat.

The Los Angeles council, in a 14-0 vote on Friday, adopted a resolution urging residents to adopt a personal pledge to have a "meatless Monday." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/10/la-meatless-mondays-los-angeles-city-council_n_2109193.html)

While it does not have the force of law and police will not be checking what you brought to work for lunch, city officials said they hope it will start a trend, make residents healthier and reduce the impact on the environment.

"This follows the 'good food' agenda we recently adopted supporting local, sustainable food choices," said Councilwoman Jan Perry, who has called for a ban on new fast-food restaurants in South Los Angeles to fight obesity.

"We can reduce saturated fats and reduce the risk of heart disease by 19 percent," Perry said. "While this is a symbolic gesture, it is asking people to think about the food choices they make. Eating less meat can reverse some of our nation's most common illnesses."

Councilman Ed Reyes, who joined with Perry in proposing the resolution, said one of his sons has been diagnosed with diabetes.

"The issue is how does a local municipality engage in this and how do we create change," Reyes said. "If we do it one plate at time, one meal, one day, we are ratcheting down the impact on our environment. We start with one day a week and then, who knows, maybe we can change our habits for a lifetime."

The proposal was developed by the Food Policy Council, which has a goal of "creating more and better food jobs" and encouraging food companies and small food enterprises as part of a bigger agenda to encourage healthy foods in the city.


Yeah, yeah it's symbolic but they want to ban new fast food restaurants and engineer change. Why is it all you libs whine and moan about choice and government interfering our
Lives, but that's exactly what you WANT to do? It's none of your damn business what I eat.

New rationing rules here . Your gas can can't be bigger that 16 oz.

We are way overdue for a nanny state update, this one courtesy of the EU they want to save you from olive oil. No, really.


LONDON — Even the most fervent supporters of the European Union would acknowledge that its bureaucrats occasionally display an unrivaled talent for shooting themselves in the foot.

At a time of declining public enthusiasm for the pan-European project, Brussels has set aside time from tackling a chronic economic crisis to confront the pressing issue of how olive oil is served in the Continent’s restaurants.

In a move that has been seized upon by so-called Euroskeptics as further proof of mindless interference by a faceless bureaucracy, the European Commission has announced a ban on offering olive oil in dipping bowls and refillable jugs.

From Jan. 1 next year, restaurants will only be allowed to provide the product in sealed, clearly labeled, and non-reusable containers.

The French newspaper Le Figaro said it had given Euroskepticsanother issue to get their teeth into, while Reuters quoted critics of the ban as saying it would only add to the frustration of many towards a Union bureaucracy regarded as bloated and out of touch with the concerns of ordinary Europeans.

The measure has a serious purpose, according to its proponents. Sealed containers will offer a better guarantee of hygiene, and labels will ensure the quality and authenticity of olive oils.The new rule also offers suppliers an opportunity to promote brand awareness.

Storm in a Dipping Bowl Over Europe's Olive Oil Rule - NYTimes.com (http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/20/storm-in-a-dipping-bowl-over-europes-olive-oil-rule/)

Of course it does, it also perpetuates the same corporate cronyism the left allegedly despises and limits choice, but by golly the nannies can pat themselves on the back for saving you from another evil threat.

Here's another one for all the nanny state lovers

Gillard moves to ban live odds, restrict gambling ads during games (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/gillard-moves-to-ban-live-odds-restrict-gambling-ads-during-games-20130526-2n4tc.html)

Mussolini would be so proud of his political descendants.

Mussolini would be so proud of his political descendants.

Yes I think we a have a few of his actual descendants here

The loathsome nanny state mayor (as he has become known in some conservative circles) has been rebuked again.

Bloomberg's ban on big sodas is unconstitutional: appeals court | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/30/us-sodaban-lawsuit-idUSBRE96T0UT20130730)

You just can't get a good ban going these days

Hello again,

Didja see that the nanny FDA is banning trans fats (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/08/health/fda-trans-fats.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20131108&_r=0)??? Why don't they MYOB?? If an American citizen wants to clog his arteries in this here country of ours, he oughta be able to. Doncha think?

excon

If they were talking about artificial trans fats I think they have a case . But as ususal ,they've inflated the term 'trans fats ' into a demonic boogyman. Not all trans fats are bad for you ;and some like CLA (conjugated linoleic acid) are healthy and probably necessary fats .

The ironic thing was that once "consensus science" had natural fats like butter as a boogy man and encouraged people to use trans fat margarines instead. Well as is most often the case ,the 'consensus science' has changed . And again the nanny state goes rushing in to control everyone's lives. Meanwhile regular public education has had a far greater impact on trans fat intake then any jackboot law the government ever made.

From Wikipedia,


Dietary sources of CLA,

Kangaroo meat may have the highest concentration of CLA.[52] Food products from grass-fed ruminants (e.g. mutton and beef) are good sources of CLA, and contain much more of it than those from grain-fed animals.[53] In fact, meat and dairy products from grass-fed animals can produce 300-500% more CLA than those of cattle fed the usual diet of 50% hay and silage, and 50% grain.[54]

Eggs from chickens that have been fed CLA are also rich in CLA, and CLA in eggs has been shown to survive the temperatures encountered during frying.[55] Clogged arteries is no fun, neither is a study diet of pesticides and chemicals often used for preservatives.

Some mushrooms, such as Agaricus bisporus and Agaricus subrufescens, are rare nonanimal sources of CLA.[

Its like that GMO labeling controversy. If you don't know what your eating, they can feed you anything.

"The agency emphasized that the ruling, which is open to public comment for 60 days, was preliminary. But food producers seemed to take it in stride, in part because many had already made adjustments, "

"The agency emphasized that the ruling, which is open to public comment for 60 days, was preliminary. But food producers seemed to take it in stride, in part because many had already made adjustments, "

Yup ,the market rules. The public just isn't buying trans fat foods as much as they used to ,so the food companies have begun to address market demand.

Exactly. We do look at the labels.

Hello again,

Didja see that the nanny FDA is banning trans fats (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/08/health/fda-trans-fats.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20131108&_r=0)??? Why don't they MYOB?? If an American citizen wants to clog his arteries in this here country of ours, he oughta be able to. Doncha think?

excon

Well you see Ex it isn't a constitutional right. The founders gave you only one route for self defense, the government can regulate these things

Hello again,

Is football the new tobacco?? Is it gonna become illegal, or unrecognizable? Will nanny Obama make flag football the norm?

excon

Watching football isn't a health hazard

Hello again,

Is football the new tobacco?? Is it gonna become illegal, or unrecognizable? Will nanny Obama make flag football the norm?

excon

You have nothing to worry about ex. He wont know about it until after it has passed.

;)

From what, choking on one of his gun control placemats being stuffed down his throat?

Hello again,

Is football the new tobacco?? Is it gonna become illegal, or unrecognizable? Will nanny Obama make flag football the norm?

excon

hope not love watching the Seahawk D play in front of a home crowd. The central goal of boxing is to concuss the opponent . Yet even though the evidence is clear that the repeated blows to the head causes permanent damage ,the fight game remains relatively unchanged. Football is under assault because of it's popularity ,and because kids play organized football at an early age.

hope not love watching the Seahawk D play in front of a home crowd. The central goal of boxing is to concuss the opponent . Yet even though the evidence is clear that the repeated blows to the head causes permanent damage ,the fight game remains relatively unchanged. Football is under assault because of it's popularity ,and because kids play organized football at an early age.

And kids don't fight at an early age.... time to get real and ban all contact sports. Boxing causes brain damage, Football causes brain damage and there are some like ice hockey you have to be brain damaged to play. Why don't you confine them to baseball and soccer, no brain damage there, oh with baseball, on reflection I'm not so sure, lots of bean balls there.

What it comes down to is you have to curb aggressive urges and insist on respect, something western society has never learned

I can't wait for the super bowls of tiddly wings and jacks.

Tiddly wings?

Maybe ping pong might be ok except you usually have a winner and a loser in the game.

Yeah WINGS, use your imagination. What you never tiddled a wing before? Great sport :D

(That's what I get for multitasking. Typing, eating pizza, and watching KC/Denver. Great game. :D)

And kids don't fight at an early age.... time to get real and ban all contact sports. Boxing causes brain damage, Football causes brain damage and there are some like ice hockey you have to be brain damaged to play. Why don't you confine them to baseball and soccer, no brain damage there, oh with baseball, on reflection I'm not so sure, lots of bean balls there.

What it comes down to is you have to curb aggressive urges and insist on respect, something western society has never learned

you think soccer players don't get concussed when they head the ball ?
Frequent soccer headers may leave lasting brain damage - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/frequent-soccer-headers-may-leave-lasting-brain-damage/)

you think soccer players don't get concussed when they head the ball ?
Frequent soccer headers may leave lasting brain damage - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/frequent-soccer-headers-may-leave-lasting-brain-damage/)

well no but they might get concussed when they clash heads, or run into a gaol post or another player but the incidence of it is much lower than what happens when you have a spear tackle or head to head impact because they are not actually attempting full body contact. Look football helmets exist for a reason, long ago it was recognised that the american football code was killing the players, in other codes of football it is also recognised head injuries are something that has to be dealt with, causing certain rule changes, but you get the thugs in every sport, those who play the man and not the ball

Hello again,

I'm not so much interested in the fact that sports are violent, as I am about the LAWS surrounding them.

Toward that end, two Seattle Seahawks were suspended for smoking pot. Why? It's LEGAL here. Can the company you work for tell you what LEGAL substance's you can and cannot use?

Maybe it's against the owners religion...

excon

I would assume it's the NFL substance abuse policy. Wanna play in the NFL you agree to the terms.

Hello again, Steve:

Wanna play in the NFL you agree to the terms.But, liquor isn't one of those substances, huh? If I was one of those players, I'd SUE. I'd WIN too. Who amongst us thinks pot is MORE dangerous than booze??

Pot in the locker room is gonna happen.

excon

I would talk to the union rep to make 'em stop testing for pot.

But, liquor isn't one of those substances, huh? If I was one of those players, I'd SUE. I'd WIN too. Who amongst us thinks pot is MORE dangerous than booze??

Pot in the locker room is gonna happen.

excon

Just like employees of Hobby Lobby or a church, if you don't want to accept employment under their terms you can work elsewhere. I'm guessing a LOT of Washington employers do pre-employment drug screening even though pot may be legal, so get after it and sue 'em all. I'm sure there is no reason to worry about tokers on most jobs, like oilfield workers, miners, air traffic controllers, train conductors, etc.

Hello again, Steve:

I'm sure there is no reason to worry about tokers on most jobs, like oilfield workers, miners, air traffic controllers, train conductors, etc.You'd sh!t if you knew what the government trusts ME with.

excon

Yeah well, the government ain't too smart if you haven't noticed.

Obviously he hasn't noticed speech, Ex doesn't do subtle, he likes it to all hang out

Even as he has one foot out the door ;Nanny Bloomy is at it again. Now he wants to mandate that all NYC school children get a flu vaccine.
Protest Planned Over Mandatory Vaccine Requirement in New York | Politicker (http://politicker.com/2013/12/protest-planned-against-last-minute-bloomberg-push-for-mandatory-flu-vaccines/)

I'm wondering which Pharmaceutical company Bloomy has interest in.

Even as he has one foot out the door ;Nanny Bloomy is at it again. Now he wants to mandate that all NYC school children get a flu vaccine.
Protest Planned Over Mandatory Vaccine Requirement in New York | Politicker (http://politicker.com/2013/12/protest-planned-against-last-minute-bloomberg-push-for-mandatory-flu-vaccines/)

I'm wondering which Pharmaceutical company Bloomy has interest in.

All of them?

hey this is not a bad thing, kids should be vaccinated, so should adults. It's a public health issue.

Just because someone is concerned with public health doesn't mean there is a vested interest. I'm part of the at risk population, I get vaccinated, haven't had the "flu" in years. I think we should be proactive about disease prevention where we can be, we just need to use appropriate methods, no DDT incidents

hey this is not a bad thing, kids should be vaccinated, so should adults. It's a public health issue.

Just because someone is concerned with public health doesn't mean there is a vested interest. I'm part of the at risk population, I get vaccinated, haven't had the "flu" in years. I think we should be proactive about disease prevention where we can be, we just need to use appropriate methods, no DDT incidents

BS ,there is little evidence that mandatory vaccination for the flu would have any meaningful effect .This is just the mini-emperor of NYC sticking his nose where it has no business. The scary thing is I'm sure this putz has national ambitions.

You need to get out more Tom as there are many cases of unvaccinated children dying of flu complications and they are high risk healthy or not.

Even Healthy Kids Can Die From Flu Complications | digtriad.com (http://www.digtriad.com/news/national/article/304129/175/Even-Healthy-Kids-Can-Die-From-Flu-Complications)

I don't know about mandatory, but parents do need to be aware, and responsible.

people die from many reasons . The most effective vaccine is live culture which can also cause deaths and complications . The inactive vaccine is less effective and only works to prevent the flu if they guessed correctly which strain will be floating around this year (a cr@p shoot at best since it is constantly mutating ) .

The correct position for the government is educating the public about ALL the risks . Neither local officials or the CDC do a particularly good job of it .

If you see a doctor twice a year for a regular check up, you would get that information. Nobody can ignore the free flu shot advertisements that pharmacies and food stores have during flu season.

Actually taking advantage of it may be a challenge for some.

If you see a doctor twice a year for a regular check up, you would get that information. Nobody can ignore the free flu shot advertisements that pharmacies and food stores have during flu season.

Actually taking advantage of it may be a challenge for some.

really ? little accountability*, no prescription necessary, and no check up from the doctor required for some pharmacy clerk to inject you . Yeah that's a plan.
[* vaccines enjoy complete immunity from lawsuits in the market place. If you are injured or die from a vaccine, you or your family cannot sue the manufacturer of the vaccine. This law was upheld bySCOTUS in 2011.]

Hello wingers:

Let's call a spade a spade, shall we??? You're INTO nanny stating your damn self. You BELIEVE the BIG government should protect us ALL from the horrors of marijuana. Oh, I know you'll disavow any connection to it, and SAY you're in favor of it... But, I DON'T see any posts about it... Nahhh... You're HAPPY with the DEA NANNY STATE!!!

Smoking a joint ain't no worse than drinking a big gulp. Ceptin you can get 20 years in Texas for smoking a joint...

STOP THAT, and I'll support you in your war against the "nanny" state. Otherwise, you're HYPOCRITES out for a day of gum flapping..

excon

Flu shots are voluntary, and best done by a doctor, but you have to have a doctor first right? Don't have one, now what? Pay 25 bucks, at Walmart, or CVS, or do without, and take your chances.

Where would you get a prescription without a doctor? Do nothing? You just said people can die from anything.

Yeah I'm not thrilled when 30 percent of fatally injured drivers test positive for drugs other than alcohol, with pot being the main culprit. Other than that I am neutral about pot .

Flu shots are voluntary not if Nanny Bloomy gets his way.

Hello again, tom:
Other than that I am neutral about pot .

That's NANNY STATE thinking.. SOME people abuse it, so to protect EVERYBODY we need to BAN it...

Only HYPOCRITES would be FOR banning ONE thing, and screaming about the government banning another....

Over to you, wingers..

excon

no it aint . there has to be laws against being high and driving .

Hello again, tom:

no it aint . there has to be laws against being high and driving .Let's talk, shall we??? Or do you go insane when it comes to drugs?? I think so...

Let's be clear.. NOBODY.. That would be NOBODY is advocating driving while high. If you think I did, you need to read my posts again.

That said, YOU believe that because SOME people abuse it, the state should BAN it from EVERYBODY... That's NANNY state thinking - pure and simple..

Look.. I'd STOP calling you a hypocrite, if you'd admit you're ONE way about nanny stating... The stuff YOU like should NEVER be banned, but the stuff you DON'T should...

Until you do, I'm gonna keep on calling a spade a spade.

excon

That would be NOBODY is advocating driving while high. If you think I did, you need to read my posts again.

That said, YOU believe that because SOME people abuse it, the state should BAN it from EVERYBODY... That's NANNY state thinking - pure and simple..

You also must be reading someone elses posts because I haven't said that .

Hello again, tom:
You also must be reading someone elses posts because I haven't said that .

If it shouldn't be banned from EVERYBODY, why don't you simply say it??

Can we STOP with all the gotcha crap??? Plain and simple... Since you're AGAINST the nanny state, do you favor LEGALIZATION of pot? That would be YES, or NO.

excon

I think calling us hypocrites for assigning positions to us is a pretty shameful game of gotcha.

Hello, Steve:
I think calling us hypocrites for assigning positions to us is a pretty shameful game of gotcha.Yeah. I'm a pretty shameful fellow..

But, if the shoe fits...

Look.. I KNOW you don't like me calling you on this, and you TRY to make it different.. But, it's NOT.. You COMPLAIN about bloomberg banning soda, but you're FINE with the government banning pot - FOR EXACTLY THE SAME REASON... It's not GOOD for you.

I'm WILLING to hear WHY you do that. But, rather than TELL me, you make ME the bad guy instead..

excon

Hello again, tom:

If it shouldn't be banned from EVERYBODY, why don't you simply say it??

Can we STOP with all the gotcha crap??? Plain and simple... Since you're AGAINST the nanny state, do you favor LEGALIZATION of pot? That would be YES, or NO.

excon

but it should be banned from SOME people . Oh let me guess. You're fine with people getting drugs without prescriptions.Your fine with minors smoking ..I'm not. You're fine with driving under the influence ? operating heavy equment ..I'm not What I am in favor of is taking pot out of the narcotics class.

You let people drink until they get caught or kill somebody, so make it the same for pot. And no prescription needed.

Hello again, tom:

What I am in favor of is taking pot out of the narcotics class.I got it... If you LIKE something, and they BAN it, the state is a NANNY.. But, if you DON'T like something, and the state BANS it, you're a concerned citizen.

I understand.

excon

You let people drink until they get caught or kill somebody, so make it the same for pot. And no prescription needed.

I believe there should be controlled substances. But they should be able to be gotten freely. The thinking behind that is that there is some control of the system. And if a user seems to be abusing a drug then they can have access to help. With a sript, information and help can be given. I dont care if it is for recreational use. But I do like the assurance of a clean product rather then the crap that some are pushing on others today.

Hello again, tom:
I got it... If you LIKE something, and they BAN it, the state is a NANNY.. But, if you DON'T like something, and the state BANS it, you're a concerned citizen.

I understand.

excon

if a soda or salt is consumed it may or may not hurt the person consuming it. If someone gets in an accident high on pot ,they are putting others at risk.

By Cdad,
I believe there should be controlled substances. But they should be able to be gotten freely. The thinking behind that is that there is some control of the system. And if a user seems to be abusing a drug then they can have access to help. With a sript, information and help can be given. I dont care if it is for recreational use. But I do like the assurance of a clean product rather then the crap that some are pushing on others today.

I can agree with regulating pot like alcohol for now but getting scripts for recreational use of medicines for health conditions may be a stretch for a doctor, but I favor help by those who have a problem over jail.


if a soda or salt is consumed it may or may not hurt the person consuming it. If someone gets in an accident high on pot ,they are putting others at risk.

Drinkers do that all the time since they invented cars. Why is pot more dangerous than Jack Daniels?

I can agree with regulating pot like alcohol for now but getting scripts for recreational use of medicines for health conditions may be a stretch for a doctor, but I favor help by those who have a problem over jail.



Drinkers do that all the time since they invented cars. Why is pot more dangerous than Jack Daniels?

there are plenty of restrictive laws regarding alcohol..

Yes Tom most of them disregarded by many

Given the obesity epidemic and the drug epidemic it is clear that society must be made aware of the dangers of certain substances and consumption must be restricted to minimise the impact on state provided health services as well as maintaining the common good..

There are those who think this impinges on their personal liberty and having no interest in the common good oppose such measures.

Hello again, tom:

If someone gets in an accident high on pot ,they are putting others at risk.You're the only one talking about driving... I'm talking about sittin in your living room. But, even so, should the rights of responsible people be denied because a FEW might abuse them???

excon

that word is not might but DO

Hello again, clete:

Let's say 10% do. Let's say 20% do. Should the rest of the law abiding people be denied the ability to smoke pot?

Look. I KNOW you're a committed drug warrior, so I don't expect any of my very sensible arguments to sway you. Do you drink, clete?

excon

let me put it this way Ex I would have been a lot better off if an uncle hadn't introduced me to alcohol in early life and if my mother hadn't died from the effects of an alcohol addiction. Yes Ex I drink in moderation and forty years ago I smoked, free of that addiction, thank God. I have seen and experienced what drug addiction did to my son, ruined his life so I am against dangerous drugs being readily available and in favour of all drugs of addiction being closely controlled with the intention of phasing out their use

Should pot be legalised? No.
Should Tobacco be banned? Yes
Should the sale of alcohol be restricted? Yes

Should the possession of these substances be criminalised? No
Should the sale of illicit substances be criminalised? Yes

Hello clete:

Your personal story aside, you DON'T understand marijuana.

I'm NOT gonna try to convince you here of your errors, because you're a COMMITTED DRUG WARRIOR and you've got your mind made up.

excon

Look.. I KNOW you don't like me calling you on this, and you TRY to make it different.. But, it's NOT.. You COMPLAIN about bloomberg banning soda, but you're FINE with the government banning pot - FOR EXACTLY THE SAME REASON... It's not GOOD for you

If that were my position you'd have a point. So, as I was saying, calling us hypocrites for positions you assign to us is a pretty shameful game of gotcha.

There you go again, making it personal to play victim. I don't think he meant JUST you.

Playing the victim is for liberals, just like refusing to discuss it honestly.

step aside Nanny Bloomy there is a new Nanny in town
NYC Mayor Eric Adams wants residents to 'voluntarily " tell the city what food they purchase. This way the city can evaluate if your diet is carbon friendly .

Plant Powered Carbon Challenge - Food Policy (nyc.gov) (https://www.nyc.gov/site/foodpolicy/governance-initiatives/plant-powered-carbon-challenge.page)

The goal of this project is getting the people of the city to “commit to decarbonizing food purchases 25%” by the year 2030.

This one has Nanny Bloomy's soda ban and salt shaker bans beat . Of course with the abundance of cockroaches to consume in the city ; the city diet should be carbon free in no time ,

Amazing how people can so voluntarily just give up their freedom.

That's an impressive necropost, tomder ;)

I could've created a new posting for the viewing of 2 or 3 participants . But then I would've linked to this one for context anyway .