No, there's no such ban. The law never went into effect. It was rejected by the NY State Court of Appeals. The City Council would have to approve such a ban and they won't, and this proposed law is not a priority of the new mayor.
Yes there was. Their soda ban would have included Coke.
If somebody tried to ban all computers, it would not be incorrect for me to say that they're trying to ban Apple computers. Since I only use Apple, I don't care about any other brand.
Yes there was. Their soda ban would have included Coke.
Beverages high in sugar over a certain volume. At no point would it have been impossible or illegal to obtain or drink Coke in NYC. That makes the proposed ban on a certain types of beverages over a certain size, never on Coke or coke.
If somebody tried to ban all computers, it would not be incorrect for me to say that they're trying to ban Apple computers. Since I only use Apple, I don't care about any other brand.
Here you go again arguing it was a ban across the board on everything, not simply computers that, say, use more than 150W of power at peak performance.
Here you go again arguing it was a ban across the board on everything, not simply computers that, say, use more than 150W of power at peak performance.
And that makes it ok, if that were to happen?
It would be a terrible, anti-American, anti personal freedom ban, even if they only banned computers that use more than 150W of power.
It sounds like you are making excuses for the fascist soda ban, since you keep trying to make a point that they only wanted to ban certain sizes.
A ban is still a ban, even if it's not across the board on everything.
It would be a terrible, anti-American, anti personal freedom ban, even if they only banned computers that use more than 150W of power.
It sounds like you are making excuses for the fascist soda ban, since you keep trying to make a point that they only wanted to ban certain sizes.
A ban is still a ban, even if it's not across the board on everything.
Me not being OK with it is not justification for you to spread lies, regardless if it's from malice, ignorance, and/or a lack of intelligence that doesn't allow you to understand the differences between the proposal and your comments.
Me not being OK with it is not justification for you to spread lies, regardless if it's from malice, ignorance, and/or a lack of intelligence that doesn't allow you to understand the differences between the proposal and your comments.
I've spread no lies, and I will not converse with you anymore in this thread.
I believe that you're being far too anal, and I am naturally not interested in such liberal games.
I think liberal protestors punishing one of the most liberal companies around is laughable and idiotic.
I suspect it's about profile and that they're not targeting Apple but probably assume Apple won't kick them out within 5 minutes. They can get their Christmas shopping done while they're in there too.
The issue is more about police using excessive force than race. It becomes about race because of the high ratio of black people committing crime relative to the population:
and the higher likelihood of black people using guns:
When it comes to excessive force, there's no easy answer for this because people only commit misdemeanours until they don't but when they don't, it might be too late to do something about. A cop can't wait until a second before someone has a gun pointed back at them. Unfortunately, that gives a very wide margin for error like the guy who was asked to get his id from the car and then shot because he was reaching into the car.
In the case of Michael Brown, the details of what happened are being left out of some reports:
[VIDEO]
Megyn keeps trying to avoid saying black caucus in a way to draw attention to it. Nice try Megyn. Some black witnesses said there were no hands being raised for surrender. The protest should really involve people pretending to rob a store, attack someone in authority and then pretending to be shot with no hands up chanting 'committing crime, don't shoot'.
Speaking out against unwarranted police violence is a good thing to do but it's not good to promote or ignore crime in the process. There's never suggestions about how else the events that unfolded could have turned out. Say the police hadn't shot the guy and he had grappled the gun away and shot the cop, what then? That's not a better turn of events.
As long as the justice department is transparent enough with the facts of the case and deals with unwarranted violence appropriately, that's all that can be done. People can twist the facts of any case to make something out of it.
Is it déjà vu, or has been discussed before? I remember seeing that map. I didn't say it wasn't true, only that I didn't know anyone that uses it so generically.
Is it déjà vu, or has been discussed before? I remember seeing that map. I didn't say it wasn't true, only that I didn't know anyone that uses it so generically.
There was another thread a while back, where for some reason, this exact topic (soda/coke/pop/soft drinks and what people from different regions call it) came up there too.
The protest should really involve people pretending to rob a store, attack someone in authority and then pretending to be shot with no hands up chanting 'committing crime, don't shoot'.
That is true.
The ignorant protesters with their hands up gesture and don't shoot chants are pushing a false narrative, they're spreading a lie, something that never happened.
Apparently, certain people are easily fooled by such simple tactics.
Some people just can't handle facts. He may have been a moderate Republican but he was a Republican. I think the only reason he ran as an Independent was the association with G.W. Again, you are FOS.
Some people just can't handle facts. He may have been a moderate Republican but he was a Republican. I think the only reason he ran as an Independent was the association with G.W. Again, you are FOS.
Here's some facts for you:
A Democrat before seeking elective office, Bloomberg switched his party registration in 2001 to run for mayor as a Republican.
Speaking of bans, I was watching the news right now, and the new mayor is now trying to ban horse drawn carriages in New York City." src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Comments
1) Again, no ban on Coke, liar.
2) You're the one the jacking the thread trying to blame everything you don't like on liberals.
There was never any attempt to ban Coke.
1) Again, no ban on Coke, liar.
You're just nitpicking again and trying to create some sort of argument where there is not.
I said that they tried to ban coke, which is true. They tried, and they failed. And yes, by coke, I mean all soda.
If you wish to continue nitpicking every small word that is written in some sort of liberal attempt to prove somebody wrong, then feel free.
There was never any attempt to ban Coke.
Yes there was. Their soda ban would have included Coke.
If somebody tried to ban all computers, it would not be incorrect for me to say that they're trying to ban Apple computers. Since I only use Apple, I don't care about any other brand.
Beverages high in sugar over a certain volume. At no point would it have been impossible or illegal to obtain or drink Coke in NYC. That makes the proposed ban on a certain types of beverages over a certain size, never on Coke or coke.
Here you go again arguing it was a ban across the board on everything, not simply computers that, say, use more than 150W of power at peak performance.
Here you go again arguing it was a ban across the board on everything, not simply computers that, say, use more than 150W of power at peak performance.
And that makes it ok, if that were to happen?
It would be a terrible, anti-American, anti personal freedom ban, even if they only banned computers that use more than 150W of power.
It sounds like you are making excuses for the fascist soda ban, since you keep trying to make a point that they only wanted to ban certain sizes.
A ban is still a ban, even if it's not across the board on everything.
lesson # 1
Do not do what the the electorate, through your elected lawmakers have deemed unlawful.
Lesson # 2
Do not resist arrest.
Me not being OK with it is not justification for you to spread lies, regardless if it's from malice, ignorance, and/or a lack of intelligence that doesn't allow you to understand the differences between the proposal and your comments.
Me not being OK with it is not justification for you to spread lies, regardless if it's from malice, ignorance, and/or a lack of intelligence that doesn't allow you to understand the differences between the proposal and your comments.
I've spread no lies, and I will not converse with you anymore in this thread.
I believe that you're being far too anal, and I am naturally not interested in such liberal games.
So being honest and accurate are liberal games. I don't think your pal Rush would like you saying that.
Do not do what the the electorate, through your elected lawmakers have deemed unlawful.
Lesson # 2
Do not resist arrest.
Nope.
I suspect it's about profile and that they're not targeting Apple but probably assume Apple won't kick them out within 5 minutes. They can get their Christmas shopping done while they're in there too.
I don't think the following was a black cop though some reports say he was, maybe hispanic but white unarmed victim:
http://wreg.com/2014/11/25/salt-lake-cop-cleared-in-shooting-of-unarmed-white-man/
The issue is more about police using excessive force than race. It becomes about race because of the high ratio of black people committing crime relative to the population:
and the higher likelihood of black people using guns:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/murder-rate-for-black-ame_b_4702228.html
When it comes to excessive force, there's no easy answer for this because people only commit misdemeanours until they don't but when they don't, it might be too late to do something about. A cop can't wait until a second before someone has a gun pointed back at them. Unfortunately, that gives a very wide margin for error like the guy who was asked to get his id from the car and then shot because he was reaching into the car.
In the case of Michael Brown, the details of what happened are being left out of some reports:
[VIDEO]
Megyn keeps trying to avoid saying black caucus in a way to draw attention to it. Nice try Megyn. Some black witnesses said there were no hands being raised for surrender. The protest should really involve people pretending to rob a store, attack someone in authority and then pretending to be shot with no hands up chanting 'committing crime, don't shoot'.
Speaking out against unwarranted police violence is a good thing to do but it's not good to promote or ignore crime in the process. There's never suggestions about how else the events that unfolded could have turned out. Say the police hadn't shot the guy and he had grappled the gun away and shot the cop, what then? That's not a better turn of events.
As long as the justice department is transparent enough with the facts of the case and deals with unwarranted violence appropriately, that's all that can be done. People can twist the facts of any case to make something out of it.
Is it déjà vu, or has been discussed before? I remember seeing that map. I didn't say it wasn't true, only that I didn't know anyone that uses it so generically.
Is it déjà vu, or has been discussed before? I remember seeing that map. I didn't say it wasn't true, only that I didn't know anyone that uses it so generically.
There was another thread a while back, where for some reason, this exact topic (soda/coke/pop/soft drinks and what people from different regions call it) came up there too.
The protest should really involve people pretending to rob a store, attack someone in authority and then pretending to be shot with no hands up chanting 'committing crime, don't shoot'.
That is true.
The ignorant protesters with their hands up gesture and don't shoot chants are pushing a false narrative, they're spreading a lie, something that never happened.
Bloomberg is as liberal as they come. He is a big time liberal, no matter what he calls himself.
He's also the liberal that is spending big money all around the country for his anti-American, liberal, anti-gun campaign.
Bloomberg was a Republican turned independent. You're FOS as usual.
Bloomberg was a Republican turned independent. You're FOS as usual.
A wolf in sheep's clothing is still a wolf.
Apparently, certain people are easily fooled by such simple tactics.
A wolf in sheep's clothing is still a wolf.
Apparently, certain people are easily fooled by such simple tactics.
Some people just can't handle facts. He may have been a moderate Republican but he was a Republican. I think the only reason he ran as an Independent was the association with G.W. Again, you are FOS.
Some people just can't handle facts. He may have been a moderate Republican but he was a Republican. I think the only reason he ran as an Independent was the association with G.W. Again, you are FOS.
Here's some facts for you:
A Democrat before seeking elective office, Bloomberg switched his party registration in 2001 to run for mayor as a Republican.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg
Bloomberg is one of the most liberal politicians in the entire US. Bloomberg is synonymous with liberal nanny state mayor.
Speaking of bans, I was watching the news right now, and the new mayor is now trying to ban horse drawn carriages in New York City.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />