On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 01:36:48 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 21:43:16 -0700, "Howard Beel"
wrote:

The study was for xxxxx. It wasn't a study on the effects or workings of
this additive.
When you start out a research that defines the goal it tends on proving
that and nothing else. We in Physics are taught to roll the dice and see
what happens. They load the dice.

Martin

The study shows the need for a soda tax.

Best Regards
Tom.

Soda Tax? Bull****. If the ****ers would quit spending so much
money on bull****..there would be no need for many taxes.

The taxes on your cigs in CA are $2.87 per pack now, as of Apr 1.

I keep saying we could pare off 50-75% of Big Gov't and never notice a
difference, if it weren't for the large suck on our wallets no longer
being felt. Y'know, just cut the non-Constitutional stuff/people.


So how did that downsizing the drinks turn out? Seems there "was a
need for smaller drinks because they made people fat"

New York, who gave us the drink tax, also gave us Sanctuary status,
crazy mayors/governors (Bloomberg, deBlasio, and Cuomo, with Hillary
next?) crazy CONgresscritters (Schumer, Rangel, Clinton), crazy gun
laws, etc.


Frankly..it was none of their ****ing business. And the "studies" were
arrived at simply by stating what they wanted to do..then making up
the studies results to match.

As Martin said, "They load the dice.", bigtime.


Oh, when I breezed through CA last month, I noticed that they had
finally finished the upper bridge over the top end of Lake Shasta. I
had seen that construction for, I think, six years in a row. It's
only 300 yards wide, I think. That took forEVER to complete.


--
Believe nothing.
No matter where you read it,
Or who said it,
Even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense.
-- Buddha