Any carbonated beverage tastes better in a glass bottle rather than a plastic one.
Any carbonated beverage tastes better in a glass bottle rather than a plastic one.
Last edited by DetroitDad; June-24-09 at 10:36 PM.
NCIS Los Angeles. has hollywood officially run out of ideas? Coming soon: NCIS Geat Lakes Naval Station
Along those lines - Cane sugar based pop tastes better than corn syrup based pop and is the standard for most of the world. Yet, Coke, Pepsi and most of the major distributors sell us corn syrup. There is sugar based Coke in the Mexican section of the grocery and small independents like Jones and Hansen sell sugar based pop but why don't the major even sell it as an upscale option? I keep Jones around for company and have had comments like the creme soda is the best they ever had. Green apple is good too.
Jones http://www.jonessoda.com/index.php
I think one of them tried it.
You can thank US subsidies to corporate farms for that little bit of poison in our diets.
I want D&G Champagne Kola, or Ting. Anyone knowwher I can get it?
Red Bull Cola has cane based sugar as well and it tastes much better than Coke or Pepsi.
I don't think you'll see corn syrup disappear anytime soon, since the corn industry is highly subsidized by our federal government.
Because the plastic is minutely soluble in the acidic soultion. The Feds have examined it and say its not a health risk. Bottlers actually dislike plastic, but it became so popular they had no choice. The plastic is much more permeable than glass so carbonated beverages go flat quicker and juices go bad sooner.
Glass is also best for the environment. The thing I wonder about is why Michigan has bottle returns and the environmentalists in CA don't or why its just not a Federal law. I always feel so wasteful and uncomfortable when throwing away containers in other states.
http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/baby-bottles
http://www.canadianliving.com/blogs/...astic-bottles/
Coming from a background in retail where we took in bottle returns [[before all the fancy machines), there is the fragile aspect of glass bottles. Besides the mess of cleaning up the broken glass, and the bloodshed of cut fingers and hands, there was the loss factor. We, the store owner already paid the customer for the return, which we now cannot collect from the distributer.Bottlers actually dislike plastic, but it became so popular they had no choice.
Glass is also best for the environment. The thing I wonder about is why Michigan has bottle returns and the environmentalists in CA don't or why its just not a Federal law. I always feel so wasteful and uncomfortable when throwing away containers in other states.
http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/baby-bottles
http://www.canadianliving.com/blogs/...astic-bottles/
I also feel guilty throwing away bottles when I travel.
"Tastes better"?? To some perhaps, to others, perhaps not.
No government subsidies, for anything, is my position on that subject.
well, then, give back your public-school med degree, your grant money, your roads, your police protection, fire dept, radio or any broadcast medium [[to hell with WJR, I'll just start broadcasting a much more powerful signal on that frequency!) give back half of your pay, too
That isn't even a remotely realistic idea. Why waste your time [[not to mention everyone on DetroitYES) even bringing that up?. Are you really that bored that you must constantly write things to annoy other people?
I believe that trolling on occasion can be humorous and quite a stress reliever, but to do it EVERY DAY is pathetic.
Forgot the other half of the equation there Rb...need a hint? THe fact that the money for all of those things is/was stolen from taxpayers in the first place.
nice dodge, bats. wait -- no it wasn't. give it all back, bats, and don't you dare drive on any public roads either
Rb, Public broadcasting uses subsidies. Regulation is a different topic. The other things you mentioned can all be paid for with state and local taxes. Narrowing this to the federal government, it would probably be a good idea to eliminate subsidies wherever possible. In the energy sector, it would be a great idea. The real costs of energy would emerge resulting, I think, in a bonanza for alternative energy development. It makes no sense to spent billions of subsidies to develop clean coal, finance and insure nuclear power plants, drill and/or protect oil interests and then turn around and have to subsidize the development of wind generation to compete with other more heavily subsidized forms of energy. Just eliminate all the subsidies so there is a level playing field.Originally Posted by ccbatson
No government subsidies, for anything, is my position on that subject.
well, then, give back your public-school med degree, your grant money, your roads, your police protection, fire dept, radio or any broadcast medium [[to hell with WJR, I'll just start broadcasting a much more powerful signal on that frequency!) give back half of your pay, too
Federal subsidies for housing has been a huge disaster by getting people into loans they can't afford and creating a now burst housing bubble.
Even at the state level, subsidies can be cut back. I know of a small city that got grants to beautify its flagging downtown and otherwise save it. One government worker was hired as a coordinator to write grants, get all the businesses to use the same Christmas lighting, plant some flowers, etc.. Then another government agency comes along and gave $250k of 'TIF" subsidies to Walgreens to locate a store there. That subsidy resulted in two existing downtown pharmacies closing their doors and undoing the work of the subsidized government coordinator.
It is illogical and rhetorical to suggest that after Bats has been forced to pay for this or that, that he can't try to get some of it back. If and when I qualify for an income tax refund or a social security check, I intend to take them to try to claw back some of what has been taken. If it was my money when the government confiscated it, it is still mine when the government gives a fraction of it back.
ah, another one who buys that oft-disproven [[by conservative economists, no less) idea. It wasn't the loans for people on the low end -- it was the loans to speculators and the jumbo loans that caused the problem, none of which were subsidized
Absolutely, There are not that people poor homeowner even around to cause a trillion dollar meltdown.
Either way, end those programs. What were Democrats doing creating programs to subsidize speculators anyway? If you are saying the government borrowed money to finance its housing follies, then interest has to be paid on the borrowed Chinese money. The interest paid for borrowed money is a program subsidy.
why do people, specifically in this case lie?
Back to the title line with thoughts from Las Vegas.
Why does nearly every ad for an automobile portray that auto being driven in a reckless, negligent manner with the dumb words "professional driver on closed course" faintly appear at the bottom?
It's 107 with a predicted high of 111 today. Why do I wish I was back in Michigan just right now?
Why does Fernando Rodney give me heart failure every time he comes into the 9th inning for the save?
Was it intentional that the Big Beaver exit on I-75 was exit # 69?
Went through Toledo a couple years back. Aren't we lucky that we lost the border war?
How come there's no "MilfordYES!" or "RomeoYES!"?
Went to Utah Sunday. It was closed.
Attended a Yanni concert last week. He cut his hair and now looks like Magglio Ordonez.
Lake Mead is full of Quagga mussels. I knew we shouldn't have snuck that pipeline into the Great Lakes.
How in the world do we accumulate so many photographs that no longer hold any meaning for us? Landscapes, etc.
Finally, thanks to ccbats for paying into Social Security and keeping me in the manner to which I have become accustomed.
Why are there sequels to something called "Final Destination"?
they changed their minds?
They duped speculators by priming the pump and pushing the derivatives.
|
Bookmarks