San Francisco bans Happy Meals

[Cancel 2018. 3]

hey mott....post 84

 

[Mott the Hoople]

mott is opposed to toys with happy meals and happy meals themselves and has no problem with the government regulating such...now...let's see mott when it comes to marijuana and how the government should control HIS LIFE:



dig your way out of that mott....

I would if it made any sense. What the hell are you talking about and quite putting words in my mouth. I never said I was opposed to toys in happy meals. I said it was a legitimate function of governemnt to regulate such marketing vis a vis their role in consumer protection and public health. The same is true about pot prohibition. I may not agree with the government that it should be prohibited but it most certainly is a legitimate role for government to regulate and prohibit pot consumption vis a vis their role in consumer protection and public health. The same applies to happy mean toys.

 

[leaningright]

.... The same applies to happy mean toys.

LOL...he Mott, was that a Freudian slip there? If it's any consolation I seem to be having trouble typing today as well.

 

[Bfgrn]

Can you prove to me that McDonalds sold less food to kids PRIOR to the Happy Meal then after it's introduction? Like I said, I was a kid in the late 60's early 70's, they didn't have to put toys in the food for me to want to eat it. I need to be SHOWN that there was a substantial increase in McDonalds consumption by children that corresponds with the introduction of the Happy Meal. Methinks you, and all your dogooder friends CAN'T meet that burden.

You keep saying your not a 'right winger', but you use all their empty head tactics. What next...prove Bush lied about WMD's?

 

[Bfgrn]

Sometimes you have to just agree to disagree....this is one of those cases. I say it's a stupid thing to have done and you say it's smart government. Different opinions are what make the world go 'round I suppose.

Like I said before, it will not end the epidemic of obesity in America, but it might stimulate conversations, create awareness and lead to measure that WILL address this problem that is costing every one of us in this country money. And the best way to end it is to never develop poor eating habits, and the best group to invest effort in is children.

 

[cawacko]

Like I said before, it will not end the epidemic of obesity in America, but it might stimulate conversations, create awareness and lead to measure that WILL address this problem that is costing every one of us in this country money. And the best way to end it is to never develop poor eating habits, and the best group to invest effort in is children.

This will do absolutely NOTHING to stop children's poor eating habits. Kids love hamburgers, fries and soda. So do adults. Kids aren't going to stop liking them because they don't get a toy. The food is cheap and fast that is not going to change. Parents are still going to take their children to fast food. This is pure and simple San Francisco feel good legislation. I've lived in the Bay Area for 28 years and in the City for 18. Our board of supervisors specializes in this type of legislation.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I would if it made any sense. What the hell are you talking about and quite putting words in my mouth. I never said I was opposed to toys in happy meals. I said it was a legitimate function of governemnt to regulate such marketing vis a vis their role in consumer protection and public health. The same is true about pot prohibition. I may not agree with the government that it should be prohibited but it most certainly is a legitimate role for government to regulate and prohibit pot consumption vis a vis their role in consumer protection and public health. The same applies to happy mean toys.

bullshit...now you're outright being dishonest because you got caught in a bit of intellectual dishonesty....this is what you said about government regulation re marijuana:

it's my life and it's my business and it's not the governments

 

[Bfgrn]

This will do absolutely NOTHING to stop children's poor eating habits. Kids love hamburgers, fries and soda. So do adults. Kids aren't going to stop liking them because they don't get a toy. The food is cheap and fast that is not going to change. Parents are still going to take their children to fast food. This is pure and simple San Francisco feel good legislation. I've lived in the Bay Area for 28 years and in the City for 18. Our board of supervisors specializes in this type of legislation.

It will probably do little, but 'absolutely NOTHING' is hard to believe. It may start a child off choosing something different at McD's based on the food not a hook.

What I am surprised at is 'conservatives' talk about fiscal conservatism, but they bristle at doing anything to lower the costs of health care and health insurance.

The tantrums on this thread from 'conservatives', and the 'don't tell me how to raise my kids' conniptions tells me these are the same parents that barge into school demanding any teacher who makes their little Johnny sit in the corner be fired immediately.

 

[cawacko]

It will probably do little, but 'absolutely NOTHING' is hard to believe. It may start a child off choosing something different at McD's based on the food not a hook.

What I am surprised at is 'conservatives' talk about fiscal conservatism, but they bristle at doing anything to lower the costs of health care and health insurance.

The tantrums on this thread from 'conservatives', and the 'don't tell me how to raise my kids' conniptions tells me these are the same parents that barge into school demanding any teacher who makes their little Johnny sit in the corner be fired immediately.

First off there are people commenting on this thread who aren't conservatives. It is an intellectually lazy argument trying to label everyone here so. And because everyone except Mott doesn't agree with you on this thread they are throwing a "tantrum?" Do you consider a "tantrum" when some claim they want the government out of their bedroom or out of their body?

And yes a five year going to McDonald's is not going to want a hamburger, fries and soda unless they can have a toy. They of course are going to want a salad and will probably ask for the dressing on the side because that's what five year olds do.

And your last analogy makes no sense.

 

[leaningright]

The tantrums on this thread from 'conservatives', and the 'don't tell me how to raise my kids' conniptions tells me these are the same parents that barge into school demanding any teacher who makes their little Johnny sit in the corner be fired immediately.

Whoa here! I wasn't going to comment on this thread until I read this garbage. I am one of those teachers who makes little Johnny sit in the corner (actually in Oklahoma I paddle his butt) and by far the most confrontational parents, the parents who come in griping about their kids having to behave and follow rules.......by far these parents are on the more liberal side of the spectrum. You know, as liberal as you can be in Oklahoma.

 

[NOVA]

It will probably do little, but 'absolutely NOTHING' is hard to believe. It may start a child off choosing something different at McD's based on the food not a hook.

What I am surprised at is 'conservatives' talk about fiscal conservatism, but they bristle at doing anything to lower the costs of health care and health insurance.

The tantrums on this thread from 'conservatives', and the 'don't tell me how to raise my kids' conniptions tells me these are the same parents that barge into school demanding any teacher who makes their little Johnny sit in the corner be fired immediately.

You just can't fuckin' grasp the simple fact that there are some things that are NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS...and NONE OF THE GOVERNMENTS BUSINESS

Its not up to the government to control our diets...its just that GD simple...

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Putting a toy in a box of food is an enticement for the child to choose the meal NOT because of the food inside, but because of the toy. If the food inside the box is unhealthy, then the toy is enticing the child to make a poor choice that is not a healthy one. If McD's put a dog turd in a box and packaged it with a toy to entice children would you still say it is un-American? The turd might do less harm.

Then take up my challange and prove that you're correct.
Unless you know that your theory is just hot air.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Like I said before, it will not end the epidemic of obesity in America, but it might stimulate conversations, create awareness and lead to measure that WILL address this problem that is costing every one of us in this country money. And the best way to end it is to never develop poor eating habits, and the best group to invest effort in is children.

YEP.
When McD's lays off workers, they'll have a lot to talk about while they're in the unemployment lines.
Less sales = less income = less workers.

 

[cawacko]

YEP.
When McD's lays off workers, they'll have a lot to talk about while they're in the unemployment lines.
Less sales = less income = less workers.

That's capitalism though. If people don't want your product they're not going to buy it. I don't disagree with him that child obesity is an issue. I do disagree with him strongly that the government stepping in and saying you can't market your food with a toy is the right thing to do. It's not.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

That's capitalism though. If people don't want your product they're not going to buy it. I don't disagree with him that child obesity is an issue. I do disagree with him strongly that the government stepping in and saying you can't market your food with a toy is the right thing to do. It's not.

If someone has a business license and hasn't violated any laws, the Government has no right to step in and regulate that person into changing their business practice.

I think it would be amusing if all the fast food resturants would band together and close all their businesses in the Banana Republic of San Fran, for at least 1 week.
I would love to see if the "citizens", since they are the Government (according to the supporters of this ban), would petition for a recall of their elected officials.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

bullshit...now you're outright being dishonest because you got caught in a bit of intellectual dishonesty....this is what you said about government regulation re marijuana:

it's my life and it's my business and it's not the governments

nice one mott...supports the government banning toys, but when it comes to marijuana....its MY BUSINESS AND NOT THE GOVERNMENTS...get out of my home and into my happy meal....

 

[Bfgrn]

First off there are people commenting on this thread who aren't conservatives. It is an intellectually lazy argument trying to label everyone here so. And because everyone except Mott doesn't agree with you on this thread they are throwing a "tantrum?" Do you consider a "tantrum" when some claim they want the government out of their bedroom or out of their body?

And yes a five year going to McDonald's is not going to want a hamburger, fries and soda unless they can have a toy. They of course are going to want a salad and will probably ask for the dressing on the side because that's what five year olds do.

And your last analogy makes no sense.

This takes the fucking cake. I don't want government anywhere near my bedroom or in my body, but it's not government intervention for conservatives to demand government intrude into a woman's bedroom and control her uterus? Look into what side of the aisle keeps ripping away at the 4th amendment and challenges that it doesn't afford citizens the right to privacy because our founding fathers didn't use the word 'privacy'. The reason is simple: "privacy" in 1776 was a code word for toilet functions. Last time I checked, Clarence Thomas, Rush Limbaugh and Jerry Falwell are/were not liberals.

 

[cawacko]

This takes the fucking cake. I don't want government anywhere near my bedroom or in my body, but it's not government intervention for conservatives to demand government intrude into a woman's bedroom and control her uterus? Look into what side of the aisle keeps ripping away at the 4th amendment and challenges that it doesn't afford citizens the right to privacy because our founding fathers didn't use the word 'privacy'. The reason is simple: "privacy" in 1776 was a code word for toilet functions. Last time I checked, Clarence Thomas, Rush Limbaugh and Jerry Falwell are/were not liberals.

Can your mind only see things from a black/white liberal/conservative viewpoint? I don't want the government in my bedroom just like I don't want the government dictating to me what I can eat and there are obviously a lot of others like me. And it looks like you don't want the government in your bedroom but are perfectly fine with them dictating certain parental responsibilities.

And I have no idea what Limbaugh or Fawell have to do with this.

 

[NOVA]

This takes the fucking cake. I don't want government anywhere near my bedroom or in my body, but it's not government intervention for conservatives to demand government intrude into a woman's bedroom and control her uterus? Look into what side of the aisle keeps ripping away at the 4th amendment and challenges that it doesn't afford citizens the right to privacy because our founding fathers didn't use the word 'privacy'. The reason is simple: "privacy" in 1776 was a code word for toilet functions. Last time I checked, Clarence Thomas, Rush Limbaugh and Jerry Falwell are/were not liberals.

Yeah, it takes the fuckin' cake, alright...
If thats the way you feel about it then why the hell are you playing the pinhead hypocrite by sticking your nose and you partys nose in our kitchens and demanding to control what we eat or feed our children....?
You want it both ways.....and the crap about conservatives intruding into bedrooms is just so much strawman bullshit....
No one is making any laws about what you do in the privacy of your bedroom....no one....you can lock yourself in there and eat shit for all anybody cares, except maybe for the liberal diet police.

"privacy" in 1776 was a code word for toilet functions, now you liberals have made it a code word for killing the unborn....the only ones 'torturing' the english language is you pinheads.

 

[Bfgrn]

Can your mind only see things from a black/white liberal/conservative viewpoint? I don't want the government in my bedroom just like I don't want the government dictating to me what I can eat and there are obviously a lot of others like me. And it looks like you don't want the government in your bedroom but are perfectly fine with them dictating certain parental responsibilities.

And I have no idea what Limbaugh or Fawell have to do with this.

If you don't want the government in your bedroom or into your body, then you better start seeing things from a liberal/conservative viewpoint. Because it will not come from liberals.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote: "I 'can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy,' or as the Court terms it today, the 'liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions.'"

Echoing Thomas' so-called conservative perspective, Rush Limbaugh said on his radio program on June 27, 2003, "There is no right to privacy specifically enumerated in the Constitution." Jerry Falwell similarly agreed on Fox News.

http://www.libertymulch.org/articles/030703_hartman_thom.html

If you don't want anyone telling your pregnant wife or daughter what she can and can't do with her uterus, you better start seeing things from a liberal/conservative viewpoint.

Here's the RUB: There is nothing stopping parents in San Francisco from walking into a McDonalds and buying their kid one, one hundred or one thousand Happy Meals.

So, I want you to tell me why McDonalds puts a toy in the Happy Meal.