San Francisco bans Happy Meals

Why can't you stay on topic and stop trying to spin this in a different direction.
The kids aren't eating the toy, so this thread has nothing to do with the Government inspection and regulation of our food supply.

I see you are to much of a coward to address the challange; but then you're just unhappy that you never got a Happy Meal toy and now you don't want anyone else getting one.
What a selfish little bastard you are. :palm:

So it's your contention that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors does not have the authority to enact local ordinances.

Luckily, no one cares what you "think".
 
Hey bravo, SHOW me where I 'defend men sticking each other in ass with their penises'...

I will defend a person's right to privacy. Will you? Do you believe two consenting adults of either gender have the right to privacy?
I didn't say they didn't have a right to be and morally bankrupt, did I...???? But I sure as won't defend they actions.

Just as you think selling happy meals is morally bankrupt, I think anal intercourse among men is morally bankrupt....the difference is, I'm not trying to take away anyones right to sell the happy meals or have anal intercourse....You're the one trying to curtail rights....

Maybe I didn't make that clear in the previous post....but thats the bottom line....
 
I didn't say they didn't have a right to be and morally bankrupt, did I...???? But I sure as won't defend they perversion...

Just as you think selling happy meals is morally bankrupt, I think anal intercourse among men is morally bankrupt....the difference is, I'm not trying to take away anyones right to sell the happy meals or have anal intercourse....You're the one trying to curtail rights....

Maybe I didn't make that clear in the previous post....but thats the bottom line....

So, if a local legislative body passes an ordinance against sodomy, it's legitimate, but if they pass an ordinance prohibiting toys in Happy Meals, it's not?

What an astounding grasp of logic you have.
 
LOL @ everyone ignoring legion troll

I'm not "legion troll", Yurtard. Have you tried "hooked on Phonics" for that severe reading skills deficiency?

But SpongeBob SquareYurt, who claimed to be ignoring me....isn't.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qS7nqwGt4-I"]YouTube - Baby crying[/ame]
 
Why can't you stay on topic and stop trying to spin this in a different direction.
The kids aren't eating the toy, so this thread has nothing to do with the Government inspection and regulation of our food supply.

I see you are to much of a coward to address the challange; but then you're just unhappy that you never got a Happy Meal toy and now you don't want anyone else getting one.
What a selfish little bastard you are. :palm:

I'm no coward, I'm smart enough to take your word for it: "it's not the toy, but instead it's the fact that kids like hamburgers, fries, and coke!"

So IF...."it's not the toy, but instead it's the fact that kids like hamburgers, fries, and coke!"...then McDonalds should be flying their VP into the bay area to personally thank the SF City Council for saving McDonalds lots and lots of money in the future. They can remove the toy, and pocket the cost of the toy in added PROFIT! And who said liberals don't like corporations!
 
I didn't say they didn't have a right to be and morally bankrupt, did I...???? But I sure as won't defend they actions.

Just as you think selling happy meals is morally bankrupt, I think anal intercourse among men is morally bankrupt....the difference is, I'm not trying to take away anyones right to sell the happy meals or have anal intercourse....You're the one trying to curtail rights....

Maybe I didn't make that clear in the previous post....but thats the bottom line....

I don't defend their actions, but I do defend their right to privacy as legal adults.

A hypothetical; who would be more morally bankrupt, a homosexual that is a law abiding citizen, or a straight person who robs, swindles and beats people up?
 
I'm no coward, I'm smart enough to take your word for it: "it's not the toy, but instead it's the fact that kids like hamburgers, fries, and coke!"

So IF...."it's not the toy, but instead it's the fact that kids like hamburgers, fries, and coke!"...then McDonalds should be flying their VP into the bay area to personally thank the SF City Council for saving McDonalds lots and lots of money in the future. They can remove the toy, and pocket the cost of the toy in added PROFIT! And who said liberals don't like corporations!

Your first sentence is accurate. The toy and happy meal is how McDonald's trys to differentiate itself from its competitors. You're a smart guy I don't think that is hard to understand.
 
Your first sentence is accurate. The toy and happy meal is how McDonald's trys to differentiate itself from its competitors. You're a smart guy I don't think that is hard to understand.

I completely understand what they're doing. You can call it differentiating, and I can call it a hook, it is both.
 
So, if a local legislative body passes an ordinance against sodomy, it's legitimate, but if they pass an ordinance prohibiting toys in Happy Meals, it's not?

What an astounding grasp of logic you have.
And how the hell did you arrive at that bullshit conclusion ?

It certainly didn't come from me.
 
What is it called? A happy MEAL. What is a MEAL? It is something you EAT. The ONLY difference between a Happy Meal before and after is nothing in the MEAL a child could or should eat...it is a TOY. So I suggest you be careful with your accusations of who is acting and thinking like an adult...you are having a fit over a TOY...:)

My question about inspection and regulation of our food supply is relevant. You want government to stay our of our lives and keep their hands off corporations, does that include no inspection and regulation of our food supply?
WTF man...YOU'RE having a fit over a hamburger and making the crazy assertion that its unfit to eat by children...Are you totally friggin' nuts?
 
tony the tiger is EVILZZZ

ford_fusion_box.jpg
 
Banning the toy is just a band-aid measure. We need to ban overeating. And the best way to do that is to limit people from buying excessive quantities of food. Limiting people to only 500 calories at any establishment a day will do wonders to solve over eating.
 
WTF man...YOU'RE having a fit over a hamburger and making the crazy assertion that its unfit to eat by children...Are you totally friggin' nuts?

Come on man! (ESPN's NFL Countdown)...Why can't we have a mature and intelligent conversation about a REAL crisis in this country?

The standard American diet -- in which 62 percent of calories come from processed foods, 25 percent from animal products and only 5 percent from fruits and vegetables -- is nothing less than a health travesty. Our fast-food culture has produced a population with widespread chronic illness and is a primary reason that health care costs are taking a devastating toll on just about everyone.

The annual health insurance premiums paid by the average American family now exceed the gross yearly income of a full-time minimum wage worker. Every 30 seconds, someone in the U.S. files for bankruptcy due to the costs of treating a health problem. Starbucks spends more on the health insurance of its workers than it does on coffee.

Medical care costs in the U.S. have not always been this excessive. This year, we will spend more than $2.5 trillion on medical care. But in 1950, five years before Ray Kroc opened the first franchised McDonald's restaurant, Americans only spent $8.4 billion ($70 billion in today's dollars). Even after adjusting for inflation, we now spend as much on health care every 10 days as we did in the entire year of 1950.

Has this enormous increase in spending made us healthier? Earlier this year, when the World Health Organization assessed the overall health outcomes of different nations, it placed 36 other nations ahead of the United States.

Today, we have an epidemic of largely preventable diseases. To these illnesses, Americans are losing not only their health but also their life savings. Meanwhile, the evidence keeps growing that the path to improved health lies in eating more vegetables, fruits, whole grains and legumes, and eating far less processed foods, sugars and animal products.

It's striking to me that in all the heated debates we have had about health care reform, one basic fact has rarely been discussed, and that is the one thing that could dramatically bring down the costs of health care while improving the health of our people. Studies have shown that 50 to 70 percent of the nation's health care costs are preventable, and the single most effective step most people can take to improve their health is to eat a healthier diet. If Americans were to stop overeating, to stop eating unhealthy foods and to instead eat more foods with higher nutrient densities and cancer protective properties, we could have a more affordable, sustainable and effective health care system.

Is it McDonald's fault that more than 63 percent of Americans are overweight or obese, making us the fattest nation in the history of the world? I don't think so, because each of us is responsible for what we put in our mouths and in the mouths of our children. Plus many other fast food chains serve food that is just as harmful. But the company is playing a significant role in generating our national appetite for unhealthy foods. McDonald's is by far the largest food advertiser in the country, spending more than one billion dollars a year on direct media advertising.

Much of McDonald's advertising is aimed at children, and it's been effective. Every month, approximately nine out of 10 American children eat at a McDonald's restaurant. Most U.S. children can recognize McDonald's before they can speak. Tragically, one in every three children born this year in the U.S. will develop diabetes in their lifetime.

Of course, fast food is not the only cause of the tragic rise of obesity and diabetes in our society. Our culture has become pathologically sedentary. Watching television and sitting in front of computer monitors for hour upon hour doesn't help. But the high sugar and high fat foods sold by McDonald's and the other fast food restaurants is certainly a major part of the problem. You would have to walk for seven hours without stopping to burn off the calories from a Big Mac, a Coke and an order of fries.

More
 
Banning the toy is just a band-aid measure. We need to ban overeating. And the best way to do that is to limit people from buying excessive quantities of food. Limiting people to only 500 calories at any establishment a day will do wonders to solve over eating.

That's going to come out of the h/c bill. They now own our bodies so it want be long. A generation or two and it will be here.
 
Bfgrn, I don't think you're going get to many arguments that obesity isn't a problem. Something like banning a toy at McDonald's does nothing to address it though. It allows to the Supervisors to campaign locally that they're trying to do something and makes the public feel good about themselves when in reality the legislation will do nothing to address obesity. Hence it being called 'feel good' legislation.

There are a whole lot of others 'hooks' out there in marketing just like the McDonald's toy. Do we start a nationwide trend to try and ban them as well? Like I said in a previous post sugar cereal has all kinds of 'hooks' to appeal to kids.

I don't know if I've asked you this yet what would you like to see done to address obesity?
 
I think McDonalds should ban San Francisco. Close all establishments within the city, and demand to see IDs from any customers in the Bay Area. If the address says SF, then the would-be customers get denied service. :D
 
Back
Top