San Francisco bans Happy Meals

Mott the Hoople said:
That's a load of crap on two levels Soc. First, your marginalizing those who disagree with by using "liberal" as a pejorative. That is so far beneath you and I know you know better then that. Second, we have been regulating the food industry for a very long time indeed. If you want to go back to Upton Sinclairs "The Muck Rackers" about the meat packing industry and then discuss the regulations that brought into play to make sure the meat we consumed was safe to eat, and I'm sure we can go further back then that

You're whole argument is a canard. Big bad bogey man government isn't stepping in and telling you what to do personally. There not saying you can't eat your fast/junk food. They are regulating how those products are distributed and marketed. I can give you example after example of how government regulates how much sugar, caffiene, nicotene, trans-fats, food additives, preservatives, etc, etc that are put into foods that have adverse affects on human health. Just as correctly, when advances determine food preparation practices are unsafe it is incumbant upon our government to implement affective regulations to assure that the food we eat and drink are safe and to argue other wise is just more silly anarcholibertarian non-sense.
Click to expand...

has nothing to do with distribution...it is only marketing....

pity you don't understand simple business concepts....

ford_fusion_box.jpg


you need to rush down to your city hall and demand and end to the vile marketing schemes of that evil sugary cereal!!!!!
 
Rant about obesity all you want. It is a problem. It is a definitive cause of health care costs being what they are. So what? What does that have to do with toys? Toys are not the cause. They do not even contribute.

I am not obese. Neither are any of my children, nor any grandchildren. And yet we all indulge in fast food on occasion. My son makes a monthly shopping trip after work, and their meal is at one of the fast food places in the area. The only factor toys have with his decision is whether they eat at McDonalds, Burger King, or somewhere else. If Burger King offers a more desirable toy this motnh, that's where they will eat. If the more desirable toy is offered by McDonalds next month, that is where they'll eat next month.

What you cannot seem to comprehend from all the talk of marketing is it is NOT about eating a fattening meal. They offer the same toys in less fattening meals, too, such as choosing apple slices over fries. Did you not know this? Or are you ignoring the truth of the matter so you can promote your personal version of reality? The purpose of the toys is, as demonstrated by how my son acts, is to get the customer to choose a specific company over another. They are going to eat the burger anyway, so McDonalds does what they can to get them to eat a McDonalds burger instead of a Burger King burger. THAT is what the toy is about, and THAT is why the law is going to have no positive effect, and THAT is why it is a stupid assed, unnecessarily intrusive law, and THAT is why supporting it is the act of brain dead, pro-mommy government, please-tuck-me-in-and-read-a-bedtime-story morons.

By your own admission, this move will have zero effect. SO WHY DO YOU SUPPORT IT? Why support a stupid, useless law?

As usual, the real issue of this goes right over your donkey's ass headgear. The issue is about government passing STUPID laws. The issue is about government intruding on a harmless marketing scheme because it gets them votes from brain dead, pro-mommy government, please-tuck-me-in-and-read-a-bedtime-story morons.

It's NOT about the fucking TOY you ignorant twit. It's about government intrusion in everyday lives. It's about STUPIDITY of government (and ignorant mommy government twits) thinking a toy in a meal is actually having any effect AT ALL on the level of obesity in this nation, or that banning said toy is going to do anything positive. It's about the principle that government feels the need to intrude because of another area of government intrusion (health care) in and endless cycle of upward spiraling government intrusion and authority over our every day lives. This is smoke, and those of us who recognize it for what it is want to put it out before it erupts into a major fire.
 
Good Luck said:
Rant about obesity all you want. It is a problem. It is a definitive cause of health care costs being what they are. So what? What does that have to do with toys? Toys are not the cause. They do not even contribute.

I am not obese. Neither are any of my children, nor any grandchildren. And yet we all indulge in fast food on occasion. My son makes a monthly shopping trip after work, and their meal is at one of the fast food places in the area. The only factor toys have with his decision is whether they eat at McDonalds, Burger King, or somewhere else. If Burger King offers a more desirable toy this motnh, that's where they will eat. If the more desirable toy is offered by McDonalds next month, that is where they'll eat next month.

What you cannot seem to comprehend from all the talk of marketing is it is NOT about eating a fattening meal. They offer the same toys in less fattening meals, too, such as choosing apple slices over fries. Did you not know this? Or are you ignoring the truth of the matter so you can promote your personal version of reality? The purpose of the toys is, as demonstrated by how my son acts, is to get the customer to choose a specific company over another. They are going to eat the burger anyway, so McDonalds does what they can to get them to eat a McDonalds burger instead of a Burger King burger. THAT is what the toy is about, and THAT is why the law is going to have no positive effect, and THAT is why it is a stupid assed, unnecessarily intrusive law, and THAT is why supporting it is the act of brain dead, pro-mommy government, please-tuck-me-in-and-read-a-bedtime-story morons.

By your own admission, this move will have zero effect. SO WHY DO YOU SUPPORT IT? Why support a stupid, useless law?

As usual, the real issue of this goes right over your donkey's ass headgear. The issue is about government passing STUPID laws. The issue is about government intruding on a harmless marketing scheme because it gets them votes from brain dead, pro-mommy government, please-tuck-me-in-and-read-a-bedtime-story morons.

It's NOT about the fucking TOY you ignorant twit. It's about government intrusion in everyday lives. It's about STUPIDITY of government (and ignorant mommy government twits) thinking a toy in a meal is actually having any effect AT ALL on the level of obesity in this nation, or that banning said toy is going to do anything positive. It's about the principle that government feels the need to intrude because of another area of government intrusion (health care) in and endless cycle of upward spiraling government intrusion and authority over our every day lives. This is smoke, and those of us who recognize it for what it is want to put it out before it erupts into a major fire.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it would have 'zero effect' Why are you distorting my claims?

You said all I need to know about you..."It (obesity) is a problem. It is a definitive cause of health care costs being what they are. So what?"

So keep your fucking mouth shut about skyrocketing cost of health care and insurance premiums...if you don't like it, SO WHAT.

You can rant and pull out all the liberal bashing rhetoric you want. None of you conservatives know the first thing about what a real free market is and isn't. Our founding fathers wouldn't have pulled the toy out of the Happy Meal, they would have pulled their charter and shut McDonalds down.
 
How many of you whiners even live in San Francisco?

If the majority of the citizens of that city don't want toys given away with Happy Meals and their elected officials acted appropriately, why do you feel compelled to rant and rave about it?
 
Bfgrn said:
I didn't say it would have 'zero effect' Why are you distorting my claims?

You said all I need to know about you..."It (obesity) is a problem. It is a definitive cause of health care costs being what they are. So what?"

So keep your fucking mouth shut about skyrocketing cost of health care and insurance premiums...if you don't like it, SO WHAT.

You can rant and pull out all the liberal bashing rhetoric you want. None of you conservatives know the first thing about what a real free market is and isn't. Our founding fathers wouldn't have pulled the toy out of the Happy Meal, they would have pulled their charter and shut McDonalds down.
Click to expand...

If the founding fathers would have banned McDonald's then why am I throwing a 'right-wing tantrum' suggesting the same thing?
 
Bfgrn said:
I didn't say it would have 'zero effect' Why are you distorting my claims?

You said all I need to know about you..."It (obesity) is a problem. It is a definitive cause of health care costs being what they are. So what?"

So keep your fucking mouth shut about skyrocketing cost of health care and insurance premiums...if you don't like it, SO WHAT.

You can rant and pull out all the liberal bashing rhetoric you want. None of you conservatives know the first thing about what a real free market is and isn't. Our founding fathers wouldn't have pulled the toy out of the Happy Meal, they would have pulled their charter and shut McDonalds down.
Click to expand...

you're a nutcase...the founding fathers would have done no such thing

i laught at idiots like you (mott and legion troll are your only supporters here) who rail aagianst the toy in a happy meal, yet are silent about the toys in cereal boxes....

just like mott...i know you are too cowardly to run down to your city hall and demand and end to toys in cereal boxes and happy meals....much easier to be a nanny state slave anonymously on the interwebs
 
Bfgrn said:
I didn't say it would have 'zero effect' Why are you distorting my claims?

You said all I need to know about you..."It (obesity) is a problem. It is a definitive cause of health care costs being what they are. So what?"

So keep your fucking mouth shut about skyrocketing cost of health care and insurance premiums...if you don't like it, SO WHAT.

You can rant and pull out all the liberal bashing rhetoric you want. None of you conservatives know the first thing about what a real free market is and isn't. Our founding fathers wouldn't have pulled the toy out of the Happy Meal, they would have pulled their charter and shut McDonalds down.
Click to expand...

No; the founding fathers would have laughed at you, renamed you the village idiot, and probably warned the rest of the village to keep their distance from you, lest your stupidity was contagious.
 
Bfgrn said:
I didn't say it would have 'zero effect' Why are you distorting my claims?

You said all I need to know about you..."It (obesity) is a problem. It is a definitive cause of health care costs being what they are. So what?"

So keep your fucking mouth shut about skyrocketing cost of health care and insurance premiums...if you don't like it, SO WHAT.

You can rant and pull out all the liberal bashing rhetoric you want. None of you conservatives know the first thing about what a real free market is and isn't. Our founding fathers wouldn't have pulled the toy out of the Happy Meal, they would have pulled their charter and shut McDonalds down.
Click to expand...
LOL You are the largest ranting hypocrite in the history of this site.

What was that you said about distorting what YOU wrote, then go ahead and completely distort what I wrote. Liar AND hypocrite.

Here is what you said about the effect of taking the toy out of Happy Meals:
Listen, removing the HOOK used to entice kids to choose a road to 'Frumpy Meal' is not going to solve childhood obesity, but it's not going to compromise and corrupt capitalism either.
Click to expand...
So, right there you ADMIT that removing the toy is not going to solve the problem. You didn't use the word zero, but you still admit the law will not do what it is purportedly intended for. Too bad for you, LIAR. No, it's not going to destroy McDonald's either. But the fact that it won't significantly harm their victims does not justify a law of this type.

As for my "So what", anyone can see it was immediately followed by pointing out that the toy is not the problem, thus directly challenging your defense of this idiotic law based on obesity problems. That is where the "so what" comes from. Sad that you never learned reading comprehension in your past liberal paradise.
(BTW: the Department of Education was created in 1979, has resulted in ever faster declining educational performance in our schools, and I can guarantee your lying ass that it was NOT a conservative creation.)

As for what the Founders would have done: they would have laughed in your face for even suggesting that banning a sales gimmick on a legal product is anywhere near the purview of government.
 
:palm:This pinhead imagines that if McDonalds disappeared tomorrow, it would have an effect on obesity....How pinheaded do you have to be to even freaki' entertain such a boneheaded thought....????

:palm:
 
Yurt said:
has nothing to do with distribution...it is only marketing....

pity you don't understand simple business concepts....

ford_fusion_box.jpg


you need to rush down to your city hall and demand and end to the vile marketing schemes of that evil sugary cereal!!!!!
Click to expand...

if you add up the total amount of sugar in some cereals, you may say that without the sarcasm
 
Zurt said:
How many of you whiners even live in San Francisco?

If the majority of the citizens of that city don't want toys given away with Happy Meals and their elected officials acted appropriately, why do you feel compelled to rant and rave about it?
Click to expand...

because it makes them afraid, very afraid - it is only ok when right wing agendas invade civil rights, then the laws are ok
 
I feel compelled to react when I see liberty trampled upon by a bunch of retarded Californians. Aside from that, the conformists of SF can do whatever the fuck their city planners have in store for them, and I really don't care if their civil rights are upheld or not. From an academic standpoint, it is a grose abuse of power, as well as childish. In fact, it is the outlandish childishness of the matter which causes it to stick out like a sore thumb. There is also irony in seeing children pass an ordinance to protect other children from toys and fast food.
 
Threedee said:
I feel compelled to react when I see liberty trampled upon by a bunch of retarded Californians. Aside from that, the conformists of SF can do whatever the fuck their city planners have in store for them, and I really don't care if their civil rights are upheld or not. From an academic standpoint, it is a grose abuse of power, as well as childish. In fact, it is the outlandish childishness of the matter which causes it to stick out like a sore thumb. There is also irony in seeing children pass an ordinance to protect other children from toys and fast food.
Click to expand...

who said anything about protecting children from toys in the ordinance
 
Bfgrn said:
I apologized for misinterpreting your post, what else do you want me to do?
Click to expand...

Sorry, you are right. I forgot you had when I posted this otherwise I wouldn't have (posted it). That's my bad. And thank you by the way for the apology.
 
Look at this Bfgrn, from our Democratic Mayor in San Francisco who veto'd the legislation (which the board overrode).

Newsom issued a statement after the vote. ''We must continue to take steps to combat childhood obesity, a genuine health crisis in America, but this bill takes the wrong approach. Parents, not politicians, should decide what their children eat, especially when it comes to spending their own money,'' he said. ''Despite its good intentions, I will veto this unwise and unprecedented governmental intrusion into parental responsibilities and private choices.''


Those are words spoken by a Democrat not Grover Norquist.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/detail?entry_id=76704&tsp=1
 
cawacko said:
Look at this Bfgrn, from our Democratic Mayor in San Francisco who veto'd the legislation (which the board overrode).

Newsom issued a statement after the vote. ''We must continue to take steps to combat childhood obesity, a genuine health crisis in America, but this bill takes the wrong approach. Parents, not politicians, should decide what their children eat, especially when it comes to spending their own money,'' he said. ''Despite its good intentions, I will veto this unwise and unprecedented governmental intrusion into parental responsibilities and private choices.''


Those are words spoken by a Democrat not Grover Norquist.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/detail?entry_id=76704&tsp=1
Click to expand...

adn a fairly far left leaning dem to boot
 
i wonder if a study will ever be done to see if making the toy illegal reduces 1) consumption of happy meals; 2) reduces obesity

i wouldn't bet 1 cent such a study is ever done
 
Yurt said:
i wonder if a study will ever be done to see if making the toy illegal reduces 1) consumption of happy meals; 2) reduces obesity

i wouldn't bet 1 cent such a study is ever done
Click to expand...

For number two how would you ever quanfity that type of a study? You couldn't. That would be a big waste of money if government tried and I can't picture any private company wanting to take that on.

As far as how many Happy Meals are sold I would think that would be easy. McDonald's must track what is sold at each restaurant. They could easily say whether Happy Meal sales are up or down at each location.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top