San Francisco bans Happy Meals

[cawacko]

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.

F that! Mickey D's is some good hung over food.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

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.

It worked for Ronnie Barrett.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

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.

As a hidden added benefit, it would make drunk driving almost disappear, since alcohol has calories as well and it's near impossible to get drunk on only 500 calories worth.

 

[Socrtease]

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.

This is where the liberal idea of consumer protection has gone completely over the edge. With this idea then why not just ban fast food altogether. I mean IF parents feed their kids too much they will get fat, so lets just eliminate the threat. No more fast food burgers. No more fried chicken, no more pizza. Hey while we're at it, lets make all parents submit monthly menus. If the food they are feeding their kids has too much fat, we will send in CPS and let them create the menu. We can also require a monthly exersize log. If it is not sufficient we can send in a government approved Physical Education advisor. Lets nip this childhood obesity thing in the bud right now. All so we can have some healthier little warriors.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

This is where the liberal idea of consumer protection has gone completely over the edge. With this idea then why not just ban fast food altogether. I mean IF parents feed their kids too much they will get fat, so lets just eliminate the threat. No more fast food burgers. No more fried chicken, no more pizza. Hey while we're at it, lets make all parents submit monthly menus. If the food they are feeding their kids has too much fat, we will send in CPS and let them create the menu. We can also require a monthly exersize log. If it is not sufficient we can send in a government approved Physical Education advisor. Lets nip this childhood obesity thing in the bud right now. All so we can have some healthier little warriors.

Glad your brought up exercise Soc. What better way to ensure a healthier population than by removing desk jobs from our country?

 

[cawacko]

This is where the liberal idea of consumer protection has gone completely over the edge. With this idea then why not just ban fast food altogether. I mean IF parents feed their kids too much they will get fat, so lets just eliminate the threat. No more fast food burgers. No more fried chicken, no more pizza. Hey while we're at it, lets make all parents submit monthly menus. If the food they are feeding their kids has too much fat, we will send in CPS and let them create the menu. We can also require a monthly exersize log. If it is not sufficient we can send in a government approved Physical Education advisor. Lets nip this childhood obesity thing in the bud right now. All so we can have some healthier little warriors.

Well Soc I suggested this at the start of the thread. Here are the two responses I got:

This from Bfgrn (though in his defense he recinded later):

There you go...the right wing temper tantrum...if I can't have it ALL MY way, then blow it UP...

GROW UP!!!


And this from Mott:

That's a fucking ignorant comment Wacko. Our government has been doing precisely that since the founding of this republic. You may want to live in a neo-fascist corporation run laissez faire society but the rest of us expect our government to protect the public health by regulating the excesses of business. You may think that what is best for McDonalds is what's best for the country but most rational people don't think that way at all.

 

[charver]

I don't claim to have the answer to America's (and indeed our own) obesity problem. However, if it is true that many of the ills affecting our society result from the fast food burger joint and spicy chicken emporium alike, influencing our children then may i suggest a multi-purpose solution?

If we simply mandate that recently released paedophiles, some say child sex offenders, are to be given work in KFC's, McDonalds and Burger Kings, then parents may take more of an interest in where their progeny choose to intake sustenance and the salad bar may take off as a lettuce based non-rapey foodstuff.

 

[Zurt]

As a hidden added benefit, it would make drunk driving almost disappear, since alcohol has calories as well and it's near impossible to get drunk on only 500 calories worth.

So how would you get around?

 

[NOVA]

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 --

The annual health insurance premiums paid by the average American family

Medical care costs in the U.S.

Today, we have an epidemic of largely preventable diseases.

health care reform

unhealthy foods

Much of McDonald's advertising i

rise of obesity and diabetes in our society

We all can get together and have a real talk about the entire list...educate the masses about food and fats and sugars, and carbs, etc.
Then we can talk about advertising, obesity and diabetes and corns and ingrown toenails and cancer and hundreds of other ailments....
We can discuss healthcare costs, the high price of autos and gas, and how wool sweaters make me itchy....whatever.

The point is...much of this behavior is what we call freedom...its none of your business and none of the governments business...
The government has no right to make laws about practically all personal behavior that doesn't directly affect others....like speeding on the turnpike or throwing bowling balls out of my hi-rise windows....

If I want to climb a mountain, jump out of an airplane or ski like an asshole fullspeed down a hill...its none of your business....if I get killed or hurt, its still none of your business....it shouldn't concern you in the least....
If I want to eat a hamburger or a raw steak or swallow an uncooked egg....its none of your business....
That shouldn't be hard to understand even for a liberal....stay our of my like and I'll gladly stay out of yours.....
I don't want you to buy me health insurance and I don't want to pay your mortgage....I don't give a shit if you smoke or choke or croke....you're a free man.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

 

[Good Luck]

So the legally-elected legislators of a government body shouldn't have the power to ban something?

They should have the LIMITED power to ban an item which has been proven to be detrimental to the society AND which ban actually addresses the issue at hand, AND which ban is not directly nor indirectly forbidden by the U.S. or state constitutions.

Banning toys in Happy Meals only meets the last condition.

I have to say, I've seen strange laws on the books over the years. But this approaches unreality. But worse, there are brain dead, pro-mommy government, please-tuck-me-in-and-read-a-bedtime-story morons actually DEFENDING this assininely stupid bullshit law. Seems those who claim modern liberalism is a mental disease are not so far off after all.

 

[Bfgrn]

Well Soc I suggested this at the start of the thread. Here are the two responses I got:

This from Bfgrn (though in his defense he recinded later):

There you go...the right wing temper tantrum...if I can't have it ALL MY way, then blow it UP...

GROW UP!!!


And this from Mott:

That's a fucking ignorant comment Wacko. Our government has been doing precisely that since the founding of this republic. You may want to live in a neo-fascist corporation run laissez faire society but the rest of us expect our government to protect the public health by regulating the excesses of business. You may think that what is best for McDonalds is what's best for the country but most rational people don't think that way at all.

cawacko...your role is to speak for cawacko.

 

[cawacko]

cawacko...your role is to speak for cawacko.

You are correct. However do you think Mott would give a different response to Soc than he would to me for saying basically the same thing?

 

[Bfgrn]

They should have the LIMITED power to ban an item which has been proven to be detrimental to the society AND which ban actually addresses the issue at hand, AND which ban is not directly nor indirectly forbidden by the U.S. or state constitutions.

Banning toys in Happy Meals only meets the last condition.

I have to say, I've seen strange laws on the books over the years. But this approaches unreality. But worse, there are brain dead, pro-mommy government, please-tuck-me-in-and-read-a-bedtime-story morons actually DEFENDING this assininely stupid bullshit law. Seems those who claim modern liberalism is a mental disease are not so far off after all.

People with mental disease live in a world where reality and responsibility is beyond their comprehension or grasp. Your 'brain dead, pro-mommy government, please-tuck-me-in-and-read-a-bedtime-story morons' childish rant would qualify.

We DO have a obesity epidemic THAT is a reality. It IS costing every single citizen and family money. THAT too is a reality.

So where do we start? It makes sense to me to start with children. The law that you go off the deep end on with a childish, 'the sky is falling' polarized rant is a step in the right direction. It does not take away or ban the ability of children to ask for a Happy Meal, or stop any parent or grand parent from buying the child a Happy Meal. What is does do, is remove an inanimate object that is placed in the box to entice that child to choose a Happy Meal and get a reward for it...a TOY.

 

[Bfgrn]

You are correct. However do you think Mott would give a different response to Soc than he would to me for saying basically the same thing?

I don't know, I don't speak for Mott. There's a pattern here, do you see it?

 

[cawacko]

I don't know, I don't speak for Mott. There's a pattern here, do you see it?

No actually I don't see a pattern. I speak for myself and no one else. In this instance Soc, an athiest non-conservative, said the same thing I did. I showed him the response I got for saying it. It you want to see me and Soc go at it there are several topics we can bring up and he and I will be on the opposite side of the issue. We happen to be on the same side on this one.

 

[Bfgrn]

No actually I don't see a pattern. I speak for myself and no one else. In this instance Soc, an athiest non-conservative, said the same thing I did. I showed him the response I got for saying it. It you want to see me and Soc go at it there are several topics we can bring up and he and I will be on the opposite side of the issue. We happen to be on the same side on this one.

I haven't seen any of the 'Soc, an athiest non-conservative' yet. So maybe you have misjudged him.

 

[cawacko]

I haven't seen any of the 'Soc, an athiest non-conservative' yet. So maybe you have misjudged him.

Unfortunately being a board addict I am on here A LOT. I know about each poster. Soc is an athiest non-conservative. You haven't spent much time on here if you haven't seen him go off on Republicans. Like I said not everyone is a straight liberal/conservative republican/democrat. Soc is one of them. Just ask him he'll tell you. Hang out on the board more if you have the time and you'll see it for yourself.

 

[Bfgrn]

Unfortunately being a board addict I am on here A LOT. I know about each poster. Soc is an athiest non-conservative. You haven't spent much time on here if you haven't seen him go off on Republicans. Like I said not everyone is a straight liberal/conservative republican/democrat. Soc is one of them. Just ask him he'll tell you. Hang out on the board more if you have the time and you'll see it for yourself.

I'm sure the truth will be revealed eventually. I like the way President Eisenhower defined liberal/conservative.

"In all those things which deal with people, be liberal, be human. In all those things which deal with people's money, or their economy, or their form of government, be conservative."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

[cawacko]

I'm sure the truth will be revealed eventually. I like the way President Eisenhower defined liberal/conservative.

"In all those things which deal with people, be liberal, be human. In all those things which deal with people's money, or their economy, or their form of government, be conservative."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Well the "truth" is pretty clear. You've just started hanging out on the board more so you don't know all the posters as well. I'm sure Soc will back what I say. You cannot pin a label on him no matter how hard you may try. But regardless Soc is a loser. He lives in New Mexico and supports the evil empire. In my mind he is persona non grata. Bow down Yankee fans to the mother fucking world series champion San Francisco Giants. And yes Soc that is a shot across the bow my man.

Ask him now Bfrgn if he is a conservative.