Forbidden City: How the Happy Meal Ban Explains San Francisco
by PubliusFeature story in the alternative newspaper SF Weekly:
In recent years, San Francisco government has passed numerous laws to make us healthier, greener, and — in the city’s eyes — all-around better people. Whether we like it or not. This includes banning the sale of cigarettes in drugstores, and, later, supermarkets; banning plastic bags in large chain stores; banning bottled water in City Hall, and the sale of soft drinks on government property; banning the declawing of cats; making composting mandatory; and forbidding city departments from doing business with companies that were involved in the (pre–Civil War) slave trade, yet haven’t publicly atoned.
The city may yet ban the sale of any pets except fish, and the sale of bottled water during events on public property. Banning foie gras, meanwhile, didn’t catch on, even here. Neither did allowing the city to prosecute anyone who depicts images of animal cruelty if they set foot in San Francisco — essentially the same niche Belgium has carved out for itself with accused war criminals.
San Francisco’s acumen for imposing bans has grown so pronounced that when an anticircumcision zealot began disseminating a petition to criminalize the practice within city limits, observers nationwide didn’t write it off as fringe lunacy but, instead, saw it as just another day at the office in San Francisco.
That ban didn’t make the cut. And San Francisco does not have a monopoly on banning things. But nowhere else can you ban so much with such ease and so little political blowback.
It would take an advanced degree in sanctimoniousness to shed a tear for the loss of your freedom to choose paper or plastic. And will someone really nail himself to the cross of individual liberties over the loss of a plastic My Little Pony toy commemorating the day you were outdebated by a 10-year-old? It would, however, be equally hard to claim that any one of San Francisco’s bans has really had its intended substantive effect on local lives.
But when you put San Francisco’s laundry list of bans alongside New York City’s fatwa against trans fats, Chicago’s slavery disclosure ordinance (they beat us to it), or Seattle’s mandatory composting laws (beat us again, damn it!), it becomes clear that a left-leaning pack of cities is fundamentally changing the role — and pushing the limits — of local government. It’s a movement fueled by the perception that state and federal government are unable or unwilling to tackle big problems like pollution or rampant obesity. So municipalities are marching headlong into the void, attempting to save the world one plastic bag, Big Mac, cigarette butt, or water bottle at a time. And San Francisco is leading the parade.
“The assumption, at least in academic literature, is that cities shouldn’t be doing any of this,” says USF political science professor Corey Cook. “It’s sort of astonishing to me what these cities are doing; it dives headfirst into the question of where the lines for local government are drawn.” City progressives say that’s just the point. “I think that we’re picking up the ball because for whatever reasons, the state and federal systems are not responding to these issues,” Supervisor David Campos says. “We see the need to do something, and are not afraid to do that.”
As is so often the case in San Francisco, everyone has the best of intentions. But now that we’ve reached the point where city officials have meticulously worked out what quantity of multigrains and fruits must be present in a meal in order for a restaurant to earn the privilege of including a toy with it, it’s reasonable to wonder if San Francisco’s elected leaders believe there’s anything they shouldn’t be deciding for you.
City legislators haven’t just saved you from the perils of the Happy Meal. They’ve also supersized the role of local government.
Read the whole thing here. And, consider yourself lucky if you live in a city with an alternative paper. While individual results may vary, they very often provide far better journalism and fairness than their mainstream brethren.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
231 Comments
Seems to me that they're banning tourism.
"San Francisco’s acumen for imposing bans has grown so pronounced that when an anticircumcision zealot began disseminating a petition to criminalize the practice within city limits, …………….That ban didn’t make the cut."
That's a pretty funny line.
Isnt that all San Francisco has left.
Who cares about San Francisco? The inhabitants are very unusual. I wonder how they would like it if all fast food restaurants closed and moved to China? Then they can eat all veggies and smoke dope.
"Isn't that all San Francisco has left"
Nah. Thanks to nancy, they also have a booming botox industry.
"I wonder how they would like it if all fast food restaurants closed and moved to China? Then they can eat all veggies and smoke dope. "
They wouldn't mind. After they smoked the dope, they'd be happy eating anything.
Things that are permitted in San Francisco:
Illegals, botox, homosexual extremists
To me, Frisco is the butt-hole of the West Coast.
I used to love San Francisco, but now, I wouldn't touch it with a 20 foot pole.
I wonder if they could ban overzealous regulators?? We might need to come up with different terminology, but you get my point.
http://www.cafepress.com/politicalstckrs
I'm surprised they haven't cited the imaginary "separation clause" and banned the name "San Fransisco". How do they tolerate their city being named for a SAINT?!?
Alternate names I recommend include:
Sadland
Banistan
Pelosipalooza
Prog Hollow
Barackobamopolis
On a more serious note, I actually don't mind if San Francisco wants to enact all this garbage. As long as it isn't a drag on any other city or town, the State, or the country at large, the citizens there should be able to govern themselves any little way they want. I won't go there, but I'm sure they'd be fine with that.
It's when the federal government steps in to do the same kind of things that it all becomes a big problem. That's when it becomes impossible for us to say, I just won't go there.
mis-guided numb skulls
They take way but charge you more.
Not "permitted."
Promoted.
Mass quantities of weed is probably the only thing that can make alfalfa sprouts and wheat-grass juice taste OK.
"How do they tolerate their city being named for a SAINT?!?"
They consider it an opportunity to make a mockery.
I will never visit these liberal bastions in my entire life time, BUT at least it's consistent with the US Constitution which gave the majority of power to states and in theory cities. That way, if you don't want to live in one of these moon bat havens, you can find alternatives elsewhere.
By the way, the effect of banning cat de-clawing is that more cats get killed. So in order to "help" cats, they would rather have them not get adopted and euthanized rather than putting up with a minor surgery that they completely recover from in less than a week's time. Think about that. To them, it's more compassionate to kill the animal than put up with a minor surgery. Typical "liberal logic".
San Francisco and its surrounding counties plus Los Angeles are destroying the rest of California. Separate the mostly-American counties from LA and the San Fran Bay area and you would have a functional state again.
same logic they'll be using in Obamacare……
lol, exactly.
In recent years, San Francisco government has passed numerous laws to make us healthier, greener, and — in the city’s eyes — all-around better people. Whether we like it or not.
Who is "we"? You can run down the list of things you don't like all you want. But make no mistake. Things are the way they are in SF because this is how SF wants to be. This whole article is predicated on the notion that there's an absence of a democratic representation of the desires of a majority of the citizenry. But it ain't so!
Moreover, if anyone "gets" the idea behind the importance of states' rights vs. federal rights, then why shouldn't that very same principal apply to local community rights vs. states' or federal rights?
Dear Pyblius:
"Sanctinomiousness" is not a word/noun, which is why your spell-check software underlined it. The word is "sanctimony".
We conservatives are not going to win this battle with the left unless we raise the standard. Let bad English, loaded vocabulary and nonsense remain specialties of the Left. We on the right can – and should – do better.
I'm surprised they haven't banned breathing as CO2 is bad for the environment
JohnK144,
I agree whole heartedly, the Tenth amendment even spells out their power to this, " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, Or to the people." As long as the loonies don't abridge a right spelled out in the Constitution they should be free to live in whatever hell they make for themselves.
I wish they would ban the odor of urine.
uh, San Francisco is the Wall Street of the West. Taking in the Bay Area as a whole, they are also the high tech capital of the nation.
folks here are all lined up to b-tch about San Francisco, but seriously- why do you care so much about Happy Meals?
GOOD RIDDANCE! Why would I ever want to feed my kid pure garbage?
Let them outlaw Quiche' there and see how long that stands.
R
The answer is simple. It don't work that way.
I bet if the happy meal came with sex toys the tools in SF would be quite happy
Solution: McDonalds should just rename them "GAY meals" instead of "HAPPY meals" in San Francisco.
LMAO nice pun
This is the future if we let these left wingnuts continue down this path…It;s time to but them back under the rock they wiggled out from under
Eating anything is correct. Those people are nuts.
Don't worry- the way that food and gas prices are going up, only the rich will be able to afford McDonald's in a few years. It'll be a treat that families save for, much like as was the case in China and Russia back in the mid-80's.
"forbidding city departments from doing business with companies that were involved in the (pre–Civil War) slave trade"
I wonder — is there a push within San Francisco for them to adopt/encourage "sharia friendly" finances and investments? Because I'd love to see how they square the two.
Doesn't work what way?
Here's how I think it works. Since you seem to be a tight lipped expert, you tell me where I go wrong in how this works, okay?
1. We democratically elect district representatives and a mayor. I do so based on the stuff they say to make me like them better than the other guy, including them earning my confidence that they are going to manage the city sufficiently as promised.
2. The politicians get elected. They either do stuff along the lines of what they promised their constituents they would… or in the next election they'll have some explaining to do.
Representative democracy. Ever hear of it?
"Why would I ever want to feed my kid pure garbage?"
You no doubt prefer to feed your kid "organic" produce that's been marinated in sewage.
Good for you!
"It’s a movement fueled by the perception that state and federal government are unable or unwilling to tackle big problems like pollution or rampant obesity. So municipalities are marching headlong into the void……………..
I think that we’re picking up the ball because for whatever reasons, the state and federal systems are not responding to these issues,” Supervisor David Campos says. “We see the need to do something, and are not afraid to do that.”
mental disorder alert! progressives see obesity as a big problem—but they don't want local governments to take any action on illegal immigration.
"Representative democracy. Ever hear of it?"
No. That is a concept that does not exist in our Representative Republic.
Don't worry we dont want you in one of our moon bat cities anyway. In fact we should pass a law on the amount of wingnuts that are allowed to move in because if we get too many of them fun starts to dissappear.
In all seriousness we dont need happy meals, SUV's or Tungsten lightbulbs to make us feel free. If that's your definiton of freedom, well, then you need to get your head checked.
Still wondering how crappy fast food, tungsten light bulbs, and the right to drive a huge gas guzzler is synonomous with freedom? I would think the world would be better off without all three.
Jesus, could you be anymore chauvinistic? I have to wonder what that hell it is that you're repressing and makes you such a self loathing douchebag? Not that I want to know or anything. I would be happier if you just STFU.
the concept of democracy doesn't exist in our representative republic?! So what is voting then?
so, then, smart semantics guy, what nation do you think Abraham Lincoln was referring to when he said this?
“Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people”
Oh the headaches that I've put up with since a conservative figured out what a dictionary is!
When I was a kid in the '70's the liberals were all about 'breaking the rules' – Damn the Man, Don't trust anyone over 30, Question Authority, etc. etc. Now the libs Are the Authorities, they're all over 30, and they can't make rules fast enough. They basically want to Ban America.
Viva la Tea Party.
I pity you. Take an apirin.
Just out of curiosity, what is your definition of freedom? Most people would regard it as the ability to do whatever you want so long as you don't harm anyone else.
For a city that's supposedly all about freedom, the folks of San Francisco sure as hell have a lot of rules. Too bad that "peace and love" gave way to "follow the rules, conform, or get out."
no, the world would be better off without judgmental people like you.
What's the matter? Did he hit a nerve? I mean, you do like shoving things up your butt and all.
Sounds like someone has the children's definition of freedom-the kind where you never have to take any responsibility for yourself
Sorry the idea of people making their own choices of what they should eat offends a weak-minded twat like you.
Easy way around it. Sell the toy for 1 cent when you buy the rest of the happy meal.
"It;s time to but them back under the rock they wiggled out from under ". I'm sure you intended to write: "put them back ". Or, was it intended as a pun? Just askin'.
When the state decides what you can't put into your body, you're not free. I don't know why this is even an argument.
Prohibition of alcohol was put forward as an attempt to improve society. It failed not because it was misguided and had bad intentions, but because people want to make their own choices. THAT IS FREEDOM.
I've met plenty of uptight conservatives, but I've never met a more rigid, march-lockstep-and-follow-the-rules group of people than liberals.
How's that judgmental? can't wait to hear this.
If you don't like crappy fast food, don't eat it — but don't tell anyone else not to.
If you don't want a tungsten light bulb, don't buy it — but don't tell anyone else not to
if you don't want to drive a huge gas guzzler, don't — but don't tell anyone else not to
Freedom is about making your own decisions, not having them taken away from you. It has everything to do with making the world a better place because it makes the people in it better rather than peasants who exist at the whim of the state.
The state actually hasn't decided what you can put in your body in this case. Children can stil go to McDonalds in San Francisco and eat all the crap they want. What's come under fire is the way the food has been marketed and promoted and that is through the toy they give you with the meal. Second of all in New York City putting a cap on the amount of trans fats either restaurants or food companies can put in their food doesnt really seem to be crossing the line. It's a matter of public health. Dont we have an FDA for much the same reason? So, is your alternative pure laissez faire capitalism with no oversight that simply allows the business sector to do whatever it wants? How would that be in the publics best interest or serve the interests of freedom?
Question, and I don't know the answer to this, but how do you feel about drug prohibition? Hta's essentially the government telling you what you can or cant put into your body and it has criminal penalties along with it.
The United States needs to ban San Francisco!
Freedom to choose for myself what I want.
I sometimes enjoy crappy fast food and should have the freedom to do so.
I prefer the light emitted by tungsten light bulbs and should have the freedom to use said bulbs. I also prefer the freedom of choosing to not foul the planet with the mercury used in the production of flourescent bulbs.
And if I want to drive a '72 Lincoln Continental with a 450 ci, 8-cylinder engine that gets 10 mpg, I should have the freedom to do so.
That's how those items are synonomous with freedom.
Again tyranny loving. The whole presumption is one of supreme arrogance. the government knows better than the driveling masses. Who cares if you like taste and want food that you like, we know better than you! Do you NOT SEE THE TYRANNY ?!?!?! It's the absolute definition of tyranny. How brainwashed are you?
By the way, you know what happens when the business sector "does whatever it wants"? The economy and freedoms EXPLODE! Look at the internet as the perfect example. Millions upon millions of uses, oddities, quirks and everything in between. Get you freedom removing libs involved and you would crush speech, crush ideas, crush expression.
Know who decies which businesses win? The consumers! Again, it's CHOICE! If some run amok company puts out a bad product then people don't use them and they go under. It is so simple that even a liberals SHOULD be able to grasp it.
Who cares if a kid gets a toy with a happy meal? What's next? Are you going to ban the way some restaurants give kids crayons to use while waiting for their food to arrive? Maybe that "entices" them to want to eat at Olive Garden! Gasp!
Like I said: You all are seriously UPTIGHT.
As for drug prohibition… I'm a libertarian. How do you think I feel about drug prohibition?
By the way, you never answered with your definition of freedom, but I imagine it's because you've never actively considered the subject. Here's a hint, though: Letting others decide for you isn't freedom.
sorry if the idea of a city's citizenry making their own civic choices of what the city's rules are offends whatever you are.
How would that be in the public's best interest? Are you that shallow minded? So 36 companies trying to lure in customers in the same market offering essentially the same product isn't good for the consumer? Are you that daft? It creates COMPETITION! That leads to lower prices, better goods and services, NEW goods and services. All that leads to jobs, production and wealth creation. Tell me how limiting what companies can do to the point that there is NO room for freedom and everyone has to produce the same helps society. You CAN'T because it DOESN'T.
Economic freedom and indicidual freedom go hand in hand, and that has been true for thousands of years in hundreds of societies. Stop advocating tyranny while trying to pretend that you don't. At least embrace your dark side. We all see it clear as day.
oooh, wicked comeback man. And as for Abe Lincoln's use of "democracy"??
or are you gonna cut and run?
By the way, I LOVE the absolute utter hypocrisy.
Tell me how the gov't helps? Why is big business bad when the only way thery can survive is to create something people WILLFULLY buy while big gov't is bad when they can create an awful product, you HAVE to take it or face removal of one's property, one's rights or jail time? The US gov't IS the single biggest monopoly EVER CREATED! Stop being such a blind hypocrite.
organic food is good for me.
tell you what, lets civilly agree to disagree on this one.
I'll feed my kids organic food, and you feed yours Macdonald's.
Still wondering why some people can't use voluntarism instead of force.
Just because YOU don't like these items doesn't mean others don't. YOU think the world would be better off.
Lets take your ILB (incandescent light bulb) comment. ILBs are still very useful vs CFBs (compact fluorescent bulbs).
1. ILBs are instant on in any weather including extreme cold. CFLs take a long time to light up in cold and may not light up for over 20 minutes in extreme cold.
2. ILBs are intensity adjustable. CFLs are not and the much more expensive CFLs that do still won't work with home automated lighting systems.
3. ILBs give off heat so are good for simple heating like animal pens and cages.
4. CFLs flicker with even minimal juice so lamps with intensity dials can flicker.
5. Some people are affected by CFL flickering.
6. ILBs give off a much wider spectrum of light and can also be soft lighted as well as restricted to various ranges. CFLs are stuck near the UV range. No soft lighting.
7. CFLs contain exotic elements like mercury. Break one and you have a toxic spill. ILBs are simply a vacuumed bulb with a wire.
8. ILBs cost a heck of a lot less than CFLs. CFLs are currently gov subsidized which makes them unfair for purchase. If they reflected their true3 price, people would not buy them.
9. CFLs don't work well sideways.
So there exists LOTS of reasons to use ILBs. The real problem here is your ignorant and narrow minded view that all the world should be run the way YOU THINK it should be run. In my day that was special interest, a minority imposing its will upon the majority and as a true liberal I denounce that.
Last point, I love how you get to decide what is "crossing the line". Next it will be that you can't see how everyone being forced to buy GM vehicles only isn't crossing the line, how no one being able to eat food other than what is served at gov't subsidized restaurants isn't crossing the line and how locking up the evil conservatives isn't crossing the line, how taking away all property from non-liberals isn't crossing the line, and how exterminating any who voice disagreement isn't crossing the line.
Conservatives want people to have more freedom, more choices, you all dream of a dictatorship where the gov't dictates what we do, what we say, what we're allowed, yet you won't call it tyranny. Unbelievable. Willfully blind.
Tell us how run amok socialism has EVER helped ANY society. More people were killed during peace time under socialism than all world wars combined. Explain to us how that helps society.
A sense of humor, Jay, do you have it?
*Quinn*
I never cut and run from snarky elitists. Pick up that dictionary that gives you such a headache and do some basic research. While it is possible to interchange, on a "common" level, the terms republic and democracy when speaking of a Republican form of government, a Republic can never be a Democracy. And call me in the morning…..
"So, is your alternative pure laissez faire capitalism with no oversight that simply allows the business sector to do whatever it wants? How would that be in the publics best interest or serve the interests of freedom? "
Letting people do as they like as long as they do not harm others IS FREEDOM. You seem to not have a grasp of the word unless you want freedom from the responsibility to think for yourself.
Drugs should not be prohibited. They can be discouraged through social pressure but the gov should not ban any drugs. Are you an adult or a child?
As for food bans, yes a person should choose for themselves what they wish to put in their bodies. Are you now to advocate what we can put in our minds as well? Are you too incompetent to decide for yourself what to eat?
You keep using this "ain't so bad" logical fallacy, slippery slope method of satisfying your use of force against others. Again, it ain't so bad to pray, maybe you should be forced to pray?
As for McDonalds, sooner or later San Fran WILL ban children from eating there. But its absurd to think that the toy is the problem. Toys do not give off mind rays that make people do things. If a parent loses a debate with a child then that is bad parenting and maybe this really reflects on progressives destruction of families. In the 70s we also had kids meals with toys but we also had parents (and there were two of them) who said NO and that NO stuck. Just because your grand vision of a new family structure fails to handle their kids does not mean the rest of us have to suffer.
Kids don't get fat from happy meals, toys or snacks. Kids get fat from bad parenting. Why should we all suffer cause some people don't know how to be parents or have destroyed the concept of families.
Good points. I challenge JayDandy to give us a historical example of corporations doing as they please and harming people and I will gladly top it with governments doing as they please and BUTCHERING MILLIONS.
Profit motive is GOOD! "Oh don't let corporations do as they like… they may create… PROSPERITY! GASP!"
How many millions died under Mao, Stalin gov controlled food production. Must be in the 10s of millions. The Ukraine was the bread basket of Russia till the communists took over.
And as a grand example. N. Korea is 100% gov controlled. They have cannibalism.
EXACTLY!! They are so completely brain washed that there is no critical thinking, no analysis, no looking at what happened in previous societies, yet they march on like the mindless drones they have become. It's UNREAL!
Amen bro.
His view of freedom is letting you decide if you prefer to be electrocuted or shot by a firing squad for voicing disagreement.
No, you want me there because I am one of these things you may have never heard of. It's called a tax payer.
Yes, we make the fun disappear by letting people have SUV's, light bulbs that actually function, and happy meals. While you create the fun by taking away toys, taking away vehicles, taking away choices while making us all salute a picture of Obamugabe and say "Seig Heil". Yep, lots of fun there. You should have lived in Germany in 1939, It's your fun utopia.
They still have their marijuana dispensaries.
I'm with gb8898- what is your definition of freedom ?
Obviously not.
You should approach the McDonalds corporation with that.
Hey Dandy boy so what your saying it is fine to take away the toys for the little kids while at the same time teaching them to play games in the bathroom at McDonald
That is the point, SF forces laws onto what they believe is best for all kids while teaching them far worse unhealthy habits
Just what do you think little kids should play with ?
A progressive is taught progressivism.
An ex-progressive KNOWS progressivism.
How many of us remember when the right was the special interest pushing its should've, could've, would've interventionism upon everyone. Remember how the left screamed that was not right? Even now they scream about creationism and prayer in school ever raising its head.
But yet the very same people have no problem shoveling their narrow minded poop on everyone else in EXACTLY the same way all prefaced with… but ours is better. Seriously can an ideology be so damn blatantly hypocritical and two faced and still exist? Even conservatism isn't that absurd.
Who do you think buys and owns the majority of the co-called SUV's in this country? The federal, state, and local governments in their pursuit of providing services to us, you moron. Not to mention the many businesses that need them to conduct the services that they provide to all of us. Besides, one would think that you'd be in favor of them because they are the cash cows of the car companies and as a wealth re-distributionist, taking money from those that can afford them and giving them to the UAW and it's members would appeal to you.
Yes, let's stop the production of SUV's and as I'd love to see the Secret Service follow Obama around in Chevy Volts. You think they can get that mini-gun they follow the Prez with in one? Or, is your rant just aimed at white Republicans who own them?
Like Robin Williams said,"San Francisco is proof positive that God still plays with an Etch-A-Sketch."
okay, first of all, you are interchanging on a common level the mutual exclusiveness between Democrats and Republicans and thinking that that oppositeness extends to Democracy and Republics. A little knowledge is dangerous, and you are showing how badly you scan err with the dictionary toy you found.
Its true that one cannot be a Democrat and a Republican and the same time. These are mutually exclusive. Fine. No argument there. But this point has nothing to do with what a democracy is, and it has nothing to do with what a republic is.
A democracy is kind of government where the majority rules.
A republic is a kind of state where the law rules.
Does that sound wildly different and opposite to you? Its too bad for you if so.
Our democratic process is governed by the rule of law. We democratically determine the law. We democratically elect representatives to determine, interpret and execute the law. We are a representative democracy and we are a democratic republic.
But Daddy: Does being a democratic republic mean that the rule of law provides rights to everyone, but especially to insure that minorities are protected from the will of the majority?
Yes, Jenny, that is true. Being a republic restricts our democracy, and so we are not a direct democracy.
But Daddy: how was the Constitution that structures all of our laws ratified?
Take a guess Jenny!
They voted on it?
That's right Jenny.
So now, I've once again wasted time explaining all this. Would someone at least do me the favor of explaining why you are all making such hay out of this?!?!?!
Why deny our own democratic virtue? Why deny Abraham Lincoln?
are you really just that spooked by the letters? D – E – M – O – C – R – A – T -…. Is that all there is to this? GROW UP!!!!
Actually the "cut didn't make the ban"….
I always wondered about Ronald and the Hamburgler…
"forbidding city departments from doing business with companies that were involved in the (pre–Civil War) slave trade"
Does that include Muslim Countries, many of whom did not end slavery until after WWII….
Well said.
That was one of the points of the American Experiment – local and state officials could experiment to their heart's content, just don't bother the rest of us with it. And at least if you wanted to fight it, you'd have probably an easier time of it, or at least just move.
That's the beauty that is . . . was? . . . America.
By the way, you know what happens when the business sector "does whatever it wants"? The economy and freedoms EXPLODE!
Really? tell that to late 19th and early 20th century factory workers. Or perhaps workers in the third world serving American business interests.
Again does the government not already regulate what substances you can and can't put in your body through the prohibiton of drugs and for the reason that they are harmful to your health?
And boo hoo…you guys talk about people on the left whining and playing victim but it seems righties have picked up that baton and running straight for the finish line with it.
Others decide for us all on a daily basis. That's what laws are.
"Why would I ever want to feed my kid pure garbage?"
Then DON'T!
That's the beauty of what's supposed to be a FREE COUNTRY – eat it or don't, but don't tell other people what to do.
Man, you guys are slow.
"I'll feed my kids organic food, and you feed yours Macdonald's."
Holy crap, I think you figured it out!
That's the way it's supposed to be ding dong.
Didn't say you couldn't do it, but we are saying it's stupid and fascist.
You're jumping ahead. We were talking about the regulation of a lightbulb and a happy meal not a complete takeover of the private sector.
Should people really be sold and marketed a product without regulation that after sitting on a kitchen counter for six months without refrigeration still won't decompose? And do you think that what's in their acting as a preservatve which the consumer has no idea about is actually healthy? Dont you think Mc Donalds needs to show a little responsibility rather than poisoning the public for profit? Should McDonalds interests in making cheap food full of garbage for maximum profits be the only consideration? Do you even care? No because you're unethical putz who puts a higher vaule on money than either health or human life.
Perhaps we should peddle heroin on the open market too while we're at it? And you have the audacity to call me a tyrant? Your projections are a little intense Spawn. Obviously you've walled off the compassionate part of yourself to such an extent that now all you can do is hate people that show any.
Without all of your verbose BS, your wrong.
Yes, but what we're talking about is LIMITED GOVERNMENT – the Constitution lays out what the Federal Gov't can do and what it can't do. And those ENUMERATED POWERS are limited.
That's the social contract we have in this country.
What you are talking about is UNLIMITED GOVERNMENT – the gov't gets to legislate anything and everything it wants.
That leads to tyranny because there are no LIMITATIONS on gov't, which can grow and grow and grow until you make no choices for yourself.
You are drunk too deeply of the Kool-Aid. You should probably be talking to people who lived under totalitarian gov'ts and they can explain to you how grand America is and how bad tyranny is.
You have NO CLUE.
Ah yes, Frisco, land of fruits, nuts, chemical abusers, perversion, etc. adnauseum
What I'm beginning to see here is that you cant rationally argue your point so you have jump to irrational conclusions about what might happen and what I supposedly think. Is that how it's done for you? You simply tell other people what they think and then demonize them even though they never mentioned any such thing? Jesus, i feel bad for the people in your life. Youre the tyrant that you hate my friend, that is quite obvious.
I know what crossing the line is. It isnt a regulation of trans fats or a flourescent light bulb. Sane people know there is a world of difference between the aforementioned and free speech issues or having my property confiscated by the authorities or locking up dissenters. Or do you want to tell me what I think again?
"…but seriously- why do you care so much about Happy Meals? "
Clueless …you are totally clueless.
You must be logged in to post a comment.