• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

McDonald's Happy Meal Toys to be Banned in San Francisco?

Wiseone said:
While I disagree with the law, tyranny is something our founding fathers and people fought a war over for eight years at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives.

Tyranny is not a god damn happy meal
Click to expand...

where does it end?
 
Patria Antiqua said:
How else can we ensure that people don't make the wrong decision?
Click to expand...

Here's a comprehensive list of the people who care how YOU think they should live their lives:







That is all.
 
This is a stupid law. San Francisco is a crazy backwards city. People have the right to be fat and eat bad food. The state has no business telling people what to eat.
 
boblzer0 said:
they know and thinking they don't is insulting. you'd have to live in a cave not to know. barebacking is super badass. the only person who would think it isn't is someone like you who has never had sex without paying for it therefore you always have to rubber up.
Click to expand...

What crawled up your ass?
Oh wait, I already know.
 
digsbe said:
This is a stupid law. San Francisco is a crazy backwards city. People have the right to be fat and eat bad food. The state has no business telling people what to eat.
Click to expand...

Just wait until the state pays for all of your health care. Then, they own you, inside and out. So yeah, they will be able to mandate what you can and can't eat.

And backers of single-payer health care will tell you that's perfectly OK.
 
I have seen stuff on Glenn Beck about government here and there banning and censoring and such. One issue was that words are being taken out of textbooks. Words such as "chariwoman, chairman, caveman," etc. Anything ending with -man or -woman. Can anyone discredit Beck on this or not?
 
Harshaw said:
Just wait until the state pays for all of your health care. Then, they own you, inside and out. So yeah, they will be able to mandate what you can and can't eat.

And backers of single-payer health care will tell you that's perfectly OK.
Click to expand...

Then how come my country has never done anything like this? We've had socialised healthcare since 1975 and there has been no concerted push to ban toys in happy meals. Methinks you made a logical fallacy.
 
Wake said:
I have seen stuff on Glenn Beck about government here and there banning and censoring and such. One issue was that words are being taken out of textbooks. Words such as "chariwoman, chairman, caveman," etc. Anything ending with -man or -woman. Can anyone discredit Beck on this or not?
Click to expand...
Here's a sample of what is being done to textbooks and history. There's more in the link.
What are we turning into with all this PC crap? And not showing PICTURES of what the elite consider unhealthy foods.....Who the hell do they think they are anyway?


FOXNews.com - Textbook Changes Draw Charges of Political Correctness - U.S. & World

many textbooks will no longer feature pictures of hot dogs, sodas, cakes, butter and other kinds of food that are not considered nutritious. Nor will the books contain any phrases judged to be sexist or politically insensitive.

The Founding Fathers, for instance, are now referred to as "The Framers," in an apparent effort to make them sound less male-dominant. And there will be no more reading about Mount Rushmore, where the faces of four U.S. presidents are carved into stone, because it appears to offend some American-Indian groups.

Snowman? No more. Melt that image and replace with Snowperson. Want to sail away on a yacht? No, again. It’s too elitist.
 
Your Star said:
We also have the right to tell him that his thoughts are anti-American.

Though, I agree with you, that allowing anti-American thoughts, and speech to be said is 100% American.
Click to expand...

I almost never use the term anti-American. Far too often its used to demonize someone who simply disagrees with you, but in this case, where we have a poster who clearly states they have a complete disregard for personal freedom - an ideal this nation was clearly founded on - I'd have to say the term fits.
 
Wiseone said:
While I disagree with the law, tyranny is something our founding fathers and people fought a war over for eight years at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives.

Tyranny is not a god damn happy meal
Click to expand...

Tyranny can be large or small, but its still tyranny.
 
SE102 said:
Wah no toy in my happy meal! This is worse than when Stalin stole our cabbages.
Click to expand...

Do you have a point to make here besides building up your own personal strawman? No one compared this ridiculous law to the evils of Stalinism. But beause something fails to live up (or down) to the tyranny of Stalin doesn't mean it's not an unjust infringement of freedom.

If you don't want your kids eating Happy Meals, there is a real simple solution. Don't buy them for your kids.
 
Sorry, defaulting to some sort of infringement on fundamental freedoms over a toy because you and you're kids are absurdly obese is already hilarious.
Also, they wouldn't have to enforce a law if people were actually able of controlling themselves enough to not buy too many happy meals. Srsly. People keep missing that part of the argument.
 
Patria Antiqua said:
How else can we ensure that people don't make the wrong decision?

I don't need to look up freedom. I've been confronted with its horrible visage, and declined to grant it my affections.
Click to expand...

If you don't need to look it up, then it can be safely assumed that you would take other people's freedoms knowingly and purposefully.
 
To be clear, happy meals will still be for sale and people are still free to eat them or give them to their children.

The rule just says they can't give away toys with the meal.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
To be clear, happy meals will still be for sale and people are still free to eat them or give them to their children.

The rule just says they can't give away toys with the meal.
Click to expand...

Actually, believe the toy is what makes it a "Happy Meal". Otherwise it's just a "combo".


Just sayin'.....;)


.
 
from the Rev

Another example of certain folks thinking they know better than you. Statism and tyranny.
Click to expand...

right on bro!!!! I remember when I went to buy a new car and I thought 20K was just too much for it. I told them I did not need that fancy government mandated windshield and good old fashioned glass would be okay if it saved me $800 bucks but they said "no way". They explained how people used to be cut to ribbons going through windshields and the new ones prevented a large percentage of that.

I told them I did not need those fancy seat belts that were government mandated if it saved me a cool grand but they also said "no way". They explained how before seat belts people had much higher rates of death in routine crashes and even with the older lap belts there still was injury.

I told them I did not need that fancy government mandated braking system and would gladly use the old fashioned brakes like my grandpappy used to have on the 52 Buick if it saved me $900. But they said "no way". They pointed out that the new brake systems cut braking distance down considerably and prevented skidding and the crashes that result from that.

So I had to borrow the money and get a big monthly note to pay in return for a car with lots of government mandated doodads that I did not want or need. Tyranny & Statism indeed. Where is our precious LIBERTY when we need it most?

Thanks for reading this. It took me while to type as I am recovering from a severe auto accident. The weather was bad and I ran into the back of a big semi-truck at 60 miles per hour. The front end folded like an accordion but the seat harness held me back and I only barely kissed the windshield instead of going through it. Even then I could have been killed but I was able to brake at the last few seconds and that did slow me down enough to avoid death.

I hope I recover enough to go the the big tea party rally for liberty to be held in the town public square next week. I won't be able to drive yet but I can get through on a city bus. I look forward to defending liberty and fighting for smaller government and less regulation of companies and the products they make.
 
Last edited:
Simon W. Moon said:
To be clear, happy meals will still be for sale and people are still free to eat them or give them to their children.

The rule just says they can't give away toys with the meal.
Click to expand...

I think the sentence that "people are still free to eat them or give to them to their children" is the key point. Obese people will continue to feed their kids low nutritionous meals.

Outlawing happy meal toys is like spitting into the ocean. The deck is stacked against parents trying to feed their kids anything healthy.

When you walk down the cereal isle at your grocery store take a close look to the cartoon caricatures on the front of the boxes. You will notice almost all the eyes on the figures are looking downward. Those eyes are looking down at small people to get their attention. Amazing that grown men and women spend their careers in luring young children. It almost makes them sound to be pedophillic.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Another example of certain folks thinking they know better than you. Statism and tyranny.
Click to expand...

Damn I was really hopping the ban was because the toys were offensive to some minority group. ****!
 
haymarket said:
from the Rev



right on bro!!!! I remember when I went to buy a new car and I thought 20K was just too much for it. I told them I did not need that fancy government mandated windshield and good old fashioned glass would be okay if it saved me $800 bucks but they said "no way". They explained how people used to be cut to ribbons going through windshields and the new ones prevented a large percentage of that.

I told them I did not need those fancy seat belts that were government mandated if it saved me a cool grand but they also said "no way". They explained how before seat belts people had much higher rates of death in routine crashes and even with the older lap belts there still was injury.

I told them I did not need that fancy government mandated braking system and would gladly use the old fashioned brakes like my grandpappy used to have on the 52 Buick if it saved me $900. But they said "no way". They pointed out that the new brake systems cut braking distance down considerably and prevented skidding and the crashes that result from that.

So I had to borrow the money and get a big monthly note to pay in return for a car with lots of government mandated doodads that I did not want or need. Tyranny & Statism indeed. Where is our precious LIBERTY when we need it most?

Thanks for reading this. It took me while to type as I am recovering from a severe auto accident. The weather was bad and I ran into the back of a big semi-truck at 60 miles per hour. The front end folded like an accordion but the seat harness held me back and I only barely kissed the windshield instead of going through it. Even then I could have been killed but I was able to brake at the last few seconds and that did slow me down enough to avoid death.

I hope I recover enough to go the the big tea party rally for liberty to be held in the town public square next week. I won't be able to drive yet but I can get through on a city bus. I look forward to defending liberty and fighting for smaller government and less regulation of companies and the products they make.
Click to expand...

I was almost persuaded by your anecdotal red herring as I legally drove down the highway, without power assisted steering or brakes, in my 1941 Plymouth Coupe with no seatbelts, no crumple zones and no airbags and all original glass.

Then I remembered that the government can't tell me what I have to buy ...yet.
 
Last edited:
Of course , the car you claim you are driving was legal when made that way.

And the government, as duly elected representatives of the American people chosen in fair and free elections, can indeed pass laws deemed Constitutional for the good and welfare of the people.
 
haymarket said:
Of course , the car you claim you are driving was legal when made that way.

And the government, as duly elected representatives of the American people chosen in fair and free elections, can indeed pass laws deemed Constitutional for the good and welfare of the people.
Click to expand...

Quick question: Using your analogy, would you be ok with your duly elected representatives telling you that you could only drive the one car currently on the market with the highest safety rating, with their approved list of preferred options and in their choice of "safest" color and everything else was banned? Oh, and you'll have to buy a new car next year too when the safer one comes out in a new color. Sound good?
 
Last edited:
Is that a legitimate proposal for a new law or is that over-the-top hyperbole using an obviously extreme that has no basis in the real world?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom