No Happy Meals for SanFran

[Doc Savage Fan]

Let's play devil's advocate here....

Which one do you really think will do more short/long term damage to our country, having restaurants have to stop promoting slop that isn't fit for pigs by trying to bride kids or telling two adults that they can legally enter into a contractual agreement to have a dispute decided upon specific ground rules as long as they entered into it under their own volition?

So...what are you trying to say here? That forcing one's "morality" on others is acceptable as long as you personally agree with it?

 

[fleshconsumed]

"We are extremely proud of our Happy Meals which give our youngest guests wholesome food and toys of the highest quality. Getting a toy with a kid's meal is just one part of a fun, family experience at McDonald's," Proud said.

Ahahahahahahahaha... the HFCS grease fest and Chinese junk are considered wholesome food and quality toys? Ahahahahahahahaha...

Under the proposal, the food and beverage would have to contain fewer than 600 calories, and less than 35 percent of total calories would come from fat.

The meal would also have to contain 0.5 cups of fruit and 0.75 cups of vegetables and offer less than 640 mg of sodium and less than 0.5 mg of trans fat. Breakfast would have the option of offering 0.5 cups of fruit or vegetables.

The horror...

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Oh, to add a little more, maybe we should just let restaurants serve whatever they want? After all, before they were forced by government mandates, you used to get all kinds of good stuff like:

e. coli
salmonella
botulism

Unless you think that the government (city/state/fed) has no right to regulate any part of a business, then this one has very little difference than telling food providers that they have to met certain cleanliness and preparation guidelines to be able to peddle their wares.

Holy shit...you are brain dead!!!

 

[RightIsWrong]

So...what are you trying to say here? That forcing one's "morality" on others is acceptable as long as you personally agree with it?

Actually, just the opposite. There were some that complained in both thread (in favor of the Sharia ban and opposed to this "ban") and I am trying to show their duplicitous logic in claiming that the law must ban one thing while stating that the law has no right in banning the other.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Holy shit...you are brain dead!!!

What a well reasoned and well though out response. Care to actually try to add something to the topic or do you think that your cunning wit is enough to placate the population?

 

[Cogman]

Oh, to add a little more, maybe we should just let restaurants serve whatever they want? After all, before they were forced by government mandates, you used to get all kinds of good stuff like:

e. coli
salmonella
botulism

Unless you think that the government (city/state/fed) has no right to regulate any part of a business, then this one has very little difference than telling food providers that they have to met certain cleanliness and preparation guidelines to be able to peddle their wares.

You still CAN get all of those diseases, the government just stepped in to enforce minimum requirements to make it less likely. There is a big difference between mandating what ingredients you can use and how clean a work space should be.

Hell, so long as a company informed everyone "We put fecal matter into every bite!" I have no problem with McDonalds serving crap.

There is a big difference between keeping food clean and trying to control the diet of a nation. It is like you are saying "Well, if you support the government having a military you support them instituting a big brother society!"

 

[zsdersw]

Oh, to add a little more, maybe we should just let restaurants serve whatever they want? After all, before they were forced by government mandates, you used to get all kinds of good stuff like:

e. coli
salmonella
botulism

Unless you think that the government (city/state/fed) has no right to regulate any part of a business, then this one has very little difference than telling food providers that they have to met certain cleanliness and preparation guidelines to be able to peddle their wares.

The most effective "mandate" is to reward and punish businesses by using your wallet.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

What a well reasoned and well though out response. Care to actually try to add something to the topic or do you think that your cunning wit is enough to placate the population?

It's called 'false equivalence' Dr. Einstein.

 

[BoberFett]

Oh, to add a little more, maybe we should just let restaurants serve whatever they want? After all, before they were forced by government mandates, you used to get all kinds of good stuff like:

e. coli
salmonella
botulism

Unless you think that the government (city/state/fed) has no right to regulate any part of a business, then this one has very little difference than telling food providers that they have to met certain cleanliness and preparation guidelines to be able to peddle their wares.

If I went to a restaurant that had Salmonellawich on their menu, why should I not be able to order it?

On the other hand, if a restaurant sells me a Hamburger and E Coli isn't in the ingredients list, then we have a problem.

Both situations work just fine with government regulation.

 

[Genx87]

Thank you govt for protecting me from myself!

 

[RightIsWrong]

You still CAN get all of those diseases, the government just stepped in to enforce minimum requirements to make it less likely. There is a big difference between mandating what ingredients you can use and how clean a work space should be.

Hell, so long as a company informed everyone "We put fecal matter into every bite!" I have no problem with McDonalds serving crap.

There is a big difference between keeping food clean and trying to control the diet of a nation. It is like you are saying "Well, if you support the government having a military you support them instituting a big brother society!"

And you can still get the happy meal. The SF council is simply stating that to get it with a toy, the company must improve the health quality of the meal or else sell it without the toy.

They are not trying to control the diet in any way. You still have the choice of ordering the meal or not and the company still has the option of selling the meal in its current state sans the toy. Where is the attempt at diet control?

Also,I can support the government having a military while vehemently opposing a big brother society. They are mutually exclusive options.

 

[zsdersw]

The SF council is simply stating that to get it with a toy, the company must improve the health quality of the meal or else sell it without the toy.

.. as if that's any better than banning Happy Meals. It's not.

It is just as much of an unnecessary and unjust government intervention into the free market as banning Happy Meals entirely.

 

[BoberFett]

And you can still get the happy meal. The SF council is simply stating that to get it with a toy, the company must improve the health quality of the meal or else sell it without the toy.

They are not trying to control the diet in any way. You still have the choice of ordering the meal or not and the company still has the option of selling the meal in its current state sans the toy. Where is the attempt at diet control?

To anyone being honest with themselves, this is a clear attempt at social control. Something "liberals" are supposed to be against.

 

[IBMer]

The better way would be to consider it child abuse to allow your kid to become obese.

 

[Cogman]

And you can still get the happy meal. The SF council is simply stating that to get it with a toy, the company must improve the health quality of the meal or else sell it without the toy.

They are dictating what a company can and can't sell. How is this equivalent to health standards?

They are not trying to control the diet in any way. You still have the choice of ordering the meal or not and the company still has the option of selling the meal in its current state sans the toy. Where is the attempt at diet control?

The government is trying to dictate exactly how the business can be run and what food it can or can't serve. If this measure flies, what is to stop them from saying "McDonalds can no longer serve food in containers." They are overstepping their bounds by trying to run a business, with the ultimate goal of diet control.

Also,I can support the government having a military while vehemently opposing a big brother society. They are mutually exclusive options.

No, they are not mutually exclusive options. A government can have a strong military and a big brother society. But I'm glad you see that there is a huge gap between "big brother society" and "having a military" That was sort of the point.

Again, my point was that you tried to compare the government setting food cleanliness standards to the government trying to control diet.

 

[xj0hnx]

Thank you govt for protecting me from myself!

Ahh but they are really protecting your kids from ...you. Rightiswrong, you are beyond delusional, who's sock are you ...come on, really who's?

 

[RightIsWrong]

To anyone being honest with themselves, this is a clear attempt at social control. Something "liberals" are supposed to be against.

Where is the social control?

McDonalds is not being forced to change their food preparation in any way, shape or form. People are not being forced to choose something else on the menu other than a happy meal.

The state of California is spending more in healthcare than probably 40 of the 50 states even generate in revenue. In the 2009-10 budget, the state is spending 19% of its total budget on health related items.

http://www.chcf.org/~/media/Files/PDF/Q/PDF QuickReferenceGuideCA10.pdf

Considering that state had an $85B budget during that year:

http://2009-10.archives.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/Enacted/BudgetSummary/SummaryCharts.pdf

They had total health care outlays of over $16B. If they are able to shave some of the costs off of that by either coercing McDonalds to improve the nutritional content of their food or by making the current less appealing to kids by not including the toy to help cut into the $28B budget deficit, its their right. Unless they find other ways to generate revenue like increasing taxes and pissing off everyone instead of just those that want their cheap marketing trinkets.

 

[CPA]

While this is just silly, I must point out that what they hope to do is force the fast food chains to improve their meals to continue to offer toys with them. What and how much people want to eat should be up to them, too bad the way our medical system works the results of their choices costs us.

Why? Why does it matter if they improve their meals. News Flash: They're an f'in burger chain, no different than In and Out, Five Guys and the corner burger place most elitist libs jerk off to. They put a toy in a child's meal, so what? If this was truly about making meals better they would hit places across the board, but they don't, they only go after the big guy because that's where the money's at.

 

[CPA]

Where is the social control?

McDonalds is not being forced to change their food preparation in any way, shape or form. People are not being forced to choose something else on the menu other than a happy meal.

The state of California is spending more in healthcare than probably 40 of the 50 states even generate in revenue. In the 2009-10 budget, the state is spending 19% of its total budget on health related items.

http://www.chcf.org/~/media/Files/PDF/Q/PDF%20QuickReferenceGuideCA10.pdf

Considering that state had an $85B budget during that year:

http://2009-10.archives.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/Enacted/BudgetSummary/SummaryCharts.pdf

They had total health care outlays of over $16B. If they are able to shave some of the costs off of that by either coercing McDonalds to improve the nutritional content of their food or by making the current less appealing to kids by not including the toy to help cut into the $28B budget deficit, its their right. Unless they find other ways to generate revenue like increasing taxes and pissing off everyone instead of just those that want their cheap marketing trinkets.

i have a better way of shaving down their healthcare bill: don't pay for illegals medical costs.

 

[Craig234]

The most effective "mandate" is to reward and punish businesses by using your wallet.

Like the way that car makers put seat belts in cars 'most effectively' by the rewards and punishments of using your wallet, not by the government requiring them.

Clearly, the issue of nutrional fast food has been 'most effectively' met by the use of your wallet. That's why so many communities already have these nutrtional improvements.

Or, maybe while 'your wallet' is one important thing, it's quite ineffective sometimes, and government involvement is more effective, but it sounds good so you say it?

The level of hyperbole in the thread - spouting German fascism slogans - over improving nutrition for childrens' mills shows the irrational craziness of the opponents.

Talk about Godwin's Law, no issue for them is too small to end the world over.

What's this, adding a mandatory cost to their government-contracted trash bill for recycling services? Uber Hitler! Mourn the freedom of the human race! Heil trashman!

I'm not even discussing the actual issue of the boundaries of state power, but noting the impossibility of a discussion of those boundaries with such irrational people who open with 'THE NAZIS WON WWII!"

By the way, WHO IS THE HITLER GOVERNMENT TO TELL PARENTS THEY CANNOT BUY CIGARETTES AND ALCOHOL FOR THEIR KIDS? That's INFRINGEMENT of parental rights!

The government knows how to raise your children better than you the parents do! Tyranny!!!!1!

 

[RightIsWrong]

Why? Why does it matter if they improve their meals. News Flash: They're an f'in burger chain, no different than In and Out, Five Guys and the corner burger place most elitist libs jerk off to. They put a toy in a child's meal, so what? If this was truly about making meals better they would hit places across the board, but they don't, they only go after the big guy because that's where the money's at.

In case you didn't read the actual article, it does go for all establishments that are including any incentives with their meals.

Under the proposal, McDonald's and other restaurants would have until December 2011 to improve their meals' nutrition with fruits and vegetables -- if the chains want to keep offering Captain America figurines or toys tied with latest films.

 

[SagaLore]

I'd rather see most kids cereals get banned.

Fruit Loops is NOT breakfast. Should be categorized as candy.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I'd rather see most kids cereals get banned.

Fruit Loops is NOT breakfast. Should be categorized as candy.

Why stop there? Let's ban candy too!

 

[Patranus]

I'd rather see most kids cereals get banned.

Fruit Loops is NOT breakfast. Should be categorized as candy.

Actually, breakfast cereal is a lot more healthy than people think. They are enriched with necessary vitamins and minerals that children who eat these cereals wouldn't otherwise get.

 

[BoberFett]

LOL. Craig.