Santa Clara County: Supervisors ban toys with fast-food meals

[IndyColtsFan]

If the people didn't want the law, they're free to vote for someone else next election.

It's good for you to say that, because people thought it was a waste of time:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/04/28/fast.food.toys.california/index.html?hpt=C1

The group commissioned a poll of local residents that found 80 percent didn't think the toy issue was an important one.

"From our perspective, we were echoing what our customers had to say. Obviously we felt that this proposal was excessive and I think purposely provocative," said Daniel Conway, the association's director of public affairs.

 

[Throckmorton]

Just do this and I'll be happy. If you don't like a law, just say you don't like it. Don't try to say it's unconstitutional, and it's violating peoples' god given rights, and government is stepping on your throat with a jackboot, and no fast food toys means the downfall of our way of life.

 

[Moonbeam]

Hell, all these fast food places are trying to do is brainwash little bastards to be life long automatons with brand loyalty. What the fuck is immoral or wrong with that? The economy is great when folk are robot sheep.

 

[OutHouse]

If the people didn't want the law, they're free to vote for someone else next election.

the moronic government shouldn't me making the stupid law in the first place.

 

[Patranus]

Once again, government thinks it is the parent.

 

[BoberFett]

What?? Did you miss the part where I explicitely said that they passed a law that violated nobody's rights? Are you saying that all laws are bad because slavery was based on law?

There is nothing unconstitutional about this law. If a county council passed a pro-slavery law that WOULD be unconstitutional.

Slaves don't have rights. As long as the majority approves of it, they're property.

 

[Linflas]

Once again the single best response to this would be for the affected businesses to let go all their employees and close up shop in this county. Then let the county board deal with the fallout in a time of 10% unemployment. Hell they might even be able to get some tax incentives to re-open from the new board once it is in place.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Slaves don't have rights. As long as the majority approves of it, they're property.

What he misses is the Constitution enumerates the power of government in a permissive way. That is, it defines what the government has the power to do. Whatever power that is not delegated to it, it does not have.

Now the government has often exceeded it's mandate since there's really no one who can tell it to screw off without being shot or being thrown in jail. Of course over two and a half centuries there has been conflict of what powers the government can use to achieve it's aims and such.

So the red herrings and rat poisons and other laws based on true public safety are brought up to justify anything at all.

Traditionally, the government has been encouraged to be our servant, not our master and insert itself willy nilly in our day to day lives except at need. Therein lies the basis for legitimate legislation. A genuine need answered in the framework of law conforming to the constraints we've placed upon lawmakers.

This fellow turns it on it's head, and says that the government may do anything it likes as long as "rights" aren't violated. Of course the government itself determines what they are.

When he sleeps, what he eats, what he can do in his spare time? All are fair game for government control under the guise of the "greater good".

It's a dictator's dream. Sheep not only willing to be led, but insistent on it.

 

[bfdd]

Hey douchebag, I'm against banning homosexual marriage. In fact, I'm against government being involved in marriage at all. It should be no business of the government's who I marry, male or female.

I'm for as much freedom is possible. Something that nowadays seems incomprehensible to busy-bodies like you.

The people who want toys out of kids meals are just as bad as the ones who want the bible in schools. Both piss me off.

^ this, you guys need to stop assuming that just because someone has a difference of opinion on one subject they must also have a difference opinion than you on other subjects. I'm against this as I am against the government having anything to do with marriage, I'm against this like I am a lot of things. How about we stick to this topic instead of bringing up other ones to compare against shit you just ASSUME the other person thinks.

 

[dmcowen674]

I don't like this law but if it..... well you know the rest :thumbsup:

 

[Moonbeam]

It's a dictator's dream. Sheep not only willing to be led, but insistent on it.

You mean like surrender to the Will of God. Is a Lover a slave to the Beloved?

Chain me please in bonds that cannot break, I pray thee, oh Luminous Being.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I don't like this law but if it..... well you know the rest :thumbsup:

Ah yes, the usual "insight" from the village idiot. I'm surprised it took him this long to appear.

 

[Slew Foot]

<democrat>

Look at me Im too too stupid to live! Please take care of me big brother!

</democrat>

 

[woolfe9999]

What he misses is the Constitution enumerates the power of government in a permissive way. That is, it defines what the government has the power to do. Whatever power that is not delegated to it, it does not have.

Now the government has often exceeded it's mandate since there's really no one who can tell it to screw off without being shot or being thrown in jail. Of course over two and a half centuries there has been conflict of what powers the government can use to achieve it's aims and such.

So the red herrings and rat poisons and other laws based on true public safety are brought up to justify anything at all.

Traditionally, the government has been encouraged to be our servant, not our master and insert itself willy nilly in our day to day lives except at need. Therein lies the basis for legitimate legislation. A genuine need answered in the framework of law conforming to the constraints we've placed upon lawmakers.

This fellow turns it on it's head, and says that the government may do anything it likes as long as "rights" aren't violated. Of course the government itself determines what they are.

When he sleeps, what he eats, what he can do in his spare time? All are fair game for government control under the guise of the "greater good".

It's a dictator's dream. Sheep not only willing to be led, but insistent on it.

A bit off point in this context. State and local governments have general "police powers" which are enumerated in the state constitutions, either particuarly or broadly. The question of the limit of the federal government's power is one of interpretation of the breadth of the commerce clause, but that issue is irrelevant to a county ordinance. Governments haven't so much gone beyond what is explicitly mandated in the various Constitutions(s), but they certainly have chosen to move into many areas that they were not involved in before. It isn't a question of the Constitutionality of a county government doing this, however. It's whether or not it's a desirable thing for them to do.

Regarding the particulars of this, I am with the majority here in viewing this as a product of nannystate mentality. I don't want the government banning happy meal toys, or doing all sorts of things they already do, and some which are merely proposed (but thankfully do not get passed.)

Here is a far more serious issue that comes from your home state. Your state assemby just passed a ban on electronic cigarettes. It's a good thing I don't live there, because I'd be forced back into smoking. With no floor debate, those idiots passed a total ban based ONLY off a very misleading FDA report, and ignored or never bothered to look into other research which contradicts it. And the FDA is flat out lying about e-cigs because they want to be given the power to regulate them. They have one 1,200th the amount of carinogens as cigarettes and they're banned, yet cigarettes are legal. It's going to kill people, and it's sickening. What kind of fuckin bozos are running your state?

- wolf

 

[nonlnear]

<democrat>

Look at me Im too too stupid to live! Please take care of me big brother!

</democrat>

The Democrats have a rich history which, while largely irrelevant to contemporary politics, should not be forgotten. Sometimes I introduce myself as a Grover Cleveland Democrat when asked my political inclinations. That is guaranteed to get (in descending order of likelihood) either a blank stare, a scowl, or a chuckle.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

A bit off point in this context. State and local governments have general "police powers" which are enumerated in the state constitutions, either particuarly or broadly. The question of the limit of the federal government's power is one of interpretation of the breadth of the commerce clause, but that issue is irrelevant to a county ordinance. Governments haven't so much gone beyond what is explicitly mandated in the various Constitutions(s), but they certainly have chosen to move into many areas that they were not involved in before. It isn't a question of the Constitutionality of a county government doing this, however. It's whether or not it's a desirable thing for them to do.

Regarding the particulars of this, I am with the majority here in viewing this as a product of nannystate mentality. I don't want the government banning happy meal toys, or doing all sorts of things they already do, and some which are merely proposed (but thankfully do not get passed.)

Here is a far more serious issue that comes from your home state. Your state assemby just passed a ban on electronic cigarettes. It's a good thing I don't live there, because I'd be forced back into smoking. With no floor debate, those idiots passed a total ban based ONLY off a very misleading FDA report, and ignored or never bothered to look into other research which contradicts it. And the FDA is flat out lying about e-cigs because they want to be given the power to regulate them. They have one 1,200th the amount of caringens as cigarettes and they're banned, yet cigarettes are legal. It's going to kill people, and it's sickening. What kind of fuckin bozos are running your state?

- wolf

My state is a perfect example of what Throckmorton apparently wants. Broad powers notwithstanding, the states have been expected to conduct themselves with the same restraint that was intended for the Federal government. I'm not sure Happy Meals nitwit laws would withstand a legal challenge because there is no data which supports this as being a legitimate remedy to any health crisis.

This state (NY) is a dream or nightmare depending on perspective. There is nothing that can be legislated that representatives here feel they aren't qualified to regulate. We have bizarre gun laws which were purposefully crafted the better part of a hundred years ago for one purpose, and that was to make it virtually impossible for anyone but the political boss at the time and his henchmen to have one.

Ironically, it seems he was murdered by a large caliber weapon, a train.

Every state regulates it's professional practioners. In NY, we have a "wet lab", that is a pharmacist graduate who wants to be licensed here has to compound medications not used in 100 years. Why? Because the state says so, and no one will get around to changing what hasn't been done in other states in decades.

This is the "efficiency" of government I'm used to, and it doesn't inspire confidence.

Why one would want to surrender themselves or worse force others to do so escapes me, and I hope it always will.

 

[woolfe9999]

My state is a perfect example of what Throckmorton apparently wants. Broad powers notwithstanding, the states have been expected to conduct themselves with the same restraint that was intended for the Federal government. I'm not sure Happy Meals nitwit laws would withstand a legal challenge because there is no data which supports this as being a legitimate remedy to any health crisis.

This state (NY) is a dream or nightmare depending on perspective. There is nothing that can be legislated that representatives here feel they aren't qualified to regulate. We have bizarre gun laws which were purposefully crafted the better part of a hundred years ago for one purpose, and that was to make it virtually impossible for anyone but the political boss at the time and his henchmen to have one.

Ironically, it seems he was murdered by a large caliber weapon, a train.

Every state regulates it's professional practioners. In NY, we have a "wet lab", that is a pharmacist graduate who wants to be licensed here has to compound medications not used in 100 years. Why? Because the state says so, and no one will get around to changing what hasn't been done in other states in decades.

This is the "efficiency" of government I'm used to, and it doesn't inspire confidence.

Why one would want to surrender themselves or worse force others to do so escapes me, and I hope it always will.

That's pretty disturbing. Seriously man, I watched this on youtube, your Assembly discussing a total ban on e-cigs. Bear in mind that there are probably a million people in the U.S. who have permanently switched from cigarettes to this nicotine inhaler which is made to look like a cigarette and comes with flavored liquid to make the experience pleasant. Who knows how many in NY. Anyway, one moron stands up and says, here is a bill to ban them. Another moron stands up and says, is that only the sale to minors, or for adults as well? (Hasn't even read the bill.) The first moron says, oh, I forgot to mention, it's for adults as well. Second moron says, oh, OK. Another moron stands up and says, well, this is a good idea because the FDA said they contain anti-freeze (totally misleading BS). And with that, the assembly unanmimously passes the bill. Not one fucking person in that room knew anything about e-cigs, probably most had never heard of them, maybe 2 of them had read a single press release by the FDA and that's it. There are probably some 10's of thousands of NYers who will now have to cross state lines to buy their shit, or order it online from China, or else go back to smoking tobacco which is 1200x deadlier and legal. And this is the amount of consideration that is given?

Fucking retards.

- wolf

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well, that's a nice way to put it

Of course the response is "well just vote them out" which is akin to removing a brain tumor yourself. The Machine has hold, and anyone who could win is already part of the problem. It's been this way to one degree or another wherever I've lived in the NE except for NH.

Maybe that's one reason I'm skeptical of those who "know better" in govt.

 

[woolfe9999]

Well, that's a nice way to put it

Of course the response is "well just vote them out" which is akin to removing a brain tumor yourself. The Machine has hold, and anyone who could win is already part of the problem. It's been this way to one degree or another wherever I've lived in the NE except for NH.

Maybe that's one reason I'm skeptical of those who "know better" in govt.

Well in theory they can be voted out. And sometimes when they make bad decisions, they are. Part of the problem is that most times the bulk of the people out there don't know what their government is even doing at a given time because people don't have the bandwidth for it, or are just too self-absorbed and don't care enough. I happen to know about this because I use e-cigs and am part of online discussions and advocacy groups. But that is a small constituency. Morons like this can pretty easily get away with screwing over small constituencies because they know they'll get away with it. It's when there are powerful, monied interests behind those constituencies, then that is another story. Oh BTW, did I mention that e-cigs compete with medicinal nicotine replacement products which are manufactured by Big Pharma, and which have abymsal success rates because they don't mimic the hand to mouth action of smoking at all? Of course, the FDA is in the pocket of Big Pharma, and so too are all state legislators who take contributions from them. So what if they give lung cancer and emphasema to a few 10's of thousands of people, so long as they protect their campaign contributions. And after all, the FDA said that 1 sample of 19 may have had less than 1&#37; of an ingredient sometimes found in anti-freeze, so they can sleep at night.

I do believe in democracy, but it doesn't work if people aren't vigilant and don't get involved. It's 3:34 p.m. PST. Do you know what your legislature is doing? And guess what, if they aren't fucking you over this time but rather someone else, maybe you're gonna be next.

- wolf

 

[BoberFett]

And this is the amount of consideration that is given?

Fucking retards.

- wolf

You're starting to sound like a libertarian. Good man. :thumbsup:

 

[woolfe9999]

You're starting to sound like a libertarian. Good man. :thumbsup:

I have always had strong libertarian tendencies. I don't mind *some* wealth redistribution and some government involvement in certain things which are very important, and which are given careful consideration and done right. However, I always start out with a blanket presumption that I don't want government regulating or restricting, and then must be convinced otherwise.

- wolf

 

[werepossum]

LOL banning toys with fast food = the "direction this country is heading"

I have to say this again. GIVE ME A BREAK.

The amazing thing is the whiners in this thread are the same people who support the government banning same sex marriage. So apparently the freedom to have cheap Chinese toys with your nuggets is more important than the freedom to enter into a legally binding marriage contract?

You may want to rethink this. The idea that people are so grossly incompetent that government must dictate what they eat, yet should be free to marry in whatever fashion they wish, is mindbogglingly stupid. If government has the right to dictate whether your kid's meal has a toy then it certainly has the right to dictate how you should make major decisions. Conversely if you are too stupid to properly feed a child you are certainly too stupid to abandon society's mores and select your own alternate lifestyle. Sheep need their herd.

 

[BoberFett]

You may want to rethink this. The idea that people are so grossly incompetent that government must dictate what they eat, yet should be free to marry in whatever fashion they wish, is mindbogglingly stupid. If government has the right to dictate whether your kid's meal has a toy then it certainly has the right to dictate how you should make major decisions. Conversely if you are too stupid to properly feed a child you are certainly too stupid to abandon society's mores and select your own alternate lifestyle. Sheep need their herd.

Isn't it amazing how illogical these fools can be? People are apparently responsible enough to make all the choices that Democrats want them to make, but not responsible enough to eat correctly.

Amazing.

 

[werepossum]

Isn't it amazing how illogical these fools can be? People are apparently responsible enough to make all the choices that Democrats want them to make, but not responsible enough to eat correctly.

Amazing.

So true.