Let's celebrate San Francisco, California liberalism

[Phatscotty]

second i never said liberal people are un-American

It's definitely been the vibe most conservatives have been giving off lately.

well, we do have this thing called The Constitution that we are trying to hang onto with out fingertips...The American people are telling the gov't they had better check their definitions, because we are starting to get animated. The fact that the democrats have been in power only means one thing, the democrats are taking the brunt for the federal gov't swallowing The Constitution.

When gov't increases, Liberty decreases

Jefferson, the father of Liberalism

[2dimes]

You're out of your mind.

Well, you know you've won when your opponents have to descend to name-calling instead of addressing any real points.
So, thanks for yet another win!

no, really, you are out of your mind...

I think the opposite. You're caught in your mind. You should take a look at all the things out side of it. Then again you're not winning out in reality so I guess you wouldn't get to have fun owning everyone with your huge wang.

[HapSmo19]

I think the opposite. You're caught in your mind. You should take a look at all the things out side of it. Then again you're not winning out in reality so I guess you wouldn't get to have fun owning everyone with your huge wang.

Spoken like a true friend of someone who is out of their mind.

[targetman377]

second i never said liberal people are un-American

It's definitely been the vibe most conservatives have been giving off lately.

am i a conservative?

[targetman377]

really ok i am not out of mind and neither are the liberals. but honestly WHY IS THIS A GOOD THING? cause i cant think of one.

[2dimes]

I think the opposite. You're caught in your mind. You should take a look at all the things out side of it. Then again you're not winning out in reality so I guess you wouldn't get to have fun owning everyone with your huge wang.

Spoken like a true friend of someone who is out of their mind.

Hmmm. probably should have used names for the benifit of others.

"I think the opposite of phatscotty's statement there, playa is caught in playa's mind..."

[silvanricky]

You're out of your mind.

Well, you know you've won when your opponents have to descend to name-calling instead of addressing any real points.
So, thanks for yet another win!

Oh please, all you've done in your time here is to try to marginalize anyone who doesn't subscribe to the 'corporations run America' point of view. Just about anytime you're challenged on anything you start with this 'The REAL issue is......". You would previously use the phrase "I DO KNOW of what I speak" acting like an expert, simply because of your age.

You've insulated yourself in your own little manufactured bubble of reality, lady.

I'm pro-Happy Meal on this one. Glad I don't live in San Francisco as they'd probably try to regulate how much salt and pepper I use a the dinner table if they could.

[2dimes]

I do believe corporations run most things in the world. I don't usually mind excepting times it directly affects me trying to have some fun.


Regarding playa in general I'd probably use "isolated" otherwise I think this nails it.

You've insulated yourself in your own little manufactured bubble of reality, lady.

[Juan_Bottom]

I disagree with this reasoning. Kids eating unhealthy food only hurts the actual kids who eat the unhealthy food.

Then why would a loving parent allow their kids to do so?
And why should we allow a loving parent to hurt their child?
And why should we allow a corporation to prey on that defenseless child?

I disagree with this reasoning. Kids eating unhealthy food only hurts the actual kids who eat the unhealthy food. They're not hurting anyone else. It also is hypocritical in the sense that it implies that parents don't care about their children and are feeding them fast food in order to harm them.

I don't understand how that is hypocritical. Parents who destroy their child's health apparently care more about themselves then the welfare of their child. You might call it evil but not hypocritical.

I understand the consent part, and that's a good point. However, where does the line get drawn for when a human being has the ability to consent and when they don't? Some kids are far more cognizant than others. I'm not going to pretend to have the absolute answer to that, but I don't think liberals do either.

18

What really baffles me is that you of all people on this site have pushed for socialized medicine. That means the cost of medical care, including the cost of treating those who contract AIDS, would be forced upon the rest of society.

Ok, first, who pays the medical bills now?
Would you prefer we just watch those people die?
And why is this baffling? Liberals want to take care of Americans. Everyone should have access to whatever they need to live happy and productive lives. This means police protection, health care, ect. This SF rule is a part of that. It's not baffling at all.

It's sad to watch young men and women give in to these same sex attractions, act upon them, and hurt themselves physically as a result. I believe they can overcome those homosexual inclinations and spare themselves from contracting HIV.

Why do you believe that? And why does it matter if they could overcome their desires or couldn't? As an American, and as a human being, shouldn't they be allowed to enjoy life and sex however they choose, so long as they don't hurt anyone else? What business is it of yours that they have sex the way that you like?
Furthermore, what do you really understand about homosexuality?
It's not about sex as you imply, it's about love. To imply that a gay man or woman could learn to "go straight" means that you yourself could learn to "go gay." Could I teach you to like weenies, beezer? I only find emotional connections with woman; I could not fall in love with a man. But if another man is the reverse of that, it's not my place to tell him that he hasn't the right.

BTW straight people have butt sex too, and enjoy it. And straight people have all kinds of sexual appetites. Enjoy your own sex life, and let others enjoy theirs too.

the sad fact here is that THE GOVERNMENT IS RAISING OUR KIDS! how hard is it too say NO to your kid and if you don't fine that your choice. I am sorry but this just pisses me off. I am sorry but if you agree with this THAN YOU ARE DUMBER THEN A BOX OF ROCKS. sorry ok got that out of my system.

First off, the government already raises your kids, as most of them are taught how to think in public schools. Parents usually just try to teach their kids what to think instead. For example, school teaches kids the scientific method, and parents teach their kids that there is a God, and which God it is.

Second, you can still make your defenseless kids fat and sick if you want to. You can still feed them all the McDonald's garbage that you like. We're just saying that McDonald's can't encourage the behavior by making eating poison fun. The toy is the only thing going. It's not a rule against parent's, it's a rule against corporations and businesses.

BTW, I'm that dumber than a box of rocks guy you were talking about. And I'm looking forward to your reply. Hopefully you've had your way with a different point of view?

[-It is government takeover period they are dictating what you can and cant eat.

No, you just can't serve a toy with the "food." You can still serve the "food."
That is, unless you serve healthy food, then you are allowed to encourage kids (and their parents) to make healthy choices.

Gotta clarify, its not conservatives who say this, not really. Its the right-wingers. Those same folks who make William Buckley look like a flaming liberal commie.

The problem as I see it is that conservatives think that a parent's right to make the decisions that their child must live by trumps the rights of the children to live a healthy and full life. "If I want to feed my kid nothing but lard then that's my choice!" I understand that parents are the stewards of their child's well-being. But obviously taking them to McDonald's and giving them a toy to encourage them to eat unhealthy foods is a violation of the parent's duty and privilege. It's a parent's job to protect their kids, but it's not their right to destroy their lives. And isn't it everyone's job to keep these corporations from preying on our children?*


I specifically chose the words "right" and "job." You can be fired from a job, but a right cannot be taken away.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/calori ... ite-481567

[Juan_Bottom]

BTW I like and support player. Obviously.

[saxitoxin]

You're out of your mind.

Well, you know you've won when your opponents have to descend to name-calling instead of addressing any real points.
So, thanks for yet another win!

I'm anti-Happy Meal on this but, seriously, Player, by this logic you have a worse Win-Loss record than the Detroit Lions. To wit:

you are an idiot
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... t#p2854242

Too bad such a good painter has to be an idiot
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... t#p2850555

only an idiot or someone with a firm agenda would believe hat
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... t#p2782197

this guys an idiot
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... t#p2798470

she is an idiot is based on multiple idiotic comments she has made.
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... t#p2797171

he is some kind of idiot
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... t#p2782197

[PLAYER57832]

I'm pro-Happy Meal on this one.

I have already said I don't like this law, several times.
But, the people of San Francisco get to decide, this not you or I. That is all.

[Phatscotty]

You're out of your mind.

Well, you know you've won when your opponents have to descend to name-calling instead of addressing any real points.
So, thanks for yet another win!

I'm anti-Happy Meal on this but, seriously, Player, by this logic you have a worse Win-Loss record than the Detroit Lions. To wit:

you are an idiot
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... t#p2854242

Too bad such a good painter has to be an idiot
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... t#p2850555

only an idiot or someone with a firm agenda would believe hat
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... t#p2782197

this guys an idiot
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... t#p2798470

she is an idiot is based on multiple idiotic comments she has made.
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... t#p2797171

he is some kind of idiot
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... t#p2782197

It would appear that Player loses a lot of arguments?

[PLAYER57832]

really ok i am not out of mind and neither are the liberals. but honestly WHY IS THIS A GOOD THING? cause i cant think of one.

The thing is that studies show 3-4 years often make the decision on where to eat for a quick meal out, and that decision is mostly based on the toy.
I already said I don't particularly like this law, for a lot of reasons. Mostly, I think the way to go is to make it easier for parents to make good choices, rather than laws like this.

I DO support not allowing things like McDonald's advertise on kid's shows, because I don't feel kids have enough ability to distinguish between reality and fiction. I mean, adults and teens -- fair game, but asking a 5 year old to make those judgements is a bit much. I would prefer NO advertising at all. And, as for "avoiding it"/"turning off the TV"... if you have kid's TV on at all, even PBS, you see McDonald's, etc. On PBS, they just paint it up as a "go out and excericise" ad. That maybe actually be worse for young kids, because they then associate McDonald's with promoting good things, like excercise.

[targetman377]

the sad fact here is that THE GOVERNMENT IS RAISING OUR KIDS! how hard is it too say NO to your kid and if you don't fine that your choice. I am sorry but this just pisses me off. I am sorry but if you agree with this THAN YOU ARE DUMBER THEN A BOX OF ROCKS. sorry ok got that out of my system.

First off, the government already raises your kids, as most of them are taught how to think in public schools. Parents usually just try to teach their kids what to think instead. For example, school teaches kids the scientific method, and parents teach their kids that there is a God, and which God it is.

Second, youy is the only thing going. It's not a rule against parent's, it's a rule against corporations can still make your defenseless kids fat and sick if you want to. You can still feed them all the McDonald's garbage that you like. We're just saying that McDonald's can't encourage the behavior by making eating poison fun. The toand businesses.

BTW, I'm that dumber than a box of rocks guy you were talking about. And I'm looking forward to your reply. Hopefully you've had your way with a different point of view?

[-It is government takeover period they are dictating what you can and cant eat.

No, you just can't serve a toy with the "food." You can still serve the "food."
That is, unless you serve healthy food, then you are allowed to encourage kids (and their parents) to make healthy choices.

Government is not supposed to raise our kids they educate them. Yes they do learn a lot at school. However you learn just as much from your parents. your principles are learned by your parents. Principles are what make us who we are!

EATING POISON!!!!! really? and Miccy d should not get punished for selling something that people obviously want. I agree its wrong for a parent to let there kids get fat but what about the family that goes to a eats out once a week. I did this growing up and my parents where ok with it. it was a treat the toy was awesome a little fun! we always had to eat all our food before we could play with the toy. I still remember when we where at Mcdonals and the toy was a stuffed animal little moose and my brother is bouncing it in the air and then back to the table. my dad turns to him and says you better stop that because your going to dip that moose into the ketchup! My brother turns to may dad and says NO AM NOT! so he continues he goes up and then right into the ketchup Yes i agree that parents should not take a kid out there everyday for the toy but at the same time why should we punish everyone for a few people who cave to there kids? It easy to say no to a kid THEY HAVE TO LISTEN TO YOU!!!!!

this law is sad yes kids like toys so who cares do parents not have the ability to say no to there kid? well???

[radiojake]

Many of you seemed to have missed the point of the ruling..

They haven't banned Happy Meals at all - If you want to be a fat f*ck, you can continue to eat as many cheeseburgers your fat ass so desires... they have just taken away the obvious promotional free-toy incentive that is clearly aimed at kids - How many times would a happy meal have been purchased because the kid was pestering their parents 'I want the toy, I want the toy'? - or whatever.

The paranoid 'oh no the government is taking over' crap is hilarious. They haven't stopped anyone from going into Muckdonalds and loading their fat, cholesterol ridden arteries up for more punishment -

[PLAYER57832]

EATING POISON!!!!! really? and Miccy d should not get punished for selling something that people obviously want.

as an interesting aside, I once saw a study where one set of rats were fed Big Macs and another set were fed cardboard. Guess which set was healthier? The one eating cardboard! The real reason was not that Big Macs are toxic, it is that a very low calorie diet is healthier -- this is supposedly true for humans as well as rats, if one gets proper nutrition, but most of us don't want to go that far

I agree its wrong for a parent to let there kids get fat but what about the family that goes to a eats out once a week. I did this growing up and my parents where ok with it. it was a treat the toy was awesome a little fun! we always had to eat all our food before we could play with the toy.

The issue here is that when you advertise these toys so heavily, you wind up with kids who demand these happy meals. Yes, I absolutely agree parenting needs to be inserted there. But, the proponents of this law are arguing that it puts too much pressure on parents if they have to balance a toy versus nutrition.

When you add in the unfortunate fact that many parents are too stressed out, too busy to really take the time to cook nutritious meals.. and the fact that it pretty much does take a lot of extra time and often even money to get good nutrition... this law is an attempt to just "even out" the playing field a tad.

Yes i agree that parents should not take a kid out there everyday for the toy but at the same time why should we punish everyone for a few people who cave to there kids? It easy to say no to a kid THEY HAVE TO LISTEN TO YOU!!!!!

this law is sad yes kids like toys so who cares do parents not have the ability to say no to there kid? well???

I agree, but at the same time, I believe you are seriously underestimating the difficulties. Its not just that kids, even those who watch NO TV, get inundated with advertisements for McDonald's, its also that it is a LOT harder to get decent, quick nutritious food. When I was traveling with my folks in CA, we stopped to do laundry. I ran over to the market to get a quick "something" for my then 4 year old son and myself. Never mind that I had to wind my way to the far side of the store to get either fruit (one direction) or the dairy section(another direction) or even a bagel (third direction).. passing toys, chips, cookies, sugar cereal, etc all the way. When I got there, I discovered that just buying a yogurt alone was more than a burger... and, given the sugar content, it was debateable if it really was a better choice. Cheese, fruit, even a bagel.... anything quick and easy was expensive.

When kids and parents are running from work to sports or activities, to meetings.. etc., It takes a lot of planning an preparation to be healthy. I cook chicken, take fruit/etc, but I have to do that the day before and bring a cooler with ice, etc. I do it, but its a hassle. And, the husband is not all that fond of chicken.. or sandwiches, etc. (yes, I do variety.. just not listing it all here). Most people just wind up stopping at the local fast food place. There ARE OK options out there. Subway has reasonable food, but is also about twice as expensive as McDonald's (sometimes 3 times). Also, there are a lot fewer Subway's than other fast food places (especially McDonald's and Burger King).

If even a parent like myself, who is about as much "into" nutrition and food variety, plus cost savings as anyone out there, winds up bowing to the pressure.... it is a problem! heaven help those parents with less fortitude. heaven help their kids.

Like I said earlier, I think it would be better to do more promoting good food, but .... I can also understand why this law was passed.

[PLAYER57832]

PS actually, in one way this law is good. As said, it doesn't prevent selling happy meals or any other fast food meals. Nor does it even prohibit restaurants from giving out food. What it does is state that they can only give out toys with HEALTHY foods.

So, potentially, McDonald's (and the other restaurants) could sell modified Happy Meals/kid's meals... but they would have to be reasonably healthy meals. I don't know if the "apple dipper" and milk option (already available) would be enough to make the meals "healthy" per the rules, because that still means a lot of fat and sugar. However, if it moved McDonald's (etc) to offer even healthier options, it could be a good thing for us all. (not saying a rule in one city will do that, but its possible).

[targetman377]

Many of you seemed to have missed the point of the ruling..

They haven't banned Happy Meals at all - If you want to be a fat f*ck, you can continue to eat as many cheeseburgers your fat ass so desires... they have just taken away the obvious promotional free-toy incentive that is clearly aimed at kids - How many times would a happy meal have been purchased because the kid was pestering their parents 'I want the toy, I want the toy'? - or whatever.

The paranoid 'oh no the government is taking over' crap is hilarious. They haven't stopped anyone from going into Muckdonalds and loading their fat, cholesterol ridden arteries up for more punishment -

Yes I know that it is all about the toy!

[Juan_Bottom]

s they do learn a lot at school. However you learn just as much from your parents. your principles are [taught to you] by your parents. Principles are what make us who we are!

This isn't necessarily a good thing. And I'll use the Amish as an example. A few years ago in Wisconsin, the Amish community began removing it's children from public schooling after 6th grade. They don't believe in educating their children anymore past that. They especially despise science. The Supreme Court of the United States had only 1 dissenter from the view that the parents had that right to keep their kids from school. And he wrote that he believed someone should ask the kids what they want... instead of dooming them to an uneducated and ignorant life forced upon them by their parents. The other judges oddly looked at it from the point of view of the parent's rights, and never considered what the kids wanted. If kids wanted to be ignorant and Amish, you'd think that kids all over America would say "I want to be Amish when I grow up."
The point of this little tirade is that anyone can be a parent. There's no class, no tests, and there is no license. I don't agree with you that a parent has the right to teach their child whatever they like, or that a parent can do to their child whatever they like. And I certainly don't agree with you that Corporations have the right to manipulate our children either.

and Miccy d should not get punished for selling something that people obviously want.

This logic is f*cked.... don't we punish crack dealers for selling something that people obviously want? Don't we punish pimps? Or cigarette company's who target children?

we always had to eat all our food before we could play with the toy.

That is horrible... they forced you to eat fatty garbage to get a reward.....

It easy to say no to a kid THEY HAVE TO LISTEN TO YOU!!!!!

That's the problem. The kids don't have any other choice but to do what their parents say, no matter how stupid or ignorant their parents are. Just like the case of the Amish children who's parents don't believe in science. But the fact of this is that parents aren't even the ones being targeted or even punished here, McDonald's is being punished by being partly deprived of what you argue is it's right to target children.

this law is sad yes kids like toys so who cares do parents not have the ability to say no to there kid? well???

I think player answered this reasonably well.

[alex951]

isn't every place that sells toys with their food affected?

[targetman377]

as an interesting aside, I once saw a study where one set of rats were fed Big Macs and another set were fed cardboard. Guess which set was healthier? The one eating cardboard! The real reason was not that Big Macs are toxic, it is that a very low calorie diet is healthier -- this is supposedly true for humans as well as rats, if one gets proper nutrition, but most of us don't want to go that far

I have herd of that study if you order a big mac at mcd's you cant get a toy they dont come with happy meals silly lol. But yes i know mcdonalds food is bad for you but people like it and if you do not eat there every day and maybe like 1 every 1 to 2 weeks its fine place to eat if you like it.

The issue here is that when you advertise these toys so heavily, you wind up with kids who demand these happy meals. Yes, I absolutely agree parenting needs to be inserted there. But, the proponents of this law are arguing that it puts too much pressure on parents if they have to balance a toy versus nutrition.
When you add in the unfortunate fact that many parents are too stressed out, too busy to really take the time to cook nutritious meals.. and the fact that it pretty much does take a lot of extra time and often even money to get good nutrition... this law is an attempt to just "even out" the playing field a tad.

so anytime an advertising/ marketing gets a great idea about how to generate business it has to be banned? well look at Joe the camel. yes I know cigarettes are bad for you. kids are impressionable no matter what even without advertising IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN! We cannot shelter our kids from everything that is bad! you are not preparing them for the real world its a dog eat dog world out there and the faster kids realize that the better off they will be. Yes advertising can make a parents job harder and yes it can be a bad thing. But hey guess what YOU GUYS ARE PARENTS YOU SIGNED UP TO RAISE A KID!!! AND THAT IS A LOT OF WORK!!! A LOT OF WORK( i am only 21 I do not plan on having kids i hate kids. however i have seen a lot of kids and parents and its a hell of a lot of work. i am not trying to undermined you parents i congratulate you on your fortitude this far.) but you did have a choice did you not? well and you made your choice now its time for you all to become responsible adults and live with your decision. ( player you seem like a good parent besides the whole liberal thing but you have time to work on that. ) But There are lots of things that are hard in this world making laws to make things easier just means that all the hard stuff just got harder because you do not have the experience of making a hard choice that was actually common sense. And yes healthy food is more expensive but that is determined by the free market. it is cheaper to get things places when they have a longer shelf life. It comes down to how much it cost to produce it and no matter what we can not change this with out fucking up our economy more.

I agree, but at the same time, I believe you are seriously underestimating the difficulties. Its not just that kids, even those who watch NO TV, get inundated with advertisements for McDonald's, its also that it is a LOT harder to get decent, quick nutritious food. When I was traveling with my folks in CA, we stopped to do laundry. I ran over to the market to get a quick "something" for my then 4 year old son and myself. Never mind that I had to wind my way to the far side of the store to get either fruit (one direction) or the dairy section(another direction) or even a bagel (third direction).. passing toys, chips, cookies, sugar cereal, etc all the way. When I got there, I discovered that just buying a yogurt alone was more than a burger... and, given the sugar content, it was debateable if it really was a better choice. Cheese, fruit, even a bagel.... anything quick and easy was expensive.

When kids and parents are running from work to sports or activities, to meetings.. etc., It takes a lot of planning an preparation to be healthy. I cook chicken, take fruit/etc, but I have to do that the day before and bring a cooler with ice, etc. I do it, but its a hassle. And, the husband is not all that fond of chicken.. or sandwiches, etc. (yes, I do variety.. just not listing it all here). Most people just wind up stopping at the local fast food place. There ARE OK options out there. Subway has reasonable food, but is also about twice as expensive as McDonald's (sometimes 3 times). Also, there are a lot fewer Subway's than other fast food places (especially McDonald's and Burger King).

If even a parent like myself, who is about as much "into" nutrition and food variety, plus cost savings as anyone out there, winds up bowing to the pressure.... it is a problem! heaven help those parents with less fortitude. heaven help their kids.

Like I said earlier, I think it would be better to do more promoting good food, but .... I can also understand why this law was passed.

look at the shelf life of healthy food compared to unhealthy food which one last longer? but if something has a short shelf life there is more risk and human handling in selling it so it is going to be more expensive. Not allowing mds to put a toy in there happy meals does not level the playing field at all if you truly wanted to level the playing field you would need price caps or price ceilings? do you really want that?

parents need to learn not to give into there kids there are 3 truths to all kids.

1. kids like rules and they like to bend them the reason for this is they are learning what they can and can't do the diffrance between right and wrong

2. if you say no to your kid and stick by it a. most licking they will throw a tantrum. you will get embarrassed if you are in a public place deal with it. however you should not at target i have more respect for parents who stick by there word!!!! now if you don't cave i guarantee next time around they will not throw a tantrum wow they will listen to you

3. Kids are sticky that is all. (that's why i hate them)

so this law does nothing besides punish the people if you truly do not want kids to eat there then make laws regarding the price of food.

[targetman377]

isn't every place that sells toys with their food affected?

yes it does include subway any food place that gives away a toy with a meal

[targetman377]

This isn't necessarily a good thing. And I'll use the Amish as an example. A few years ago in Wisconsin, the Amish community began removing it's children from public schooling after 6th grade. They don't believe in educating their children anymore past that. They especially despise science. The Supreme Court of the United States had only 1 dissenter from the view that the parents had that right to keep their kids from school. And he wrote that he believed someone should ask the kids what they want... instead of dooming them to an uneducated and ignorant life forced upon them by their parents. The other judges oddly looked at it from the point of view of the parent's rights, and never considered what the kids wanted. If kids wanted to be ignorant and Amish, you'd think that kids all over America would say "I want to be Amish when I grow up."
The point of this little tirade is that anyone can be a parent. There's no class, no tests, and there is no license. I don't agree with you that a parent has the right to teach their child whatever they like, or that a parent can do to their child whatever they like. And I certainly don't agree with you that Corporations have the right to manipulate our children either.

yes i agree some people should not be parents but it is not your right to tell others how to raise there kids just as they do not have the right to tell you how to raise yours. you can do it anyway shape or form and yes some people screw up there kids by doing this i agree that kids should have some choice in what they want however kids do not fully understand those choices so it is up to the parents to decide for them.

Yet the one thing you are forgetting is that KIDS DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS!!! they have some protections based on child abuse. and other things that our society has deemed unexceptionable. But lets get this straight kids have no right to deiced anything. and if they did have this right well then they would also have responsibility and if so they would be held accountable for there actions. and as such ever one would be tried as an adult there would not be a juve system and the death penalty is fair game. contracts that they make would also be enforceable. Since we do not do all of this and we do not give kids the right to make decision we leave it up to there parents by default and yes i would agree that some parents are bad however i think all kids would be far worse off if they had the right of decision.

This logic is f*cked.... don't we punish crack dealers for selling something that people obviously want? Don't we punish pimps? Or cigarette company's who target children?

we do not punish them for giving people what they want we punish them for crimes that they have committed against all of society. are you really going to say all fast food places are as bad as a crack dealer. when the crack dealer not only sell things that are bad but encourages you to break more laws?

That is horrible... they forced you to eat fatty garbage to get a reward.....

i happen to like bugur king and other registrants i do not eat there all the time i practice self control something that was taught to me by my parents cause they did not give into me. yet i still wanted it see all the advertising.

That's the problem. The kids don't have any other choice but to do what their parents say, no matter how stupid or ignorant their parents are. Just like the case of the Amish children who's parents don't believe in science. But the fact of this is that parents aren't even the ones being targeted or even punished here, McDonald's is being punished by being partly deprived of what you argue is it's right to target children.

already went over this.

[Juan_Bottom]

however kids do not fully understand those choices so it is up to the parents to decide for them

This was my point. These kid's can't fully appreciate what they are doing to themselves by eating this junk, and their parents don't care. Just because you got pregnant, or got someone pregnant, doesn't give you the right to destroy that kids health. This is just one closed society making a law to help protect those children.

but it is not your right to tell others how to raise there kids just as they do not have the right to tell you how to raise yours

My point was that you talk about your rights as a parent, and about my lack of rights since you're the parent, but you never stop to consider the child's right for a healthy and full life.

Yet the one thing you are forgetting is that KIDS DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS!!!

Sure they do.
But what you're arguing is that Corporations have a right to target kids with harmful "foods."

and other things that our society has deemed unexceptionable

The "society of San Francisco" has decided that McDonald's business practice of luring in children with toys is unacceptable.

and if they did have this right well then they would also have responsibility and if so they would be held accountable for there actions.

These kids are held accountable for eating McDonalds by their bad health. But who would hold the parents accountable? If it's ok to feed your kid nothing but McDonald's, and (according to you) the child has no right to say "no more McDonalds," then who would hold the parent accountable? No one could. And no one can, so this law was passed to help stop McDonald's from targeting children. This country has very similar laws to keep cigarette and alcohol companies from target children too.

we do not punish them for giving people what they want we punish them for crimes that they have committed against all of society. are you really going to say all fast food places are as bad as a crack dealer. when the crack dealer not only sell things that are bad but encourages you to break more laws?

I wasn't making an argument, I was pointing out that you didn't think yours through very well.

already went over this.

Not really, as you didn't address the point I'm making that McDonald's "right" to target children is the only thing being "violated" here. Parent's can still feed their children swill, and the children can still eat it. McDonald's is the target here, Fat America is just proxy.