Conquer Club

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-h ... 8230.story

No wonder liberals aren't very happy

They need to breed more baseball players so they can win some more WSs.

bradleybadly wrote:http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-happy-meals-20101103,0,5438230.story

No wonder liberals aren't very happy

Hmmm. I thought we were supposed to have more freedom under liberalism?

Wasn't California, or some California city trying to put a ban on violent video games? Heard it on the news a couple days ago.

Happy Meal toys are sacred. This means war, San Francisco!

Are you kidding me? Yes, take the responsibility from the parents and children and let the government pass laws banning the free market! I honestly don't know how Michael Savage lives there. Or any rational human being for that matter.

With California having voted down both gay marriage and the legalization of marijuana, I don't really believe we should consider California to be any kind of a "liberal beacon"...they're obviously nothing of the sort.

LETS FILL OUR KIDS UP WITH LOADS OF JUNK AND SALT AND GIVE THEM A TOY WHILE DOING IT. THEY'LL BE HAPPY WITH THE TOY AND WE'LL BE HAPPY HAVING OUR KIDS WITH HEART ATTACKS AND DIABETES AT AGE 15! HOORAY FOR THE PROFITS!

Fircoal wrote:LETS FILL OUR KIDS UP WITH LOADS OF JUNK AND SALT AND GIVE THEM A TOY WHILE DOING IT. THEY'LL BE HAPPY WITH THE TOY AND WE'LL BE HAPPY HAVING OUR KIDS WITH HEART ATTACKS AND DIABETES AT AGE 15! HOORAY FOR THE PROFITS!

you'd make a bad parent/politician lol

Woodruff wrote:With California having voted down both gay marriage and the legalization of marijuana, I don't really believe we should consider California to be any kind of a "liberal beacon"...they're obviously nothing of the sort.

QTF also it's very disappointing in reality

Woodruff wrote:With California having voted down both gay marriage and the legalization of marijuana, I don't really believe we should consider California to be any kind of a "liberal beacon"...they're obviously nothing of the sort.

So you don't consider California to be your liberal beacon? What state do you hold as your liberal beacon?

New York's votes were ridiculously liberal.

ViperOverLord wrote:

Woodruff wrote:With California having voted down both gay marriage and the legalization of marijuana, I don't really believe we should consider California to be any kind of a "liberal beacon"...they're obviously nothing of the sort.

So you don't consider California to be your liberal beacon? What state do you hold as your liberal beacon?

Vermont.

ViperOverLord wrote:

Woodruff wrote:With California having voted down both gay marriage and the legalization of marijuana, I don't really believe we should consider California to be any kind of a "liberal beacon"...they're obviously nothing of the sort.

So you don't consider California to be your liberal beacon? What state do you hold as your liberal beacon?

That you believe I am such a strong liberal so as to have a liberal beacon leads me to believe you don't have the common sense that God gave a goose.

Whats the Republican Beacon state? Nebraska? Oklahoma? All of them?

Woodruff wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:

Woodruff wrote:With California having voted down both gay marriage and the legalization of marijuana, I don't really believe we should consider California to be any kind of a "liberal beacon"...they're obviously nothing of the sort.

So you don't consider California to be your liberal beacon? What state do you hold as your liberal beacon?

That you believe I am such a strong liberal so as to have a liberal beacon leads me to believe you don't have the common sense that God gave a goose.

I just wonder who is a liberal beacon for you as California is "obviously nothing of the sort."

ViperOverLord wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:

Woodruff wrote:With California having voted down both gay marriage and the legalization of marijuana, I don't really believe we should consider California to be any kind of a "liberal beacon"...they're obviously nothing of the sort.

So you don't consider California to be your liberal beacon? What state do you hold as your liberal beacon?

That you believe I am such a strong liberal so as to have a liberal beacon leads me to believe you don't have the common sense that God gave a goose.

I just wonder who is a liberal beacon for you as California is "obviously nothing of the sort."

I just wonder why you are so blinded that you believe there needs to be a liberal beacon.

Woodruff wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:

Woodruff wrote:With California having voted down both gay marriage and the legalization of marijuana, I don't really believe we should consider California to be any kind of a "liberal beacon"...they're obviously nothing of the sort.

So you don't consider California to be your liberal beacon? What state do you hold as your liberal beacon?

That you believe I am such a strong liberal so as to have a liberal beacon leads me to believe you don't have the common sense that God gave a goose.

I just wonder who is a liberal beacon for you as California is "obviously nothing of the sort."

I just wonder why you are so blinded that you believe there needs to be a liberal beacon.

Well if there doesn't need to be a liberal beacon then I'm not really sure why you even brought it up. Also I have never said that I believe there needs to be a liberal beacon.

ViperOverLord wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote: So you don't consider California to be your liberal beacon? What state do you hold as your liberal beacon?

That you believe I am such a strong liberal so as to have a liberal beacon leads me to believe you don't have the common sense that God gave a goose.

I just wonder who is a liberal beacon for you as California is "obviously nothing of the sort."

I just wonder why you are so blinded that you believe there needs to be a liberal beacon.

Well if there doesn't need to be a liberal beacon then I'm not really sure why you even brought it up.

Perhaps you should read the subject line for threads you're posting in then. Then again, when you don't even read simple posts properly, why should I expect you to do that?

You never tire of embarrassing yourself, do you?

You're desperately trying to make that bell ring aren't you. I could care less about your standard insults. Anyhow let's get back to the point of the thread as you've already implied that liberal beacons are not necessary then. Do you agree with the liberal / SF decision to cut out toys from Happy Meals and why?

ViperOverLord wrote:You're desperately trying to make that bell ring aren't you.

I'm not desperately doing anything. I am wondering why you insist on embarrassing yourself, however.

ViperOverLord wrote:Anyhow let's get back to the point of the thread as you've already implied that liberal beacons are not necessary then. Do you agree with the liberal / SF decision to cut out toys from Happy Meals and why?

I think it's a waste of time, personally. Parents that take their kids to McDonald's so routinely as to affect their child's health aren't going to stop doing so because of this sort of thing. And those kids certainly won't stop eating the crap.

Woodruff wrote:
I think it's a waste of time, personally. Parents that take their kids to McDonald's so routinely as to affect their child's health aren't going to stop doing so because of this sort of thing. And those kids certainly won't stop eating the crap.

Proponents of the law would argue that even if the difference is marginal that it's worth it. I think they would argue that it has an even bigger impact though.

Do you believe that the law is Constitutional?

ViperOverLord wrote:

Woodruff wrote:
I think it's a waste of time, personally. Parents that take their kids to McDonald's so routinely as to affect their child's health aren't going to stop doing so because of this sort of thing. And those kids certainly won't stop eating the crap.

Proponents of the law would argue that even if the difference is marginal that it's worth it. I think they would argue that it has an even bigger impact though. Do you believe that the law is Constitutional?

I don't know anything about California's Constitution. Do you have a link to it?

Woodruff wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:

Woodruff wrote:
I think it's a waste of time, personally. Parents that take their kids to McDonald's so routinely as to affect their child's health aren't going to stop doing so because of this sort of thing. And those kids certainly won't stop eating the crap.

Proponents of the law would argue that even if the difference is marginal that it's worth it. I think they would argue that it has an even bigger impact though. Do you believe that the law is Constitutional?

I don't know anything about California's Constitution. Do you have a link to it?

I meant the US Constitution. I think I'd spare you from researching the California Constitution but that is an interesting possibility too.

ViperOverLord wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:

Woodruff wrote:
I think it's a waste of time, personally. Parents that take their kids to McDonald's so routinely as to affect their child's health aren't going to stop doing so because of this sort of thing. And those kids certainly won't stop eating the crap.

Proponents of the law would argue that even if the difference is marginal that it's worth it. I think they would argue that it has an even bigger impact though. Do you believe that the law is Constitutional?

I don't know anything about California's Constitution. Do you have a link to it?

I meant the US Constitution. I think I'd spare you from researching the California Constitution but that is an interesting possibility too.

Why is the US Constitution relevant to this at this point? The law being passed has nothing to do with the Federal Government. Shouldn't state laws be resolved first at the state level before becoming a matter for the Supreme Court?

That aside, in what manner could this law be considered unConstitutional from a Federal perspective?