McDonalds toys illegal in California

[Suh Dude]

M.A.F.F.
Mothers Against Fat Foods.

only in the future :/

 

[Prozac]

they inspected her lunch box O.O

What sorts of banned foods would we be talking about here? Sandwiches and pie or the heavy stuff like candy?

Apple pie stuffed with anthrax.

At some point, social intervention starts to look like the National Social Workers Party calling the shots on everything you do.

People are stupid, that's why you are warned to not dry your kid in the microwave. In my opinion though, there should be some coaching towards the right direction. however it's such a slippery and dangerous slope. When are you going to far, when didn't you go far enough.
And at this point, I personally think they have gone too far. With banning toys and checking lunch boxes of.. how old is Maya now? well kids anyway.

 

[DiebytheSword]

Maya is 5.

They don't want anything with sugar that's a snack. Fruit snacks are banned, and this is how we found out. They came back stapled in a brown paper bag with a note inside.

I seriously hit the ******* roof.

 

[Prozac]

Why does it always have to be such extremes. I'm from a country that tends to be a bit to laid back, and I often wonder if it's not smart to go in fully and not half-assed. I guess it can be the other way around too.
It's just funny how completely different countries can be, and the mentality of the people from those countries.

 

[Grega]

They don't want anything with sugar that's a snack. Fruit snacks are banned, and this is how we found out. They came back stapled in a brown paper bag with a note inside.

Seriously? That would make me go there and punch someones lights out. Im all for start teaching kids wahts good and healthy food and whats not, but banning anything with sugar. Thats ludicrous and insane.

Cant the parents protest, or has the majority been brainwashed with the old "This is right" routine already?

 

[DiebytheSword]

The problem with America is that it is huge, and just 20 minutes away by car you can run into a completely different lifestyle and culture that only shares the internet and a language. These groups of people have wildly opposed opinions on everything, and it shows in our electoral system. Watching the returns during our midterms you could see that cities voted Democrat, and outlying not city voted Republican, its quite sadly becoming us versus them, and Obama hasn't helped that at all when he calls conservatives the enemy. When he says, elections have consequences, and proceeds to ignore the Republican party for two years. I'm farily sure the Republicans would have done the same in their shoes, neither side is scott free on this. I wish more moderates from both sides would just agree to not agree on the extremes and get **** done, but I don't think it'll happen.

 

[-Origin]

I think it's crossing the line when a school decides what your child may or may not eat. The kind of control they seem to want to exercise over your children is completely unfathomable for me. It's none of their business. Were you made aware of these rules in any way, shape or form, Cuc? Or did they just pull them out of their ass when they decided they were against these evil, sugary snacks?

I wonder how legal it is for them to actually forbid these foods. Does anyone know?

 

[DiebytheSword]

Seriously? That would make me go there and punch someones lights out. Im all for start teaching kids wahts good and healthy food and whats not, but banning anything with sugar. Thats ludicrous and insane.

Cant the parents protest, or has the majority been brainwashed with the old "This is right" routine already?

No, my district leans liberal, and thus the Democrats have pretty much locked down our area. If you don't want government interfering in your life, cradle to grave, you need to move, because people think they need the government to make these decisions for us. I was quite stunned to see my county and district flip red during the mid terms, so maybe some of this rediculous policy can get smacked down.

 

[DiebytheSword]

I think it's crossing the line when a school decides what your child may or may not eat. The kind of control they seem to want to exercise over your children is completely unfathomable for me. It's none of their business. Were you made aware of these rules in any way, shape or form, Cuc? Or did they just pull them out of their ass when they decided they were against these evil, sugary snacks?

I wonder how legal it is for them to actually forbid these foods. Does anyone know?

Constitutionally this law would likely be struck down by the Supreme Court if you could get it there. Justice Elena Kagan has already said that a law like this is constitutionally sound in her confirmation hearings. This is the position of the progressives, it is okay to surplant my will with their own for the greater social good. Fortunately, our Supreme court is currently 5-4 conservative. That being said, I'm quite surprised to see justices Sotomayer and Kagan smacking down the California ban on violent games, liberalism isn't always bad

I wasn't told of sugary snacks, which I assumed meant candy or pastries loaded with sugar, there was no comprehensive list. Loading up with fruit snacks that are made with real fruit juice and pectin, I was quite annoyed to find that these snacks were now for the home only. At any rate, I'm against government intrusion into my life and my rearing of my children, no matter how insistant they were that this was a good thing for my not overweight child.

 

[-Origin]

I agree with you there. It's not a Democrat vs Republic issue for me - I don't think goverment should interfere with how people raise their child, ever. As an outsider, it really seems like America wants to lead its citizens by the hand down the path of what they think is "right" for you. Even if you go kicking and screaming, they're still gonna grab your hand and drag you along. I'm all for freedom to live your life however you want.

I'm not sure what that makes me though. But it better not be a tea partier.

 

[Grega]

Constitutionally this law would likely be struck down by the Supreme Court if you could get it there. Justice Elena Kagan has already said that a law like this is constitutionally sound in her confirmation hearings. This is the position of the progressives, it is okay to surplant my will with their own for the greater social good. Fortunately, our Supreme court is currently 5-4 conservative. That being said, I'm quite surprised to see justices Sotomayer and Kagan smacking down the California ban on violent games, liberalism isn't always bad

I wasn't told of sugary snacks, which I assumed meant candy or pastries loaded with sugar, there was no comprehensive list. Loading up with fruit snacks that are made with real fruit juice and pectin, I was quite annoyed to find that these snacks were now for the home only. At any rate, I'm against government intrusion into my life and my rearing of my children, no matter how insistant they were that this was a good thing for my not overweight child.

And therein is the biggest bull**** of them all. The government is turning people into slaves while the people think everything is just fine, or are blocked by the legal institutions. Hell according to all the laws going round the world us born in the 80s and earlier shouldnt have lived to see 10.

Sadly this will go on until chaos erupts. And then we will most likely have a global civil war on our hands.

 

[-Origin]

Global Civil War?

... like a... World War?

Dun dun dunnnnn.

 

[Grega]

Global Civil War?

... like a... World War?

Dun dun dunnnnn.

Well a world war is a war between countries. A global civil war would be the citizens rising up trying to overthrow their leaders.

Though how i said it may have been a bit melodramatic, but a chain reaction in the population of the countrys that are closes to the edge of breaking is a sure thing. Once one goes, so will the others. The ones, where the people are still content will probably stay quiet.

 

[-Origin]

I was just kidding, man.

 

[DiebytheSword]

I agree with you there. It's not a Democrat vs Republic issue for me - I don't think goverment should interfere with how people raise their child, ever. As an outsider, it really seems like America wants to lead its citizens by the hand down the path of what they think is "right" for you. Even if you go kicking and screaming, they're still gonna grab your hand and drag you along. I'm all for freedom to live your life however you want.

I'm not sure what that makes me though. But it better not be a tea partier.

It makes you libertarian on that issue, which can dwell in conservative territory. Also Tea Party territory, very deeply. Most people who hate the Tea party don't get it. Only the left wants to lead you down the path that is your life cradle to grave, Social Conservatives also tread in this territory, making sure you live a chaste, church driven life. Hence why they piss me off. Making my religion look bad.

 

[Prozac]

I don't think goverment should interfere with how people raise their child, ever.

Think that trough for a moment, seriously think about it. Think about all those neglect cases and bad parenting. Child molestation, torture and even killing newborns.
Not everyone is fit to parent, hence the government needs to have some form of at least monitoring children, because not everyone is mentally stable enough to raise a kid.

Anyway, in a few decades, you'll have to pass a parenting exam, before you're allowed to have to have sex for the purpose of procreating! newly borns get a vasectomy at birth, or a IRON chastity belt in order to inforce the law!! Now doesn't that sound peachy!

 

[-Origin]

Think that trough for a moment, seriously think about it. Think about all those neglect cases and bad parenting. Child molestation, torture and even killing newborns.
Not everyone is fit to parent, hence the government needs to have some form of at least monitoring children, because not everyone is mentally stable enough to raise a kid.

Anyway, in a few decades, you'll have to pass a parenting exam, before you're allowed to have to have sex for the purpose of procreating! newly borns get a vasectomy at birth, or a IRON chastity belt in order to inforce the law!! Now doesn't that sound peachy!

I suppose you're right. But I meant in a way that when there is no cause of concern, no starvation, no bruises (although that can be prevented by the use of oranges and socks.. but that's a different story).. there's no need for anyone to interfere. My disability to say what I mean is generally why I stay out of political threads. -.-'

 

[DiebytheSword]

There are always very abusable options when you give the government that power Prozzy, I know more than one person who lost a child to social services for no good reason. I know at least on case where it was warranted, and another where I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet. Again a tightrope walk between tyrants and righteous.

 

[Prozac]

There are always very abusable options when you give the government that power Prozzy, I know more than one person who lost a child to social services for no good reason. I know at least on case where it was warranted, and another where I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet. Again a tightrope walk between tyrants and righteous.

And that's just it. It's impossible to do right, because everyone has a different perspective on a matter. You can never fully win.
We have similar situations here. Children aren't removed from adoption parents who are obviously nourishing them, while another kid gets removed due too spelling mistake on a form the parents were supposed to fill in.

 

[-Origin]

Relevant.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/11/12/california.fast.food.ban/index.html

Mayor Gavin Newsom will veto the city's ban on most McDonald's Happy Meals with toys on Friday.

The mayor has scheduled an event at Fairmount Elementary School at 2:45 p.m. ET, where he will also release a report outlining the city's efforts to combat childhood obesity, his office said.

The San Francisco, California, Board of Supervisors approved the ban on Tuesday.

The ordinance requires McDonald's and other fast-food servings with toys to meet new nutritional standards.

Newsom had indicated he would veto the law. That veto would be meaningless because the board approved the ordinance 8-3, a veto-proof margin. With eight votes, the board could override the veto.