As I said at Skeptical Eye:
They can all go fuck themselves.
Harsh. I know. But hey. Meh.
A bunch of interventionist, do-gooding, ball busting, pain in the ass, smug, paternalistic dinks who don't know how to back off.
.
LET THE CONSUMER DECIDE.
The irony of course is my kid probably eats better than the kids of these assholes who pass these laws.
Can you tell I can't stand activists who tell me how to eat? The other irony is we eat McDonald's rarely. And I mean rarely. Once a year rarely. But that's the beauty of freedom, no?
I argue this because somehow, someway, someone is going to propose this here.
Chicken Nugget says, "The sky is falling!!!"
ReplyDeleteIf they were banning beef, or french fires, or chicken nuggets... I would be right there with you. But you and Nikk are both over-reacting to something that is unbelieably minor.
It's a local ordinance. This means that local parents voted for the right to make healthy options available for their kids.
In steps big government libertarian asshole to pass out cigarettes to their kids because "freedom" means paying other people to kill you. Big bad statist conservatives come barrelling into town saying "Oh no, we're poisoning your kids by luring them with plastic toys made by Chinese toddlers painted with cadmium and lead... and you'll like it, bitch!"
This is not worth protesting. If you don't like it, don't live there. Oh wait, you don't, so why do you even care? All I hear from conservatives is how small, local governments should not be impeded by the big central government. Just admit people can live differently somewhere else if they want to, which means being able to stand up to corporations.
Quit being a fast food industry stooge for free; at least get a check before you start shovelling shit. I get why Fox News does it, what's your excuse?
Two specious statements:
ReplyDelete1) That's bull about not living there. Municipalities are constantly copying each other on the continent. Quebec has a hard on for Scandinavia and we copy a lot of their stuff even if it's not meant for our mentality.
2) Bull shit. Eat shit.
3) And how in the world does being skeptical of activism that influences my own personal choices with being a shill?
That's classic Bret and his leaps of logics.
To YOU it's all "rational" to US it isn't.
The usual bullshit from Bret (his posts should now be called "Bret's Bullshit").
ReplyDeleteLocal? Those "activists" that got it passed in Looney Toons Town on the Bay want to expand it to everywhere (they won't be able to, but that's what they've basically stated they want).
This means that local parents voted for the right to make healthy options available for their kids.
What right are you talking about? There is no "right" to take options away from others. But as you continue to prove what a statist you are (even when I falsely believe sometimes there's hope for you), I don't expect that to register with you. What they did was take an option AWAY, for those who want to buy their children a regualr Happy Meal with a toy.
Here's an idea, Bret, if some parents want their kids to have healthier options, stop eating at McDonald's!
And you are the one talking about how under anarchy there would be coercion? You want to use "legal" force to have others conform to your desires, while the anarchist wants to allow all to live by their own choices, good or bad.
Quit being a fast food industry stooge for free
Shove it, you self-righteous sack of statist shit!
You wish you were right, but you're just trying to tell other people how they can legislate their community.
ReplyDeleteYour responses are as emotional as I would expect, given your stance.
Oh both of you grow up.
ReplyDeleteWah wah wah wah wah! MY HAPPY MEAL!!! WAAAAAAAAH!
You can still go get a happy meal, shut the fuck up.
I was just going to expand along those lines.
ReplyDeleteBret, calling others emotional? Yikes!
Just because an ordinance past by parents doesn't give them the right to tell others what to eat. We see the same bull shit at my kid's school - the scary thing is dipshits like the ones you protect haven't really thought things out. They just say "it's good for you so there."
I'll stop being a shill when you quit being a stooge for the nanny-state and everything that's dictatorial.
Seriously, Bret sometimes I wonder if you're just spewing just to spew.
How can you defend this on any effen level?
I also finding it amusing that you're cool with "one size fits all" laws (under the guise of cool, rational thought of course) and blanket socialist policies for an entire nation but actually don't believe this shit can spread - even though they want it to.
You trust the government or ordinances or whatever the fuck you guys call it to make decisions for you, Bret. Good for you. Here's a bone.
Not me. I make my own decisions.
but you're just trying to tell other people how they can legislate their community.
ReplyDeleteFuck the phony "laws" of the state. If you don't like something, fine, just don't force your preferences on everyone. How hard is that to understand? And no, no goverment, local or otherwise, has the right to be a tyranny.
Talking to you, Bret, is like trying to have a conversation with a dog, and...oh, maybe that really is your actual photo!
And it's my party blog and I'll cry if I want to.
ReplyDeleteIndefinitely.
Until the kleenex run out anyway.
The only crying here is you boys yelling "Wolf!"
ReplyDeleteThe only crying here is you boys yelling "Wolf!"
ReplyDeleteBetter than being a frog slowly boiled to death.
I have a feeling Bret could easily be duped by a terrorist into believing he's his friend.
ReplyDeleteHow crazy is it to think this wouldn't spread?
ReplyDeleteI remember when they brought in the cell phone ban opponents screamed it won't be long before smoking, texting and eating would be on the table.
Sure enough, that's what has happened.
Then there's the mandatory snow tire nonsense that put dents in people's pockets in a time it wasn't needed - like me.
Sure, a minority of people were idiots and didn't put snow tires on but again, the disease of 'one size fits all' prevailed and responsible citizens were stuck paying the price for shmucks.
In a society, there will always be a portion of it that won't leave a disaster area even when asked and warned (Katrina), those who will eat burgers everyday (not everyone can afford much else) those who will eat and drive and those who keep summer tires on in a place where we get tens about tens of feet of snow. You simply can't protect the stupid and irresponsible on behalf of everyone.
That costs a lot of money and puts an unnecessary strain on the resources of the state despite the good (albeit misguided) intentions.
What pisses me off about the tire law is it's illogical component: I have a 4x4 and four season tires were more than ample for me. Yet, the state decided no good. You know how expensive it is to manage eight tires instead of four based on bull shit?
The cynic in me says it's all a racket. Why not? Quebec is KING of all sorts of rackets: State run alcohol and gambling, highest car theft rates on the continent, a corrupted political system, leaders in internet marketing scams (when I was a customer service rep on the phones we were trained on this reality), among other things.
That's all we're saying, Bret. Just back off a little. If the angels can't save us, the state certainly won't.
Besides, this thing that every ordinance or law comes with social altruism leaves me suspect.