Whats gonna stop the people in San Francisco from going to a McDonalds outside the city so they could get the?

toy that comes with the happy meal? Do they think that the kids wont want to eat the McDonalds food just because it doesnt come with a toy? Do they think the kids eat the toys? Will this be only for McDonalds? Or will people go to Burger King with even unhealthier food that comes with a way cooler toy? Why does the Government have to decide instead of the parents?Whats gonna stop the people in San Francisco from going to a McDonalds outside the city so they could get the?
(1) Burger King is politically correct because the NAALCP owns a substantial amount of stock in the corporation.



(2) If the parents 'CHOSE' to disobey they dictates of the filthy left wing dictatorship and go outside of the San Fransicko city limits to purchase WHAT THEY WANT TO PURCHASE, then one of two things will happen.



a) San Fransicko loser lib government will impose some kind of 'import tax' on what you freely chose to purchase.



b) San Fransicko loser lib government will 'have no choice but initiate a law suit against McDonalds to recover the cost of poor health of the welfare recipients in that loser city (all in the name of the 'children' of course)". Even the illegal immigrant scum that flocks there for all of the benefits the aging hippies are too burned out to understand they are being taxed to pay for.



If you really believe that you are a Conservative and support San Fransicko in any way, shape, or form, then you really ought to reexamine your philosophy. San Fransicko is the modern day Soddom and Gammorah of the world. I would welcome the day that God rained Fire and Brimstone on that degenerate city.
Because the idea of fast food is that it's convenient and its cheap. I don't live in San Francisco to know for sure, but I'm pretty sure that driving through 20 miles of San Francisco traffic to reach a McDonalds with a toy would kind of defeat the purpose of fast food. The wasted gas would also offset any money saved by choosing fast food.



And FYI Burger King has to follow the same laws that McDonalds does... you can't single out a specific business by name when writing a law like this.



Anyways, what has the kid done wrong to deserve being bullied for being obese, and to get off to such an awful unhealthy start at such a young age in life? It's not the kid's choice, kids can't be expected to understand these types of issues.Whats gonna stop the people in San Francisco from going to a McDonalds outside the city so they could get the?
I understand your point. But WHY do parents not understand basic nutrition. This is a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY as we can not have young people unable to serve their country due to being obese.



It is a step....All good things start with the FIRST step and yes, if you want to smoke weed or use cocaine or drink under age you can ask Lindsay....She has connections, so if people want to be obese, let them, but they should pay higher health insurance premiums and that is what I firmly support.



Get in shape because I DO NOT WANT TO PAY FOR OTHERS stupidity.



Understand the situation here.



IT IS MORE THAN A HAPPY MEAL



IT IS CHILD ABUSE
Okay everyone who has been to San Fran knows that with so many other options for quick food that no one wants to spend $7.99 for a happy meal anyway *which is what it cost in the bay area between $5.99 (outside SF) and $7.99 in SF and SJ. Why spend that much when you can get the best Dim-sum in the world?(for only about $2.00)
Ahhhh... this is just another misguided, ineffectual attempt to curb childhood obesity. When will people learn that you cannot legislate better behavior??? My guess is never. If San Fran really wants to change behaviors, perhaps they should start with a massive education campaign (like Jaime Oliver) rather than banning things. Since when has banning something ever actually worked?
If they're too lazy to cook a hamburger, then they're too lazy to drive. Anybody who feeds their kids that sludge on a bun, should be fined. And the Government subsidises that garbage.
that is one of many differences between liberals and conservatives,



in a liberal world the government trumps parental rights %26amp; decision making.



see the public school condom policy for province town MA if you doubt me
In a communist society, the government raises the children, not the parents. Children are considered property, which only the government can own.
This won't stop parents from feeding their kids crappy fast food. Next they'll ban playgrounds at Mickey D's and kill off Ronald McGoddamned Donald, then act surprised that it does jack squat to drop childhood obesity rates..
Nothing will stop them, though I find it kind of economically unsound to drive ten extra miles to get a toy worth about $0.05.
nothing.



they will take their business, and tax dollars out of the city.



the happy meal ban is proof that liberals are unfit parents.
People can go wherever they like to get kids meals with toys in them, but if they go to McDonald's in San Francisco, there will be no toy. BFD - I think the kids will live.
They will probably create another program they can't afford. The happy meal toy Police.
It is a local issue. I thought right wingers were about giving power to local governments.
I would drive my grand kids a few miles down the road just to stick it to the control freaks and consider it money well spent!
Should governments decide whether their kids should smoke cigarettes?
They have plenty of toys up their butts to keep children happy for years.
Uhhh... convenience? (Isn't that the whole point of fast food in the first place?)
just another example of libs trying to run your life for you
Nothing. That's why the ban is stupid.