Nanny State

If Someone Is Going to Come Between Me and My Daughters, I Insist That It Be the Government

|

ok, maybe a judge isn't so bad after all

Yesterday, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) officially filed a lawsuit demanding that McDonald's stop marketing Happy Meals with toys in them to the children of California. The filing means the group is making good on this summer's anti-McDonald's name-calling. This was the subtle legal argument CSPI offered at the time:

"McDonald's is the stranger in the playground handing out candy to children," said CSPI litigation director Stephen Gardner. "McDonald's use of toys undercuts parental authority and exploits young children's developmental immaturity—all this to induce children to prefer foods that may harm their health. It's a creepy and predatory practice that warrants an injunction."

For a plantiff, they dug up a Sacramento mother of two who works in California's health bureaucracy:

[Monet] Parham, who described herself as a health educator working for the state, said she is concerned about her children's health and wants to limit their consumption of McDonald's food, but marketing of toys featuring popular children's characters puts her and other parents under heavy pressure to frequently have to say "no" to young children's requests to eat at the chain.

"What kids see as a fun toy, I now realize is a sophisticated, high-tech marketing scheme that's designed to put McDonald's between me and my daughters," Parham said in a statement.

Apparently, Parham prefers her creepy, inferring predators in long black robes rather than red noses and oversized shoes.

Advertisement

NEXT: Lose an L.A. County Job For Being No Good At It, Get Another County Job at Same $260,000 Salary

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “What kids see as a fun toy, I now realize is a sophisticated, high-tech marketing scheme that’s designed to put McDonald’s between me and my daughters,” Parham said in a statement.

    It never ceases to amaze me the level people will stoop to in order to demonstrate to the world how incompetent they are at being a parent.

    1. Dude, requesting that other people take care of your kids for you is how you show how much you care about them. What are you, not an idiot or something?

      1. Dude, why don’t you and your anarchist buddies do something useful for a change and bomb the headquarters of the Center for Science in the Public Interest? The nation you don’t believe in would thank you.

        1. How’s that passive aggressive obsession working out for you in life, buddy?

          1. You’re more predictable than Warty’s colon.

        2. Got it. Anarchism = Men in Black Masks Throwing Bombs. You really are clueless, aren’t you?

          1. Hell no! Anarchism = peaceful hippies. Unicorns and rainbows. DOS attacks…oops. Bad anarchists! Bad!

            1. Do all of your philosophical and political debates boil down to comparing stereotypes and demographics and ill-informed preconceptions?

            2. Who could argue with this anonypussy’s fucking brilliant comments?

          2. Hey Bingo, if you’re lucky, the Randroid can stalk you too. You see, I’m better than you because I have my own stalker, and a Randroid one at that. What do you have, besides your harelip and lazy eye?

            1. I pull the strings and they dance.

            2. rctl is a Randroid? I’m not seeing it.

              1. This one is too coherent to be rectal. That isn’t saying much, I know.

            3. You mean aside from my positively Randian physical beauty and masculine charm? At one point Thacker was hounding me for something but I completely forgot what it was…

              1. You are truly a god among women who look like men.

              2. Might I interest you in a tasty gordita?

                1. No? The men say my burritos are to die for.

                  1. Tacos! Getcha tacos heah!
                    Hairy libertarian tacos!

        3. I dropped a chalupa in California once.

  2. Are Monet’s kids raiding her purse and taking their tricycles through McD’s drive thru? Or is she such an inept fucking parent that she is incapable of telling her kids no and is looking for someone to blame?

    1. If there’s any one thing that’s wrong with our culture right now, it’s this idea that people not only aren’t responsible for their own actions, they shouldn’t be. Insane.

      1. And, as a result, responsible for everyone else’s.

        1. Is it bibertarianism that’s gotten us to this point, or is it our crazy litigiousness? Or both? Or something else? When did we get so pussified?

          1. I make a joke response to JW above, but it’s gotten to the point where people compete so hard to show how much they care about their kids that they do shit like this. “See, world! See how much I care?!?” It also drives the relentless safety shit (that and lawsuits), because god forbid the neighbors see you let your kid ride a bike without a helmet…they’ll gossip about how bad a parent you are at the PTA meeting and maybe even call child services on you.

            Man, I’m glad I don’t have any kids*.

            * that I know of, of course

            1. Man, I’m glad he doesn’t know he has a kid too.

              1. Even when I set you up for an easy one, you’re a dud. Can’t you not suck?

                1. Seriously. It’s the rest of us who are glad Epi hasn’t reproduced. Or at least we so fervently hope that to be the case.

                  1. “Daddy no want me! I’m gonna take a bus to Reno!”

                  2. BSR is Anonypussy?

                    1. One of these days I might blog a scorecard of who is who.

                    2. BSR is Anonypussy?

                      Hell no.

                2. EWW GROSS!! Daddy wants me to suck him. You are a freak Epi

            2. I really enjoy being a parent, but other parents are friggin’ useless, most of the time. Raise your kids to be functional, honest, hardworking, not stupid. Thank you.

              1. I have no idea which part of parenting that you enjoy. Today was daughter number one’s last day of high school. I’m busy packing her bags as I type this.

                1. I should add that she just walked in the door with a six piece McNuggets.

                2. My oldest son wants to live at home when he goes to college. My wife and I both stare at him like he’s insane whenever he says things like that. My goal for almost my entire high school period was to get the hell out of the house. Probably my mom’s goal, too, even though I was a reasonably well-behaved kid.

                  1. Too bad abortion cannot be retroactive.

                  2. Jeez, he should stay on campus at least for a semester or two, even if he lives close enough to commute. It’s a hell of a lot easier to build up a network of your peers that way (and get drunk, laid, etc)

                    1. Especially without having your parents and siblings in the same house. I just don’t get it.

                  3. Make your kid pay a little rent for food and the roof over his head, and it would still probably be less expensive for him in the end than staying in the dorm. It’s not like college is getting any cheaper.

                    1. I was thinking more labor. We’re making him work already to help fund his education.

            3. Truthfully, the gossip is fine with me. That’s the stuff of angels in society – because that an incentive to improve one’s behavior.

              It’s compulsory power of the government – i.e. child services – being used for stupid shit like this that is what’s evil.

          2. It’s just plain passive-aggressive. She is afraid of confronting her children so she wants lawmakers to confront McDonalds.

            1. She wants someone to do her stealing for her is what she wants, and she doesn’t want it to be called stealing.

              1. Bing and O.

              2. I doubt if she has thought it out to that extent. Being a public sanctimoan with newsmen paying attention to you is it’s own reward. She is thinking in terms of publicist, not in terms of what it means for her freedom and that of other people.

                1. It’s passive aggressive!

      2. It is actually easier for this woman to go to court and try to ban toys in fast food meals than it is for her to tell her kids “no”.

        There are no words.

        I don’t think it’s that people don’t want to be responsible for their actions, it’s that people don’t want to be responsible for negative consequences. So it’s easier outlaw anything that could possibly have negative consequences (fast food, trans fats, cigarettes, using cellphone while driving, etc) because then you don’t need to make any decision about it. Risk aversion is seriously becoming a huge problem in America.

    2. is she such an inept fucking parent that she is incapable of telling her kids no and is looking for someone to blame?

      Apparently, yes.

      1. No, this is not what she is doing at all. She has no problem telling her children no. But those of you who are not enlightened as she is cannot accomplish this feat. So she wants to make sure that you don’t have the opportunity to say yes to that happy meal. So that your kids will be safe from french fries, just like her kids are.

        She’s making sure that everyone else’s children can benefit from her wonderful parenting skills and stupendous insight into children’s development and health. No child should be subjected to their obviously inferior parents, not while she can show us the way!

  3. She’s demanding, almost literally, the Nanny State.

    1. We’re here to solve ALL your problems, except if your problem is a lack of liberty.

  4. Somewhere a tobacco executive sits in a dark room, takes a drag on a cigarette, and mutters “I tried to warn you all, but you wouldn’t listen.”

  5. marketing of toys featuring popular children’s characters puts her and other parents under heavy pressure to frequently have to say “no” to young children’s requests

    Hey lady: fuck you, you stupid lazy bitch.

    You have a hard time telling your precious little angels “no”? So you want your big, benevolent government to take away the eeeeevil temptation, and that way you never have to disappoint your little darlings ever again?

    Here’s a tip: no matter what you do, your children ultimately will be disappointed and will think you didn’t do everything you could have or should have done for them.

    “No” is the easiest word in the English language.

    “Mommy, can I have McDonald’s?”

    “No.”

    PERIOD. End of conversation.

    Fucking grow a pair and deal with it.

    1. Amen, and kind of creepy with the timing.

      I relish my kids’ wailing when I deny them their “right” to candy, fast food and other pleasures. They may cry, but at least they know the answer is usually “no”.

      1. Whenever I tell my kids no, and they cry, I tell them all the crying in the world won’t change my mind. Interestingly, the crying stops shortly thereafter. Of course, I’ve been holding the line for several years now…

        1. When I was a little kid, albeit a long time ago, I was told to hush up or I’d recieve something to cry about.

          1. That always pissed me off when my dad said that. What the fuck, don’t you think I have something to cry about right now or I wouldn’t be crying. But, a lesson in “out of the frying pan into the fire”. I think I tested it once and to my dismay, I did have more to cry about

      2. I just have to take a moment and be thankful for my parents not being totally incompetent douche-bags who refused to tell me “no”.

        Just the other day my mom was telling me that I had internalized the lesson that I couldn’t just have whatever-the-fuck I wanted, that when I asked for toys, I didn’t say, “Can I have this?”, I would shake my head and ask, “I can’t have this, can I?”

        1. That is some serious psychological chutzpa on your mom’s part. She should win an award or something.

    2. See, I do this.

      I wish their father would. They beg him when he comes home because he’s an easy mark, whereas they play nice and mostly behave with me because I liberally apply ‘no’.

      Ah well. One day at a time.

      Or: Stupid woman is stupid and spineless and shouldn’t have bred.

  6. marketing of toys featuring popular children’s characters puts her and other parents under heavy pressure to frequently have to say “no” to young children’s requests to eat at the chain.

    So what? Grow a spine and say “no.” It ain’t that hard if you try.

  7. I saw we all chip in and ensure that 10 happy meals are delivered to her home – every day until her kids move out.

  8. ok, maybe a judge isn’t so bad after all

    Wait, I thought that was a judge.

    1. He apparently is not one of those “no nonsense” judges I’ve heard about.

  9. You know, speaking as an attorney, I really think that what this country needs is more lawyers.

    I mean, shit, where’s a lawyer when you need one, right? I mean, my kids are whining and kicking the seat because they want a fucking Happy Meal?. And what am I supposed to do? I mean, it seems to me the only thing to do is call a lawyer and sue those bastards.

    We really just need more lawyers.

    1. There’s at least three on this board alone. Any of you want to sue CSPI pro bono?

    2. That’s a great idea. I think each family should have a lawyer, who goes everywhere with the family, providing the family with advice about what to eat, what to do, what to buy, and who to sue.

      Literally, in-house lawyers, who you have to keep up in a lawyer-in-law house in your backyard.

      1. I’ve already got in-house counsel, but if I try to tell the wife she’s moving into a house in the backyard, there will be blood.

        1. Not everyone is willing to go so far as you.

      2. Like a consigliere?

        1. The ultimate in lawyer gigs.

  10. inferring predators

    Elementary, my dear Chester!

    1. I may sue for trademark infringement.

  11. First Amendment?
    Oh, right, Corporashuns aren’t PEEPLE!!!

    1. Even if you do not define a corporation as a person, which it should not be, how would free speech not apply to it? The First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law…” doesn’t say anything about people being secure for their free speech. Just “Congress shall make no law…” So that means even corporations have free speech protected.

  12. So Hardees is off the hook? Free and clear for junior thick burgers and a Green Hornet Toy.

    1. Been wondering about that. It’s not like McDonald’s is the only restaurant with kids meals that include cheap toys.

  13. The solution: Loud and hard-edged ridicule, abuse and mocking of this incompetent mother and her loathsome proxy, CSPI.

    1. Yeah, they’ll probably cry all the way to the bank. Why doesn’t someone call all this what it is: simple legalized stealing.

    2. CSPI!
      We fight for freedom and the little guy!
      CSPI!
      We’ll tear a new hole in the sky!

  14. So, the Pediatrician can’t give out a lollypop after the exam?

    1. HATE CRIME!

    2. Uh, yeah – lollipop. That’s it – just pretend it’s a lollipop.

  15. This woman is in for a world of hurt if she can’t say “NO” to her kids over a simple Happy Meal. Wait until those daughters are teenagers, and they want to drink, or go to parties, or date 30-year-old guys, or get into drugs.

    1. Not only that but she isn’t doing them any favors when they grow up and become adults (at least in the legal sense). What are they going to do when someone tells them ‘no’ in the big bad real world?

    2. Admit it, smoking is cool and tattoos are edgy.

    3. I’m looking forward to it.

    4. Yeah, I can’t wait. I got all the booze and cigarettes they want.

  16. This is such a complete misuse of the legal system, pure and simple. What they should be suing to end is the use of a clown mascot.

  17. I once got into an argument with some “parent” who advocated govt. action on her behalf. When I suggested that govt. had a role in her plight (The Department of Family Services for being such a lousy parent) she got pissy with me. *shrugs* The look on her face was priceless though.

  18. Just wait until toddlers get the vote.

    1. As a parent, I believe that the voting age should be moved up to 30. By adult standards, people below that age are legally insane.

      1. Many of the people who vote for Pelosi, Reid, and Obama are over 30. Heck, you could say the same thing about those that voted for W., McCain, Romney, and Graham.

        1. We have to draw the line somewhere.

  19. *sigh*

    Miss Mangu-Ward, it’s:

    “Center” for “Science” in the “Public Interest”

    How many times do we have to go through this?

  20. I like to get my kid a Happy Meal with a toy.

    He likes the food. He likes the toy. It’s fun.

    So he likes Happy Meals the way they are, and I like Happy Meals the way they are.

    This fucking cunt wants to stand between ME and MY KID. She wants to usurp MY parental authority.

    Does that mean I can sue her? Or maybe shoot her in her fucking head?

    Please, please tell me I can do one of those things.

    1. No, no. It’s okay if liberals get in the way of your children. But the perception of liberty getting in the way of them and their children is a social injustice!

    2. Women like this make me believe that when society finally begins to break down, the 19th Amendment is going to be one of the first things to go.

    3. They might be able to get Happy Meals banned in places like San Francisco, or even the entire state of California, but good luck trying that here in Redneckville.

  21. Anyone with the title “Litigation Director” is a child molester.

    1. Nope, I won’t rise to the bait. No no no no no no no.

    2. Phew. For a second, I thought you were going to say Stephen Gardner was amorous with ovine animals.

  22. The Burger King is a pedophile if ever there was one.

    1. What the hell is Grimace then?

      1. A frightening freak of nature who should be put down with extreme prejudice. Him and his demonspawn purple offspring, Barney.

        1. Better men than you have tried and failed. The Hamburglar, for instance. He’s twice the man you’ll ever be!

          1. Dude, the Hamburglar is in Sheriff Arapaio’s jail wearing pink underwear and eating pink fake meat.

            You knew he was undocumented I assume…

    1. “I woke up with a clown’s hand in my pocket. That’s what I did today.”

    2. The best clown ever was Frenchy the Clown.

    3. “I have a cu-cu-cu-confession to make. I’m Dr. Rockzo, the rock and roll clown. I do cocaine.”

  23. Her logic is irrefutable. Happy meals make her kids happy, and therefore must be banned.

  24. I like the toy too, and my kids do too. When you are a parent it is tough to juggle the kids and eat, McDonald’s fast food helps and the toy in the happy meal helps a lot by giving the kids something to play with so I can actually eat. I don’t think many kids are being pushed too hard towards McDonalds by the toy. Most of the time my kids don’t know what the toy is until we walk in and see the display.

    There’s a stronger case to be made for regulating advertising aimed at influencing children imo, or having government “counterbalance” it.

    1. You know, I don’t think kids are all that vulnerable. Not unless their parents reinforce the nonsense.

      It’s not like I didn’t grow up being advertised to day in and day out, and I’m not too wedded to any brand or product unless I think it’s good. And I’ll drop anything that displeases me, regardless of the ubiquity of its marketing.

      Man up, America. Man up.

      1. “and I’m not too wedded to any brand or product unless I think it’s good”

        This is either incredibly self-delusional or arrogant or both.

        Millions of dollars are spent coming up with the perfect pitches to people. These people are not dumping money into a hole, if it did not work they would not keep doing it. So are we to suppose it only works on people other than us? Get real man.

        1. Why do you think they have to keep spending billions over and over and over again if we’re so vulnerable to programming?

          1. It’s not that we can be bought cheaply Pro, it is that we can be bought.

            And as to why they spend a lot there is this thing called “competition.” And the ad folks themselves could explain the psychological persuasiveness of keeping the pitch slick and rather constant.

            1. This whole “mid control” theory of advertising doesn’t have much scientific support. Fact is, we’re so fickle that we can dump one product for another for reasons that have little to do with advertising.

              That’s not to say that we can’t be influenced or persuaded, but this idea that we simply can’t help ourselves because we’ve seen ten thousand commercials is absurd.

              1. What’s funny is that libertarians claim businesses are so rational, they are more efficient and less wasteful than government because of the bottom line, but then they go and say that every major business in the nation is dumping huge chunks of their operating budget on a waste of time which has no effect on anyone…

                1. No, douche.

                  They’re spending a portion of their budget on communication.

                  They communicate their value proposition to their customers and potential customers.

                  Sometimes that value proposition may be only a feeling the product is supposed to give you. And sometimes a value proposition that appeals to someone else may appear irrational to you.

                  But that doesn’t mean you get to jump up and shout “MIND CONTROL!!!!!! HYPNOSIS!!!! CONSUMERS ARE SLAVES!!!! THE GOVERNMENT MUST COUNTERACT THIS MIND CONTROL!!!!”

                  McDonald’s tells every child the truth in their marketing: “Our food tastes good. We put a toy in the bag with the food. Our restaurants often contain fun mini playgrounds. You can take off your shoes and run around those playgrounds like a goof.”

                  McDonald’s is the most honest corporation I know. Every one of their marketing claims to kids is 100% true. I don’t think the government should get to stop marketing that’s true, even if it’s directed at kids.

                  1. It may be wasteful in some abstract sense, but the fact is, we don’t know of a more efficient mechanism for distributing goods. What we do know is that government can’t fucking do it.

                  2. Yeah fluffy, it’s just communicating important information to rational consumers so they can do a cost benefit analysis. I mean, there is no attempt to use the tools of marketing and psychological science to induce people to ignore certain material facts and concentrate on others, to give false impressions, to induce irrational conclusions, etc.

                    Nope, just the printing of price information and verifiable claims about the quality of the merchandise.

                    Holy shit can the naivete of the libertarian on the subject of advertising possibly be overestimated?

                    1. No, asswipe.

                      I specified that you might find the value proposition irrational, but that didn’t matter.

                      Let’s say Porsche is advertising to men the feeling that if they drive their car they will be more confident and attractive. That would be a pretty good example of the type of ad approach you’re decrying.

                      But if someone buys a Porsche and as a result feels more confident and attractive, guess what? Fuck you is guess what.

                      It doesn’t matter if that is “irrational”. The company delivered the value proposition it offered.

                2. How’s the straw in your neck of the woods today? Snow on it here.

                  1. Yeah x,y, half a dozen commenters have said that my position that advertising has influence on people is a claim of MIND CONTROL and it is me that is chucking straw here… O—-kay!

                  2. If that’s directed at me, there’s no straw man here.

                    There is absolutely no difference other than mere tone MNG’s posts in this thread and “MIND CONTROL!!!!!! HYPNOSIS!!!! CONSUMERS ARE SLAVES!!!! THE GOVERNMENT MUST COUNTERACT THIS MIND CONTROL!!!!”

                    I used the caps lock key. Big deal.

                3. Advertising and marketing get people to notice a product or service. Possibly even consider it as something they wish to buy. And with so many different competitors for your time they want their products to be noticed more than the others. That is what companies pay for.

                  The idea that the consumer is jedi-mind-tricked into buying shit they don’t need is laughable. The only people who might make that claim with a straight face is the marketing department who want to make their job sound more important than it actually is.

                4. You have to admit that there’s a lot of territory between making your brand recognizable and mind control.

        2. They might come up with the perfect pitches, but that doesn’t mean parents lose the responsibility to tell their kids “no.” Repeatedly, over time, and with discipline if they keep pushing the issue.

          Freaks like this woman need to realize that not all values from the 19th century were bad, among which was the idea that parents were in charge of the household, not the kids.

          1. Parenting can be tough, but parents have far more influence on their kids than anyone else. Even those damned meddling other kids.

            Unfortunately, that influence comes much more from the example set by the parent than the words spoken by the parent.

            1. Very, very true.

      2. I’m a Wham-O loyalist

    2. MNG: “There’s a stronger case to be made for regulating advertising aimed at influencing children imo, or having government “counterbalance” it.”

      I still don’t know why the government needs to be involved. Just turn off the TV and tell you kids to do something else. Also with the internet, TiVo, Netflix, video games, etc. its very easy to entertain yourself and your kids these days while avoiding TV advertising.

  25. McDonalds toys have actually helped me teach my kids (ages 6 and 8) lessons about money. Most of those McDonalds toys are so lame, that the first thing I do is try to convince them that they’ll play with it for 2 minutes then be tired of it.

    If they still want it, then they know they have to pay the difference (from their piggy bank) between what I was going to buy for them and what the happy meal costs. (That usually comes to about $1.50).

    They’ve had enough buyers remorse (bought the toy, then were tired of it before we even got home, …and then had to pay me for it), that it’s taught them many a valuable lesson.

    That’s the trouble with Liberals. They don’t know how to turn a negative into a positive.

    1. I shouldn’t have to take responsiblity for myself or the government! It takes a village to raise a kid, or haven’t you heard Ms. Clinton? I want the government to give me guidance! Responsibility should be taken out of our hands. The government knows better than I or anyone else on here does! I hate deciding these things for myself! Empower me by limiting my choices!

      1. My what a funny and new caricature!

        I think the average “angry liberal” would state their support for this kind of thing differently: they would say they would like the government to help/support their parenting values and decisions in a world where vastly more organized and ubiquitous interests aiming to undermine them exist.

        1. Funny, I had McDonald’s and sugary cereal and all the other crap that the pushers for government intervention harp on ad nauseum. I was not a fat kid, nor were most of the kids I knew. Hell, I even played video games all the time. But there was a balance. It also came down to parental responsibility.

          1. Well, duh. I had the same, and my kids do now too. And me and them turned out rather fit and healthy. Of course it takes a great deal of work, but it is certainly do-able.

            But there are a lot of kids with parents with much greater burdens and/or less sense. Why not help them in their efforts? What’s to lose, a few less Froot Loop commercials per night? WTF?

            1. I think the average “angry liberal” would state their support for this kind of thing differently: they would say they would like the government to help/support their parenting values and decisions in a world where vastly more organized and ubiquitous interests aiming to undermine them exist.

              Why not help them in their efforts? What’s to lose, a few less Froot Loop commercials per night? WTF?

              So you’re also okay with the same logic banning violent movies on TV, for the children, etc.? And you’re obviously a fan of the FCC’s censorship.

              Or do you just like to pick certain types of morality to impose?

              Moralist asshole, trying to impose your values on everyone else.

              1. I’m for restrictions on ads aimed at pitching violent movies to kids, yes.

                1. I’m for restrictions on ads aimed at pitching violent movies to kids, yes.

                  So we’ll set up the government Office of Censorship to decide what’s appropriate, then?

                  You are complicit in every act of FCC censorship that has happened, then.

                  1. Dude, there are times and shows that are plainly aimed at children. Restrictions on advertising during those times and programs is what I am talking about.

                    1. Dude, there are times and shows that are plainly aimed at children. Restrictions on advertising during those times and programs is what I am talking about.

                      So, as I said, you support the FCC and its current regime of censorship. Because that’s *EXACTLY* what the FCC has always said that it does.

                      MNG, FCC censorship supporter. For the Children.

            2. But there are a lot of kids with parents with much greater burdens and/or less sense. Why not help them in their efforts? What’s to lose, a few less Froot Loop commercials per night? WTF?

              What’s to lose is liberty, you dolt. Don’t you soak anything up hanging around here?

              1. The liberty of Kellogs to show eight commercials per family hour viewing instead of one?

                Oh the humanity!

                1. sigh.

                  don’t you see that making choices for individuals erodes their liberty?

                  the way you frame the issue, it’s about the would-be seller’s rights. you fail to see that the would-be buyer loses too.

                  1. I’m against banning the happy meal toy, or any fast food product. I’m against banning violent movies.

                    I’m saying I support restrictions for ads for that stuff pitched to kids.

                    1. I’m saying I support restrictions for ads for that stuff pitched to kids.

                      And you call someone else’s Dad an asshole..

                    2. And I’m against all those other things you mentioned. Hey if we can ban advertising we can just ban those things right?

                    3. Just FYI: The “fuck you” that follows in the post below is directed at MNG, not any of the posters in between. The threaded comments stop indenting after a while…

                    4. Fuck you, man. Seriously.

                      When I was growing up, my mom was as nervous-nellie as they come. Toy guns were evil. Sugar cereals were sinful. A lot of TV shows, and even movies like “Willie Wonka & the Chocolate Factory,” were immoral.

                      And guess what? I didn’t experience any of it as a kid. The programs she didn’t want me to see, I didn’t get to see. The stuff she didn’t want me to eat, I didn’t get to eat. The stuff she didn’t want in the house wasn’t in the house.

                      Now, I happen to think my mom’s judgment was, like, way screwed up. But my point is that it’s completely possible to keep kids away from the stuff you want to keep them away from, because even someone as overboard as MY MOM was able to do it. It was no huge effort on her part; she just blocked from my purview the stuff she wanted to block.

                      And she would never, ever, EVER have insisted the government do it for her — in fact she’d have decried such a notion. She merely changed the channel (or never let it get there in the first place), and life went on.

                      You know what you need to do in general, MNG? Stop fucking concerning yourself with other human beings. Seriously: Just stop. Their lives aren’t yours to bother with. Leave them alone. Worry about you and your kids, and keep the fucking federal gun in its holster, thanks.

                    5. “You know what you need to do in general, MNG? Stop fucking concerning yourself with other human beings. Seriously: Just stop. Their lives aren’t yours to bother with. Leave them alone. Worry about you and your kids, and keep the fucking federal gun in its holster, thanks.”

                      This + 1,000,000

                2. Oh the humanity if your kid is a failure because they loved the TV more than you.

    2. I like it.

      However, I prefer a simple ‘No’. Once kids learn that you mean what you say, the whining diminishes.

    3. That’s the trouble with Liberals. They don’t know how to turn a negative into a positive.

      They’re positively inspired at turning positives into negatives though.

  26. 500 generations ago, Ms. Parham would have been removed from the gene pool by a friendly bear long before she could have offspring.

    1. Well, we can still hope that one will come along anyway, and also go for those who want the government to limit our freedom.

      1. I dunno, the one on the state flag seems to have sold out.

    2. sorry I only like little skinny dudes

  27. monet is just taking her cue from the fed government who just came out and banned baby cribs with the drop down side. No doubt this ban was lobbied for by the crib association of america which essentially kills the secondary market for drop down cribs.

  28. I think I forgot where I was posting, because of course most people are going to disagree with the government dealing with ads aimed at kids. So here is my case: A great deal of the formation of the foundation for our tastes and preferences happens when we are children. Marketers with their psychology, focus groups, etc., already have a tremondous advantage in influencing the tastes and preferences of adults, but with children their influence can be incredible. Such an influence to do unhealthy things should be combatted, this strikes me as a legit use for government.

    1. Of course it does! Nothing is outside of the purview of the government for you, is it?

      1. Actually plenty is. Just because I won’t stretch the constitution to make a mockery of the commerce clause doesn’t mean that as a political/moral matter I necessarily support the various uses of the power I think is permitted by the clause.

        I’d repeal the CSA in a heartbeat for example.

    2. You mean “A great deal of the formation of the foundation for our tastes and preferences happen”ned over the past couple hundred thousand years through a process sometimes known as random mutation and non random selection othervise known as evolution.

      1. That actually bolsters my point. Humans have evolved pronounced tendencies for some things, and advertisers play on that. Worse, we have inherited all kinds of irrational cognitions and they bank on that too. All the more reason to have some support against those who would play on these in order to induce our children into unhealthy indulgence of these tendencies.

        1. The only irrational cognitions are the ones about getting the government to be our nanny.

        2. Worse, we have inherited all kinds of irrational cognitions and they bank on that too.

          Unfortunately, you and all the legislators and voters are subject to irrational cognitions when trying to pass laws.

          That’s why the FDA overwhelmingly kills more than it saves.

          That’s why we have Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in our publicly run military, when private organizations have gotten rid of that sort of thing.

          But hey, if you’re perfectly happy with how, e.g., the FCC works, then it’s easy to understand why you’d be happy with this.

    3. Yeah, there are powerful marketing tools to get kids to buy things.

      The cure is for parents to force the kids to use their own money to buy things instead of using mom and dad as an ATM.

      My parents let me buy things that I saw on TV. I quickly learned the meaning of ‘hype’ (and that the kids having ‘endless hours of fun’ were paid robots.) The stuff I bought was nowhere near as satisfying as I thought it would be and I discovered that I didn’t have any money left for other things that I liked.

      IOW, the sales tactics I was exposed to as a kid turned me into the nasty cynical libertarian I am today.

    4. So, this is your way of rationalizing your Cap’n Crunch fetish?

      “The crunchberries tickle!”

    5. So since you’re in favor of banning television ads for sugary things that might appeal to kids, you must also be in favor of FCC’s censorship of TV and radio, since children might see it.

      Oh, and the Internet too.

      1. Full bans on TV, radio and internet in general are not the same as restricting ads that are aimed at kids. The former are too broad for the goal while the latter are much more narrowly tailored and restrict the liberty of adults very little.

        1. Full bans on TV, radio and internet in general are not the same as restricting ads that are aimed at kids. The former are too broad for the goal while the latter are much more narrowly tailored and restrict the liberty of adults very little.

          Really? You’re willing to say that after the Four Loko debacle?

          I suppose your wise men will be able to determine what’s “aimed at kids” just like the FCC does. I do assume that you approve of the “wardrobe malfunction” fine and the FCC response and crackdown.

        2. Do the ads in question contain falsehoods?

          If not, you’re proposing that we ban communications that are true, if those communications might be seen by kids.

          Any representative of the state who would restrict true communications, like “We sell hamburgers. Hamburgers taste good. We sell french fries. French fries taste good,” deserves a bullet in the skull.

          Yes, absolutely: if kids see ads about things kids like, and those ads are created in a clever or interesting or funny way, the kids will want to do those things. SO WHAT?

          If I think fruit loops are good, and I tell a kid that fruit loops are good, and he believes me, guess what? I WIN. I successfully communicated my view of the world to another human being. He agreed.

          Does he like the fruit loops, or not? If he likes them, your basic problem here is that I delivered the value proposition I promised.

          “Wah! It’s not fair that he likes the fruit loops too! It’s not a valid preference!”

          All preferences are valid. There is no such thing as a preference that is false. They’re all reflexively self-justified as true. All arguments that rely on any concept of a false consciousness – any argument that someone doesn’t “really” like what they think they like, and has somehow been “tricked” – is witch doctoring. There is no meaningful distinction between thinking you like something and liking something.

          1. “All preferences are valid.”

            What complete Austrian nonsense.

            So you would favor an ad run during childrens programming with a fav kid star telling kids how delicious anti-freeze tastes, to get some now? Or how exciting hard core porn is, or how much fun it is to shoot someone, try it out now?

            1. If the kid actually drank the anti-freeze, he wouldn’t like it.

              That means it’s not in the category of ads that we’re talking about.

              We’re talking about ads that, as you indicate, establish product preferences.

              There’s no way to run an ad that says, “Chopping off your foot feels good!” in a way that will successfully establish that preference.

              But if you run an ad that says, “Playing Pokemon is fun!” and the kid plays Pokemon and declares it fun, guess what? There is no way to distinguish between that preference and any other.

              I don’t have a problem with the porn ad.

              The gun ad’s a tougher call, because of the incitement / conspiracy factor.

            2. So you would favor an ad run during childrens programming with a fav kid star telling kids how delicious anti-freeze tastes, to get some now? Or how exciting hard core porn is, or how much fun it is to shoot someone, try it out now?

              No, I wouldn’t want that. But I don’t want the government telling them they can’t do it, either.

              Huh? Without the government they’ll show those types of ads you say?

              OK, it’s called the off switch. I’ll use it. And if enough people use it, they’ll stop showing that content or they’ll go out of business.

              It’s actually not that hard to understand unless you’re too damn lazy to do things for yourself.

            3. Yes MNG, every network would be jumping at the chance to air those commercials. Retard.

              1. Fuck yeah. Pennzoil will making a fucking killing tappin the sweet adolescent ass of that new consumer base.

                Buy margin on that shit now!!

    6. You know how my parent’s fought the evil corporations and their advertising? They turned off the damn TV and made me go outside. It’s not the government’s job to help you raise your brat.

      1. The fuck it’s not..

    7. So here is my case: A great deal of the formation of the foundation for our tastes and preferences happens when we are children. Parents, with their physical control, control over punishment and rewards, etc., have a tremondous advantage in influencing the tastes and preferences of children. Such an influence to do unhealthy things should be combatted, this strikes me as a legit use for government.

      You agree, right?

      1. Such an influence to do unhealthy things should be combatted, this strikes me as a legit use for government.

        You agree, right?

        No, it strikes me as a legit use of parents.

    8. Gee, its a fucking miracle I no longer like Transformers then.

    9. A great deal of the formation of the foundation for our tastes and preferences happens when we are children. Marketers with their psychology, focus groups, etc., already have a tremondous advantage in influencing the tastes and preferences of adults, but with children their influence can be incredible. Such an influence to do unhealthy things should be combatted, this strikes me as a legit use for government.

      The problem with this rationale is that it boils down to “X taste/value/preference” should be limited in order to protect “my taste/value/preference”.

      Where does this end? Tastes/values/preferences are numerous and constantly changing. Our European and Canadian brethren have ridiculous regulations to limit “foreign” media, so that they may protect their “culture”.

  29. I foresee an army of fatties arriving on Parham’s front lawn, their ketchup-and-special-sauce-smeared faces locked in a look of pained sadness reserved for clowns in black velvet paintings, all shuffling towards the smell of food from her house and moaning “feeeeed meeeee”

  30. Well, it is “a sophisticated, high-tech marketing scheme,” just like everything else McDonald’s does.

    But yeah, it’s not like the children are the ones doing the buying. If you can’t train them to eat real food then you shouldn’t expect society to do it for you.

    Or: I’m too tired to play devil’s advocate on this one.

    1. Fake! This isn’t Tony. Stop pretending! You need to call McDonald’s evil and specifically targetting people to infect them with obesity and diabetes and how they should pay out billions to cover healthcare costs on top of the government coming in to rescue the poor victims of this corporation. And then once McDonald’s starts going bankrupt because of these litigations, fees, and regulations… we have a bailout for them because they are “too big to fail”

      1. Libertarian fundamentalists don’t like any partial agreement, anything less than 100% orthodoxy. This is likely responsible for the less than impressivre success of the movement politically…

        1. Hey, I’m a realist. I know it will come incrementally, just as the communization of this country has been and is being done incrementally.

      2. I don’t think McDonald’s or any other corporation is “evil,” I think they are amoral moneymaking machines. Libertarians think that a bunch of these machines working for the sole purpose of generating revenue will magically produce a just society, whereas liberals feel they should be subject to rules and regulations just like people are, and for the same reason: to prevent them from doing harm.

        1. +1000000000

          Jesus, this is the best written thing I’ve seen here for perhaps a year…

          1. Yet another platitude-filled, detail-free post from Tony is the best thing you’ve seen written her for a year? Your standards must be pretty damn low.

        2. whereas liberals feel they should be subject to rules and regulations just like people are

          Awesome, you think that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to “people” either. All our arguments and pamphlets should be screened to see if they’re ok “for the children” or if they might influence them unduly.

          1. John, WTF are you talking about?

            I’m talking about restrictions on ads aimed at kids.

            Tony is talking about regulating businesses in general.

            How are you getting to restricting pamphlets?

            1. How are you getting to restricting pamphlets?

              You don’t think that someone could aim a pamphlet at kids? Wouldn’t we need some government agency with the power to check?

              Your trust in government working perfectly is absurd.

              Besides, Kagan as SG already said that the government could censor pamphlets under campaign finance reform as “classic electioneering.”

              The point is that you believe in giving the government powers to impose your morality, and blithely assume that those powers will never be used against you. How the fuck do you expect government to know if something is “aimed at kids,” and how the fuck do you trust the government to make those decisions without actually imposing on the liberty of adults?

              1. Yes I think certain kinds of pamphlets that are aimed at kids should be restricted. WTF?

                1. So you’re in favor of all the government restrictions that have been proposed against comics and graphic novels, since “comics are obviously aimed at kids,” right?

                  Oh, too bad if that ends up restricting the liberties of some adults because the regulators didn’t realize that some could be aimed at adults. You’re sure that *eventually* you could get that through the government censor.

                  Again, fuck you, censor.

                  1. You’re sure that *eventually* you could get that through the government censor.

                    He can if he’s politically connected and tuned into the PC sensibilities of the Nanny Class. All others are SOL.

        3. Libertarians think that a bunch of these machines working for the sole purpose of generating revenue will magically produce a just society, whereas liberals feel they should be subject to rules and regulations just like people are, and for the same reason: to prevent them from doing harm.

          Which thing is the one that fires people for being gay?

          Those soulless corporations, or the one run by the people you trust to magically produce a just society and write rules and regulations?

          You liberals believe in far more magical thinking than any libertarians. You’re always comparing perfect magical never existing government to real world corporations.

          1. Again, what? Many companies fire many gays. In fact, in many states it is government that prohibits this. So it’s not exactly inexplicable that a gay person might support government in this area.

            1. Your vision of government, as always, is one that imposes morality.

              1. Oh get off your high horse. your vision of government is one that imposes your morality too (or do you not support government enforcement of laws against rape, trespass, etc? Or do you want to say you don’t think those are morally wrong?)

                1. I’d say that rape and trespass have much clearly arguments about why they’re wrong.

                  You want to make some illegal because you don’t think that other people should enjoy themselves. You’re worried that if they hear messages inviting them to do these forbidden but fun activities, they’ll like them too much– which is wrong, since it will be bad for them somehow. To me, you’re like someone banning obscenity or gay sex because it’s “wrong.”

                  After all, all that porn is what causes people to like sex. And clearly it’s people hearing about homosexuals, especially as children, that turns people gay.

                  Under your logic, at least.

                  1. “I’d say that rape and trespass have much clearly arguments about why they’re wrong.

                    Oh, who is the moral expert now? Suddenly not so post-modern, are we?

                    1. Moron, these actions inflict a direct harm to their victims. Advertising does not.

                    2. Hey, fuckface, the rights of the rapist or the trespasser clearly end when they infringe on the rights of another person or their property. Now, if you could coherently explain to us how McDonalds or Kellogg’s advertising infringes on anyone elses person or property and I will kiss your ass. Otherwise, keep the fuck out of my business and let me live my life and raise my kids the way I want to…until I step on your lawn or violate your person.

                      You are quite possibly the stupidest fucker I have ever come across. I hope you die in a fire.

                2. So, by NOT imposing morality… we’re imposing morality? Isn’t this kind of like the “if you don’t buy stuff, you’re affecting interstate commerce” argument, MNG?

        4. Actually, my definition of a just society is one where every individual is perfectly secure in their persons and property, and is free to trade their labor and their property as they choose.

          In that society, absolutely, some people and groups will choose to do nothing but generate revenue. Because there’s nothing wrong with that.

          1. As long as it doesn’t interfere with others’ liberties, right?

            I think figuring out what constitutes interfering is more complicated than you admit.

            1. Does it inflict physical harm or hardship on another person? Does it infringe on their right to be secure in their person and property? Does it interfere with or directly damage their person or property?

              If the answer to these questions is no, then it does not interfere with another’s liberty. It’s simpler than you think, Tony.

              Of course, you could tell us what action could result in an answer of “no” to all of these questions yet still result in an infringement of another’s liberty. I shall wait patiently.

        5. I don’t think McDonald’s or any other corporation is “evil,” I think they are amoral moneymaking machines. Libertarians think that a bunch of these machines working for the sole purpose of generating revenue will magically produce a just society, whereas liberals feel they should be subject to rules and regulations just like people are, and for the same reason: Because we are power hungry and believe we have the right to force everyone to live according to our moral belief system, like theocrats without a god.to prevent them from doing harm.

        6. And you think government regs magically produce a just society.

        7. I don’t think McDonald’s or any other corporation is “evil,” I think they are amoral moneymaking machines. Libertarians think that a bunch of these machines working for the sole purpose of generating revenue will magically produce a just society,

          Typical cartoonish mischaracterization.

          whereas liberals feel they should be subject to rules and regulations just like people are, and for the same reason: to prevent them from doing harm.

          What restrictions do you speak of that they are not bound to?

  31. When I was I used to ask my dad if we could go to Mickey D’s on occasion. We didn’t eat much fast food in our house.

    I distinctly remember leaving Kmart one evening and asking my dad if we could stop by McDonald’s on the way home. He said, “Sure!” I saw the golden arches approaching and I knew we were close. When we got right in front of the restaurant my dad stopped the car in the middle of traffic. I said, “What are you doing?” He answered, “You asked if we could stop by McDonald’s and here we are.” Me: “No. I meant, can we go inside and get a burger?” He snapped, “Hell no! We have plenty of stuff to eat at home.” He laughed his ass of all the way home.

    1. Man, your Dad’s a jerk….. a hilarious jerk!

    2. Man, your dad was quite the asshole. Happy Fathers day…

      1. Wait, what?

        One Father does this to his kid, you call him an asshole.

        You want to deny and discourage McDonalds to *every kid* in America, telling them that they’re *wrong* for wanting it, somehow that’s obvious and moral because the magical government is doing it.

        You’re a million times the asshole his father was.

        1. Er, it’s the means not the aim dude.

        2. I thought that my dad was being a jerk, also…for about 5 minutes. By the time we got home I thought it was funny, too. You can rest assured that all questions directed to my dad were much more specific after that.

  32. Guys! Hey!

    The lady’s weirdly AdBusters-y sob story about about her kids being tummy-raped by a clown is a lie. Her gummint job is to restrict children’s diets. She’s doing it.

    A’ight? This is “your tax dollars at work,” not “dat bitch be lazy.”

    B) Monet Parham puts sheep between herself and her daughters.

  33. more abortions = fewer Happy Meals

    simple really, and a win-win all around

    By the way, does Obabmacare cover post-natal abortions?

    1. I guess you want little plastic fetuses in every Happy Meal…

  34. “What kids see as a fun toy, I now realize is a sophisticated, high-tech marketing scheme that’s designed to put McDonald’s between me and my daughters,” Parham said in a statement.

    Christmas at the Parham’s must be real festive, what with the tofu cookies, and lectures about Santa Claus as the epitome of the evils of the heteronormative patriarchy, by keeping Mrs. Claus trapped at the North Pole feeding and caring for the “elves.”

    1. So Speaketh Captian Caricature! Now come trusty sidekick Hyperbole Boy, let us go castigate some more tree-huggin’, sandal-wearin’ hippie leftists!

    2. Please, she’s more the Festivus type. I bet nobody’s better at the Airing of Grievences part.

      1. I’d love to take her on in the Feats of Strength.

  35. Has anyone actually heard — or heard of — a child demanding McDonald’s not because of the food, but because of a plastic toy?

    1. No. You know if salad places just started offering toys, kids would be demanding salads rather than cheese burgers.

      1. Er, sure I’ve had my kids see a commercial for a Happy Meal toy, or see the display at the store and say “I want that!” Again, libertarians assume businesses are self-interested rational maximizers but hey, they just give the toy away because they love kids?

        1. McDonalds serves food that they like. And the toy is a bonus. But if you think kids’ love of McDonalds will go away becuase of ending a toy give away, you don’t understand kids. And McDonalds offers the toy to compete with other fast food restaurants. It is not like the kids will be eating healthy stuff if it wasn’t for McDonalds.

          1. John
            If Mcdonald’s did not think the inclusion of the toy leads to increased sales on their part they would not include it. Do you dispute that?

            1. You can’t seem to get around the fact that from the perspective of the kid, the toy ADDS VALUE.

              Damn right McDonald’s gets more sales because they include the toy. And you know what? They damn well fucking deserve those additional sales.

              1. I’m not against the toy, I’m against the ads aimed at kids.

                But yeah the idea is that kids developing a preference for fast food is not a good thing.

                I’m betting you agree with your kids. And you likely have the wherewithal to overcome the inducements of the company to develop that. But there are lots of parents with less time/wherewithal than you. Why not help these parents do what you yourself work to do with your kids?

                1. But yeah the idea is that kids developing a preference for fast food is not a good thing.

                  “But yeah, the idea is that kids developing a preference for sex/miscegenation/being comfortable with gay people/loud music/cursing/using contraception/driving (fast) cars/drinking Four Loko/having any sort of dangerous fun is not a good thing.”

                  Eating fast food is a form of a possibly dangerous activity that many people enjoy doing. It is not the same thing as rape or murder, and it’s absurd that you would pretend so.

                  You want to keep kids from being influenced to like it until they’re older. You’re not any different from the parents who want to keep kids from knowing that gay people exist until they’re older.

                2. What, you want me to say “no” for them?

                3. But yeah the idea is that kids developing a preference for fast food is not a good thing.

                  Why? Please tell me why the consumption of a “fast food” meal is any different than any of the limitless combinations of restaurant or home cooked meals that contain the same proportions of macronutrients? How is a Big Mac meal any different than grandma’s meatloaf, mashed potatoes and apple pie? Does grandma’s love make it healthy?

                  This nonsense that “fast food” is bad for you is unscientific gibberish. But thanks to ignorant “documentaries” like “SuperSize Me” we have millions of morons who think that its the food itself.

                  It is the overconsumption of calories that is the problem with the Western nations, not the providers of or some inherent toxicity of the food.

          2. McDonalds serves food that they like. And the toy is a bonus.

            My observations indicate that kids are just as likely to play with the toy as soon as they get it and totally ignore the food.

        2. The same thing is true of those who produce movies, music, video games, and websites. You’re willing to let all of those be regulated “for the children” too?

          1. Er, yes everybody who puts out something for kids is hoping to induce sales for kids in doing that. Of course some things are good for kids, some are not. And some things can be regulated in ways that protect kids while infringing on adults very little.

            1. Of course some things are good for kids, some are not.

              And you’re just the guy to determine that, Mr. Comstock. You and your type banned information about contraceptives before, and would have banned rock and roll later. Right now, your kind of people want to ban sex education from kids.

              1. This Austrian nonsense is the most absurd post-modernism out there! Are you saying that some things are not better for a person’s health than others, in an objective sense?

                1. I’m saying I don’t give a shit if some food products are better for your health than others, if the ad in question isn’t making a health claim.

                  Consider an ad that consists of the sentence:

                  “Hey, kids! Our french fries taste good!”

                  That statement is true. (At least, in the sense that many consumers who try the product will agree that it tastes good.)

                  I don’t see any justification for you telling me I can’t run that ad. You might have some other scheme you’re running on your own time to improve people’s health, but I don’t give a shit about that and shouldn’t have to give a shit about that. I just want to sell people some fries that taste good.

                2. Are you saying that some things are not better for a person’s health than others, in an objective sense?

                  In an objective sense doing anything that involves leaving your house can be worse for your health. We obviously must restrict anything that might encourage kids to play dangerously.

            2. And some things can be regulated in ways that protect kids while infringing on adults very little.

              So you are arguing that the FCC has infringed on adults very little, right?

              1. John, I don’t know whose arguments you do a worse job at making, yours or mine.

                No I don’t like the job the FCC did. If all it did was restrict ads aimed at children then I would be fine. As it is it has an incredibly broad and blunt effort of censorship that needlessly restricts adults.

                1. No I don’t like the job the FCC did. If all it did was restrict ads aimed at children then I would be fine. As it is it has an incredibly broad and blunt effort of censorship that needlessly restricts adults.

                  But the FCC’s mission is based on children. You’re complaining because the real-world examples of what you’re advocating don’t match your precious theory.

                2. One of our major points is that in fucking reality, what you get is broad and blunt efforts of censorship that needlessly restricts adults.

                  You’re imagining some kind of perfect world where bureaucrats can somehow stop anything that’s aimed at children without censoring anything aimed at adults.

                  How? When has that happened? That’s the FCC’s mandate, and it’s done a shitty job as you note.

                  Besides, children are people too. Sometimes people like to do things for fun that you think “objectively” are bad.

            3. The business are run by adults. Adults create the ads. How can you regulate advertising without infringing on adults? It is impossible.

          2. Been there, tried that, Mr. Thacker…

        3. So buy the happy meal and toss the food.

  36. I can’t find the link, but MRS Suderman summed it up well today.

    The Center for Science in the Public Interest; Where Freedom Goes to Die.

    1. That pretty much applies to 95% of public interest groups. They’re the primordial ooze of nanny state ideas and bureaucratic over-reach.

  37. IS she an SEIU member? Who’s paying for the lawyers? Why can’t she just tell the kids “No!”?

  38. Here’s what I don’t get: McDonalds Happy Meal toy promotions last about a month, with one new toy a week (give or take). Is it the serious contention of the people involved in this bill (especially that useless excuse for a mother) that one frakin’ Happy Meal a week, with fries replaced by apples, juice or milk instead of coke, and McNuggets instead of a burger is that bad for a kid?

    Seriously?

    Then by that logic, I should be dead by now, and so should my brothers, my daughter, and most of the people I knew in High School. When I was growing up, we ate fast food about twice a week, and there weren’t healthier options available at all.

    I mean, I should at the very least be fat, since I never really stopped eating this stuff. And I’m not. Ergo: these people are morons, and anyone who buys their line of garbage is incapable of rational thought.

    There are few things that piss me off more than the war on Fast Food and Obesity. These people seriously need to STFU and leave what I eat and who I buy it from up to me. My kids aren’t their bloody responsibility.

    Oh, and they need to buy their kids a Happy Meal. One friggin’ burger isn’t going to make your kids fat, you jerks.

  39. You’re all just passive aggressive.

  40. I want to sue Hit Entertainment, makers of Thomas the Tank Engine, for having way too many items in their product line. And for making them fun to play with.

    I have to say no every time my kid asks me to buy him every single train in the entire catalog.

    1. I’d like to sue the Mom of that slutty latina chick acros the street when I was 12 for her daughter’s awesome tits.

  41. What I don’t get is why she doesn’t just buy the happy meal, give her kid the toy, and throw out the food. That way she doesn’t have to say no, and the kid won’t become addicted to the grade F beef that McDonald’s uses.

    1. Or skip McDonald’s completely and buy the kid a decent toy that isn’t some cheap plastic shit that’s going to break a couple of days later.

    2. Or skip McDonald’s completely and buy the kid a cheap plastic toy at the dollar store.

  42. Repost from earlier thread about Eric Mar (the SF board supervisor who banned the Meals of Happy):

    http://img169.imageshack.us/im…..vonmar.jpg

  43. When did those Naderite shitheads at the CSPI start litigating? I remember when all they did was get free press on slow news days by tossing off some bullshit about how chinese food or movie theater popcorn was going to make you drop dead.

    -jcr

  44. I am shocked that an overweight black woman that works for the government is suing someone. So out of character.

    1. We gonna bust that nigga.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.