California Legislature Bill SB-1192 Children’s meals. Say hello to more nanny-state.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Way too much of a wall of text to read about a bill that requires restaurants to serve water as a default beverage. I have lots of things to do today. Good luck godless warrior.

a reply to: DictionaryOfExcuses

Yeah, 14 sentences is a tough one to get through, isn't it? However would you manage? Perhaps you would prefer that I don't respond to you with thoughtful comments next time, that way your opinion is safe from counter argument or criticism?

Maybe God will grant you the ability to make it through such a "wall of text" some day. We can only hope it is His will eventually.

Best regards.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Since you want to talk to me so badly, listen. You quoted the dictionary definition of "authoritarian". Since I know what that word means, and since your argument hinges on a hyperbole, yes: reading even one sentence is a waste of time.

I'm waiting for you or someone to explain to me why I should be alarmed that water is the default beverage that comes with children's meals in California, even though it doesn't outlaw buying or selling other regularly available beverages.

Again, if you want to talk about other California laws, start another thread.

You and others want everyone else to join you on your slippery slope. "First they came for the kids' soda pop..." Then when we don't see the cause for alarm, we're ignorant gov't lapdogs. Again let's be very explicit: we are looking at the fact that a California SB makes water the default beverage in children's kids meals. Default. You're not going off to jail or a camp if you get your kids a soft drink.

The most common thing I'm reading is some version or another of "I don't need the gov't making my decisions!": a response typical of someone who doesn't know how many of their choices are already made for them. Of course it's a response triggered in someone who probably does need more choices made for them.

I'm still not fired up about this.

a reply to: DictionaryOfExcuses

I don't care if you're "alarmed" or "fired up" by this legislation; I'm not here to convince you that you should be, I'm just arguing my view and explaining why in those massive walls of texts that I write.

The legislation isn't about hauling parents off to jail, it's about forcing private business to do something "or else" under the guise of "but it's cause people are fat." Tell me this--should the government be able to punish restaurants for NOT having non-sugared up water-based drinks (or milk) as the default drink?

That is the question of concern, not what happens to the parent if they choose to get a different drink.

As for the slippery-slope claim, it's not about a slippery slope down, it's the steep mountain of similarly authoritarian legislation that has accumulated over the years--this is the just the newest layer that they're trying to add to it.

But honestly, at this point I just couldn't understand how 14 whole sentences was too much for you to read--if you don't want responses, don't respond back. It's a pretty simple equation.

I notice that your comment is 14 sentences...coincidence? Is yours a wall of text?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Who cares how long it is? When any part of an argument is predicated on stretching the truth or distorting a definition, it is a waste. Is that short enough?

a reply to: DictionaryOfExcuses

You care how long it is...you are the one who refused to read a "wall of text," so obviously it matters to you.

Since your most recent comment is lacking any substance,, three sentences is a perfect length.

But, if you're unwilling to answer this question:

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: DictionaryOfExcuses

Tell me this--should the government be able to punish restaurants for NOT having non-sugared up water-based drinks (or milk) as the default drink?

...then I guess it's "best regards."

Probably isn't anyone as against politicians telling us what to do with our personal lives as much as me.
But I hate to say it, if so many people wouldn't raise fat kids then this whole particular issue would not have arisen.
In fairness, if we could return to a time when a man could earn enough at a skilled trade to provide a good life for his family without mom working full-time too then mom could have the chance to be mom which includes making sure your kids eat healthy and go outside and play instead of fast food and laying around playing video games and such

originally posted by: Metallicus
I truly don’t understand why any freedom loving American would still live in the Progressive cesspool of a State. Maybe their goal is to drive out as many people as possible so they can protect the environment. I really can’t think of any logical reason to inflict this much Government on American citizens.

My family is here, my wife's family is here, we both have good jobs that would not transfer to another state, so we are stuck here. I have looked at Nevada and most jobs say you must have a NV drivers license to apply or have a NV address...