LA blocks new ghetto fast food joints

[RetiredGySgt]

hey, dont make my points for me! i like exposing hypocrisy

Sorry I wasn't thinking, I too line people up for the fall.

All though is the ban on fast food too or just stores? Never read the law.

 

[DiamondDave]

but by that thinking the state can make anything it wants illegal, and you would then support the upholding of the law, regardless of what it is

Call me funny... but I am about obeying the law... I may disagree with a law, but I do not disobey it...

Now as to GySgt's point... I think that healthy food stores would be great in these areas... and if the marketplace supports it and a store want to open in these areas because they think it can be a successful business move, GREAT... all for it...

 

[Ravi]

See my last post, restaurant are not going to help a thing, they need to get large food store chains in with lower prices. Personally I have no problem with this myself. They are NOT shutting down whats already there, they are just looking for BETTER service for the area, a valid job for a Government of any size, as long they are not banning things all together.

I'm glad to see you are capable of being rational.

 

[Ravi]

Or at least not by "international" standards that is.

But then again, having a higher benchmark for the poverty level would seem to me to be an indicator of relative success, no?

Which is why welfare helps keep our economy chugging along.

 

[manifold]

Which is why welfare helps keep our economy chugging along.

Prolly.

But what is the optimal level? Therein lies the true debate and noble compromise.


edit: maybe you should start a thread.

 

[Ravi]

Prolly.

But what is the optimal level? Therein lies the true debate and noble compromise.


edit: maybe you should start a thread.

I'm not smart enough. You do it.

 

[manifold]

I'm not smart enough. You do it.

Maybe we could get midcan5 to do it? And he could even layer in subtext about how a really really high level of welfare is advocated by a God that he doesn't believe in. It's always a hoot when he does that.

 

[CA95380]

City officials are putting South Los Angeles on a diet.

Really!?!

Adults are responsible for their own actions in what they chose to eat, just as they are responsible for what their children eat. If government wants to stick their noses into it - they need to change what is fed to kids in cafeteria's in schools. 'And I'm not talkin about making ketsup a vegetable'

At a time when more people want less government - for them to even attempt passing B.S. laws like this is - ludicrous, as well as the stupid "trans fat" law is just as asinine! It is just a smoke screen in an attempt to make the general public believe that their elected officials are doing something to earn their outrages salaries.


The Associated Press: LA blocks new fast-food outlets from poor areas

 

[Bern80]

So you don't think a city can put a moratorium on new businesses? How is this different than putting a moratorium on new baseball stadiums, or strip clubs, or gas stations...???

Seems to me they are addressing a health problem that affects their EMT outlay, no?

By removing the freedom to choose.

Cities have the right under zoning laws I imagine to disallow/allow all kinds of building. the reasoning behind this decision is the problem.

Liberals hate when the right uses the 'the left knows whats best for you' or 'it's for your own good' stereotype, but this decision could not be a more shining example of that. Here's another one: We won't make people make responsible choices for themselves, we'll just remove the choices and that'll fix it.

The left is systematically making us a weaker country when they make legislative decisions like this.

 

[Ravi]

By removing the freedom to choose.

Cities have the right under zoning laws I imagine to disallow/allow all kinds of building. the reasoning behind this decision is the problem.

Liberals hate when the right uses the 'the left knows whats best for you' or 'it's for your own good' stereotype, but this decision could not be a more shining example of that. Here's another one: We won't make people make responsible choices for themselves, we'll just remove the choices and that'll fix it.

The left is systematically making us a weaker country when they make legislative decisions like this.

You might have a point if they were actually running the other places out of town. They aren't, so you don't. Nice generalizing, btw.

 

[Paulie]

Sorry I wasn't thinking, I too line people up for the fall.

Yeah, whatever happened to that attempt you were making against me on the demonized republican politician threads?

 

[Bern80]

You might have a point if they were actually running the other places out of town. They aren't, so you don't. Nice generalizing, btw.

It is generalization that happens to fit this perfectly. The point is valid, because no matter what word games you want to play, the government has deemed it okay to restrict choice (for their own good of course).

 

[stivex]

fast food is cheap. it is also extremely unhealthy. often people dont have time to make their own food, or they cant afford to get an oven or pots and pans, etc, to make their own food. the only choice left is mcD's

So, based on this logic, we are saying that they be denied the "only choice left" because it is an unhealthy one. How DARE someone choose to be unhealthy! lol

 

[manifold]

It is generalization that happens to fit this perfectly. The point is valid, because no matter what word games you want to play, the government has deemed it okay to restrict choice (for their own good of course).

You seem awfully hung up on this restriction of choice epiphany you've recently experienced. ALL laws are a restriction of choice by definition. May I assume you're not advocating anarchy? The debate is not about whether it's okay for governments to restrict choice. They can. Always have, always will. The debate should always be on a case by case basis and consider whether the proposed restriction is legal and necessary. Clearly, the fast food moratorium is not illegal, but the need for the restriction is the part I'm not sold on.

 

[Shogun]

You seem awfully hung up on this restriction of choice epiphany you've recently experienced. ALL laws are a restriction of choice by definition. May I assume you're not advocating anarchy? The debate is not about whether it's okay for governments to restrict choice. They can. Always have, always will. The debate should always be on a case by case basis and consider whether the proposed restriction is legal and necessary. Clearly, the fast food moratorium is not illegal, but the need for the restriction is the part I'm not sold on.

Tell me.. what OTHER restrictions of choice can you stomach? Cause im pretty sure the left is not the ONLY ones who can fathom telling you what you can and cannot do.

 

[Shogun]

You might have a point if they were actually running the other places out of town. They aren't, so you don't. Nice generalizing, btw.

But they ARE restricting NEW options. I'd say this perfectly illustrates why assholes on the left are just as dangerous to personal liberty as assholes on the right.

 

[manifold]

Tell me.. what OTHER restrictions of choice can you stomach? Cause im pretty sure the left is not the ONLY ones who can fathom telling you what you can and cannot do.

I've never had a problem with the one against taking human life.

 

[manifold]

...assholes on the left are just as dangerous to personal liberty as assholes on the right.

No argument here.

I'd even rep you if you weren't such a douche.

 

[Ravi]

You seem awfully hung up on this restriction of choice epiphany you've recently experienced. ALL laws are a restriction of choice by definition. May I assume you're not advocating anarchy? The debate is not about whether it's okay for governments to restrict choice. They can. Always have, always will. The debate should always be on a case by case basis and consider whether the proposed restriction is legal and necessary. Clearly, the fast food moratorium is not illegal, but the need for the restriction is the part I'm not sold on.

IMO cities have the right to manage growth and that's exactly what they are doing. I'd love a drive thru Starbucks at the end of my driveway but my city won't allow it. Boo hoo, they are limiting my choices.



The need?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yeah, whatever happened to that attempt you were making against me on the demonized republican politician threads?

Already made, you won't actually state you made no such posts, which generally means you know your wrong.