Los Angeles poised to ban new fast-food restaurants in poor are...

The left will see to it that you WILL do as your told.

Socialism at it's best. More to come with Lord Obama.

C'mon...these places are in the hood, because that is what those dumbos want. If I went in there with a Whole Foods, it'd be shuttered in a week. Some things people are just going to do, even if they know it is bad for them. No legislation is going to change that.

I disagree with having laws for every little thing, but when people can't control themselves, I guess someone has to. Also, I don't understand how people who are supposedly poor a) manage to get so fat, and b) can afford to eat in restaurants (I'm using that term loosely here) on such a regular basis.

When are the socialists going to once and for all hold certain demographic and cultural groups accountable for their own actions? Why does all legislation have to be dumbed down for lowest common denominator?

Goopedup wrote:

C'mon...these places are in the hood, because that is what those dumbos want. If I went in there with a Whole Foods, it'd be shuttered in a week. Some things people are just going to do, even if they know it is bad for them. No legislation is going to change that.

You need more faith in people.

I agree that this is Socialistic even though I personally am a health conscious person. You cannot legislate nutrition or morality. Health conscious people with the money should be encouraged to open businesses that serve quality food. Perhaps some corporate welfare can be utilized. The Government should give grants to people to open healthy eating establishments. Even diners would be good.

"Without the fast food joints, who is going to supply the jobs for all the welfare cases?"

Have you been to a fastfood joint in LA?... They only hire illegals.

legalize marijuana, then nobody would complain about fast food restaurants

Legalize heroin. That way people can make their own decisions. Legalize cocaine for the same reason.

I'm tired of this nanny state telling me what I can and cannot put into my body.

As a matter of fact, if we dismantle the FDA, we will eliminate a huge government bureaucracy that tells me what I can and cannot have.

Let the private sector take care of things. That way, if a few people die by taking the wrong meds, the rest of us will know not to buy from, say, Glaxo. Right?

I mean, why should health on any level be regulated?

So when 1/4 of Americans are clinically obese, we should let them die. Public health should not be a concern in a free society.

If people are too dumb to stay away from drugs, fatty foods, tobacco or booze, they deserve to die.

Legalize it all. We are a free country.

Why don't these fling people stop gangs and crime and keep their fling noses out of my fling business. They are nothing but a bunch of nosey fling jacka$$e$. This is becoming a marxist country where the government(WHICH KNOWS EVERYTHING) will decide what you do every moment of your fling life. BUT OUT A $ $ H 0 7 3 $. Let me live my life and go jerk your own pudding.

Anne wrote:

When are the socialists going to once and for all hold certain demographic and cultural groups accountable for their own actions? Why does all legislation have to be dumbed down for lowest common denominator?

Be cause the people that are implementing these do gooder thoughts are the lowest common denominator, and they are all stupid.

1. How about cooking a healthy meal at home why do they need to go out and buy the fast food?

2. I wonder how many liquor stores are in the "poor" neighborhood, I'd venture to guess comparable to the fast food restaurants, surprise no one is complaining about liquor stores.

radical moderate wrote:

You cannot legislate nutrition or morality.

False. Tobacco and alcohol use are heavily legislated.

Cezar wrote:

1. How about cooking a healthy meal at home why do they need to go out and buy the fast food?

Too lazy, in most cases.

radical moderate wrote:

<quoted text>
You need more faith in people.

Maybe, but I say you need to be more realistic. Let's put it to a vote - what do we need more of in this matter, realism or faith?

Fed up wrote:

<quoted text>
False. Tobacco and alcohol use are heavily legislated.

Perfect examples of how the legislation DOESN'T work. Kids get tabacco and alcohol as easy as I do.

Anne wrote:

When are the socialists going to once and for all hold certain demographic and cultural groups accountable for their own actions? Why does all legislation have to be dumbed down for lowest common denominator?

Because keeping them stupid and dependent on the socialists translates into votes. If you allow others to make decisions for you, you deserve what you get.

Goopedup wrote:

<quoted text>
Perfect examples of how the legislation DOESN'T work. Kids get tabacco and alcohol as easy as I do.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying that the government(s) do legislate these things.

I wish that people had enough common sense to take care of themselves, without the need for government intervention. I saw a young woman (probably under 30) on the bus yesterday who was so fat that she looked like she had three sets of breasts on her back (sound funny, but really wasn't). Meanwhile, she was inhaling a sugar-laden drink. I wanted so badly to say to her "put the soda down, sweetie". It must suck to hate yourself so much that you would subject your body to that kind of abuse. It was disgusting. On the bright side, I was on my way to the gym when I saw her, and did I ever work out hard after seeing that!

Give them free bananas.