Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 22 May '11 02:34 / 3 edits
    You heard right. Come this November the ballet will ask voters on whether or not circumcision should be banned in San Francisco.

    So you say that the US could never ban a burqa like they do in France due to the freedoms they enjoy that their legal documents mandate? Pfft. Its just another attempt from the left to ban all our rights EXCEPT for killing unborn children and marrying gays.

    From the land of Nancy Pelosi, should we be surprised they are capable of this? I say that we petition to have a vote on all our ballots as to whether or not San Fransisco, if not the entire state of California, should be stricken from the Republic.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=13632047
  2. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    22 May '11 02:36
    Originally posted by whodey
    Its just another attempt from the left to ban all our rights EXCEPT for killing unborn children and marrying gays.
    On what basis do claim that "the left" wants to "ban all rights"?
  3. 22 May '11 02:38 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    On what basis do claim that "the left" wants to "ban all rights"?
    I guess your right. Just so long as we carry health insurance and don't use incandescent light bulbs and don't choose to circumcise our children etc etc, all is well with the world I suppose.
  4. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    22 May '11 03:42
    Originally posted by whodey
    I say that we petition to have a vote on all our ballots as to whether or not San Fransisco, if not the entire state of California, should be stricken from the Republic.
    You'd like to see California ejected from the Republic? Because they do things you don't agree with? You're usually banging on about how States should be able to decide things for themselves without interference from the rest of the Union. Have you changed your stance?
  5. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    22 May '11 04:11
    Presumably any such measure, if passed, will be struck down by the courts.
  6. 22 May '11 04:44 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    You'd like to see California ejected from the Republic? Because they do things you don't agree with? You're usually banging on about how States should be able to decide things for themselves without interference from the rest of the Union. Have you changed your stance?
    I changed my mind. They are simply too entertaining and fun for right wingers like me to let them go.

    Here are ten other things banned in San Fran

    1. Happy meals.
    2. Plastic bags
    3. Bottled water.
    4. Smoking in all buildings
    5. Selling Baby chickens, ducks, and rabbits????
    6. Segways. Apparently the mayor thought that they promoted laziness.
    7. Soda and juice that does not have "real" fruit in them.
    8. Arizona. City employees are banned from going there, except if they are police officers who are investigating a crime. Say for example, someone comes from Arizona to sell a babby duck on the side of a street while eating a happy meal they could be investigated in Arizona.
    9. Firearms in public advertisements. Apparently it promotes violence. Who knew?
    10. Sitting. In order to curb panhandlers sitting on public streets is banned from 7A to 11 PM

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/awesomer/10-things-that-are-banned-in-san-francisco
  7. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    22 May '11 04:58
    I've had many a Coke in San Fran.

    7. Soda and juice that does not have "real" fruit in them.
  8. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    22 May '11 05:01
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    I've had many a Coke in San Fran.

    7. Soda and juice that does not have "real" fruit in them.
    Maybe whodey's list is not accurate.
  9. 22 May '11 05:11 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    I've had many a Coke in San Fran.

    7. Soda and juice that does not have "real" fruit in them.
    I said soda and juice!!

    My guess is that it is ONLY soda or juice that advertises a "fruity" mixture.

    As for the bans, the happy meals are the most famous I think.
  10. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    22 May '11 05:20 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    I changed my mind. They are simply too entertaining and fun for right wingers like me to let them go.

    Here are ten other things banned in San Fran

    1. Happy meals.
    2. Plastic bags
    3. Bottled water.
    4. Smoking in all buildings
    5. Selling Baby chickens, ducks, and rabbits????
    6. Segways. Apparently the mayor thought that they promoted laziness.
    rom 7A to 11 PM

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/awesomer/10-things-that-are-banned-in-san-francisco
    11. Raw milk.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXDXwCLAz0Y
  11. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    22 May '11 05:26 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    My guess is that it is ONLY soda or juice that advertises a "fruity" mixture.
    Is preventing manufacturers of non-fruit non-juice drinks from passing them off as fruit or juice drinks the same as "[banning] soda and juice that does not have "real" fruit in them"? Are drinks that do not have "real" fruit in them, and that are marketed honestly, really banned in San Francisco?
  12. 22 May '11 09:30
    A measure I wholeheartedly agree with. People should not be able to mutilate their children without a medical reason. Allowing circumcision for non-medical reasons is institutionalized discrimination; people may not e.g. clip toes from their children because a fairy man tells them to either.
  13. 22 May '11 09:33
    Originally posted by whodey
    I said soda and juice!!

    My guess is that it is ONLY soda or juice that advertises a "fruity" mixture.

    As for the bans, the happy meals are the most famous I think.
    Do you mean to say that in San Fransisco manufacuters are not allowed to defraud and deceive their customers? I must say I am appalled by that.
  14. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    22 May '11 09:42
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Do you mean to say that in San Fransisco manufacuters are not allowed to defraud and deceive their customers? I must say I am appalled by that.
    So you didn't realise when you asked for an orange soda it wasn't actually made from oranges? and strawberry ice cream isn't made from straw berries? It's all just flavouring, you poor innocent naive young fellow.

    Concerned about what you are ingesting?

    Check the list of ingredients, if there is no list steer clear of it.

    If they call their drink a fruit drink and it is fruit flavoured then I don't think that is defrauding anyone. If they list on their ingredients 10% fruit or whatever and there isn't that would be fraud. Do you think those are the circumstances of this ban?
  15. 22 May '11 09:47
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    So you didn't realise when you asked for an orange soda it wasn't actually made from oranges? and strawberry ice cream isn't made from straw berries? It's all just flavouring, you poor innocent naive young fellow.

    Concerned about what you are ingesting?

    Check the list of ingredients, if there is no list steer clear of it.

    If they call their drink a ...[text shortened]... nd there isn't that would be fraud. Do you think those are the circumstances of this ban?
    I often do check the list of ingredients. Most people don't. So suggesting there is fruit in something when there isn't is misleading at best and fraud at worst. Of course you would be happy living in a world where even an ingedient list is not mandatory and you would simply never buy anything.