re: I suppose you are against Protecting children

Flame » in reply to I suppose you are against Protecting children

Les Interference — 2/18/2005 12:00:19 AM (archived)

are we going to legislate every form of risk to our children? for example, we know that a high-fat diet leads to a variety of health problems. should we pass a law that children have a note from their parents if they want to go to McDonalds for lunch?

The whole thread (12 posts)

New laws in California... - Tom Brosz - 1/2/2005 8:16:49 PM
- Riding in Cars - Nick Hoffman - 2/20/2005 8:34:48 AM
- We require parental permission for anyone under the age of 18 to access the internet without explicit parental permission. - Mary Anne - 2/19/2005 2:09:26 PM
  - statistic... - Tom Brosz - 2/20/2005 7:23:49 AM
    - It's not such a thin line if you're the victim. - Mary Anne - 2/20/2005 7:10:31 PM
  - I ought to be more careful about my subject lines. - Mary Anne - 2/19/2005 2:11:10 PM
- I suppose you are against Protecting children - Anne Leftleaner - 1/4/2005 4:31:42 PM
  - I suppose you are for protecting tanning salon merchants who take children's lunch money. - Mary Anne - 2/19/2005 2:14:26 PM
  - Dude! Now you've got weak-minded conservatives - alcaray - 2/18/2005 8:26:25 PM
    - Which apparently puts "Ms Leftleaner's" posts... - McFly - 2/21/2005 2:27:23 AM
  - re: I suppose you are against Protecting children - Les Interference - 2/18/2005 12:00:19 AM
    - Sounds like a good idea to me - Nick Hoffman - 2/20/2005 8:38:35 AM

Recent posts

On this day in Flame

The whole thread (12 posts)