Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27
  1. #11  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    8,071
    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    I don't see any big deal with this. Restaurants are voluntarily providing healthier food on their children's menus. The First Lady supports this. No federal laws were put in place to enforce this, a company decided to do it.



    It's hardly the end of anyone's freedom to eat unhealthy crap in the USA, except children, who have the rights given to them by their parents regardless of the restaurant's policy.
    Really? You think the restraunts are actually making these changes voluntarily?



    To use an Army term...they were Volun-told to make the changes.
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Power CUer noonwitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    12,873
    Quote Originally Posted by txradioguy View Post
    Really? You think the restraunts are actually making these changes voluntarily?



    To use an Army term...they were Volun-told to make the changes.

    I haven't seen any proposed legal consequences for them if they don't make the changes. I don't see a law being passed or an executive order that bans upscale fast food restaurants from including french fries with every meal on their children's menus. The restaurants are still offering the disputed items, they are just not including them automatically with their children's meals. It's like how adults are offered their choice of fries or a baked potato, they just aren't automatically defaulting to french fries with kids anymore.



    But I know, Michelle is worse than Hitler for this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    I don't see any big deal with this. Restaurants are voluntarily providing healthier food on their children's menus. The First Lady supports this. No federal laws were put in place to enforce this, a company decided to do it.



    It's hardly the end of anyone's freedom to eat unhealthy crap in the USA, except children, who have the rights given to them by their parents regardless of the restaurant's policy.
    the big deal?

    1. It's the Obamas hisssss hissss
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    This demonstrates something about the mentality of the right, the level of thought goes:

    If a liberal supports it, it must be bad.
    If a Democrat supports it, I must be opposed to it.
    If one of the Obama's supports it, it's jihad against MY FREEDOM.


    That's it. They wrap it up in fancy rhetoric and talking points copied directly from radio pundits, so it sounds like they are saying more, but when you get to the substance it's really just those three points.


    Conservatives have been rallying against Michelle Obama's "get kids healthy" initiative since the start, as if it were a ban on bibles. Concerning this McDonalds thing: Rush has been talking about this, Hannity has talked about this, It's been mentioned on air on Fox News multiple times.

    If they are going to oppose a company voluntarily changing the policy to give kids fruit and veggies first, unless their parents request otherwise, just imagine how reasonable they would be on more important issues like economic reform or actual legislation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    This demonstrates something about the mentality of the right, the level of thought goes:

    If a liberal supports it, it must be bad.
    If a Democrat supports it, I must be opposed to it.
    If one of the Obama's supports it, it's jihad against MY FREEDOM.


    .
    Tell that to the many Big 3 auto dealerships that were put out of business because their only sin was to be a supporter of Republicans. If these restaurants do not abide by first wookie's request, they will be harassed. You have to be one dumb ass to see that this administration and liberals have a heavy hand on gaining control over every facet of our lives. Telling us what what to eat is just another step. Telling us what to drive is another step. Telling us to join a union is another. Telling us that oil is evil is another. Telling us that government is the answer to job growth is another. Telling us that socialized meds is another.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by lacarnut View Post
    Tell that to the many Big 3 auto dealerships that were put out of business because their only sin was to be a supporter of Republicans. If these restaurants do not abide by first wookie's request, they will be harassed. You have to be one dumb ass to see that this administration and liberals have a heavy hand on gaining control over every facet of our lives. Telling us what what to eat is just another step. Telling us what to drive is another step. Telling us to join a union is another. Telling us that oil is evil is another. Telling us that government is the answer to job growth is another. Telling us that socialized meds is another.
    Okay you seem to be focused on power consolidation.

    Let me ask a simple question: How much power comes with wealth?
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    Okay you seem to be focused on power consolidation.

    Let me ask a simple question: How much power comes with wealth?
    All politicians focus on power. It is just that liberals/democrats want more power over our lives. They think that government knows best and that we are too stupid to make our own decisions. Such as removing salt from our diet and the first wookie with her stupidity about eating. Like I said she should practice what she preaches. This crap about do as I say but not as I do makes her and politicians hypocrites.

    You do not have to be wealthy to have power. For example, a homeowners association telling what color they can paint their house or how about the city closing down a kids lemonade stand is a typical individual who is not wealthy that may be on a power trip.

    Most wealthy people have no interest in power. As a golf pro for 10 years, most of the wealthy members I encountered had absolutely no interest in power. A few of them were assholes and tried to throw their weight around and get on the board of directors. The majority of them were out there to have a good time. Now if you are talking about politicians, we are talking about a horse of a different color. Evidently, you have not been around a lot of rich people. In conclusion, what good is your so called power if you do not use it???????????????????????????
    Last edited by lacarnut; 09-16-2011 at 01:43 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    As someone who needs to know what he is eating, I look forward to the day when restaurant menus have detailed (more than just calories, fat, and sodium) portion, ingredient, and nutritional information.

    Nutritional information is a minute expense to industry. You pay a dietician to analyze your menu items and ingredients, and the corporate dietician can take it from there. Printing costs are minimal and probably don't compare to some of the superfluous bullshit that restaurants print and post in their stores just so it looks like the little boys in advertising are actually doing something.

    I have found from my present condition and restrictions, that knowing what is in what I eat allows me to eat more and different things than if I simply operated on a "forbidden foods" list. I have stopped going to kidney health/disease forums because they are infested with the professional sufferers who live in the drama of "forbidden foods" and apparently enjoy complaining about their restrictions. Because I have been studying the contents of foods and weighing what I eat, I am "allowed" to have virtually all of the "forbidden foods" that the invisible people on the forums miss so loudly. No, I can't have an entire pizza, but I can have a slice or two if I plan ahead and don't use up my potassium alotment earlier in the day.

    Deprivation is not where it's at. In diet, knowledge and planning can prevent deprivation. Making restaurant menus more relevant and informative will actually open up restaurants to people who would otherwise write it off due to medical or dietary concerns.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    As someone who needs to know what he is eating, I look forward to the day when restaurant menus have detailed (more than just calories, fat, and sodium) portion, ingredient, and nutritional information.

    Nutritional information is a minute expense to industry. You pay a dietician to analyze your menu items and ingredients, and the corporate dietician can take it from there. Printing costs are minimal and probably don't compare to some of the superfluous bullshit that restaurants print and post in their stores just so it looks like the little boys in advertising are actually doing something.

    I have found from my present condition and restrictions, that knowing what is in what I eat allows me to eat more and different things than if I simply operated on a "forbidden foods" list. I have stopped going to kidney health/disease forums because they are infested with the professional sufferers who live in the drama of "forbidden foods" and apparently enjoy complaining about their restrictions. Because I have been studying the contents of foods and weighing what I eat, I am "allowed" to have virtually all of the "forbidden foods" that the invisible people on the forums miss so loudly. No, I can't have an entire pizza, but I can have a slice or two if I plan ahead and don't use up my potassium alotment earlier in the day.

    Deprivation is not where it's at. In diet, knowledge and planning can prevent deprivation. Making restaurant menus more relevant and informative will actually open up restaurants to people who would otherwise write it off due to medical or dietary concerns.
    I don't want the government telling me what is the best toilet paper to use after I take a shit nor do I want them dictating how many calories at a restaurant. Most people do not eat out on a daily or weekly basis. So, you and first wookie can fuck off. She is fat and your diseased. That is you'll problems. I don't want them telling me what light bulb I can use, what kind of car I should drive and a host of other stupid shit the government is trying to impose on me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by lacarnut View Post
    I don't want the government telling me what is the best toilet paper to use after I take a shit nor do I want them dictating how many calories at a restaurant. Most people do not eat out on a daily or weekly basis. So, you and first wookie can fuck off. She is fat and your diseased. That is you'll problems. I don't want them telling me what light bulb I can use, what kind of car I should drive and a host of other stupid shit the government is trying to impose on me.
    You and Monica Crowley appear to have a comprehension disorder. Requiring restaurants to make nutritional information on their products easily accessible to the consumer is not forcing you to eat or not eat anything.

    Your complete lack of decency is noted once again, as Michele Obama's physique and certainly Malia's physique is not outside the range of normal and even if it were, then your personal remarks about these women's bodies are uncalled for. Grow up you government dependent pathetic old fart.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •