Illegal drugs does not equal food.</strong><hr></blockquote>
McDonald's does not equal food, but they advertise it as such. There should probably be a minimum nutritional content to = food, and the bar should be far higher than McD's.
The "personal responsibility" argument is such a popular weapon but when one suggests "corporate responsibility" all of the sudden it's a communist plot. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Scott, this is the point. Corporations are shown no responsibility. That's just wrong. If you peddle death, your company should be responsible.
You know it, I know it, we all know it, it's just some like the cash.
<strong>Based on a real life court case with transcripts that you can find if so inclined, and also outlined at your nearest legal library/gov't docs holdings etc...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Tar and Nicotine are not additives, they are natural occurances from smoking tobacco leaves. Whether or not BT companies added something to enhance these, I don't know.
Anyone seen that political cartoon where a fat American and someone from Somalia are both thinking the same thing, in a thought bouble: "I'm worried about my weight..."
Makes me want to barf in my mouth and swallow it it's poignant.
ThinkingDifferent: Please include the link in your first post and adjust the thread title if you want. To my experience very few actually read post #70...
<strong>Anyone seen that political cartoon where a fat American and someone from Somalia are both thinking the same thing, in a thought bouble: "I'm worried about my weight..."
Makes me want to barf in my mouth and swallow it it's poignant. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Scott, I'm tempted to say you're such a dick sometimes, but I think you may have a legit point in that nobody in the thread really mentioned the specifics before hand.
Jeffery Wigand (a chemist) was an exectutive of Brown and Williamson Tabacco. I don't remember which state they came out of, but I'm sure you can look it up because the legal trail was huge. Wigand blew the whistle on the specific tailoring of a nicotine delivery science at work throughout big tabacco to "60 Minutes" producer Lowell Bergman. If you do nothing else you can look up an old tape of that 60 minutes piece at a public library. From there we have congressional hearings, lawsuits, and not one way either, Brown and Williamson also tried to sue Wigand. There's even a Vanity fair article documenting the whole thing which eventually became the Crowe movie. I think the article was called "The Man who knew too much." I don't remember the writer's name but it was a woman, if that helps.
Whaddya know? Wigand has a <a href="http://www.jeffreywigand.com"; target="_blank">WEBSITE</a> too. I haven't looked through it but I'm positive it will lead you to the cases and testimony chapter and verse.
You must be living under rock if you think that this a crazed conspiracy phantasy of the alien crop circle kind. This is just the bit I remember, but it was all over news, "talk" and editorial when the film came out, and if you're old enough to remember it was all over the news when the real life events originally took place.
I'm not a lawyer and searching my memory is about as much research as I'm going to do to point to a matter of public record. Look the rest up for yourself.
[quote]BROOK, Ill. (AP) -- McDonald's Corp. announced the first quarterly net loss in its history Thursday, a $343.8 million deficit reflecting an assortment of charges and write-offs aimed at helping it pull out of an unprecedented slump.
While McDonald's had warned of the loss last month, it took an unexpectedly high $810 million in charges for the fourth quarter. That news helped push its stock, which traded above $30 a share as recently as last summer, under $15 for the first time since 1995.
The burger giant said it is closing 719 under-performing restaurants -- primarily in the United States and Japan -- including 202 which were shuttered in the fourth quarter. But it is not giving up on expansion, disclosing plans to open another 850 traditional McDonald's restaurants, 380 of its smaller ``satellite'' facilities and 150 of its other brand restaurants in 2003.
The whopping total of charges for the quarter included $267 million for restructuring items, $359 for restaurant closings and the reduced value of those assets and $184 million on technology write-offs.
...
As of Dec. 31, McDonald's operated 31,108 restaurants in 119 countries, including 13,491 in the United States, 6,070 in Europe and 3,891 in Japan. Of that total, 1,083 involve its partner brands: Boston Market, Chipotle, Donatos, Fazoli's and Aroma Cafe. <hr></blockquote>
Again, how do the actions of the parent relate to McD's advertising practices?
Fatty McFattypants doesn't, in my opinion, deserve punitive damages from McD's. McD's, however, absolutely needs to be held responsible for its irresponsible and dangerous advertising practice.
People all across the country are dying because of obesity and the best you can think of is "well, maybe you shoulda thought of that ahead of time"?
It's a little deeper than that. Just a little bit deeper.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Groverat,
"irresponsible and dangerous advertising practice?" My God, you've entered the twilight zone to be with the other left wingers. My wife, kids, and I see their advertising every day and yet we never eat at McD's. It's up to the parents to watch what their kids eat as well as teach them what to eat. My two sons are not fat and they know what food is good and bad for them. They are 12 and 9.
Any kid who gets fat eating at McD's or eats too much candy or drinks too much soda is a kid who has shitty parents.
<strong>My wife, kids, and I see their advertising every day and yet we never eat at McD's.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Explain to me how this logic works:
"My family does not eat McDonald's so McDonald's does not have bad advertising practices."
I don't smoke but I can see how Joe Camel can be a bad thing for kids. Hmm, maybe the world doesn't revolve around you and your family?
[quote]<strong>Any kid who gets fat eating at McD's or eats too much candy or drinks too much soda is a kid who has shitty parents.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Have you been reading along? If not I'd suggest you try it.
Personally, I kind of like McD's: once a year. That's what I allow myself. A one year trip for an artery clogging Big Mac with fries and a coke. I see whole families in the McD's close to my office happily ordering, and supersizing. Is it their chioce to eat there? You betcha. There's even the Grand Central Market across the street where they could with a little more time, money and effort dig up something far healthier for them and their kids. But they don't. Now is that because they are stupid? Maybe. Addicted? Doubt it. Maybe it's just that, unlike me, they're not single males with corporate jobs and gym memberships. Maybe being able to feed the whole family for under 10 bucks is a big priority for minimun-wage earners with kids.
Is McDonalds in schools (and even some <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/52967p-49651c.html"; target="_blank">hospitals</a>!?!)? Sure. Along with Candy and soda and Pringles and Fritos. These things bring money to schools that are pretty cash-strapped, since none of us want our property taxes raised.
Is McDonalds inherently evil for selling 49 cent cheeseburgers? I don't think so. Do they market to kids? Oh yeah, but so does toaster strudel, which has even less value as food. Do parents need to start to say "no" to little porky and start feeding the kids carrot and celery? You bet- even the ones who make minimum wage. But until we get get money into the schools so that they can get the <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/02/ma_207_01.html"; target="_blank">crap food out of the cafeteria</a>), and start getting some nutrition classes in, we are going to have fat kids.
But no, I don't think for the most part that there is merit in suing them for making you fat. If you are over 18 and not in a coma, you choose what you put in your body.
Is McDonalds in schools (and even some <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/52967p-49651c.html"; target="_blank">hospitals</a>!?!)? Sure. Along with Candy and soda and Pringles and Fritos. These things bring money to schools that are pretty cash-strapped, since none of us want our property taxes raised.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You want to bring up the economic argument? Do you know much taxpayers spend on obesity-related illnesses? The number has to be in the BILLIONS of dollars per year. And if schools are doing so poorly that they need to encourage the fattening of America, something needs to be done on some level of government to get more money to those schools.
<strong>Scott, I'm tempted to say you're such a dick sometimes, but I think you may have a legit point in that nobody in the thread really mentioned the specifics before hand. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Why? Becuase I insist that people back up their claims?
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>...
Whaddya know? Wigand has a <a href="http://www.jeffreywigand.com"; target="_blank">WEBSITE</a> too. I haven't looked through it but I'm positive it will lead you to the cases and testimony chapter and verse.
You must be living under rock if you think that this a crazed conspiracy phantasy of the alien crop circle kind. This is just the bit I remember, but it was all over news, "talk" and editorial when the film came out, and if you're old enough to remember it was all over the news when the real life events originally took place.
I'm not a lawyer and searching my memory is about as much research as I'm going to do to point to a matter of public record. Look the rest up for yourself.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Interesting. Where does it say they added nicotine and tar? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
You want to bring up the economic argument? Do you know much taxpayers spend on obesity-related illnesses? The number has to be in the BILLIONS of dollars per year. And if schools are doing so poorly that they need to encourage the fattening of America, something needs to be done on some level of government to get more money to those schools.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's exactly what I'm saying. But any pol who says that we will have to raise taxes so that we can adequately fund out schools and educate our kids on proper diet is going to be fast out of a job.
Nobody cares that we will be saving billions on obesity related illness because those costs aren't billed directly to them every year. They care that their property tax assesment or their income tax bill or their car registration doesn't spike.
I'm not disagreeing with you necessarily. There's just more to it than either "If you're fat, you deserve it" or "McDonalds is an evil cabal"
Well first you need the definition of a good diet.
Atkins says a high fat diet is good for you.
Some nutritionists talk only about the calories, others like atkins only worries about the fat vs carbs.
Frankly I do not feel that what you eat makes people fat. The average person needs to eat only what they burn. All of the excess is stored by some and voided by others. If you are a body type that stores your excess than you need to eat less. It is that simple.
Guns don't kill people, Postal workers do. Oops wrong quote...
Comments
<strong>
Illegal drugs does not equal food.</strong><hr></blockquote>
McDonald's does not equal food, but they advertise it as such. There should probably be a minimum nutritional content to = food, and the bar should be far higher than McD's.
<strong>
The "personal responsibility" argument is such a popular weapon but when one suggests "corporate responsibility" all of the sudden it's a communist plot. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Scott, this is the point. Corporations are shown no responsibility. That's just wrong. If you peddle death, your company should be responsible.
You know it, I know it, we all know it, it's just some like the cash.
<strong>Based on a real life court case with transcripts that you can find if so inclined, and also outlined at your nearest legal library/gov't docs holdings etc...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Who vs. What?
No tar and nicotine listed as additives.
<a href="http://www.drugs.indiana.edu/druginfo/additives.html"; target="_blank">http://www.drugs.indiana.edu/druginfo/additives.html</a>;
Still waiting for proof. If you have some please post.
Makes me want to barf in my mouth and swallow it it's poignant.
Vote <a href="http://www.misterpoll.com/2983275707.html"; target="_blank">here</a>
And notice the mandatory AI spin
ThinkingDifferent: Please include the link in your first post and adjust the thread title if you want. To my experience very few actually read post #70...
<strong>Anyone seen that political cartoon where a fat American and someone from Somalia are both thinking the same thing, in a thought bouble: "I'm worried about my weight..."
Makes me want to barf in my mouth and swallow it it's poignant.
:eek: got a link?
Jeffery Wigand (a chemist) was an exectutive of Brown and Williamson Tabacco. I don't remember which state they came out of, but I'm sure you can look it up because the legal trail was huge. Wigand blew the whistle on the specific tailoring of a nicotine delivery science at work throughout big tabacco to "60 Minutes" producer Lowell Bergman. If you do nothing else you can look up an old tape of that 60 minutes piece at a public library. From there we have congressional hearings, lawsuits, and not one way either, Brown and Williamson also tried to sue Wigand. There's even a Vanity fair article documenting the whole thing which eventually became the Crowe movie. I think the article was called "The Man who knew too much." I don't remember the writer's name but it was a woman, if that helps.
Whaddya know? Wigand has a <a href="http://www.jeffreywigand.com"; target="_blank">WEBSITE</a> too. I haven't looked through it but I'm positive it will lead you to the cases and testimony chapter and verse.
You must be living under rock if you think that this a crazed conspiracy phantasy of the alien crop circle kind. This is just the bit I remember, but it was all over news, "talk" and editorial when the film came out, and if you're old enough to remember it was all over the news when the real life events originally took place.
I'm not a lawyer and searching my memory is about as much research as I'm going to do to point to a matter of public record. Look the rest up for yourself.
[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: MrBillData ]</p>
While McDonald's had warned of the loss last month, it took an unexpectedly high $810 million in charges for the fourth quarter. That news helped push its stock, which traded above $30 a share as recently as last summer, under $15 for the first time since 1995.
The burger giant said it is closing 719 under-performing restaurants -- primarily in the United States and Japan -- including 202 which were shuttered in the fourth quarter. But it is not giving up on expansion, disclosing plans to open another 850 traditional McDonald's restaurants, 380 of its smaller ``satellite'' facilities and 150 of its other brand restaurants in 2003.
The whopping total of charges for the quarter included $267 million for restructuring items, $359 for restaurant closings and the reduced value of those assets and $184 million on technology write-offs.
...
As of Dec. 31, McDonald's operated 31,108 restaurants in 119 countries, including 13,491 in the United States, 6,070 in Europe and 3,891 in Japan. Of that total, 1,083 involve its partner brands: Boston Market, Chipotle, Donatos, Fazoli's and Aroma Cafe. <hr></blockquote>
<strong>
Again, how do the actions of the parent relate to McD's advertising practices?
Fatty McFattypants doesn't, in my opinion, deserve punitive damages from McD's. McD's, however, absolutely needs to be held responsible for its irresponsible and dangerous advertising practice.
People all across the country are dying because of obesity and the best you can think of is "well, maybe you shoulda thought of that ahead of time"?
It's a little deeper than that. Just a little bit deeper.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Groverat,
"irresponsible and dangerous advertising practice?" My God, you've entered the twilight zone to be with the other left wingers. My wife, kids, and I see their advertising every day and yet we never eat at McD's. It's up to the parents to watch what their kids eat as well as teach them what to eat. My two sons are not fat and they know what food is good and bad for them. They are 12 and 9.
Any kid who gets fat eating at McD's or eats too much candy or drinks too much soda is a kid who has shitty parents.
<strong>My wife, kids, and I see their advertising every day and yet we never eat at McD's.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Explain to me how this logic works:
"My family does not eat McDonald's so McDonald's does not have bad advertising practices."
I don't smoke but I can see how Joe Camel can be a bad thing for kids. Hmm, maybe the world doesn't revolve around you and your family?
[quote]<strong>Any kid who gets fat eating at McD's or eats too much candy or drinks too much soda is a kid who has shitty parents.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Have you been reading along? If not I'd suggest you try it.
Personally, I kind of like McD's: once a year. That's what I allow myself. A one year trip for an artery clogging Big Mac with fries and a coke. I see whole families in the McD's close to my office happily ordering, and supersizing. Is it their chioce to eat there? You betcha. There's even the Grand Central Market across the street where they could with a little more time, money and effort dig up something far healthier for them and their kids. But they don't. Now is that because they are stupid? Maybe. Addicted? Doubt it. Maybe it's just that, unlike me, they're not single males with corporate jobs and gym memberships. Maybe being able to feed the whole family for under 10 bucks is a big priority for minimun-wage earners with kids.
Is McDonalds in schools (and even some <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/52967p-49651c.html"; target="_blank">hospitals</a>!?!)? Sure. Along with Candy and soda and Pringles and Fritos. These things bring money to schools that are pretty cash-strapped, since none of us want our property taxes raised.
Is McDonalds inherently evil for selling 49 cent cheeseburgers? I don't think so. Do they market to kids? Oh yeah, but so does toaster strudel, which has even less value as food. Do parents need to start to say "no" to little porky and start feeding the kids carrot and celery? You bet- even the ones who make minimum wage. But until we get get money into the schools so that they can get the <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/02/ma_207_01.html"; target="_blank">crap food out of the cafeteria</a>), and start getting some nutrition classes in, we are going to have fat kids.
But no, I don't think for the most part that there is merit in suing them for making you fat. If you are over 18 and not in a coma, you choose what you put in your body.
<strong>
Is McDonalds in schools (and even some <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/52967p-49651c.html"; target="_blank">hospitals</a>!?!)? Sure. Along with Candy and soda and Pringles and Fritos. These things bring money to schools that are pretty cash-strapped, since none of us want our property taxes raised.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You want to bring up the economic argument? Do you know much taxpayers spend on obesity-related illnesses? The number has to be in the BILLIONS of dollars per year. And if schools are doing so poorly that they need to encourage the fattening of America, something needs to be done on some level of government to get more money to those schools.
<strong>Scott, I'm tempted to say you're such a dick sometimes, but I think you may have a legit point in that nobody in the thread really mentioned the specifics before hand. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Why? Becuase I insist that people back up their claims?
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>...
Whaddya know? Wigand has a <a href="http://www.jeffreywigand.com"; target="_blank">WEBSITE</a> too. I haven't looked through it but I'm positive it will lead you to the cases and testimony chapter and verse.
You must be living under rock if you think that this a crazed conspiracy phantasy of the alien crop circle kind. This is just the bit I remember, but it was all over news, "talk" and editorial when the film came out, and if you're old enough to remember it was all over the news when the real life events originally took place.
I'm not a lawyer and searching my memory is about as much research as I'm going to do to point to a matter of public record. Look the rest up for yourself.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Interesting. Where does it say they added nicotine and tar? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</p>
<a href="http://www.quitsmokinguk.com/what's_in_a_cigarette.htm"; target="_blank">Try</a> Google. It's amazing....
<strong>
You want to bring up the economic argument? Do you know much taxpayers spend on obesity-related illnesses? The number has to be in the BILLIONS of dollars per year. And if schools are doing so poorly that they need to encourage the fattening of America, something needs to be done on some level of government to get more money to those schools.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's exactly what I'm saying. But any pol who says that we will have to raise taxes so that we can adequately fund out schools and educate our kids on proper diet is going to be fast out of a job.
Nobody cares that we will be saving billions on obesity related illness because those costs aren't billed directly to them every year. They care that their property tax assesment or their income tax bill or their car registration doesn't spike.
I'm not disagreeing with you necessarily. There's just more to it than either "If you're fat, you deserve it" or "McDonalds is an evil cabal"
[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: tmp ]</p>
Atkins says a high fat diet is good for you.
Some nutritionists talk only about the calories, others like atkins only worries about the fat vs carbs.
Frankly I do not feel that what you eat makes people fat. The average person needs to eat only what they burn. All of the excess is stored by some and voided by others. If you are a body type that stores your excess than you need to eat less. It is that simple.
Guns don't kill people, Postal workers do. Oops wrong quote...
Food doesn't make you fat, your body does.
[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: MrBillData ]</p>
<strong>Why? Because you try and derail a point with semantics.
<a href="http://www.quitsmokinguk.com/what's_in_a_cigarette.htm"; target="_blank">Try</a> Google. It's amazing....</strong><hr></blockquote>
One man's semantics are another man's facts.