Topic: Super Size No More
started by: Spidey
Posted by Spidey on Mar. 04 2004,2:23 am
This really struck me in the wrong way and I was wondering if it did anyone else. I was watching the news tonight and listened to the report about McDonalds cutting out the Super Sized portions of fries as an attempt to cut out fat in diets. Um ... hello ... people who really want more fries will just order two regulars, which will amount to more then a super size! Anyone who is eating healthy will eat somewhere other then McD's!
I am really curiouse ... I wonder if McDonalds "big wigs" really think we "the consumers" are that stupid? I'm almost offended by the audacity that it takes to presume that we are that stupid and publicly speak out in that manner just to jump on the healthy band wagon.
I don't know ... maybe I'm just having a bad night
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 04 2004,11:06 am
In the report I saw (can't say which network), McDonalds didn't cast it as a health issue--they said they were simplifying their menu. The network cast it as a health issue--even interviewing a guy that lived on nothing but McDonalds for a month--Gained almost 20 pounds, cholesterol up 60 points.
Posted by MrTarzan on Mar. 04 2004,6:12 pm
I don't usually order super size, my wife won't let me 
. But as long as McDonalds is doing it because they want to, not because some government agency made them I have no problem with it. My question is this because they are afraid of getting sued by fat people just like the coffee drinker? "I would be so skinny if only McDonalds had no supersize, they destroyed my life, I want restitution!" Is that the real motive here? I wonder.
Posted by Spidey on Mar. 04 2004,6:50 pm
| Quote |
| McDonalds didn't cast it as a health issue |
Perhaps they didn't say it out loud, but how convienient to do this right now with all of the hype over all of the diets and health talk. You would be surprised at how clever these big company's can be.
| Quote |
| But as long as McDonalds is doing it because they want to, not because some government agency made them I have no problem with it. |
I don't have a problem with it either. It's their business. My point was ... the "reason" they were cutting out the super sized fries ... and the real reason they chose to go public and announce it on national media's is contraversy .. focus is on McD's ... free publicity ... trying to look good .. etc. Why didn't they just take it off the menu and leave it at that?
Posted by moldyoldsoldier on Mar. 04 2004,9:12 pm
I don't know, what do the voices say?
Posted by Nimble on Mar. 05 2004,9:56 am
New here... just found the site.If you think about it, it makes good bussiness sense. MCd's looks good to the public but yet if someone still wants more fries they just order another side of fries. IT ends up costing more than the super size if I remember right.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Mar. 05 2004,1:03 pm
I believe that Micky D's Is doing this in an effort to cut back on packaging cost Reducing the inventory back to two sizes on fries packaging.
Posted by cwolff on Mar. 05 2004,1:55 pm
I think the bad rap McD's has been receiving for all of the saturated fat in their menu had them pull this PR stunt to try and improve their image.
Posted by Truth on Mar. 05 2004,4:43 pm
I'm currently involved in litigation against Dan Fogelberg for making me into a wimp in the nineteen seventies and I am also considering a law suit holding every girl that didn't go out with me in high school responsible for causing my early adulthood prostate problems.I don't care what anybody says I refuse to accept any responsibilty for my problems. I know that through hard work and careful planing my attorney and I can find a way to assign blame on to another person and in the best of cases onto a wealthy and popular corporate icon.
Now....McDonald's. HMM. I need to get my cholesterol checked.
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 05 2004,4:56 pm
And as ol' Bubba says--"Kin I sue Budweiser for all them ugly women I ever slept with? 
Posted by rosebudinal on Mar. 06 2004,9:12 am
It was definately a PR thing. The media( and the lawyers behind it) want to instill in us that there is no more personal responsibility in America. Mcdonalds is just trying to save face. Like someone posted earlier, they did so voluntarily. Given any more time and a law firm no doubt would have brought yet another suit against them. I am feeling the need to vent on what were once deemed Stupid Laws. example Wear a seatbelt (if you don't care if your ejected through your window.......why should I?) A major problem in America is that no one is instilling self respect, pride and self responsibility in our youth anymore. And lazy adults are seeing people get away with more every day. People screwing over Workmans comp, unemployment and any other program out there meant to give a hand up. Granted someone will read this and say that these are nessary programs. My answer, yes for people who use them RESPONSIBLY.
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 06 2004,12:20 pm
Thanks, Rosebudinal. Here are more examples--from a recent E-mail.| Quote |
| In Honor of Stupid People In case you needed further proof that the human race is doomed through stupidity, here are some actual label instructions on consumer goods. On a Sears hairdryer -- Do not use while sleeping. (Shoot, that's the only time I have to work on my hair). On a bag of Fritos -- You could be a winner! No purchase necessary. Details inside. (the shoplifter special)? On a bar of Dial soap -- "Directions: Use like regular soap." (and that would be how???...) On some Swanson frozen dinners -- "Serving suggestion: Defrost." (but, it's "just" a suggestion). On Tesco's Tiramisu dessert (printed on bottom) -- "Do not turn upside down." (well...duh, a bit late, huh)! On Marks &Spencer Bread Pudding -- "Product will be hot after heating." (...and you thought? ..)On packaging for a Rowenta iron -- "Do not iron clothes on body." (but wouldn't this save me more time)? On Boot's Children Cough Medicine -- "Do not drive a car or operate machinery after taking this medication." (We could do a lot to reduce the rate of construction accidents if we could just get those 5-year-olds with head-colds off those forklifts.) On Nytol Sleep Aid -- "Warning: May cause drowsiness" (and...I'm taking this because???....) On most brands of Christmas lights -- "For indoor or outdoor use only." (as opposed to...what)? On a Japanese food processor -- "Not to be used for the other use." (now, somebody out there, help me on this. I'm a bit curious.) On Sainsbury's peanuts -- "Warning: contains nuts." (talk about a news flash) On an American Airlines packet of nuts -- "Instructions: Open packet, eat nuts." (Step 3: maybe, uh...fly Delta?) On a child's Superman costume -- "Wearing of this garment does not enable you to fly." (I don't blame the company I blame the parents for this one.) On a Swedish chainsaw -- "Do not attempt to stop chain with your hands or genitals." (Good Grief...was there a lot of this happening somewhere?) |
Posted by Truth on Mar. 06 2004,5:02 pm
OK. ROSEBUDINAL (what is that?) I like your post on gramar and glad you're with me on the personal responsibilty deal. However, operating a motorvehicle on a public roadway is a privilege. No person has a right to operate a motor vehicle on a public roadway in this or any other state. The privilege to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways comes with rules. One of those rules is that you must wear a seatbelt (and you must wear it properly or it doesn't count) or you face sanctions. Also, your seatbelt does more than keep in your car or your face off the dashboard in a crash. Your seatbelt will also hold you in your seat in the event of a crash making it much easier to maneuver after first contact with another object or initial loss of control. Its hard to keep driving after a crash has begun if you're sitting in the wrong seat or if you find yourself looking up from the passenger's side floor.Hey scattergun Jim. I like the post. Funny. Yet, like all label warnings and directions they refer to past real events or complaints. Sounds impossible to semi-inteligent and reasoning adults, but in my experience I would not be surprised. People as a whole are diverse and overall not that smart. Only a very few pave the way, most follow and a few are only around at the end of the day through the kindness and tolerance of others, or just dumb luck.
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 06 2004,5:25 pm
| Quote |
| Your seatbelt will also hold you in your seat in the event of a crash making it much easier to maneuver after first contact with another object or initial loss of control. |
| Quote |
| I touched down on the right main gear, veered off the runway to the right, overcorrected to the left, hit several runway lights, put in power, caught the propeller, ground-looped off the right side of the runway and through a ditch, causing the plane to flip over--AT WHICH POINT I LOST CONTROL! |
Amazing, how many people wouldn't THINK of flying without a seat belt--but they don't wear one in a car--where you can be hit by another driver through no fault of your own.
One more reason to wear a seatbelt--IT MAKES IT EASIER FOR THE EMT'S TO FIND THE BODIES!
Posted by rosebudinal on Mar. 06 2004,5:57 pm
jim, I can attest to the last reason and truth, honestly, I know no one who promotes the usage of seatbelts and knows personally how they save lives more than I do. I used to do assemblies in the schools under the direction of then Sen. Pat Piper, so certainly, you are not educating me on seatbelts......However, what I am saying is that I have heard a million reasons why idiots refuse to wear them or have their children in them. NONE of them make sense. My answer; to save your loved ones life. I just find it sad that we have to implement laws to" enforce "people to wear them when they don't have enough sense to in the first place......
Posted by Spidey on Mar. 06 2004,10:59 pm
| Quote |
| what I am saying is that I have heard a million reasons why idiots refuse to wear them or have their children in them. NONE of them make sense. My answer; to save your loved ones life. I just find it sad that we have to implement laws to" enforce "people to wear them when they don't have enough sense to in the first place...... |
Wow ... very opinionated. I guess turn about is fair play. I disagree with you 100%. Yes, children should be in seat belts for more reasons then car accidents. I believe this should be a law. Adults ... NO way.
Enforcing or even having a law telling adults what to strap around them in their own car is bogus and just plain wrong. Where does anyone get off thinking they know what's best for another individual? If you really believe this then you must think Motor cycles should be against the law too. How about ATV's? Boats? Water skiing is dangerous ... perhaps we shouldn't let people do that anymore either.
I get so angry when do-gooders and self righteous speakers think they have the right to decide anything for me that isn't a danger to anyone else.
Posted by irisheyes on Mar. 06 2004,11:42 pm
| Quote (Truth @ Mar. 06 2004,5:02:pm) |
| Also, your seatbelt does more than keep in your car or your face off the dashboard in a crash. |
Yes, the seatbelt law has many reasons. You forgot to mention the more intrusion on people from police who want to use it as another example of probable cause. How often do the elderly get pulled over for seatbelt violations when not using it? How often do others? It's just another way to pull someone over that before they couldn't do without other probable cause.
Another thing is the amount of money generated from the tickets. Yes, many reasons for it indeed...
Posted by rosebudinal on Mar. 07 2004,3:37 am
(quote)I get so angry when do-gooders and self righteous speakers think they have the right to decide anything for me that isn't a danger to anyone else. You are just not getting it are you? What I am saying (again) is that....why should we have laws saying people must wear seatbelts? If you don't care about your own safety and well-being why should I?
Your child is another issue, if you are dumb enough not to know that your child is safer strapped in a carseat or toddlerseat or belt then I guess its up to us responsible adults to say "hey, this kid deserves to be buckled in". In other words I don't care how careless you are with your life, children deserve to be protected. Opinionated? Okay, call it what you will. I call it commonsense.
Posted by Spidey on Mar. 07 2004,9:49 am
| Quote |
| You are just not getting it are you? |
Oh I got it the first time. Did you even read my post? I said YES kids should be strapped in ... YES there should be a law about that.
As far as adults ... it's NONE of your business, and it shouldn't be any of the laws business either.
Your pet names for people who don't agree with you such as "idiot" and "dumb" only shows your Self-righteous, sanctimonious, holier-than-though opinions. These are not common sense names.
Posted by rosebudinal on Mar. 07 2004,1:08 pm
And commonsense, guess you didn't see that one.
Posted by rosebudinal on Mar. 07 2004,1:21 pm
Perhaps these laws are aimed at teenagers who don't always make the right decisions concerning their own safety and if their parents didn't enforce rules regarding the usage of seatbelts....don't take this wrong but, you would benefit greatly by considering doing a ridealong some evening to the scene of an accident in which the victims were not wearing seatbelts. And you are right about one thing, I do stick to what I believe. If you choose to call that self-righteousness(hmmm name calling) then so be it. To me there are certain safety issues that leave no room for bickering. I think that if you so choose to not wear a seatbelt, then I do agree it should not be forced upon you. It boils down to how much you value your life and the impact of those it affects around you. Me, I don't feel that my life is that disposable. But, you should have the freedom to make your own call. End of my comments on this topic.
Posted by Spidey on Mar. 07 2004,6:03 pm
| Quote |
| And you are right about one thing, I do stick to what I believe. |
You can't be refering to anything I said. Never once did I mention that "you stick to what you believe."
| Quote |
| If you choose to call that self-righteousness(hmmm name calling) then so be it. |
No, Your words "idiot" and "dumb" which you chose to describe people who don't agree with you is Self-righteous, sanctimonious and holier-than-though opinions.
Furthermore, I never once commented on if I wore a seat belt or not. Like I said before, that's none of your business.
Teenagers would fall under the catagory of children.
Posted by Truth on Mar. 07 2004,9:24 pm
"It's just another way to pull someone over that before they couldn't do without other probable cause." (TRUTH stares at irisheyes for several moments and tries to make sense of this sentence.)What the hell are you on? Go check out the Grammar thread.
Hey rosebud. I don't think it's smart to tell people you knew Pat Piper, let alone worked with her.
Posted by Truth on Mar. 07 2004,9:48 pm
But seriously. Officers make discretionary decisions based on the circumstances of each traffic stop. Age has nothing to do with that decision. However, the real point here is that seatbelt laws are not designed to get police into your car. They are a good faith effort on the part of law makers to give law enforcement a tool to promote safety on our roads. Seatbelts do prevent injuries in crashes, there can be no doubt about that. I've heard all the legends about my friend's hair dresser, knew a guy whose mom's sister was going out with a guy who would have burned alive or drown in a car crash if he had been wearing a seatbelt. THAT'S GREAT. WOW. How often do cars burst into flames in a crash? How often do objects in motion stay in motion unless acted on by an outside force? Also, if you can't get out of your seatbelt quickly enough to get out of a car sinking into water then "raise your hand and Tommy will come around and hit you in the head with a tack hammer because you are a retard." Push to release, its easy.Injuries cause millions of dollars in damages in car crashes in this country each year. Most of those injuries result from nonuse or improper use of safety restraints. Insurance companies set their rates for all of their customers based in part on claims. Injuries are part of those claims. If you get seriously mangled in a crash and your insurance company or the insurance company of the guy that hit you have to pay medical bills, that can effect us all. So, irisheyes, this isn't just about you and what you mistakenly think is a right to do what ever you want inside your car. NEXT!
Oh, and irisheyes, be sure you read into what constitutes probable cause before you ramble on about it. You've just revealed how little you actually know about it as it relates to traffic enforcement.
Posted by rosebudinal on Mar. 07 2004,11:10 pm
My association with P. Piper had no political affiliation, it was an article of mine that was published that she read that led to my public speaking engagements. While I realize that your comment on that was no doubt tongue in cheek, thought I'd straighten that part of it out for you.
Posted by MrTarzan on Mar. 08 2004,4:12 pm
What the heck is going on, we were talking about super-sizing for pete's squeaks you blubber mouths.
Posted by irisheyes on Mar. 12 2004,5:54 pm
| Quote (Truth @ Mar. 07 2004,9:48:pm) |
| If you get seriously mangled in a crash and your insurance company or the insurance company of the guy that hit you have to pay medical bills, that can effect us all. So, irisheyes, this isn't just about you and what you mistakenly think is a right to do what ever you want inside your car. NEXT! |
This isn't about me, I always wear my seatbelt. Not because of the law, I started wearing it as habit once I realized that if a mechanical failure happens in your car, it doesn't matter how good of a driver you are. I think everyone should wear seatbelts, but I don't like how its being enforced. Most people I know don't wear seatbelts, but have never gotten a ticket for it, or even been pulled over. So it comes down to another example of selective prosecution.
| Quote |
| Oh, and irisheyes, be sure you read into what constitutes probable cause before you ramble on about it. You've just revealed how little you actually know about it as it relates to traffic enforcement. |
Fine, if I've posted something incorrect about that, why don't you correct me? All you're (see, I got it right, that time) doing is saying I'm wrong, but not explaining how or why! Instead you've focused on telling people to "learn before you ramble", and starting a crusade against bad gramar.
Posted by MrTarzan on Mar. 12 2004,6:48 pm
I believe in seatbelt laws for children and carseats. I would always wear my seatbelt having been a volunteer fireman and arriving a some crashes that should not have been fatal if they had worn a seatbelt. Still, if an adult wants to drive around sticking his or her neck out without wearing a seatbelt, it should not be the governments business.
Posted by Truth on Mar. 14 2004,8:30 am
I'm not going to teach you how to obey the law on this damn forum. Are you a grown up? Figure it out Irish. I just see that you don't know what is required before an officer can make a traffc stop. It's a whole lot less than probable cause. However, when it comes to seatbelt enforcement the stop is not about the seatbelt violation itself....so you are mistaking points of law for "selective prosecution." Really what I'm getting at with nearly all of my posts is my attempt to point out how much of what is said in here is based on lies and half truths.
"So it comes down to another example of selective prosecution."
Survey says.........WRONG!
Posted by minnow on Mar. 14 2004,9:01 am
No, You're pointing out how narrow minded and biased towards the police you really are... 
Total BS. We don't need or should have more laws to protect us from ourselves. Each of us has our own life and are entitled to make our own decisions.
This country is not the conservative place you wish it to be. In only 9 short months George Bush will see some of that there "regime change" of his own...
Posted by Truth on Mar. 14 2004,9:21 am
Hey dude you're alive. We were worried about you. How was the clinic? I can't remember, is Betty Ford still alive. It's not me being biased it's called procedural law. If you stop at the library they have books there on the topic. You can also check several terrific web-sites with extensive case law and dissertation on the laws of criminal procedure. I will concede, to you, that the law may seem to have it out for you, but, that may just be paranoia getting the better of you. Trust me on the seatbelts.
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 14 2004,9:34 am
| Quote |
A law enforcement officer may stop a vehicle when there exists reasonable suspicion that the driver has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime (including a traffic violation). |
The traffic violation has to be a primary law violation and in MN it currently isn't a primary law violation to not wear your seatbelt. But there are about 4 bills ready for a vote in the senate that will make not wearing your seatbelt a primary violation in Minnesota in the 2004 session. So, by the end of the year the police in MN should be able to pull you over ticket and you for nothing more than being stupid or forgetful, even if your actions are no threat to public safety.
The police are here to protect the publics safety and to serve the public. And protecting me from my own stupidity falls way outside the realm of protecting the publics safety.
If the government continues to think up ways to tell me how to live my life, I wonder what my wife's going to do with all the free time
Posted by Truth on Mar. 14 2004,10:03 am
Nice work. See and you will remeber it better because you dug up that little morsel yourself.I don't agree, again, because driving a car is a privilege not a right. BIG DIFFERENCE. That's your next challenge...go go.
Posted by minnow on Mar. 14 2004,10:21 am
"Hey dude you're alive. We were worried about you. How was the clinic? I can't remember, is Betty Ford still alive."---->Huh? LOL Here we see a guy attempt to be funny by somehow making the connection between the Minnow and drugs and only end up insulting Betty Ford. !And furthermore, displaying ingnorance by not knowing if Betty Ford is alive, while at the sametime belittling those who seek treatment for substance abuse....as if to wish that treatment wasn't even an option and you could just incarderate all of them.
Hrmmm...let me see...
Because driving is a priviledge--->we need a law to protect us from ourselves? Huh? LOL
I don't follow your logic.
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 14 2004,11:01 am
| Quote |
don't agree, again, because driving a car is a privilege not a right. BIG DIFFERENCE. That's your next challenge...go go. |
You're right driving is a privilege, just like smoking in public is a privilege. But, apparently you only want to respect property rights of certain individuals and not others.
If I use your logic the govt. should have no right to tell me not to smoke in a restaraunt where I may infringe on the rights of others. But, they should be able to tell me to strap myself in a car when not doing so would never infringe on the rights of another person?
Posted by MrTarzan on Mar. 14 2004,11:46 am
Maybe someone, like me, should start a thread about seatbelt laws. Supersizing only affects seatbelts if you get too fat to wear one.
Posted by Truth on Mar. 14 2004,5:46 pm
Liberal, as your name implies you just don't get it.Like a torch cutting into the sheet metal of liberal deceit and confusion, Truth now has the floor.
Driving on our public roads is a privilege. Smoking in public place is your choice to make. When you are in someone else's home or business you do not have the eminent right to smoke or start any kind of fire for that matter. Like-wise the government only has limited authority to control what happens on or inside private property. Liberal you have confused public and private property rights. Sure the government could outlaw smoking in public places but, we (the true government have the "RIGHT" to stop it.) Once again I say unto you, if you don't like smoke in businesses, don't go into those were you will encounter it.
This is very simple. A greater threat to public safety or breach of law is required for the government to enter into the private sector and mandate change. That is not the case in public places. However, operating a motorvehicle is entirely different because you are entering into an area of law that controls the use of a privately owned piece of property being operated on a publicly owned roadway. Think of it this way. Do you have the right to operate your car on your own property without a seatbelt....yes. Why? Because you're not on the public roadway. On the public roadway we (you and I the voters) have decided you need a seatbelt. See? There's nothing wrong with my logic because in truth there can be only one logic. Logic by definition is not mine, it is of its own.
I just get it.
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 14 2004,7:15 pm
Your public/private property argument makes about as much sense as your definition of logic.The MN state seatbelt law makes no distinction between public and private. I can get ticketed for not wearing my seatbelt (as long as I commit a moving violation also) in Wal-marts parking lot just as easily as I can on broadway.
< http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/169/686.html >
| Quote |
Logic by definition is not mine, it is of its own. |
Look up the word in the dictionary you'll see you're wrong about that too.
< Definition of logic >
Posted by Truth on Mar. 14 2004,7:37 pm
In Minnesota the only traffic laws that are enforceable on private property are DUI and wreckless driving.You are looking under the seatbelt statute. The application of MSS chapter 169 is not established strictly by the language of each code section. There are procedural conciderations you are not taking into account when you are looking strictly at 169.686. Check the opening definitions and scope of chapter 169 as well Minnesota case law. I will research the case law and provide a link when I find a few good ones.
Logic-inescapable relationship and pattern of events: the relationship between certain events, situations, or objects, and the inevitable consequences of their interaction. Encarta
I'm not refering to theoretical logic. I'm telling you about the causal relationships of the individual points of our arguments. Be sure to read the entire definition next time. In the context of our discussion it is you, sir or madam, who is incorrect.
Posted by minnow on Mar. 14 2004,8:15 pm
What a load of gobligook...BS. Are you high? "On the public roadway we (you and I the voters) have decided you need a seatbelt"--->That's incorrect. Big insurance bought Washington--->Washington extorted the states with threats of less $$$.----->Yes, I do see.
Your logic makes as much sense as outlawing Big Macs because it may somehow...in some way affect your pocketbook through increased health premiums.
We don't make laws to protect ourselves from ourselves in order for big insurance to pocket a couple more clams. See?
Posted by Truth on Mar. 14 2004,8:42 pm
What?Big insurance bought ourselves ---->Washington makes health premiums for you're enjoyment, green.
If a BigMac was green would oranges be free?----> LOL....
DUH.::::::::#> calm bake?--->insurance.
What is the difference between a duck? One foot is both the same so by you're logic I'm with heaters in the end, unless we can hit them all straighter.
That all means about as much to me as what you posted, and you ask if I'm high. Come back down, you're starting to scare me. Denis wake up, something is wrong with sunny!
Man THC makes people wierd.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Mar. 15 2004,10:32 am
| Quote |
| MinnowBecause driving is a priviledge--->we need a law to protect us from ourselves? Huh? LOL I don't follow your logic. |
Minnow just get behind the short bus.
Posted by Truth on Mar. 15 2004,9:42 pm
Yeah, and I'll back it up.