# Mc Donalds Happy Meals Banned



## Lee H Sternberg (Jan 27, 2008)

Santa Clara County, Calif banned McDonald's Happy Meals. A short time back I read a article that some do gooders were after McDonald's because they were pissed at Ronald McDonald's appeal to kids. 

They thought that this appeal was helping make kids fat.

Now this county banned Happy Meals because it contains a toy.

WTF](*,)


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Ya know, I don't really know who "they" are BUT, they scare me. Smoking, drinking (of which I do neither) are under attack for those that chose to. Fatty foods, not the proper diet, exercise etc are also under the gun. A person or group of person boycotting a business or event is one thing and certainly a protected right. Government intrusion into our public lives or the intrusion of "they" really concerns me.

DFrost


----------



## Lee H Sternberg (Jan 27, 2008)

David Frost said:


> Ya know, I don't really know who "they" are BUT, they scare me. Smoking, drinking (of which I do neither) are under attack for those that chose to. Fatty foods, not the proper diet, exercise etc are also under the gun. A person or group of person boycotting a business or event is one thing and certainly a protected right. Government intrusion into our public lives or the intrusion of "they" really concerns me.
> 
> DFrost


"They" is various levels of governmental intrusion on our lives that gradually is trying to take our rights away to think for ourselves.


----------



## Ben Colbert (Mar 9, 2010)

I'm going to play devil's advocate for a second.

The government regulates lots of things that people have no problem with. We are mostly all ok with cigarrette companies not being allowed to market to children. Most people are fine with government ban on some drugs. 

Obesity is a public health issue. A group of former military leaders declared it a national defense issue because so many young Americans are too fat to serve. Why is it beyond the scope of the government to regulate food as it does alcohol, drugs and cigarettes?


----------



## Lee H Sternberg (Jan 27, 2008)

Ben, I understand what you are getting at but where does it end? I think there has to be limits. Booze and cigarettes are one thing but a meal with a toy seems like it is going much too far.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

For me, it's always the same answer. Personal responsibility, not government regulation. Of course there are certain things that must be regulated. It is where the line often gets drawn that concerns me. 

Interesting topic, but we are dangerously close to discussing politics, haha. I hope the mods don't see this thread.

DFrost


----------



## Lee H Sternberg (Jan 27, 2008)

David Frost said:


> For me, it's always the same answer. Personal responsibility, not government regulation. Of course there are certain things that must be regulated. It is where the line often gets drawn that concerns me.
> 
> Interesting topic, but we are dangerously close to discussing politics, haha. I hope the mods don't see this thread.
> 
> DFrost


We are very close too discussing politics. I hope no one starts in on political parties or we are done.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

I see numerous bills aimed at expanding the authority of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. And, whatever doesn't make it in one bill, will only be "reintroduced" in a subsequent bill. _(And there's a lot of them listed in the categories below)_

Agriculture and food bills _(this categorization in now no longer used)_

Food supply, safety, and labeling bills

Food industry and services bills



> Committees are like "mini Congresses". Most bills begin by being considered by one or several congressional committees which may "report" the bill favorably or unfavorably to the Senate or House as a whole allowing it to receive consideration by the full body and move forward, or may fail to consider a bill at all preventing the bill from moving forward. Most bills never receive any committee consideration and are never reported out. House bills start in House committees and enter Senate committees only after being passed by the House and received by the Senate, and similarly for Senate bills.
> 
> Information on committee proceedings is notoriously opaque: committees vary in what information they make public and often do not provide basic public information such as the results of votes electronically or in an understandable format. *Furthermore, if your Member of Congress does not sit on any committee relevant to this bill, you generally have no opportunity to voice your opinion on the bill while the bill is receiving its most important consideration*.


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

With the disclaimer that I don't eat McDonald's (haven't eaten a thing from them in years), I don't support or especially care for the company, nor think that it's particularly good food from when I had it in years past and from a health & standpoint think nobody should eat there . . .

That's bull. On a fundamental level, how is that NOT a rights violation? For the right of the company to market itself within the limits of the law, there being no obvious way that the inclusion of a toy with a meal is illegal, not to mention the rights of consumers to choose for themselves what to buy. I think it would be great for America if everybody stopped going to McDonald's and other similar fast food type restaurants, ate better, worked out more, and maybe sang Kumbaya around the camp fire with their neighbors while doing trust falls. I think it would be equally bad if that was mandated by government and made illegal to do otherwise.

If anything, why not work to create higher food standards and further education so citizens can be informed and make educated decisions themselves? I would not be surprised to see this repealed, and I'm all for making the healthier choices in life. But still, c'mon! God didn't give us free will just so the government could swoop down and rob us of it.

-Cheers


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Lee H Sternberg said:


> We are very close too discussing politics. I hope no one starts in on political parties or we are done.


Can we discuss anarchy? Or, lessening of _whatever_ party's involvement in our daily lives? I remember someone stating recently (I think on this forum, within the past couple weeks) jokingly about the outlawing of fastfood. Not so funny, now that I think about it. Should I call my congressman to take a crap? Naw, he'll be too busy with more important things, so we'll have to designate a new official for the job, at tax payer's expense, of course.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

I'm not a McDonald's fan either (it almost always makes me ill), but especially since you can get apple slices and milk instead of fries and a soda for the kiddos, I think that's puts the blame on, gee whiz, THE PARENTS. I'm pretty sure they don't let roving gangs of 3 year olds go through the drive thru on their big wheels...


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

So government should be regulating how parents feed their kids?


----------



## Harry Keely (Aug 26, 2009)

Dont worry folks it will be just a matter of time before we are all walking around with mini microchips in us so that at any giving point in time there know where you are and what your doing.:evil:


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Harry Keely said:


> Dont worry folks it will be just a matter of time before we are all walking around with mini microchips in us so that at any giving point in time there know where you are and what your doing.:evil:


Not unless you let them Harry.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Daryl Ehret said:


> So government should be regulating how parents feed their kids?


Not sure if you were responding to me, so if you were, this is one of those personal responsibility things. As much as I don't care for McDonald's, they took initiative and steps to make their kid's meals be at least sort of healthy. So I'm thinking don't blame the company, but blame the parents for rolling over belly up just because little Johnny and Suzy want fries and soda. 

Though to a degree, the government can regulate how kids are fed with school lunches, especially for free or reduced priced lunches that our taxes subsidize. For some kids from disadvantaged backgrounds, this may be the only wholesome meal they get all day, so that's why I know some child advocacy groups have tried to get only relatively healthy meals for school lunches.


----------



## Ben Colbert (Mar 9, 2010)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> So I'm thinking don't blame the company, but blame the parents for rolling over belly up just because little Johnny and Suzy want fries and soda.



If the Happy meal toys had lead paint or if the hamburger used specifically for the kids meals was carcinogenic would we even have this conversation? I don't think anyone would say "If parents want to buy lead toys and cancer burgers for kids then its their choice".

What's the difference in a meal that we know will kill you? One happy meal will not damage a kid for life but neither will smoking one cigarette or five minutes with lead paint.


----------



## Nikki M Williams (Jul 17, 2009)

Ben Colbert said:


> If the Happy meal toys had lead paint or if the hamburger used specifically for the kids meals was carcinogenic would we even have this conversation? I don't think anyone would say "If parents want to buy lead toys and cancer burgers for kids then its their choice".
> 
> What's the difference in a meal that we know will kill you? One happy meal will not damage a kid for life but neither will smoking one cigarette or five minutes with lead paint.


 
Thats like comparing apples and oranges, I have to agree when are parents going to start taking responsibility for their Children, its easier to blame everyone else than to look in the mirror and start taking responsibility for your own actions.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

As long as government invests in educating us to make choices for ourselves, I'm OK with that, as long as it isn't enforcing the choices it wants us to make. Look at how many vets still believe that feeding raw to our dogs is a poor choice? If government enforces its rulings by what the "experts" say, giving us no say at all, _that's just plain wrong._


----------



## Mario Fernandez (Jun 21, 2008)

I live in Santa Clara Co. The county board voted this and to generate votes for the upcoming election. The ironic thing the ban doesn't take place for 90 days and is really in the unincorporated parts of the county.


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Shoot....."they" probably want to put McD's under the health care umbrella like guns, drugs and fast cars. Everything is a health care issue ya know.


----------



## Michelle Reusser (Mar 29, 2008)

Ben Colbert said:


> I'm going to play devil's advocate for a second.
> 
> The government regulates lots of things that people have no problem with. We are mostly all ok with cigarrette companies not being allowed to market to children. Most people are fine with government ban on some drugs.
> 
> Obesity is a public health issue. A group of former military leaders declared it a national defense issue because so many young Americans are too fat to serve. Why is it beyond the scope of the government to regulate food as it does alcohol, drugs and cigarettes?


 
Why? Because where will it stop? Next stop...Russia.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I think we need to load our firearms and get rid of "they". :twisted:


----------



## Kara Fitzpatrick (Dec 2, 2009)

...this country is getting OUT OF CONTROL with these nut job liberals...


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

Kara Fitzpatrick said:


> ...this country is getting OUT OF CONTROL with these nut job liberals...


Its interesting. Rights are taken away by all sides of the political fence. The reality is that people try to empose their morals onto others. While people on the left might want to ban guns or Schutzhund, people on the right would want to ban gay marrage or muslim women wearing the burka. 
Everyone wants to let you do things they think are great, while banning you from doing things that they dont like.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Christopher Jones said:


> Its interesting. Rights are taken away by all sides of the political fence. The reality is that people try to empose their morals onto others. While people on the left might want to ban guns or Schutzhund, people on the right would want to ban gay marrage or muslim women wearing the burka.
> Everyone wants to let you do things they think are great, while banning you from doing things that they dont like.


The difference is the right to keep and bear arms (guns)is a right guaranteed under the Constitution. Gay marriage is NOT.
Schutzhund doesn't hide your identity like a burka does and last time I checked Schutzhund people weren't flying planes into
buildings and persuading teenagers to become suicide bombers.


----------



## Ben Colbert (Mar 9, 2010)

Thomas, 

You have made this a political discussion by claiming one side as good and one as bad. There's a lot I want to say to yuo about 8 years of eroding civil liberties, bending the constitution to suit a whim and blatant racism and homophobia. Instead I'd like to suggest a mod go ahead and lock this.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Ben Colbert said:


> Thomas,
> 
> You have made this a political discussion by claiming one side as good and one as bad. There's a lot I want to say to yuo about 8 years of eroding civil liberties, bending the constitution to suit a whim and blatant racism and homophobia. Instead I'd like to suggest a mod go ahead and lock this.



If you think that the 2nd Amendment and Gay Marriage are similar or that Schutzhund and Muslim extremism are equal?
I feel sorry for you


----------



## Ben Colbert (Mar 9, 2010)

Learn to read and come and talk to me. When did I equate any of those?

You have turned this in to an us vs them political thread. If you want to know my opinion of the absolute hypocrisy of the modern conservative movement then send me a pm.


----------



## Chris McDonald (May 29, 2008)

Holy cow I agree with Thomas and Maren here… shit, I don’t know what to do now? \\/ 
For the record Ben you can legalize cigarettes and booze for kids if it means less government. I’ll take care of my own kids, thank you.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Ben Colbert said:


> If the Happy meal toys had lead paint or if the hamburger used specifically for the kids meals was carcinogenic would we even have this conversation? I don't think anyone would say "If parents want to buy lead toys and cancer burgers for kids then its their choice".
> 
> What's the difference in a meal that we know will kill you? One happy meal will not damage a kid for life but neither will smoking one cigarette or five minutes with lead paint.


I do see what you're saying, particularly as one of the big topics I worked with in grad school was bisphenol A (BPA), a known endocrine disruptor found in TONS of products for children. I think the key is education. Regardless of what some think, I do actually have a pretty strong libertarian streak and want people to take personal responsibility for their actions, but the problem is you have to educate them first so that they can make an informed choice. That's the difference between ignorance and stupidity.


----------



## Lee H Sternberg (Jan 27, 2008)

Better hurry and get your last licks in. We are getting lock up real quick.


----------



## Lee H Sternberg (Jan 27, 2008)

Chris McDonald said:


> Holy cow I agree with Thomas and Maren here… shit, I don’t know what to do now? \\/
> For the record Ben you can legalize cigarettes and booze for kids if it means less government. I’ll take care of my own kids, thank you.


Chris - I don't know if you are aware that in CR if you are old enough to belly up to the bar or have the bucks to buy cigs no problem at any age.

I haven't seen any issues with that. Hell they came in first as the Happiest Nation on earth.


----------



## Ben Colbert (Mar 9, 2010)

CR also has an infant mortality rate higher than Russia, Malaysia, and 153 other countries.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Ben Colbert said:


> CR also has an infant mortality rate higher than Russia, Malaysia, and 153 other countries.


WTF does Costa Rica infant mortality rate have to do with no restrictions on buying booze or cigarettes? Do you think infants are smoking and drinking too much?


----------



## Lee H Sternberg (Jan 27, 2008)

Ben Colbert said:


> CR also has an infant mortality rate higher than Russia, Malaysia, and 153 other countries.


It has to be the booze and cigs. Has nothing to do with hospitals being far away and the average person lacks transportation.:-\"


----------



## Lee H Sternberg (Jan 27, 2008)

Thomas Barriano said:


> WTF does Costa Rica infant mortality rate have to do with no restrictions on buying booze or cigarettes? Do you think infants are smoking and drinking too much?


The typical CR native has a long life expectancy, similar to ours. That is if they make past infants.:lol:


----------



## Ben Colbert (Mar 9, 2010)

Lee H Sternberg said:


> It has to be the booze and cigs. Has nothing to do with hospitals being far away and the average person lacks transportation.:-\"


My point is that using anecdotal evidence "CR is happiest nation in the world" to support unlimited legalization of controlled substances is stupid. 

We as a nation have decide that it is within the privy of the government to regulate the sales of dangerous materials. Nicotine is dangerous, alcohol is dangerous and fatty foods are dangerous. 

And Costa Rica is ranked 99 in GDP and 154 in infant mortality rate. So poverty is not the only issue there.


----------



## Lee H Sternberg (Jan 27, 2008)

Ben - There is a ton of issues in that country. More than you might imagine. Being a peaceful, content culture isn't one of the issues.

Actually that is on of our problems.


----------



## Chris McDonald (May 29, 2008)

Ben Colbert said:


> My point is that using anecdotal evidence "CR is happiest nation in the world" to support unlimited legalization of controlled substances is stupid.
> 
> We as a nation have decide that it is within the privy of the government to regulate the sales of dangerous materials. Nicotine is dangerous, alcohol is dangerous and fatty foods are dangerous.
> 
> And Costa Rica is ranked 99 in GDP and 154 in infant mortality rate. So poverty is not the only issue there.


Some fat is needed in a balanced diet. Excessive consumption of almost any food can prove dangerous.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Ben Colbert said:


> My point is that using anecdotal evidence "CR is happiest nation in the world" to support unlimited legalization of controlled substances is stupid.
> 
> We as a nation have decide that it is within the privy of the government to regulate the sales of dangerous materials. Nicotine is dangerous, alcohol is dangerous and fatty foods are dangerous.
> 
> And Costa Rica is ranked 99 in GDP and 154 in infant mortality rate. So poverty is not the only issue there.


I sure am glad the government is protecting us from all the dangerous materials like nicotine and alcohol and fatty foods.
Oh wait a minute I can get booze, cigarettes and a big mac
any time of the day or night. The only thing I care about is the Big Mac, but if anyone has the Jones for a ciggy or a snort (in the privacy to their own home) I don't have a problem with it


----------



## Ben Colbert (Mar 9, 2010)

A happy meal has 38% of the fat content needed in an adult and 42% of the saturated fat for an adult.


----------



## Lee H Sternberg (Jan 27, 2008)

Ben Colbert said:


> A happy meal has 38% of the fat content needed in an adult and 42% of the saturated fat for an adult.


Yummmmmmmy!:-D


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

One point I haven't seen metioned is the fact that banning Happy Meals, won't make the kids more or less "Happy".

If the parents permit their children to consume unhealthy foods, sit in front of the TV all day, never get any exercise, banning Happy Meals will not make a bit of difference. 

I thing they are just chasing votes, grandstanding to make people belive they care, they only thing they really care about is getting re-elected for the most part, this is what is wrong with politics. THe primary focus after getting elected is getting re-elected.


----------



## Chris McDonald (May 29, 2008)

Ben Colbert said:


> A happy meal has 38% of the fat content needed in an adult and 42% of the saturated fat for an adult.


 
And your point is?


----------



## Lee H Sternberg (Jan 27, 2008)

The toys now in Happy Meals are from the kid movie "Forever After". My kid has the whole collection.:-D


----------



## todd pavlus (Apr 30, 2008)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Do you think infants are smoking and drinking too much?


Maybe.......http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIYNv5jqPEI


----------



## Lee H Sternberg (Jan 27, 2008)

I bet Ben wants hot dogs banned because they are dick shaped and someone might choke on them.


----------



## todd pavlus (Apr 30, 2008)

Lee H Sternberg said:


> I bet Ben wants hot dogs banned because they are dick shaped and someone might choke on them.


Lol. That is definately hazardous to your health


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Ben Colbert said:


> Nicotine is dangerous, alcohol is dangerous and fatty foods are dangerous.


Just as an aside, light-to-moderate alcohol can be healthy.

Really, I understand what you are saying, however in regards to McDonald's specifically, a few thoughts:

1) They are scratching the surface at a symptom while doing nothing in terms of the actual problem;

2) Good luck enforcing any legislation telling what parents can feed their kids (which wasn't Ben's suggestion, as far as I can tell, but still I believe valid);

3) What's going to make better lasting change, banning Happy Meals, or a strong push toward education, full disclosure made widely visible of what's in food, maybe raising standards to make food healthier (a LOT of crap is hidden in food, a/o unavoidable), and just making healthy options available?

I do believe there are areas of grey there. Most extremes probably come from ignorance (e.g. the parents whose 2-year old kid smokes, the family that feeds their kids literally almost nothing but fast food, snacks (Twinkies, cupcakes, ice cream, chips, etc.), etc.), and a decent segment of parents are doing irreversible harm to their kids during their developmental stages. Based on that, there are probably cases out there of parents getting prosecuted for malnourishing their kids (ironically, the only example that comes to mind was from some parents who ignorantly fed their kid a vegan diet and she was malnourished because kids need nutrients common to meat that they weren't supplementing).

On the one hand, I don't think Ben's beliefs makes him a communist. On the other hand, I don't think more government intrusion (particularly in this manner) is either the answer nor a particularly good use of government time & money, for this issue nor for the precedent it sets.

-Cheers


----------



## Michelle Reusser (Mar 29, 2008)

I say leave everyone the **** alone, let them make their own decisions, survival of the fitest/smartest. Why prop these dumbshits up longer, so they and their ever expanding broods, can leech off of wealfare even longer? If they kill a few kids or themselves on the way, so be it. Keep your windows rolled up in that car lady, with your 3 kids and you and your old man puffing away. Maybe throw the kids in the back a Happy Meal while your at it! It's not the Govt's job to police how we raise our families or what breed of dog we can or can't own.


----------



## Gerry Grimwood (Apr 2, 2007)

Lee H Sternberg said:


> I bet Ben wants hot dogs banned because they are dick shaped and someone might choke on them.


I am shocked by this statement to the very core of my being, a very scathing pm will be sent to the Mods asap :razz:


----------



## Chris McDonald (May 29, 2008)

Gerry Grimwood said:


> I am shocked by this statement to the very core of my being, a very scathing pm will be sent to the Mods asap :razz:


:grin:


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

David Ruby said:


> What's going to make better lasting change, banning Happy Meals, or a strong push toward education, full disclosure made widely visible of what's in food, maybe raising standards to make food healthier (a LOT of crap is hidden in food, a/o unavoidable), and just making healthy options available?


The education is out there if you are looking in the right place .. But some people just don't want to look so whose problem is that? 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IGtDPG4UfI


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

In the last few years I have noticed education at work in tv commercials aimed at the younger generations. Most of them are greenie commercials that appear to be close to brainwashing the younger generation to a very specific view rather than "educating them.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Geoff Empey said:


> The education is out there if you are looking in the right place .. But some people just don't want to look so whose problem is that?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IGtDPG4UfI


Well, the American tax payer, for one. Ounce of wellness prevention versus a pound of cure sort of thing. Education is typically the best, although realistically, there will always be the willfully ignorant or the stupid.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

I have met a lot of well educated people that are, for all practical puposes, ignorant. There is more to life than being able to recite what someone else wrote.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

*yawn* Nothing wrong with being ignorant. Given an informed choice so that they're no longer ignorant, most people are pretty rational beings. It's being willfully ignorant and/or stupid that's the problem.


----------



## Michelle Reusser (Mar 29, 2008)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> Well, the American tax payer, for one. Ounce of wellness prevention versus a pound of cure sort of thing. Education is typically the best, although realistically, there will always be the willfully ignorant or the stupid.


 
Oh come the **** on! If people claim they don't know a twinkie doesn't hold the same benenfits as a fresh salad, who the hell is going to get it threw their skull? Kids, teens, adults, already get the food pyramid shoved down our throats from school to doctors visits. Sometimes ya just have to face it, ya can't fix stupid. And some people are perfectly happy eatting themselves to death. I just had McDonalds for lunch yesterday, while I was out shopping. Damn that Quarter Pounder with cheese tasted awesome with my salty fries and my sugary Dr Pepper. With all the walking I did before and after eatting, I think I'll live long enough to teach my kids to eat healthy, most of the time. Fast food is for when we don't have time to drive back home and whip something up.


----------



## Michelle Reusser (Mar 29, 2008)

Don Turnipseed said:


> I have met a lot of well educated people that are, for all practical puposes, ignorant. There is more to life than being able to recite what someone else wrote.


We were just discussing this at training Sat. How many well edge-a-mukated people do we know, who don't have a drop of common sense?


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> *yawn* Nothing wrong with being ignorant. Given an informed choice so that they're no longer ignorant, most people are pretty rational beings. It's being willfully ignorant and/or stupid that's the problem.


My sentiments exactly. We are in agreement at last. I do have my reservations on the part about most people being rational beings. Many of the most educated people opperate under the belief they are totally rational simply because they are educated yet they base an argument on totally irrational premises and proceed to try to convince intelligent people they have a legitimate argument. :wink:


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Dang Michelle, just got to super size those McDonalds fries....they are awesome. I did cut back on the catsup though because I read that catsup is 60 calories per tblspoon. Just couldn't see all those exrtra calories. Put some extra salt on them to make up for the catsup and they are just as good. Of course when I was going to college and sitting on my ass all the time I really did have to watch what I ate. Once I got a real job, it didn't much matter what I ate. LOL


----------



## Lee H Sternberg (Jan 27, 2008)

Michelle Kehoe said:


> Oh come the **** on! If people claim they don't know a twinkie doesn't hold the same benenfits as a fresh salad, who the hell is going to get it threw their skull? Kids, teens, adults, already get the food pyramid shoved down our throats from school to doctors visits. Sometimes ya just have to face it, ya can't fix stupid. And some people are perfectly happy eatting themselves to death. I just had McDonalds for lunch yesterday, while I was out shopping. Damn that Quarter Pounder with cheese tasted awesome with my salty fries and my sugary Dr Pepper. With all the walking I did before and after eatting, I think I'll live long enough to teach my kids to eat healthy, most of the time. Fast food is for when we don't have time to drive back home and whip something up.


Ben can tell you how many calories you ate for lunch today. Sounds like you had a great lunch. Have you tried those new Angus burgers yet? The ones with gobs of cheese and bacon are my personal favorite.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Don, I know you don't think so, but I really am pretty well known in my vet school class as being a free spirit with a touch of anti-authoritarian (which gets me in trouble on occasion). ](*,) But one of my classmates told me once that he respected the fact that I always had a good reason for my opinions and the fact I think outside the box.


----------



## Kara Fitzpatrick (Dec 2, 2009)

Michelle Kehoe said:


> I say leave everyone the **** alone, let them make their own decisions, survival of the fitest/smartest. Why prop these dumbshits up longer, so they and their ever expanding broods, can leech off of wealfare even longer? If they kill a few kids or themselves on the way, so be it. Keep your windows rolled up in that car lady, with your 3 kids and you and your old man puffing away. Maybe throw the kids in the back a Happy Meal while your at it! It's not the Govt's job to police how we raise our families or what breed of dog we can or can't own.



Amen.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> I think outside the box.


Maren,

You need to think outside the bun, not the box


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

I thought Happy Meals came in a box.


----------



## Michelle Reusser (Mar 29, 2008)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Maren,
> 
> You need to think outside the bun, not the box


Oh shit! Now I want Taco Bell! I have heard countless woman crave it durring pregnancy, I haven't been one of them. I have been leaning more towards authentic Mexican dishes. Bring on the salsa, beans, rice, and something drizzled in green sauce.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Maren,
> 
> You need to think outside the bun, not the box


Well played. I rather like those "diet tacos" from T-Bell though, always have.


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Michelle Kehoe said:


> I say leave everyone the **** alone, let them make their own decisions, survival of the fitest/smartest. Why prop these dumbshits up longer, so they and their ever expanding broods, can leech off of wealfare even longer? If they kill a few kids or themselves on the way, so be it. Keep your windows rolled up in that car lady, with your 3 kids and you and your old man puffing away. Maybe throw the kids in the back a Happy Meal while your at it!


Hey, at least you're consistent across the board. 

I still think the broods of kids should get all the help they can get. Survival of the fittest? Sure. But I'd argue that should start once you're old enough to decide for themselves. I mean, just because somebody's parents are stupid shouldn't be reason to write you off from birth.



> It's not the Govt's job to police how we raise our families or what breed of dog we can or can't own.


Largely, no. However there ARE exceptions & limitations. Also, those exceptions where govt. can and should get involved in families (generally meaning neglect or abuse) and dog-ownership aren't (or shouldn't) be correlated.

-Cheers


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Geoff Empey said:


> The education is out there if you are looking in the right place .. But some people just don't want to look so whose problem is that?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IGtDPG4UfI


True. I'm just arguing for the point that it needs to still be out there, start young, and keep hammering the fact home that you can make easy, healthy meals and hope the long-term benefits sink in. I think it's got to be a continuous thing, not ram it down people's throats but not just show them Super Size Me in Bio, give them a guilt trip with 60 Minutes specials, and then not give them the means to change. Surprise! That doesn't really provide any meaningful, lasting change. A lot of people don't know how to cook a healthy chicken breast, or a simple reasonable-portioned, modest calorie meal at home that tastes pretty good.

Over time, I think _something _has to (and will) be done. I mean, sure, we can just call them dumbasses, but our money will still go to pay for the added expenses their health problems will add to our overall health care expenses (and likely taxes). Not that this is primarily directed at Geoff's post or anything, and I do agree the education IS out there. It's just a deep-seeded problem that will eventually have to be addressed.

Still, banning Happy Meals hardly seems like a great solution.

-Cheers


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Don Turnipseed said:


> I have met a lot of well educated people that are, for all practical puposes, ignorant. There is more to life than being able to recite what someone else wrote.


There's a definite truth in that. I believe in regard to being well-educated and having some amount of wisdom there is, as in most things, a balance. I don't see being well-educated and having practical sense as _necessarily_ being mutually exclusive.

-Cheers


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

Thomas Barriano said:


> The difference is the right to keep and bear arms (guns)is a right guaranteed under the Constitution. Gay marriage is NOT.


Well then your "right" to do Schutzhund is also not in the constitution, nor your right to breed or infact own a dog is. Last I checked there was no mention of dogs, IPO, SchH, Ring or KNPV at all. So by using your logic you have no freedom to undertake them. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> Schutzhund doesn't hide your identity like a burka does and last time I checked Schutzhund people weren't flying planes into
> buildings and persuading teenagers to become suicide bombers.


This logic train leads to places NONE of us want to be in. If a Muslim woman wants under her own choice to wear a Burka, she should have the right to do so. I should have the right to hide my identity if I want to. It's okay if a celebrity puts on a fake wig, fake beard and wears a hoodie so no-one can recognise them? Its okay for a dude who wants to dress up as a women to do so, thus hiding his male identity? Its okay for the SWAT team to wear black balaklavas to hide their identity?
If some women wants to wear a Burka, I dont care. If some gay guy wants to be legally binded to another dude, I dont care. If the Muslim women has the right to wear her stupid looking Burka, and the gay dude can dress up in a wedding gown, then hopefully that means I will have enough freedom to train my dogs, own my guns, listen to whatever music I want to etc.
BUT, if these Muslim women and gay men dont have enough rights or freedoms to do whatever silly thing they want to (without hurting someone else) then there absolutley will not be enough level of freedom around for me not to have my interests banned. Its a two way street.


----------



## Anne Pridemore (Mar 20, 2010)

Kids are fat for the same reason dogs are fat. Too much food not enough activity. Stupid/lazy parents/owners should be banned.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

How can you deny a child a happy meal ?? It is a HAPPY meal. They have fruit and other stupid healthy shit I think.

What will stop them from getting a burger anyway ?? Control freaks.


----------



## Michelle Reusser (Mar 29, 2008)

Christopher Jones said:


> Well then your "right" to do Schutzhund is also not in the constitution, nor your right to breed or infact own a dog is. Last I checked there was no mention of dogs, IPO, SchH, Ring or KNPV at all. So by using your logic you have no freedom to undertake them.
> 
> 
> This logic train leads to places NONE of us want to be in. If a Muslim woman wants under her own choice to wear a Burka, she should have the right to do so. I should have the right to hide my identity if I want to. It's okay if a celebrity puts on a fake wig, fake beard and wears a hoodie so no-one can recognise them? Its okay for a dude who wants to dress up as a women to do so, thus hiding his male identity? Its okay for the SWAT team to wear black balaklavas to hide their identity?
> ...


That's the way I see it too.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Happy meals and gay marriage ?? REALLY ??

The problem with the gay marriage is not the obvious, it is the fact that hidden in that bill was the fact that they want minority status. If it was just the marriage thing, no one would care. So the marriage thing is the trojan horse.


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Happy meals and gay marriage ?? REALLY ??
> 
> The problem with the gay marriage is not the obvious, it is the fact that hidden in that bill was the fact that they want minority status. If it was just the marriage thing, no one would care. So the marriage thing is the trojan horse.


Jeff, the smallest minority is the individual.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Not following you, sorta distracted by personal problems right now, help a brother out, and give me the DUUUUUUHHHHHH version would ya ?


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Not following you, sorta distracted by personal problems right now, help a brother out, and give me the DUUUUUUHHHHHH version would ya ?


lol
We have all these politicians out there proclaiming they are for the rights of minorities, putting legislation through giving minorities special protections such as affirmative action. However these same politicans, be they left or right, are happy to take away the rights of the average Joe Blow. The smallest minority is the individual and so if the politicans are not protecting the rights of the individual, they cant say they are fighting for minorities.
Basically Jeff, I want minority status.....


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Never would have guessed that answer. : )


----------



## Ben Colbert (Mar 9, 2010)

Stupid liberals wanting to take away our personal rights to buy a cheese burger.

Stupid liberals wanting to give people the personal right to marry who they want.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Puppets of the politicians. Without their innumerable causes, what would politicians have to do?


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

What about this one? Is it aimed at "educating" or "regulating" how we train our dogs? Perhaps educating, for now, but when (not if) the established class of trainers in all our various venues rejects the teachings of their 'ill-fit' committee advisors, _most of which are behaviorists and not trainers at all_, then what? They'll find a way to shove it down your throats, providing some politician a specialty niche that will get them notice and be their _mission with purpose_, apart from all the other needless politicians.



> *American Humane Association Establishes Animal Behavior and Training Advisory Committee ***
> 
> Appoints Leading Animal Behavior Experts From Across the Nation
> 
> ...


----------



## chris haynie (Sep 15, 2009)

california is one of my favorite places geogrpahically but i could never live there becuase of the weird twilight zone lifestyle/legal thing they got going on.

last year i was issued a civil citation for smoking a cigarrette walking down the street in burbank, CA. not one, but two bicycle police were required to write me a $250 ticket. on top of that ****ing pack of smokes was like 10 bucks. total cost of a pack of camel lights in burbank, ca = 260 bucks and change.


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

chris haynie said:


> california is one of my favorite places geogrpahically but i could never live there becuase of the weird twilight zone lifestyle/legal thing they got going on.
> 
> last year i was issued a civil citation for smoking a cigarrette walking down the street in burbank, CA. not one, but two bicycle police were required to write me a $250 ticket. on top of that ****ing pack of smokes was like 10 bucks. total cost of a pack of camel lights in burbank, ca = 260 bucks and change.


Damm, its illegal to smoke while walking down the street? Serious? If thats true its pretty scarey.


----------



## chris haynie (Sep 15, 2009)

there were signs and i had been told but it was like 5:30 in the morning on a completely deserted street right in front of a store i was helping a friend renovate. i was standing there drink coffee, smoking a cig and unpacking our drywalling gear and supplies. as I was smoking i was on the phone w/ some east coast people kind of walking back and forth as i talked just getting ready to start the days work. there was literally no one else in sight for blocks in either direction. i have sworn since that trip to not ever spend any money at all in Burbank that the government could make tax $ on.


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

chris haynie said:


> there were signs and i had been told but it was like 5:30 in the morning on a completely deserted street right in front of a store i was helping a friend renovate. i was standing there drink coffee, smoking a cig and unpacking our drywalling gear and supplies. as I was smoking i was on the phone w/ some east coast people kind of walking back and forth as i talked just getting ready to start the days work. there was literally no one else in sight for blocks in either direction. i have sworn since that trip to not ever spend any money at all in Burbank that the government could make tax $ on.


Even if they had signs up it still sucks big time. And dont worry, these same crazy things are happening here in Oz as well. The government just increased tax on smokes by about 20%. They of course told us its to help people quit. Yeah right, all it did was add a spike to our inflation rate here which might mean our interest rates have to be increased because of it.
I find it crazy how our free western countries put these types of crazy restrictions on us, yet police states like Cuba and China dont. Kinda scarey that in some ways the Chinese have more freedoms than us.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Christopher Jones said:


> Even if they had signs up it still sucks big time. And dont worry, these same crazy things are happening here in Oz as well. The government just increased tax on smokes by about 20%. They of course told us its to help people quit. Yeah right, all it did was add a spike to our inflation rate here which might mean our interest rates have to be increased because of it.
> I find it crazy how our free western countries put these types of crazy restrictions on us, yet police states like Cuba and China dont. Kinda scarey that in some ways the Chinese have more freedoms than us.


Some places in the US it is now illegal to smoke in YOUR OWN HOUSE.


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

Joby Becker said:


> Some places in the US it is now illegal to smoke in YOUR OWN HOUSE.


Why do we tollerate this type of stuff? Here in my state its illegal to ride your bicycle without a helmut. Chinese and Cubans still have the right to ride their bikes without them, but us South Aussies?....nope.


----------



## Ben Colbert (Mar 9, 2010)

Joby Becker said:


> Some places in the US it is now illegal to smoke in YOUR OWN HOUSE.


I've never heard of this. Where is it illegal to smoke in your own home?


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Ben Colbert said:


> I've never heard of this. Where is it illegal to smoke in your own home?


laws are being passed all over.
A few places in CA are about to go into effect. Some places in Mass. also.
other localities have laws that state if anyone in the household complains, then you can't do it in the house or face penalties.

other places you can't smoke in public.

here in kenosha they just passed the work ban. so even though my boss and me (2 man shop) both smoke at work. we cannot anymore. and he owns the building, doesnt rent.


----------



## Ben Colbert (Mar 9, 2010)

Joby,

I'm very against the anti smoking laws. That said you made a comment on how there are communities that are passing laws banning us from smoking in our own homes. To me this sounds like fear mongering and it seems like you're having a difficult time finding somewhere that this law is actually either passed or on the ballot.

If your going to pass something off as a fact then I'd like some proof. Where specifically are these laws (banning smoking in a privately owned residence) in place? Can you link to a text of the law?


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Ben.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/us/27belmont.html

here is ONE example, for apartments, condos and townhomes. since you seem to doubt so much. Not sure what bee is in YOUR bonnet, I have not had difficulty proving it, because they are getting momentum and its not my job to PROVE it to you. My bosses dad is the mayor of Laytonsville MD and he just told my boss of a couple that PASSED in MD and MASS...maybe his dad is lying to him, but i doubt it...


Fear mongering????

My liberal roomie thought I was fear mongering her for a whole year before the 2008 election. lol

Now that over 80% of the things I told her would happen are happening, she knows that what I was telling her was a truthful and logical assessment concerning the whole"progressive" plague that is woven into our political system. My roomie is not so liberal now and is actually very pissed off, which I find comical.


----------



## Ben Colbert (Mar 9, 2010)

You are a fear mongerer. The only thing that disapoints me so far is that our current president isn't progressive enough.

I read the article. People in APARTMENTS are not allowed to smoke as it seeps in to neighboring apartments. A little bit different than not being able to smoke in a privately owned home that does share walls or vents. 

You made a comment. You got called out on it and are having a hard time proving what you said.

I'm not saying that I don't believe you. What I'm saying is that you shouldn't say anything you can't back up. I've never heard of those laws so when I ask about them you should have some type of reference.

"Your right to swing your fist ends where the other man's nose starts."


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Ben Colbert said:


> You are a fear mongerer. The only thing that disapoints me so far is that our current president isn't progressive enough.
> 
> I read the article. People in APARTMENTS are not allowed to smoke as it seeps in to neighboring apartments. A little bit different than not being able to smoke in a privately owned home that does share walls or vents.
> 
> ...


IS AN APARTMENT, TOWNHOME, OR CONDO NOT A PERSON'S HOME?
anyhow I can see from your post that you admit to being a progressive, so there is no talking sense. this is a dog board, not a politics board for good reason.
how about instead of spewing your progressive thoughts, you give up some more info on the dog that drops the sleeve..again this is a dog board.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Christopher, you wanted to know why we allow them to take our rights,.....are you reading Ben's posts. There are more and more Ben's around all the time. As he said, even the office holder today is not progressive enough for him. Screw the restrictions on dog breeding, there should be some real standards on human breeding. What I see on the progressive side is the results of a lot of recreational procreation. Certainly no rational thought went into it because none has ever come out of it.


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

I guess I'd like to believe that, given the proper information about these things, people are smart enough to make up their own minds about stuff. I mean, getting back to the original topic, it's a HAPPY MEAL! It's not crack, it's a toy in a kid's meal. Sure, _I_ think McDonald's unhealthy, but I don't think we need Big Brother telling us what they can package with their still-legal food.

-Cheers


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Ben Colbert said:


> You are a fear mongerer. The only thing that disapoints me so far is that our current president isn't progressive enough.


Wow. I won't make any political discussions, but, wow.

-Cheers


----------



## Ben Colbert (Mar 9, 2010)

Don,

You won't see a more staunch defender of our constituional rights than me. That said, you find me where a child has the right to a happy meal? That you have the right to own a terrier? That someone has the right to smoke outside?

You are confusing things that are legal with rights.

And just for the record I am very much against anti smoking ordinaces, very much againt BSL, etc.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

David Ruby said:


> Wow. I won't make any political discussions, but, wow.
> 
> -Cheers


Where I live there are "container" taxes on fast food. "pop" taxes are on the way for soft drinks. taxes on potato chips and snacks too...

it is illegal for someone to put up a yard sale sign (unless you pay for a permit)

The reasoning is that the sign is a "safety hazard" because it distracts drivers, but somehow once you pay the fee, it is no longer a safety hazard? wtf? pool and hot tub "permits" are on the way here. want a hot-tub. pay a yearly fee to own it, cause somehow that saves kids from drowning...


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Joby Becker said:


> Where I live there are "container" taxes on fast food. "pop" taxes are on the way for soft drinks. taxes on potato chips and snacks too...
> 
> it is illegal for someone to put up a yard sale sign (unless you pay for a permit)
> 
> The reasoning is that the sign is a "safety hazard" because it distracts drivers, but somehow once you pay the fee, it is no longer a safety hazard? wtf? pool and hot tub "permits" are on the way here. want a hot-tub. pay a yearly fee to own it, cause somehow that saves kids from drowning...












-Cheers


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

In Denver, they put it to a vote to do away with smoking in bars and restaurants. The public voted to allow it.

THen, they passed some stuff that had the no smoking law attached to it anyway.

I was actually pretty proud, as many bar owners left the ashtrays out, and put money aside to pay the fines if someone was ticketed for it.

I was very discouraged that Denver city did something like that. They put it to vote, and the people said you can't do that, and then they did it anyway.

As a smoker, I have had people come up to me and tell me how bad it is for me. I usually point at traffic, and tell them that private transportation should be banned as well, as the fumes are much worse for me than smoking. AND that when someoe smokes and gets cancer, how all the stupid people think that it only could have been the cigarettes. No way it could be pollution from cars, or factories, just the cigarettes.

Power is an illusion. The politicians have bullshitted way too many of us.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Bt Martin Niemoller. This is where we are headed. Imhave put this up before but it fits more every day.

""THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Ben, I really don't think what I see as BSL, is the same as what you see as BSL. Also, I never get into it far enough to compare owning a dog as a right vs a priviledge. We have ownd dogs since the inception of this country and before. McDonalds is legal and was handed all the permits and rights to conduct business. If the municipalies are going to arbitrarily change the rules, they should be required to reimburse McDonalds for their losses. Now that is fair.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Christopher, you wanted to know why we allow them to take our rights,.....are you reading Ben's posts. There are more and more Ben's around all the time. As he said, even the office holder today is not progressive enough for him. Screw the restrictions on dog breeding, there should be some real standards on human breeding. What I see on the progressive side is the results of a lot of recreational procreation. Certainly no rational thought went into it because none has ever come out of it.


Don,

The more I read Ben's post and read him say that Barrack Hussein Obama isn't Progressive enough. I'm convinced his middle name is Dover BenD over Colbert


----------



## Ben Colbert (Mar 9, 2010)

If you think President Obama is a progressive or socialist then you're an idiot. Lets see:

Signed law allowing handguns in National Parks
Approved more offshore drilling
Took 18 months to address DADT
Still has defense dept lawyers defensing Defense of Marriage Act
Signed into law a half ass health care law stripped of single payer or even a public option
Has kept Gitmo open and is ok with the indefinite detention of detainees without trial
Has approved the bailout of big business while the little guy still gets screwed
Has nominated two center or just left of center supreme court justices
Lowered taxes for 95% of Americans

Now I want you to look at his record and tell me again that Obama is a screaming, facist, socialist, progressive liberal. It doesn't match up.


----------



## Eric Read (Aug 14, 2006)

this thread lasted about 9 pages longer than I thought it would, but I fear the end is coming soon.

but anyway, I don't think they should ban happy meals, but I think the targeting of kids for the crap they peddle is pretty sad.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Ben Colbert said:


> If you think President Obama is a progressive or socialist then you're an idiot. Lets see:
> 
> snip
> 
> ...


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Ben Colbert said:


> Now I want you to look at his record and tell me again that Obama is a screaming, facist, socialist, progressive liberal. It doesn't match up.


Better do it quick! Since, you know, Mods are crystal clear about wanting this to be NON-political.

I'll pass.

-Cheers


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Eric Read said:


> this thread lasted about 9 pages longer than I thought it would, but I fear the end is coming soon.
> 
> but anyway, I don't think they should ban happy meals, but I think the targeting of kids for the crap they peddle is pretty sad.


Agree on both counts.

-Cheers


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Yeh, this thread may go the way of the Happy Meal.


----------



## Chris McDonald (May 29, 2008)

Has approved the bailout of big business while the little guy still gets screwed
That is as socialistic as you can get! Its all about controlling the little guy 

Lowered taxes for 95% of Americans
No he hasn’t! Just another lie you believed 

Has kept Gitmo open and is ok with the indefinite detention of detainees without trial
Only because there is no real way of shutting it down, not because he doesn’t want to! Just another lie you believed

God help us all


----------



## Gerry Grimwood (Apr 2, 2007)

Attica..Attica


----------



## Chris McDonald (May 29, 2008)

Gerry Grimwood said:


> Attica..Attica


 
Eh


----------



## Ben Colbert (Mar 9, 2010)

Chris McDonald said:


> That is as socialistic as you can get! Its all about controlling the little guy


False. You really need to look up what socialism is. Its not communism. Its not autocracy. Its Helping the people. Its ownership of corporations by the workers. Giving Goldman Sachs $$$ so they could give out bonus's is not socialism. Its sucking big business's ****. 




Chris McDonald said:


> No he hasn’t! Just another lie you believed


Here is 7 different independent news organizations (the first link won a Pulitzer) that detail how the stimulus bill cut taxes for most Americans. Sorry to tell you that the tea party lied to you.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...obama/tax-cut-95-percent-stimulus-made-it-so/
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2654765/president_obamas_fy_2011_federal_budget.html?cat=62
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/18/obama.taxplan/index.html
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-432543
http://20somethingfinance.com/obama-tax-cuts/
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/obama-middle-class-tax-credits/story?id=9659186
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/15/tax-day-2010-protesters-i_n_538556.html


----------



## Chris McDonald (May 29, 2008)

I only got through one link http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...us-made-it-so/ it basically talks about one stimulus check. Yes you are right this is a tax cut. But by giving one tax cut for a $1 and raising taxes in other areas for $2 does not add up to a savings overall 

I’m not involved in any tea party.. I don’t like either party or any in the middle 
And don’t kid yourself there is no such thing as “independent” media


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

Ben Colbert said:


> False. You really need to look up what socialism is. Its not communism. Its not autocracy. Its Helping the people. Its ownership of corporations by the workers. Giving Goldman Sachs $$$ so they could give out bonus's is not socialism. Its sucking big business's ****.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Independent news sources, huffington post, man you really are in a fantasy world!!! [-X[-X[-X


----------



## Ben Colbert (Mar 9, 2010)

Where did President Obama raise taxes?


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

I think people are falling into the trap of the left/right. The left wing and the right wing are both wings on the same bird. Its actually the bird you need to be worried about.


----------



## Ben Colbert (Mar 9, 2010)

Edward Egan said:


> Independent news sources, huffington post, man you really are in a fantasy world!!! [-X[-X[-X


I'll give you that one. But its not really a news source anyways. More of a news aggregate.


----------



## Chris McDonald (May 29, 2008)

http://www.hopeandfail.com/2009/07/29/president-says-he-hasnt-raised-taxes-five-months-after-raising-taxes/
One of many ways to get the “poor’s” money


----------



## Chris McDonald (May 29, 2008)

Its Helping the people. Its ownership of corporations by the workers.
History has proven this not to work in the big picture. When everyone owns a piece there is no leader who wants to run it. That’s the problem with socialism, eventually you run out of other people’s money to take. Ask Greece


----------



## Ben Colbert (Mar 9, 2010)

Chris

You and I agree here. Socialism is a beautiful ideal but it doesn't work in real life. Calling Obama a socialist is an insult to socialism.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

I hear that Al and Tipper Gore are seperating.
I think the next seperations I want to hear about is the seperation of the Democrats from control of Congress in 2010 and the seperation of Obama
from the Presidency in 2012 :-0
I sure hope this post isn't construed as being politcal.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

I had to laugh Ben...You mentioned that Obama Ok'd offshore drilling ....at a time that that was what people wanted to hear....so tell me what he has done about it since telling that particular lie to get the heat off him. Maybe I just missed any positive moves he has made since then.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

This is getting to political!


----------

