Re: San Francisco bans Happy Meals

Sat Nov 13, 2010 11:00 pm

The proposed happy meal toy ban was discussed several nights ago by a talk show host at KOA in Denver, 850 kHz. He pointed out it was ironic that liberal Demoncrats were pushing this ban when the widow of McDonald's founder has been giving generously to liberal Demoncrat causes for many years. I suspect these Marxists in San Francisco were finally made aware of that just recently.

Re: San Francisco bans Happy Meals

Sat Nov 13, 2010 11:29 pm

Still waiting for the fast food haters to explain how common, basic ingredients turn to poison when they enter the back door of a fast food chain. For a group so critical of those who ignore science, it would be nice to get some feedback other than elitist hyperbole.

Re: San Francisco bans Happy Meals

Sun Nov 14, 2010 1:55 am

El Goodo wrote:Still waiting for the fast food haters to explain how common, basic ingredients turn to poison when they enter the back door of a fast food chain. For a group so critical of those who ignore science, it would be nice to get some feedback other than elitist hyperbole.
Well, not quite "poison" - just excessively greasy, and not even tasty at it.

Re: San Francisco bans Happy Meals

Sun Nov 14, 2010 2:52 am

Well, not quite "poison" - just excessively greasy, and not even tasty at it.


You've never been to the Varsity in Atlanta.

Re: San Francisco bans Happy Meals

Sun Nov 14, 2010 2:56 am

AndreLinoge wrote:
Well, not quite "poison" - just excessively greasy, and not even tasty at it.
You've never been to the Varsity in Atlanta.
Nor am I going to visit it. From the name of it, and from what one could gather from your mention, it must be a S&E-L place. Thus, I will shun it as I've done before, and I will live happily ever after. That's the conservatism in action for you.

Re: San Francisco bans Happy Meals

Sun Nov 14, 2010 9:20 am

GSlob wrote:
El Goodo wrote:Still waiting for the fast food haters to explain how common, basic ingredients turn to poison when they enter the back door of a fast food chain. For a group so critical of those who ignore science, it would be nice to get some feedback other than elitist hyperbole.
Well, not quite "poison" - just excessively greasy, and not even tasty at it.


Well, there's no accounting for taste and to each his own with regard to that.

I'm just of the opinion that fast food places are treated in the same regard as Wal-Mart for largely the same reason, because the unwashed masses frequent the place. That's fine but I get a little irked when some people attempt to mask their elitism by painting the places as somehow inherently bad or bad for people without any substantiating evidence whatsoever. Don't set up Wal-Mart or McDonalds as a target of scorn when the real target of scorn is their customer base.

Re: San Francisco bans Happy Meals

Sun Nov 14, 2010 10:42 am

El Goodo wrote:
GSlob wrote:
El Goodo wrote:Still waiting for the fast food haters to explain how common, basic ingredients turn to poison when they enter the back door of a fast food chain. For a group so critical of those who ignore science, it would be nice to get some feedback other than elitist hyperbole.
Well, not quite "poison" - just excessively greasy, and not even tasty at it.


Well, there's no accounting for taste and to each his own with regard to that.

I'm just of the opinion that fast food places are treated in the same regard as Wal-Mart for largely the same reason, because the unwashed masses frequent the place. That's fine but I get a little irked when some people attempt to mask their elitism by painting the places as somehow inherently bad or bad for people without any substantiating evidence whatsoever. Don't set up Wal-Mart or McDonalds as a target of scorn when the real target of scorn is their customer base.
When I just came to the US, I used to walk past a McDonalds every day on my way to a library to check the job openings. I was able to figure out that it was a feeding place [by the odors and by seeing people eating there, through a window], but I could not eat there, not being able to afford it. Then I found a minimum wage job, got some money [not much of it, but enough to eat at McDonalds], and started eating at that McDonalds 2 times a day - so I was a part of their customer base for a while, for 2-3 weeks. And then I could not stand it any more [it still serves me as an inoculation] and shifted back to the supermarket foodstuffs - to what was affordable to me then. Less grease.

Re: San Francisco bans Happy Meals

Sun Nov 14, 2010 10:52 am

mcdonalds is a bit of a treat for me on those rare occasions when i can have something fattening. they have a couple pretty good burgers there. i suppose everyone has a different definition of comfort food. mcdonalds is one of mine.

Re: San Francisco bans Happy Meals

Sun Nov 14, 2010 11:20 am

When I made a move from Memphis to Vicksburg I was pretty much broke and moved into this little dump of a house. It was just me and I wasn't in the habit of cooking for just myself. I ate fast food of some sort (McDonalds being my least favorite) every day for at least six months, probably longer. I'd occasionally throw in a frozen pizza and a trip to the Mexican restaurant here and there but for all practical purposes I did sustain myself almost exclusively on fast food, primarily Burger King, Sonic and McDonalds. Sometimes it was burgers, sometimes it was chicken sandwiches but it was pretty much always quick and easy fast food.

When the Morgan Spurlock propaganda disguised as a documentary Super Size Me came out, I took personal offense. His little "experiment" was lightweight compared to what I've done with fast food. I suffered no ill effects at all. I'd go to the doc with a virus a couple time a year and he'd compliment my cholesterol and BP. I didn't take the elevator at work, though, I ran the stairs. I've always done that. I used to work at a salvage yard. If my boss was way back on the yard and if he got a call, instead of taking his phone via the little Kawasaki Mule, I would run through the yard while the crew was chiding me with "Run, Forrest, run!" Of course, I was thinking, "Says the fat-asses who couldn't make this run if they wanted."

I've always had a good build and good weight regardless of what I have eaten. It is about lifestyle and genetics. I don't think I possess any special immunity to fast food.

Re: San Francisco bans Happy Meals

Sun Nov 14, 2010 11:32 am

Health food is probably like "the right stuff" to test pilots -- a myth useful for making us feel in control of our health as the test pilots made it feel they were in control of their destinies. If they had the "right stuff" they could overcome plane malfunctions and otherwise not make stupid fatal mistakes.

If we choose our food wisely maybe we won't have strokes or heart attacks or cancer. It's comforting to believe that.

Re: San Francisco bans Happy Meals

Sun Nov 14, 2010 11:41 am

What's next: banning "marketing" as a concept and way to move ahead?
Mac's might try a run-around marketing technique: What if Mac's donated to some allegedly noble liberal cause, $1 for each Happy Meal? Then what would these 'banners' arguement be?
Show me a direct correlation between eating a Happy Meal and death, and I will be all ears.
](*,)

Re: San Francisco bans Happy Meals

Sun Nov 14, 2010 12:21 pm

Maybe one way for Mac's to 'work around' this ban (and still offer the toy) is to call them 'Death Meals' (but the 'image' strikes me a bad - with a photo of Ronald MacD on his death bed, looking like skull & crossbones).
-
I also wonder: Does this ruling apply to other businesses (such as fast food places and other businesses?) that offer a 'free toy' when you buy somethin?. For instance - at an adult store, and buying porno - will they give you a free dildo 'toy', as an incentive (this might work in 'clean living' San Francisco)? [-X [-X [-X
-
edit: mass typoeees and second thoughts, as usual.

Re: San Francisco bans Happy Meals

Sun Nov 14, 2010 12:34 pm

El Goodo wrote:
GSlob wrote:
El Goodo wrote:Still waiting for the fast food haters to explain how common, basic ingredients turn to poison when they enter the back door of a fast food chain. For a group so critical of those who ignore science, it would be nice to get some feedback other than elitist hyperbole.
Well, not quite "poison" - just excessively greasy, and not even tasty at it.


Well, there's no accounting for taste and to each his own with regard to that.

I'm just of the opinion that fast food places are treated in the same regard as Wal-Mart for largely the same reason, because the unwashed masses frequent the place. That's fine but I get a little irked when some people attempt to mask their elitism by painting the places as somehow inherently bad or bad for people without any substantiating evidence whatsoever. Don't set up Wal-Mart or McDonalds as a target of scorn when the real target of scorn is their customer base.


:hesaid:

Yup. Pure snobbery.

Re: San Francisco bans Happy Meals

Sun Nov 14, 2010 2:16 pm

The Sinister Minister wrote:
El Goodo wrote:
GSlob wrote:
El Goodo wrote:Still waiting for the fast food haters to explain how common, basic ingredients turn to poison when they enter the back door of a fast food chain. For a group so critical of those who ignore science, it would be nice to get some feedback other than elitist hyperbole.
Well, not quite "poison" - just excessively greasy, and not even tasty at it.


Well, there's no accounting for taste and to each his own with regard to that.

I'm just of the opinion that fast food places are treated in the same regard as Wal-Mart for largely the same reason, because the unwashed masses frequent the place. That's fine but I get a little irked when some people attempt to mask their elitism by painting the places as somehow inherently bad or bad for people without any substantiating evidence whatsoever. Don't set up Wal-Mart or McDonalds as a target of scorn when the real target of scorn is their customer base.


:hesaid:

Yup. Pure snobbery.


I hadn't thought of it that way before, but it rings true.

Re: San Francisco bans Happy Meals

Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:21 pm

Stereoeclectic wrote:mcdonalds is a bit of a treat for me on those rare occasions when i can have something fattening. they have a couple pretty good burgers there. i suppose everyone has a different definition of comfort food. mcdonalds is one of mine.

I like their fishwich and fries. Especially the fries.

Re: San Francisco bans Happy Meals

Sun Nov 14, 2010 4:05 pm

Wyatt Earp wrote:
Stereoeclectic wrote:mcdonalds is a bit of a treat for me on those rare occasions when i can have something fattening. they have a couple pretty good burgers there. i suppose everyone has a different definition of comfort food. mcdonalds is one of mine.

I like their fishwich and fries. Especially the fries.


i like that combo. i think my favorite is the angus deluxe, though. i can't have it very often, though, because it's a third pounder and the large dose of fat has the potential to really mess me up.

i generally get a big mac / fries combo when i go there or the quarter pounder / fries meal.

Re: San Francisco bans Happy Meals

Sun Nov 14, 2010 4:44 pm

Wyatt Earp wrote:I like their fishwich and fries. Especially the fries.


McD's fries were awesome back in the 70s. That's when they were using beef tallow in the fry vats, and those slices of potato took a noticeable turn to the bland side when they changed to vegetable oil after prolonged screeching from the food nannies.

Ditto the McDonald's hot apple pie, which was tasty when it was fried.

Re: San Francisco bans Happy Meals

Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:34 pm

Tweak wrote:
Wyatt Earp wrote:I like their fishwich and fries. Especially the fries.


McD's fries were awesome back in the 70s. That's when they were using beef tallow in the fry vats, and those slices of potato took a noticeable turn to the bland side when they changed to vegetable oil after prolonged screeching from the food nannies.

Ditto the McDonald's hot apple pie, which was tasty when it was fried.


i still like the fries, but i will admit that i sensed a mild aftertaste right after they switched the fry vats. the fries don't have the aftertaste now, but the mcnuggets do from time to time.

Re: San Francisco bans Happy Meals

Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:44 pm

Cooking oil is used as long as possible. Just filtered. It will develop a taste after a while.

Re: San Francisco bans Happy Meals

Sun Nov 14, 2010 10:13 pm

Floyd Pinkus wrote:Maybe one way for Mac's to 'work around' this ban (and still offer the toy) is to call them 'Death Meals' (but the 'image' strikes me a bad - with a photo of Ronald MacD on his death bed, looking like skull & crossbones).
-
I also wonder: Does this ruling apply to other businesses (such as fast food places and other businesses?) that offer a 'free toy' when you buy somethin?...


To reiterate, the soon to be gone mayor, as one of his last acts in office, vetoed this idiotic rule (as he promised he would). It may be come back, but it is dead for now.

Re: San Francisco bans Happy Meals

Sun Nov 14, 2010 10:22 pm

My academic field's major conference was going to be in San Francisco next week, but I'm not going. Putting up with all the liberal douchebags and asshole panhandlers in Minneapolis was bad enough, but one week in San Francisco would probably drive me insane.

Re: San Francisco bans Happy Meals

Sun Nov 14, 2010 10:24 pm

High Evolutionary wrote:My academic field's major conference was going to be in San Francisco next week, but I'm not going. Putting up with all the liberal douchebags and asshole panhandlers in Minneapolis was bad enough, but one week in San Francisco would probably drive me insane.


After which, you'd fit in fine with the locals.

Re: San Francisco bans Happy Meals

Mon Nov 15, 2010 4:54 am

I would say well over half of what I eat is carryout from a cafeteria located about 2 miles down the road. Nothing fancy, just your basic American home cooked fare. They have such a wide selection though, that you never get tired of the food. Their swiss veal and southern fried catfish are awesome, and there's still nothing like a roast beef manhattan. Oh, and the thick, juicy pork chops...

(edit - spelling error)

Re: San Francisco bans Happy Meals

Mon Nov 15, 2010 11:19 am

excineribus wrote:
Floyd Pinkus wrote:Maybe one way for Mac's to 'work around' this ban (and still offer the toy) is to call them 'Death Meals' (but the 'image' strikes me a bad - with a photo of Ronald MacD on his death bed, looking like skull & crossbones).
-
I also wonder: Does this ruling apply to other businesses (such as fast food places and other businesses?) that offer a 'free toy' when you buy somethin?...


To reiterate, the soon to be gone mayor, as one of his last acts in office, vetoed this idiotic rule (as he promised he would). It may be come back, but it is dead for now.


They passed it 8-3, which is veto-proof. Unless some change their mind, it will be overridden.

Re: San Francisco bans Happy Meals

Tue Nov 16, 2010 3:46 pm

js1138 wrote:Cooking oil is used as long as possible. Just filtered. It will develop a taste after a while.


When I worked at McDonald's many years ago, the oil in the fry vats was changed out weekly.

Full Version