Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I do agree with parts of the article:
"While some cities have bans on new fast-food establishments, they typically are for aesthetic reasons or to protect local businesses."

"Cities have begun banning ingredients, regulating menu information and now dictating whether restaurants are healthy enough to open in their communities."
This one is pretty interesting and would be very trival a few years ago, although I believe that society has gotten to the point where action is probably needed. The world is become morbidly obese. It's so unnecessary. People just don't know when to trim down on food, and fast food chains aren't helping by puttng all this shit into their food.
Like MSG, wtf man.
:\

Although, some parts of the article I do not agree with:

"In New York City, a law kicked in earlier this year requiring fast-food restaurants to post calorie counts on the main menu right above the counter. San Francisco plans to implement a similar regulation later this year."
That's just degrading to humans. I mean imagine having ot do that over the counter!!!
I'm sure there are plenty more effective ways to implement healthy food strategies.

My brother recently went to Los Angeles, and coming from Australia he was shocked to see the number of overweight people, and also the amount of fast food restaurants. He said no matter where you go you'll find one, and even he (who looks like a celery stick and has a very fast metabolism) put on a bit of weight in the time he was there.

I'm just glad that the world is starting to realise that we actually do have an obesity epidemic, and we need to do something about it before it gets even more out of hand...

Well it passed. No new fast food joints in the Ninth District for one year. Good job on her part.

At 8/1/08 09:43 PM, CIX wrote: Why are you for putting caps but not bans?

Can you name 400 different restaurants you've been to in your lifetime?

At 8/1/08 02:18 PM, fli wrote: The government isn't banning fast foods... but they're trying to curb their aggressiveness and their tenacity.

The fast food restaurants aren't "aggressive". They open and provide something people want. People respond by buying it. The government is overstepping their bounds.

After all,
Unhealthy people cost the government a lot to aid.

There's so much wrong with that statement, I don't know where to start.

It's not even an "I the consumer" issue most of the times!
Because, inevitably, the people who totally bitches and rips up on the government for supposedly trying to "control their lives" are the VERY same ones who are costing the government to aid them in their time of need.

That's teh government's fault, no the welfare person.

They sue... who helps the businesses who are sued? The government.
If they don't have sufficient insurance, who gives them aid? You guessed right.

Where the hell do the governments help businesses who are sued for wrongdoing?

Folks, yes... consumerism is about having choice.
But there are such things such as MAKING a RIGHT choice too.

You're not arguing that point tho.....

At 8/1/08 02:24 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Gee, the state with a brilliant, tactical governor who has an unbridled love for free enterprise and despises socialism is obviously in the middle of a plot to succeed from the union and form a marxist state.

Clueless again are we?
The pro-amnesty, universal health care pusher, nanny stating Kennedy family adoptee is a right wing capitalist? Utter nonsense.

"Free Market" has nothing to do with this. NO ONE is saying that by limiting the free market, they are going to be making money off this deal. They've been covering this on the local news stations, and the plan is too temporarily halt fast food on strips that already have excessive numbers of fast food restaurants, so that restaurants, which are harder to start up and require more capital, have time to form.

"We're not limiting free market. We're just telling businesses they can't start." Do you ever think before you type?

At 8/1/08 02:54 PM, Al6200 wrote: blah blah blah

Or we could get out of this stupid thinking that the government has any right to limit such business ventures. If we started thinking right the country would be better.

At 8/1/08 05:15 PM, Proteas wrote: Okay, let's break that down a bit; 400 fast food restaurants spread out over 32 square miles. That equals out too about 12 and a half restaurants in every square mile. That's 1 restaurant every 1500 feet no matter what direction you walk in.

And? Who cares?
Look at how many gas stations there are. Look at how many clothing stores. EXCESSSIVE I SAY!

Does anybody else here see anything inherently WRONG with that picture, or that fact that such restaurants still want to open in that area?

No. These businesses see money and open there. We should let them. They're smarter than anyone who'd want to limit them.

At 8/2/08 12:58 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 8/1/08 09:43 PM, CIX wrote: Why are you for putting caps but not bans?

Can you name 400 different restaurants you've been to in your lifetime?

You have not answered my question. It's very contradictory if you're only reason is because you don't like fast food restaurants.

At 8/1/08 08:37 PM, poxpower wrote:

How can you blame fast food for obesity though?

Obviously it isn't the only culprit, but the amount of fat in a single meal at a fast food place or restaurant is oftentimes more than the amount of fat one should consume in an entire week.

For example, a single choclate turnover from Arby's has 7 grams of trans fat.

To do that would be to imagine that the majority of obese people mostly eat fast food in normal portions.

Even if one ate fast food in very small portions, it would still be unhealthy. And let's remember that a person still needs a certain amount of calories and nutrition. If one got that from fast food, then a huge amount of those calories would be from fat.

No, it's not the fast food that makes people fat, it's just eating too much.

Yes but it's amount of fat in the calories that contributes to heart disease, which is the root problem here.

The culture is such now that people simply have all the food they want and we're genetically programmed to eat more than we need, so unless you make a conscious effort to not eat that much, you'll get fat, NO MATTER WHAT YOU EAT.

Right, but getting "full" isn't just about how many calories one consumes. And the amount of calories that are in most fast food items is mind-boggling.

And another phenomenon is that poor people can only afford food that makes them fat, like pasta, potatoes, rice and tv dinner shit like chef boyardee and Kraft dinner. They're not eating salmon, white fish and fancy salads with a fruit punch,
They drink Kool Aid, that shit us just sugar.

That is indeed a problem. But to be honest a lot of healthy foods like rice and bread are not prohibitively expensive.

Anyways, Fast Food is AWESOME, I support it FULLY.
Gooooooooooo fast food!

I have no problem with the concept of fast food. What bothers me is that they could offer extremely healthy food with only minimal sacrifices on their part and the consumer's part. I mean, if they only put sauces and cheese on sandwiches by request, then there would be large health benefits for the consumer.

At 8/1/08 05:06 PM, Gunter45 wrote: It's not the government's job to babysit people. The government is not set up to tell us what's good or bad for us. A government trying to protect people from themselves is absolutely fucking asinine.

I completely agree with you but when you have a situation where you have people who require medical attention because they are too irresponsible to regulate what they put into their bodies then it is my belief that the government not only has every right to intervene but that they should intervene.
Either that, or people who are obese without genuine medical reasons for being so should have to pay for any treatment received in full and should not receive any financial assistance from the government.
It is not the taxpayers responsibility to subsidize irresponsibility.

A16 and Metal:

So what?

At 8/2/08 03:23 AM, WolvenBear wrote: A16 and Metal:

So what?

Did you even read what I wrote? Try re-reading the last sentence.

At 8/2/08 03:31 AM, metalstorm wrote: Did you even read what I wrote? Try re-reading the last sentence.

Wow.

"Reread my last sentence"

I did. I t was dumb last time, but ok....here's a more in depth mockery:

1. All fast food restaurants without exception will put on a sauce or cheese as long as you ask.
2. This doesn't make the food more healthy, and can make it less healthy.
3. Every fast food restaurant I've ever heard of offers salads. This is the least seling item on their menu.

And here's why you're stupid!:

1. People who go to fast food don't WANT to eat healthy, or they'd go to Subways.
2. Forcing a company to carry healthy items will no force people to eat them.
3. All of this pretends that this is the appropriate role of gov't to tell us how to act and regulate our food.
4. It denies the right of the individual.

At 8/2/08 03:20 AM, metalstorm wrote: It is not the taxpayers responsibility to subsidize irresponsibility.

Which is why welfare should be abolished unless you want a Nanny State.

At 8/2/08 02:31 AM, Al6200 wrote:
That is indeed a problem. But to be honest a lot of healthy foods like rice and bread are not prohibitively expensive.

White bread is complete trash, brown bread isn't much better.
Bread as a whole isn't the best thing to eat because it's extremely high in calories and usually high in sugars and poor in pretty much everything.
Unless you get some really grain-filled bread, which is tasty. In fact I want some right now. I will buy this later today.

The simple truth is that people just eat TOO MUCH, of EVERYTHING except vegetables. Too much meat, too many desserts, too much milk, too much cheese, too much pasta and so on.

Don't blame fast foods. In fact fast foods were around a good decade or two before the obesity explosion.

they could offer extremely healthy food

I don't know of one single food that is as good as chocolate or hamburgers and low in calories.

It doesn't exist.

People like red meat, cheese, bread, fried shit. Not carrots and lettuce and soy.

FUCK SOY.

At 8/2/08 03:43 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 8/2/08 03:31 AM, metalstorm wrote: Did you even read what I wrote? Try re-reading the last sentence.

Wow.

"Reread my last sentence"

I did. I t was dumb last time, but ok....here's a more in depth mockery:

1. All fast food restaurants without exception will put on a sauce or cheese as long as you ask.

Ok.

2. This doesn't make the food more healthy, and can make it less healthy.

I think we could definitively conclude that in the vast majority of cases it would make the food less healthy.

3. Every fast food restaurant I've ever heard of offers salads. This is the least seling item on their menu.

And? They sell salads in the hope that it will create a healthy image for the restaurant but the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people don't go to fast food restaurants for salad.

And here's why you're stupid!:

1. People who go to fast food don't WANT to eat healthy, or they'd go to Subways.

Subways is a fast food restaurant. I also never implied that people who go to fast food restaurants do want to eat healthy. When I go to a fast food restaurant I don't want to eat healthy either but the difference between me and someone who is obese is that I am responsible enough to moderate how much I eat and how often I eat fast food.

2. Forcing a company to carry healthy items will no force people to eat them.

I'm well aware of this and I never said that fast food restaurants should have to offer healthy alternatives. Although, mind you, the 'smart ones' are.

3. All of this pretends that this is the appropriate role of gov't to tell us how to act and regulate our food.

I'd say it would only really be appropriate for the government to intervene in extenuating circumstances and this would include situations where fast-food related obesity is leading to a diversion of tax payers dollars from other places in order to subsidize medical treatment of obese individuals.

4. It denies the right of the individual.

And which right would that be? Believe it or not, gluttony is not a right.

So most of you are of the stance that the government should not be able to dictate how society behaves at all?

As for the economic perspective, do any of you actually know anything about economics? FACT, a healthy workforce is going to be more productive than an unhealthy workforce.

hey man mcdonalds is good for the economy and its delicous. if theres a problem with obesity go to shooter not the gun!
just DO THINGS.
dont eat the double qaurter pounder though. 750 cal is bad. reeel bad.
doublecheese FTW!
oh and segway when im hungry i go in there and refil a small drink like 5 times
its like 700 calories from beverage for a freakin dollar! FTW!!!
yes i realize this is unhealthy but im pore T_T

At 8/2/08 01:26 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

Clueless again are we?
The pro-amnesty, universal health care pusher, nanny stating Kennedy family adoptee is a right wing capitalist? Utter nonsense.

The GOP member, George Bush backing man who left his home country to escape socialism then IMMEDIATELY decided that he loved Nixon because he heard Nixon making a speech in favor of Free Enterprise is a capitalist, yes.

"We're not limiting free market. We're just telling businesses they can't start." Do you ever think before you type?

Actually, you dishonest asshole, I specifically stated they were limiting free market.

To anyone who doesn't make a habit about lying to the person they are arguing with, I will repeat my position; no one is arguing that by limiting the free market, this deal will help the state or consumer financially. You can't argue "OMG BUT CAPITALISM ROX", because the entire point of capitalism is it's ability to make more money and sell better products. Maybe if the state thought this plan would somehow help financially, you could explain that capitalism is a better financial decision then government control 100 percent of the time, but since the entire point of the Bill is to achieve a specific, non-financial result capitalism can't offer, that argument doesn't work here. I suggest sticking to the argument that the government is stepping on personal freedoms, again.

No. These businesses see money and open there. We should let them. They're smarter than anyone who'd want to limit them.

I wouldn't say that too soon. On a point that's totally irrelevant to the topic at hand, opening that many fast food chains is NOT a good idea some times (Key word; sometimes). Starbucks did that without a clue what they where doing, and although it helped that meet opening quotas, it recently started crashing down on them. A new restaurant in the right place may make your company a nice little bit of cash, or it may be padding the President of the companies resume.

At 8/2/08 02:23 AM, CIX wrote: You have not answered my question. It's very contradictory if you're only reason is because you don't like fast food restaurants.

How is it contradictory if I don't like fast food restaurants? I'd think it would be plenty of reason for why I don't think more restaurants shouldn't be built if I don't fucking like them, especially if there's already 400 of them crammed into an area not much larger than my hometown.

At 8/2/08 04:31 PM, Proteas wrote:

How is it contradictory if I don't like fast food restaurants? I'd think it would be plenty of reason for why I don't think more restaurants shouldn't be built if I don't fucking like them, especially if there's already 400 of them crammed into an area not much larger than my hometown.

(Proteas, in circumstances like this, the standard response I find works best is to return the situation; ask them if they dislike homosexual porn, then ask them if it should be illegal. They almost always say yes and no, accordingly)

Move to an Amish town Proteas that way the Big Fast Food companies won't bother you.

At 8/2/08 06:31 PM, CIX wrote: Move to an Amish town Proteas that way the Big Fast Food companies won't bother you.

So that's it? That's the best you can come up with as a response to me, after playing yourself off as the high thinking intellectual in this discussion? No witty repartee, no insightful wisdom, no attempts to show me how I'm wrong for holding the opinions I have? You think I should just move to an Amish town?

You haven't refuted any of my points, you've done a shit job of defending your own, and the best response you can come up with is that I should just MOVE.

The sandbox is that way, if you hurry you might get a few minutes of play time before the special ed teacher calls you in for num-nums and a nap.

At 8/1/08 02:18 PM, fli wrote: Unhealthy people cost the government a lot to aid.

So do homeless people. And people who have contracted the AIDS virus. And the poor and destitute. The wonderful thing about America is you get to pick your poison.

Because, inevitably, the people who totally bitches and rips up on the government for supposedly trying to "control their lives" are the VERY same ones who are costing the government to aid them in their time of need.

And? That's my right as an American.
See: Free market; freedom of speech.

They sue... who helps the businesses who are sued? The government.

We're on the same page, on this particular point. I strongly believe people should be buried in the holes they've chosen to dig.

But there are such things such as MAKING a RIGHT choice too.

And if right for me is double cheeseburgers and a glass of iced lard, that's my business, and not the governments.

Look, no one is standing up for the fantastic benefits of being obese. I, personally, find it disgusting and ugly, for someone to take so little care of themselves. I, personally, believe that people should use common sense when eating fast food. There is absolutely nothing wrong with fast food. Fast food is no worse than a home cooked breakfast of extra-cheese grits, and fried bacon, and eggs. Make a breakfast sandwich at home, with the same ingredients, and it's likely to be just as unhealthy.
What I am standing up for is the right to be obese. And whether you like it or not, a free people in a free country possesses that right. If enough people want it, and there is a restaurant to offer it...more power to them. So what if there's 400 restaurants in the city already? So what if there's four thousand of them? If the restaurant makes sales, it will stay open, and it is just. If it doesn't make sales, it will close. Simple as the words 'free market'.

At 8/2/08 06:47 PM, Proteas wrote:

How is your response any better?

I think the government (Canadian especially due to healthcare system) has a duty to its citizens to protect them and keep them healthy. In a tax free society I could see the gov not giving a rats ass, but here in the real world, this is not the case. Like I said before, good job on her part.

At 8/1/08 05:56 PM, Proteas wrote:

Unless it's Mega City One from Judge Dredd, there's no way it can be so densely populated as to justify that close proximity of restaurants to each other.

I would be inclined to agree. However I don't control a multi-billion dollar fast food chain, so my opinion in the matter is meaningless.

They're turning the town into an open air mall food court, give me a break.

Basically if Mcdonalds owns an acre of property in downtown Los Angeles no one has a right to tell them they can't open a store on that property.
If it is actually to much, then they will go out of business. And other stores will go out of business until they reach the perfect amount.

That's why we love capitalism.

At 8/2/08 04:21 AM, metalstorm wrote: Subways is a fast food restaurant. I also never implied that people who go to fast food restaurants do want to eat healthy. When I go to a fast food restaurant I don't want to eat healthy either but the difference between me and someone who is obese is that I am responsible enough to moderate how much I eat and how often I eat fast food.

Who cares? I don't give a flying one about what a great human being you are.

I'm well aware of this and I never said that fast food restaurants should have to offer healthy alternatives. Although, mind you, the 'smart ones' are.

How is it smart? As we've both acknowledged, salads don't go over well in fast food.

I'd say it would only really be appropriate for the government to intervene in extenuating circumstances and this would include situations where fast-food related obesity is leading to a diversion of tax payers dollars from other places in order to subsidize medical treatment of obese individuals.

AND HERE'S THE PROBLEM.
The problem is that government has stepped in and delegated this role to itself.
There's no tax payer funds at stake without the government offering. This is like me offering to buy you a free lunch then complaining that it was expensive.

And which right would that be? Believe it or not, gluttony is not a right.

Yes. Yes it is.

At 8/2/08 04:23 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: The GOP member, George Bush backing man who left his home country to escape socialism then IMMEDIATELY decided that he loved Nixon because he heard Nixon making a speech in favor of Free Enterprise is a capitalist, yes.

Nixon wasn't a shining capitalist, nor is Bush. Let's not forget Nixon's gas rationing.
So your entire argument is based on the fact that Arnold left an oppressive country and fell in love with a liberal republican to prove your point? You're frigging kidding right?:

Actually, you dishonest asshole, I specifically stated they were limiting free market.

Open challenge Cuppa. Show one time where I've ever been dishonest with you. It's worth 100 bucks if you can do it. Once. Try. And I'd be REAAAAAL shy about calling someone dishonest after the O'Reilly thread....

You start off by saying:

"Free Market" has nothing to do with this.

You go on to argue that fast food joints aren't being screwed...its just that restaurants are being helped! And youre entire point is a refutation of someone talking about how we're abandoning the free market.
Maybe you idn't mean to argue against free markets...but you did.

To anyone who doesn't make a habit about lying to the person they are arguing with, I will repeat my position; no one is arguing that by limiting the free market, this deal will help the state or consumer financially. You can't argue "OMG BUT CAPITALISM ROX", because the entire point of capitalism is it's ability to make more money and sell better products. Maybe if the state thought this plan would somehow help financially, you could explain that capitalism is a better financial decision then government control 100 percent of the time, but since the entire point of the Bill is to achieve a specific, non-financial result capitalism can't offer, that argument doesn't work here. I suggest sticking to the argument that the government is stepping on personal freedoms, again.

So, your basic defense to lying through your teeth is to reiterate that everyone other than you is right? Curious strategy, but I wanna see where you're going with it!

I wouldn't say that too soon. On a point that's totally irrelevant to the topic at hand, opening that many fast food chains is NOT a good idea some times (Key word; sometimes). Starbucks did that without a clue what they where doing, and although it helped that meet opening quotas, it recently started crashing down on them. A new restaurant in the right place may make your company a nice little bit of cash, or it may be padding the President of the companies resume.

Starbucks failed due to bad business decisions, not location. Instead of trying to create the best product, Starbucks tried to bury their competition. Starbucks has gotten no less than 3 boycotts in the past year. There are a lot of reasons for Starbucks failure. Location isn't one of them.

At 8/2/08 04:19 AM, poxpower wrote:

White bread is complete trash, brown bread isn't much better.
Bread as a whole isn't the best thing to eat because it's extremely high in calories and usually high in sugars and poor in pretty much everything.
Unless you get some really grain-filled bread, which is tasty. In fact I want some right now. I will buy this later today.

Whole grain bread is awesome as anything.

The simple truth is that people just eat TOO MUCH, of EVERYTHING except vegetables. Too much meat, too many desserts, too much milk, too much cheese, too much pasta and so on.

Right, so logically fast food should include vegetables and fish.

Don't blame fast foods. In fact fast foods were around a good decade or two before the obesity explosion.

That doesn't mean they haven't made a negative impact, especially on those who travel.

I don't know of one single food that is as good as chocolate or hamburgers and low in calories.

It doesn't exist.

People like red meat, cheese, bread, fried shit. Not carrots and lettuce and soy.

FUCK SOY.

Grilled salmon smothered in lemon chili and brown rice with chocolate mole sauce (okay I just made that up but it sounds awesome) is about as healthy as you can get, but it's amazingly delicious. Almost - almost on par with a porterhouse steak. Almost...

Is Shaggy really your alt?

At 8/1/08 04:46 PM, stranger14 wrote: Unfair to both the people and business. It's and infringement on freedom. If someone wants to eat somthing that they know isn't good for them it's their decision.

but guess who's picking up the tab for all of the medicare/medicaid related obesity/overwieght related health problems? Everyone who is paying taxes. Almost everyone knows too much fast food is bad for you, it's that a lot of people just don't care. Have you seen how much the taxes are on alcohol and tobacco? If the government did this to fast food that would curb a lot of the consumption but I don't agree with that either.

At 8/1/08 02:28 PM, KeithHybrid wrote: No, I'm being sarcastic. Everyone knows that eating McBurger on a regular basis, drinking, smoking, and all that shit will considerably shorten your life, so in a way, it is like killing yourself very slowly.

It's like killing yourself very slowly. Keyword: like.

If your point was that the government would be protecting people from suicide by restricting fast food, you would be mistaken on the basis that eating fast food is not a suicidal behavior, but instead an unhealthy lifestyle choice.

At 8/2/08 03:44 AM, CIX wrote:

At 8/2/08 03:20 AM, metalstorm wrote: It is not the taxpayers responsibility to subsidize irresponsibility.

Which is why welfare should be abolished unless you want a Nanny State.

Well yes, on another note, this is partly true. Welfare needs more restrictions placed upon it, so as to avoid people actually living off of it with no intention of finding work. Sure, you can have it, but either the amount of time you can have it needs to be limited or you need to be able to prove you are searching for work.