Not just "corporate america", but WHITE corporate america. Watch out for whitey, he's everywhere!

Ronald McDonald does not have a captive audience. Sure, some parents plant their kids in front of the TV during kids programs--but that is hardly government mandated like schools.

Hmm...let's see. A situation where parents could interject whatever wisdom they see as appropriate (kid in front of TV) versus a situation where parents are not present and the kids are at the mercy of a single adult (classroom). Kids eventualy learn that advertising is just that...and it colors their view of the past. Do kids really ever learn that grade-school teachers are flawed individuals--who may have got into education for the sole purpose of indoctrinating a whole generation? Probably not.

Thanks, appreciation by a genius always makes my day. So let's see, you left wing socialists believe in personal freedom. You also beleive that anybody who doesn't see it your way should be forced into submission. No wonder you're frustrated. See my post on "this is your brain on liberalism."

See, that is why kids have parents. We'll, most of em do.
I suppose there are places in some cities where the kids are lucky to have one parent.
Anywho, parents have a job to do, and that is to raise kids. They teach kids, they make decisions for kids until they are old enough to make decisions for themselves.

If the parents do their job then mcdonalds really isn't an issue, is it?
There is absolutely nothnig wrong with mcdonalds or their food or their marketting. NOTHING!

They offer a product. The consumer either buys the product or does not. They have that choice. The reason that there are so mant mcdonalds out there and the reason they sell so many french fries and burger and shakes is ....... (drum roll) BECAUSE PEOPLE LIKE THAT PRODUCT!

I suppose if someone was too stupid to be capable of making a reasonable decision, they he would have reason to be threatened by mcdonalds' marketting. (see above when refencing children, they have parents).
Sounds to me like there isn't a problem with mcdonalds but there may be a problem with parents. duh.

Back to this vegan nutcase:
Kids have to be in school. The wacko teachers have them as captives. The parents are not there to make sure the wackos don't try and turn the kids into wackos (besides that's reserved for college professors, ref. berkeley). The school administrators have a responsibilty to make sure the kids are not exposed to wackos at school. Outside the school it's the parent's job.

Sammy, while I agree with the majority of your posts and this one in particular, something has happened to your writing since yesterday's threads on punctuation and dumb people acting smart.

Wow, they serve McDonalds at this school? With advertisements in classrooms and textbooks?! Wow, that's $200M well spent!:rolleyes:

OR, as usual, your arguments are irrelevant at best. Eating at McDonalds is a choice, just like deciding to be a pretentious condescending vegan. As previously mentioned, kids are captive in school, and their curriculum doesn't include one of your fellow cult members pushing his flawed lifestyle.

:D

I'm glad we both agree that "Intelligent Design" has no place in schools then. Well-put.

Interesting. Conservatives love to talk about government staying out of their lives. I agree with this, but I go to bars and occasionally some male will become more than friendly with me. It doesn't usually happen anymore since I've been dating Olivia, but here's the point: Conservatives hate gay marriage. WHY? Why would you care what goes on in some other guys' sexual business?

The government says that those guys' life is fine, as long as they don't marry. Hello? That's an open invitation to unlimited sexual conquest, a hedonistic life that has no consequences. But the REAL reason it that it goes against what the "bible" states is correct. Well, we live in a secular country, so the bible sould mean as much as the latest Steven King novel, and as such these religious-based rules need to be removed from our modern rules and mores. We live in a secular society, and all religions are tolerated. This in turn means that NONE can be officially sanctioned...and as such in all should be kept from Public places.

Most gay men are wealthy, in my experience. They don't have wives and kids and college educations to pay for... they all drive Mercedes Benz's as a result. At least that's what my gay neighbors all drive. I feel like I'm slumming when I drive my Porsche 928 out of the neighborhood! For what it is worth, all the gays in the neighborhood are very nice, and they do a GREAT job of keeping their yard good.

N!

-If I could change the law, I would allow them to marry. And allow them to divorce too, with the same laws. Basically, I'd treat them the same as me. Wait a minute...isn't that what the US Constitution dictates?

Tangent much? Must.....resist......argument....................

Prove Darwinism to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, and I'll concede. Remember, fact = PROVEN. I really don't care anyway, I'm sending my kids to Catholic school.:p

We live in a secular society.

N!

OK then. How about:

"Don't eat anything that didn't used to have a butthole".

No plant I know of has one of those. And if your 'tater chips have a poop-chute your'e eating the wrong brand.

How about, if that's how you want to live then good for you.

My only problem with saying "eat whatever you want and live your life however you want", is that the rest of us - the ones that DO put a little extra emphasis onto being healthy, exercising, taking care of ourselves, etc. STILL have to bear the cost of the "I'll-do-whatever-I-damn-well-please" morons that want to pork out on McRibs every night and think sitting on the couch watching football is somehow exercise.

We ALL still get screwed by higher health insurance costs. I've read some things in recent months about some insurance companies FINALLY starting to offer lower policy rates for people who are willing to take physicals every so often, who have (and use) gym memberships, who have low-meat or vegetarian diets, etc. It's progress and a step in the right direction, but it's crust-of-the-earth-cooling slow and in the meantime, those of us that do a little more than average to care for ourselves still end up bearing the costs of Joe Six-Pack's fourth bypass surgery though our premiums.

Well Jeff, that's all the more reason why the gov't. shouldn't have anything to do with running healthcare. Maybe insurace companies can start separate, low-cost plans for people who take care of themselves. Life insurers require policy holders to be non-smokers. In fact, Fairfax Co. Police require all their employees to be non-smokers for health insurance reasons. Probably saves some money.

I totally agree with you - but the problem is the insurance companies aren't. At least most of them aren't, and the few that are are doing it WAY too slowly. In the meantime, this crap costs everyone BILLIONS a year.

Yea, I think I remember reading about that - there's some lawsuit pending as well over an employee that was let go after they refused to quit smoking (the company had adopted a "non-smokers only" policy in order to cut premium costs). I'll see if I can find the article.

Stuff like that is out there, and there is definitely concern among SOME of our population with respect to healthier choices and lower premiums, but it really bugs me to see those of us that put the time and effort into trying to be "ahead of the pack" with respect to our lifestyles and dietary choices being ridiculed for it and then (as a double kick-in-the-ass) having to pay for everyone else's stupidity.

In a perfect world I totally, 100% agree with you, I'd take all the government intervention out of it and let the free market sort it out, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Jeff, at some point the insurance market will sort it out, because they can make more money. Higher premiums for obesity and other health risks are inevitable. The last thing we need is goverrnment intervention.

Further, this argument applies to nearly everything in our society. Taxpayers pay more because of those that don't. Auto insurance customers pay more to cover costs due to uninsured motorists. Medical costs are higher due to the uninsured. Etc, it's not unique to health and nutrition. The obvious solution is having everyone pull their own weight, but in this day of no personal responsibility, it's not going to happen.

As much as I defend our "free" healthcare in Canada, this is a point that I find difficult to ignore. My wife and I work hard to eat & live well. Other people ignore every conceivable message about exercize, diet, smoking etc... and we foot the bill.

On the other hand, most of my doctor/hosptial visits have been the result of doing stupid things in the garage, on ladders, underneath cars. People could argue that I'm acting irresponsibly, and not footing the bill.

Whole different thread, I guess.

As for the question at hand, I can understand arguing vehemently against McDonalds being in schools. I know I would be against it.

But as a teacher, his role is not to oversee such things. He is to show up & teach, end of story. If he feels it is his responsibility as a moral being, then he does so at the risk of losing his job.

I never get sick. Should people with weaker genetics be penalized?

If you have weaker genetics that cause you a pre-existing condition while shopping for health insurace, well good luck then. You'll need it. There's nothing fair about how insurance works. Part of it is supposed to be that way, as we all hope we'll never need it, but pay for it no matter what, in case we do need it. The problem is with folks who don't pay anything for it because they know they'll be treated no matter what or, worse yet, sue those only with deep pockets, looking for jackpot justice, as those fat kids did against McD's. Those who need insurance more than others are made up for by the vast majority of us who use less of the insur. money pool or at least use it far less frequently or after we've paid plenty of premiums.