Congress Explores Bills to Restrict Fast Food Law Suits

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

The point here isn't whether or not McDonalds should pay for making people fat, that's absurd, the point is that McDonalds LIES to the consumer and deserves to pay for it. You know why you don't see cigarette commercials anymore? Because they were filled with happy, healthy, smiling people. They were perpetuating a lie, and the government clearly called them out on it. Someday, hopefully, the same will go for all things that are unhealthy for you.

---

There's nothing deceitful about an ad that makes McDonald's fries look good, because you know what? They are. And unless I'm mistaken, not every person who eats at McDonald's becomes fat. In fact, I could get fat just as easily by going out to a really nice restaraunt every single day. Does that mean they should warn me I could get fat from their food, too? You don't seem to want honesty in advertising, you want compaines to show people the worst possible scenario, which is ridiculous.

McDonald's provides nutritional information for everything they make. If yo're concerned about what you're eating, then ask for it. If you're not, then quit bitching.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

They don't do this by telling you the negative sides of it, and while that's certainly sound business practice it is morally and (more important) legally questionable. I find it ironic that conservatives want people to be more morally conscious, but corporations can be as amoral and deceptive as they like.

---

...so, what should be done, Mr. Genius- should all fast food advertising be banned? Why not just BAN ALL FATTY FOOD.

I cannot believe that people like you exist- who really feel that people are not responsible for their actions.

I challenge you to go outside right now and find me ONE sane person who actually believes that eating fatty foods is healthy.

Find me ONE sane person who actually thinks that fast food is healthy.


I'd love to live in your little world- where I can do anything and just BLAME SOMEONE ELSE for my problems.



Your opinion has put me in a bad mood. If I should happen to beat someone up during my lunch break- should I sue YOU that? Should the person I beat up sue you for making me hurt them?

I'm going to eat McDonald's for lunch...because IT FUCKING TASTES GOOD! If I wanted to be healthy, I would eat lettuce and water...

I can't believe this nonsense.

Fat people are fat because they can't stop eating and can't go on a proper diet. Fat genes, my ass. Only Samoans can make that claim.

People eat McDonalds, start to get fat an lazy.
They are lazy so they sit watching tv all day, getting fatter.
They then are subjected to hours and hourse of advertising
And of course, known fact, TV makes you stupid, so they are tricked into believing fast food is good
They go back to McDonalds cause they were lied to

Its a vicious cycle!! We must protect our lazy and ignorant from themselves!! We will sue until they can no longer fit through the courtroom door!! Next we take on WHITE CASTLE...cause its what you crave...!

Samoans are cool peoples. The fact that they're all fat makes them that much more lovable. And they're always so damned jolly. It's like they're a race of Santa Clauses . . . but without all the red . . . and in the middle of the Pacific . . . and black.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike

I can't believe this nonsense.

Fat people are fat because they can't stop eating and can't go on a proper diet. Fat genes, my ass. Only Samoans can make that claim.

---

Am I the only one here who grasps that this is not the issue?

I don't think congress should decide who can and can't be liable. It's not their place. Then again I didn't think the supreme court should have chosen the president either, so maybe I'm just old fashioned.

And second of all congress shouldn't HAVE TO draw this line for them. If the court isn't making this distinction then there's a greater problem that needs to be addressed and this bill won't fix it.

I see what you're problem is with this situation, Frog, but I do not agree with it. The companies need protection against this rediculousness, and Congress should be the ones to give it to them.

As conservative as I am, there are things I believe the government needs to get involved in. This is one of them, the "permanent-temp" is another, as well as jobs going overseas.

Though I'll admit my views aren't so strong on that last one.

What...how can you think that congress has any right to make decisions that rule over the judicial system? Isnt why we have a 3 branch goverment in the first place?!

And how can you compare a few fat people wanting to sue huge corporations over the millions of jobs lost overseas!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable

I see what you're problem is with this situation, Frog, but I do not agree with it. The companies need protection against this rediculousness, and Congress should be the ones to give it to them.

---

It's a patchwork fix. If there needs to be a change in the law, it needs to be a redefinition of the burden of liability, and not just a bar on one kind of suit. It's stupid and it won't fix anything.

I agree that if there's a problem with the law, then legislation may be the answer, but not like this. This is just telling them a certian kind of company can't be held liable in a certain kind of case. It's just undermining the legal system's ability to interpret the law, not clarifying the law itself.

The law needs to apply equally to all kinds of companies in the same ways and for the same reasons. It's wildly inappropriate to just give the food industry a waiver instead of letting these things work themselves out by due process. The food industry is not "special". They should be as accountable as anyone else. I don't think companies should be responsible for this kind of common knowledge danger, but that's not just the food industry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mman

What...how can you think that congress has any right to make decisions that rule over the judicial system? Isnt why we have a 3 branch goverment in the first place?!

---

The judicary is responcible for interpreting the law and deciding whether or not the law is constitutional.

It is Congress who makes these laws.

In every law ever created, Congress has essentially told the judicary what to do, or "ruled over it."

That's how our system works. It is the Congress' job to define how the judicary finctions.

Quote:

---

And how can you compare a few fat people wanting to sue huge corporations over the millions of jobs lost overseas!

---

I'm not comparing them. I was saying that even though I am conservative, I could do with a little more involvement from the government on those issues. That doesn't mean the issues are even remotely related. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

It's a patchwork fix. If there needs to be a change in the law, it needs to be a redefinition of the burden of liability, and not just a bar on one kind of suit. It's stupid and it won't fix anything.

---

Ah! I believe we are seeing eye to eye.

Quote:

---

I agree that if there's a problem with the law, then legislation may be the answer, but not like this. This is just telling them a certian kind of company can't be held liable in a certain kind of case. It's just undermining the legal system's ability to interpret the law, not clarifying the law itself.

The law needs to apply equally to all kinds of companies in the same ways and for the same reasons. It's wildly inappropriate to just give the food industry a waiver instead of letting these tings work themselves out by due process.

---

Understood.