It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Cheeseburger Bill passes 276-139

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 04:56 PM
personally, I'd like to see them prove it was the cheeseburger from the fast food resturant that made them fat, and not the pint of ice cream, bag of potato chips, sodas, 5 bowls of cereal, the large pizza, or the 3 candy bars......

just like I'd like to see them prove that it was the second hand smoke that gave the person cancer and not the auto exhaust, the fabric softeners, nail polish remover, the perfumes, hair perms, ect. ect. ect. ect!!!

posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 05:10 PM

Originally posted by RANT
How about a bill to block frivolous legislation?

Just because the media creates a controversy reporting on every knuckle brained lawsuit that gets throw out of court, doesn't mean we limit the right to sue corporations then cheer like we just won the lottery.

True to an extent, but if at first you don’t succeed, sue, sue again. How many tobacco lawsuits will we have? How many times can a fast food company be sued for some fatty eating too much before we sue it right out of business?

There should be, nay, MUST be some limitation on this overly-litigious society of ours.

Ask yourself how many times you’ve been tailgated and thought of hitting your brakes and suing to teach the guy a lesson? How many lawsuits do we read about PER DAY?

Google news gives 31,000 hits for “lawsuit.”

And, the wording of the legislation contradicts this notion of yours:

Originally posted by RANT
And that's what just happened here. We listened to the media manufactured nontroversy saying "these cases are out of control" then said please Government protect McDonalds from us, we're morons, we don't deserve the right to sue.

Not the right to sue, just not the right to sue on the grounds that “we didn’t know this burger would make us fat.”

I get your point RANT, and you are right to some extent. Spot on judgment and something I will consider more in the future; however, as has been said many times here, you are still perfectly capable of suing Wendy over her striking resemblance to Pippi Longstocking, or going after the Burger King’s fortune because he scares your kids at night, or even taking old Hamburglar to court cause he stole your happy meal.

In fact, why don’t you sue them for lobbying to get this legislation passed.

BTW, RANT, nontroversy???? Is that yours? Was that on purpose? Regardless, it should be immediately entered into the lexicon. In fact, for that one, perfect word alone, I’ll be your servant for the next 60 seconds.

posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 09:17 PM

Originally posted by Hamburglar
BTW, RANT, nontroversy???? Is that yours? Was that on purpose? Regardless, it should be immediately entered into the lexicon. In fact, for that one, perfect word alone, I’ll be your servant for the next 60 seconds.

Not mine sadly, but I did submit it to somewhere official looking a while back as a new use of language. They never responded. Though it very well could have been a McDonald's drive thru the way I used to drink.

We're up to #3 on Google though and 123 uses have been added since I last checked. Been pushing it a while.

Web Results 1 - 10 of about 126 for nontroversy. (0.15 seconds)

Did you mean: controversy

Nelson's Weblog: culture / nontroversy
Nice neologism on MetaFilter today: nontroversy. As in "Johnny Depp's criticism of the US being like a dumb puppy is a nontroversy". ... weblog/culture/nontroversy.html - 13k - Cached - Similar pages

USU Utah State University News, Commentary & Satire ...
Homecoming Dance Nontroversy. It was off, then on again but changed. Last week the Statesman reported that due to a lack of interest the Homecoming dance ... 09/homecoming-dance-nontroversy.html - 27k - Cached - Similar pages

Try this on google... - Above Top Secret Conspiracy Community
Okay, Like I Use The word "nontroversy" once in a while and continuously check google for ... - 51k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages

Thanks for your support.

posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 09:56 PM

Originally posted by Indy
jammerman would you feel the same if you found that the milk you serve your family has a chemicle additive in it that ended up causing severe illnesses in your family including death but you were unable to seek damages from the producers because the government had stepped up to protect them? The milk thing is a hypothetical situation. You have no idea what kind of stuff is being put in the food you purchase for your family every week. If someone has done something wrong and harmed you by accident or design you have the right to seek damages. They do not have a right to a profit regardless of the cost to the consumers. They are accountable for what they sell. If they put a lable on it that says "this product contains ingredient x and it is harmful to you" and you still eat it then its your fault. Since you really have no idea what is in the food you eat that shouldn't be the case.

Point taken. Your example is (ironically) probably not far from the truth. My family only drinks organic milk without growth hormones, or other additives to the milk producing conditions of the cows. Is there any hard evidence that growth hormones in milk are harmful in chronic exposure? No. Will I expose my family to the risk to save a few dollars? No again.

Acute toxicity from a chemical additive is different than a natural food (fat) that will cause obesity through chronic use. People need to start taking more responsibility for themselves and also accept that sometimes the world just isn't fair.



top topics
<< 1   >>

log in