McDonald's versus the Busy Body PC Police

Originally posted by justadood
am i the only one who finds it humorous to read so-called 'conservatives" defending a major multi-national corporation as if it had the right to be equal to an actual citizen?


McDonald's is not your friend, rubes.

What you find humorous is that conservatives are willing to defend freedom equally and without any qualifications of who is worthy of it. You people can hopelessly make this all about corporatism all you want. The fact of the matter is that I authored a thread here, offering sound strategies in how to reign in corporatism, but you Marxist sycophants had no interest what-so-ever in discussing that, because in the end, rubes like you don't want to put an end to corporatism, you just want to complain and complain and complain.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

my friend, did you refuse to proceed our discuss? i don't see the least sense to re-post from there or to rewrite

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I'm sorry, but your entire response is an epic failure.

You don't even need to fight for the freedom of McDonald's. They OWN YOU and the other cattle that eat at their restaurants.

You DO need to fight for the freedom of the people to reject GMOs and fast food.

reply to post by The Sword

I'm sorry, but your entire response is an epic failure.

Declaring another persons argument an "epic failure" without even an attempt to explain how is hardly a victory. Reliance on logical fallacies as a method of propaganda and sloganeering only demonstrates why the Age of Enlightenment is long over.

You don't even need to fight for the freedom of McDonald's. They OWN YOU and the other cattle that eat at their restaurants.

More sloganeering? Your aversion to freedom is infinitely more sickening than the crap McDonald's serves as food. Your advocacy of tyranny is far, far, more offensive than McDonald's advertising campaigns. Your disgust for the rights of individuals to make their own decisions, is putrid and odious, and only makes McDonald's seem like gourmet dining when compared to the crap you serve.

You DO need to fight for the freedom of the people to reject GMOs and fast food.

Who do you think you're kidding? While you hide behind the fraudulence of anti-McDonald's as if you are somehow fighting the good fight, you have nary a word to say about the FDA and their tyranny, while the FDA spends its resources protecting the very corporations you claim to revile, denying companies who serve natural and organic foods the right to label them as non-GMO foods.

www.naturalnews.com...

www.rawstory.com...

www.organicconsumers.org...

You're a poser, who does not have any concern for freedom, nor the rights of the people, and all you want to do is engage in your doublespeak.

Originally posted by SarK0Y
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

my friend, did you refuse to proceed our discuss? i don't see the least sense to re-post from there or to rewrite

This topic of this thread is busy body people who think they have the right to abrogate and derogate the rights of others through intimidation and legal maneuvers.

It is not a thread about communism. If you want to sell communism do so, but I am not going to engage in that discussion in this thread.

What I am concerned with is the notion that people think they have the right to use the legal system to dictate how business can operate regarding something as simple and as innocuous as toys in a Happy Meal.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

What I am concerned with is the notion that people think they have the right to use the legal system to dictate how business can operate regarding something as simple and as innocuous as toys in a Happy Meal.

I agree, one that comes to mind is prayer in schools. It's too late this morning to think of others and there are many others, not all are bad, good laws have been passed as a result of true grassroots movements. This organization is not grassroots by any means.

Thanks for this thread and great information you are posting.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

What I am concerned with is the notion that people think they have the right to use the legal system to dictate how business can operate regarding something as simple and as innocuous as toys in a Happy Meal.

Ya, this is what it boils down to for me...

Those of us who DO advocate interference by governance and government; we have to be very careful about what we advocate. I am with many of you who think that a corporate world can be tyrannical in a way that we have yet to see thus far, at the same time we should need to ensure that we do not become the tyrants or advocate ideological double standards.

I very much enjoyed my Happy Meals as a child, I enjoyed the toy and the games on the box. I don't think it is anybodies business.... because it is the parent's business - it is up to the parent to be the parent. Happy Meals ADDED to my life and brought me joy - even though I am extremely anti corporate in some instances, this particular cause is bogus. The word "innocuous" certainly sums it up for me - My liberal friends, we should be
permissive of all sorts of things, if people are not suffering, being neglected at mass or injured we should
let choice be left untouched as much as possible. be selective This is not the case of this case so I suggest you rethink your positions.

reply to post by Janky Red

Those of us who DO advocate interference by governance and government; we have to be very careful about what we advocate. I am with many of you who think that a corporate world can be tyrannical in a way that we have yet to see thus far, at the same time we should need to ensure that we do not become the tyrants or advocate ideological double standards.

I would love nothing more than to see an end put to corporatism, and I firmly believe that the legal fictions of corporations are antithetical to a free market system. That said, while we are here now stuck in the muck and mire of corporatism, we should all be vigilant on how that corporatism endeavors to eradicate our rights.

It should not be lost on anyone that the CSPI is an organization that is every bit as much a legal fiction as any corporation is, and also exists by grant of charter. Far from being anti-corporate, the CSPI has embraced the corporate model and uses it as their organizational strategy to raise money and profit off of that fund raising. The difference between they and McDonald's is that the CSPI has no regard for yours, or mine personal choice, and McDonald's spends millions of dollars every year in advertising revenue attempting to convince you to choose them for your dining needs.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Right back at you, pal.

Your words are meaningless.

Do tell me, what other insults are you going to come up with next?

The toys are there to get the parents to going to mac’s. They know the parents will be there getting there supersized meals. It’s not about getting the kid there at all. BTW my kids are grown up and don’t go there anymore – until they have kid who want to

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

What I am concerned with is the notion that people think they have the right to use the legal system to dictate how business can operate regarding something as simple and as innocuous as toys in a Happy Meal.

you completely missed point what others had highlighted mcdonalds food's been being proved-dangerous by practice for 20+ yrs. no one has rights to manipulate children to buy so harmful sh!t. or, perhaps, we must allow to run drug ads too because you & the likes of you have had so religious faith after free markets?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by justadood
am i the only one who finds it humorous to read so-called 'conservatives" defending a major multi-national corporation as if it had the right to be equal to an actual citizen?


McDonald's is not your friend, rubes.

What you find humorous is that conservatives are willing to defend freedom equally and without any qualifications of who is worthy of it.

hmmmm... not to long ago there was indeed a qualification between actual living citizens and corporations, but the `so-called conservatives`made sure that now major multi-national corporations ARE citizens. How fascist.

You people can hopelessly make this all about corporatism all you want.

`you people`` yes, always a great way to show your broad, sweeping generalizations.


The fact of the matter is that I authored a thread here, offering sound strategies in how to reign in corporatism, but you Marxist sycophants had no interest what-so-ever in discussing that, because in the end, rubes like you don't want to put an end to corporatism, you just want to complain and complain and complain.

lol. Yeah, i`m a `marxist``. what an ignorant,baseless statement

just another other ridiculous epithets to throw around instead of admitting you support a corporate state.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by justadood
am i the only one who finds it humorous to read so-called 'conservatives" defending a major multi-national corporation as if it had the right to be equal to an actual citizen?


McDonald's is not your friend, rubes.

What you find humorous is that conservatives are willing to defend freedom equally and without any qualifications of who is worthy of it.

hmmmm... not to long ago there was indeed a qualification between actual living citizens and corporations, but the `so-called conservatives`made sure that now major multi-national corporations ARE citizens. How fascist.

You people can hopelessly make this all about corporatism all you want.

`you people`` yes, always a great way to show your broad, sweeping generalizations.

The fact of the matter is that I authored a thread here, offering sound strategies in how to reign in corporatism, but you Marxist sycophants had no interest what-so-ever in discussing that, because in the end, rubes like you don't want to put an end to corporatism, you just want to complain and complain and complain.

lol. Yeah, i`m a `marxist``. what an ignorant,baseless statement

just another other ridiculous epithets to throw around instead of admitting you support a corporate state.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by SarK0Y
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

my friend, did you refuse to proceed our discuss? i don't see the least sense to re-post from there or to rewrite

This topic of this thread is busy body people who think they have the right to abrogate and derogate the rights of others through intimidation and legal maneuvers.

hmmm, i think maybe you need to read your own article over again. Because all this is about is using the power of the government (an extension of the people in a Democracy) to regulate the corporations who prey on us.

It`s only the Corporations and their apologists like you who think this somehow restricts `freedom`. orproate apologists always claim that corporations are merely benign citizens. Educated people know that Democracy is good. Fascists think the corporate state is good.

reply to post by justadood

hmmmm... not to long ago there was indeed a qualification between actual living citizens and corporations, but the `so-called conservatives`made sure that now major multi-national corporations ARE citizens. How fascist.

Perhaps this vague and obtuse remark is in reference to the Citizen's United ruling, it is not clear, because...well, because you seem to lack any skills in communication to make it clear, but it is a common mistake by anti-capitalists to first equate corporatism with capitalism, and then to more recently rely upon the Citizen's United ruling to scream that conservatives have ruled that corporations are people. The fact of the matter is that long before the ruling of Citizen's United, the Uniform Commercial Code, (U.C.C.), defined corporations as a person:

(27) "Person" means an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality, public corporation, or any other legal or commercial entity.

www.law.cornell.edu...

The CSPI also falls under this definition, but this is a fact you will ignore, in order to play your propaganda game.

`you people`` yes, always a great way to show your broad, sweeping generalizations.

Lol! You make this remark in response to this that I said:

You people can hopelessly make this all about corporatism all you want.

Far from being a "broad sweeping generalization, it is addressing you and others in this thread who keep ignoring certain facts in order to make argue that this thread is about corporatism. You are not alone in this regard, thus, you people is appropriate.

lol. Yeah, i`m a `marxist``. what an ignorant,baseless statement

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and acts like a duck...

just another other ridiculous epithets to throw around instead of admitting you support a corporate state.

I don't see you advocating the end of corporate charters. I, on the other hand, have not only advocated this in this thread, I have created a separate thread, written several months ago, offering sound legal strategies in how to kill corporations. You, on the other hand, offer up no constructive suggestions in how to end the corporate state, and instead advocate policies that have demonstrably led to the corporate state, continue to empower the corporate state, while weakening individual rights.

What a poser.

reply to post by justadood

hmmm, i think maybe you need to read your own article over again. Because all this is about is using the power of the government (an extension of the people in a Democracy) to regulate the corporations who prey on us.

My own article? If by this language you mean the O.P., you are quite obviously mistaken, as the O.P. is not in anyway about using the power of the government to regulate corporations "who prey on us". If by "your own article" you mean the link I provided in the O.P., which is a press release put out by the CSPI, again you are quite obviously mistaken, as I did not write that press release.

Further, the government the CSPI intends to use is The United States government which is a republic established to keep the tyranny of democracy in check. The CSPI is not interested in anything other than self promotion, and again, in this particular instance, they have chosen to demand that toys be removed from Happy Meals, as a method of self promotion.

It`s only the Corporations and their apologists like you who think this somehow restricts `freedom`. orproate apologists always claim that corporations are merely benign citizens. Educated people know that Democracy is good. Fascists think the corporate state is good.

Again, you gleefully advocate policies that would limit the personal choices of individuals and hide behind empty rhetoric, neither truly being against the corporate state, nor in defense of any individual, you are the most insidious of petty tyrants, the kind that hides behind flaccid dialog, and pretense. No reasonable thinker will fall for your empty words.

Whether there are toys in the meals or not, it is still on the shoulders of the parents to decide whether to buy them.

That said, they could put the keys to a child-sized firetruck, that is set to take the driver straight to Elmos' house to have tea with the Teletubbies and I wouldn't buy that crap to give to a child.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2f1f9731920d.jpg[/atsimg]

Recently out of convenience and being on the road, I actually got one of their breakfast meals for the first time in many years.

It came out faster than it went in.

Never again.

- Lee

Even if we don't ban toys in Happy Meals, do we really want our children playing with junk made in China? What if that junk has lead in it?

Don't get me wrong. I grew up in a household where McDonald's was a treat on the weeks that my father got paid. It's just that as an adult, I can't stand their food anymore because I've had real burgers made with locally-raised beef that's not treated with hormones, etc.

mcodonalds is disgusting and moany of you have seen this picture already but this is what mcdonalds burger and fries look like after 6 months of sitting on a shelf.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e79efb9de400.jpg[/atsimg]

disinfo.s3.amazonaws.com...

If there are any questions about whether CSPI is altruistic in their endeavors, this should go a long way toward answering them. It is a requirement of their "settlement demand" to Viacom and Kellogg, in a 2006 lawsuit.

Payment of $1 billion by Viacom and $1 billion by Kellogg in settlement of all claims for damages against the Companies by plaintiffs and Class members

www.cspinet.org...

But, it's about the children....