Ban Prince Charles; Keep Big Macs!

[theshire]

Did you read that "eco-expert" Prince Charles has launched an attack on the fast-food industry, going as far as to suggest that McDonald's should be banned (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/dietfitness.html?in_article_id=438881&in_page_id=1798)? What rubbish.

For starters, the company's signature "Big Mac" contains fewer calories, fats and salt than some products in his own organic Duchy Originals food range. His Cornish pasty contains 264 calories per 100g compared to the burger's 229 calories, and 5.5g of saturated fat as opposed to the Big Mac's 4.14g.

But it's about more than that. It's about CHOICE! People should be allowed to eat what they want, where they want - and IF McDonald's can attract people with well-priced tasty food, I say good on them. Prince Charles' view on fast food is snobbish and removed from reality. There's nothing wrong with McDonald's food. Maybe we should ban Prince Charles from talking through his backside.

[Mastertank1]

has more fat between his ears than there are in a hundred big macs!

Hey, junk food is like any other drug; let's make ALL of them legal, and if the effects are as bad as the alarmists claim, the problem will correct itself pretty quickly as all those users die off!

And may God protect us all against those who want to protect us against ourselves!

:ranty: :Grrr: :ranty: :Grrr: :ranty: :Grrr: :ranty: :Grrr: :ranty: :Grrr: :ranty: :Grrr: :ranty:

[IrishTickle]

Ah leave him alone. I think it's cute that he's taking after his dad! :D

[amalelee4u]

Big Macs Yay

[DEV]

Ah leave him alone. I think it's cute that he's taking after his dad! :D

You mean pulling funny faces and making insulting remarks about the Chinese? I don't think he's gotten quite that bad yet...

[IrishTickle]

You mean pulling funny faces and making insulting remarks about the Chinese? I don't think he's gotten quite that bad yet...

Give it time, he's young yet :D

[milagros317]

Hey, junk food is like any other drug; let's make ALL of them legal, and if the effects are as bad as the alarmists claim, the problem will correct itself pretty quickly as all those users die off!

And may God protect us all against those who want to protect us against ourselves!


Bravo, I couldn't have said it any better. :D

[red indian]

......what a twat, I hope he never gets the Throne. We should skip a generation or get Princess Anne to do the gig. She has my vote. Charles is a fuckwit.

[Mastertank1]

......what a twat, I hope he never gets the Throne. We should skip a generation or get Princess Anne to do the gig. She has my vote. Charles is a fuckwit.
You blokes know how to deal with over-reaching royalty; didn't you see off the last 'bonnie prince charlie' right smartly when he grew impertinent?
:woot:

[PainTrain]

I despise McDonalds, but you can't just ban them.

[red indian]

......yes, its one of the best kept secrets of the British Monarchy, if they have to be culled or snuffed out for the greater good we do it....no sentiment involved wether its a red hot poker up the arse, or a faked "accident" involving a papparazi persuit of a royal entourage.

[ChosenofMystra]

I despise McDonalds, but you can't just ban them.

Bingo, I can't stand most fast food either (bar Subway) but it should be left to freedom of choice in what people want to do.

[MrMacphisto]

Hey, I'm all in favor of ending the U.K.'s figurehead monarchy. It's about as useless as our electoral college.

[bugman]

has more fat between his ears than there are in a hundred big macs!

Hey, junk food is like any other drug; let's make ALL of them legal, and if the effects are as bad as the alarmists claim, the problem will correct itself pretty quickly as all those users die off!

And may God protect us all against those who want to protect us against ourselves!

:ranty: :Grrr: :ranty: :Grrr: :ranty: :Grrr: :ranty: :Grrr: :ranty: :Grrr: :ranty: :Grrr: :ranty:

Amen brother,amen.:bowing: :bowing: :bowing:

That government which governs least governs best.Thomas Jefferson.

[MrMacphisto]

Amen brother,amen.:bowing: :bowing: :bowing:

That government which governs least governs best.Thomas Jefferson.

The same applies to this bogus War on Terror as well. Less government = Less war.

[bugman]

The same applies to this bogus War on Terror as well. Less government = Less war.

How could we be less at war with radical Islam?And you mentioned Canada as a place to move to,and they dont subscribe to the theory of less government,its becoming a worse nanny state based on the European model then we are.

[MrMacphisto]

How could we be less at war with radical Islam?And you mentioned Canada as a place to move to,and they dont subscribe to the theory of less government,its becoming a worse nanny state based on the European model then we are.

First... We could be less at war with Islam by moving away from foreign oil. Focus on alternative energy and domestic defense.

Second... Which is worse? A government that tries to take care of all of its people with limited success (Canada), or a government that taxes you almost as much but spends most of that money on war and corporate welfare (America).

I'll take Canada over America, and yes, I'm working on the citizenship thing... I just have to finalize getting a job there through my company. That might take a few years, but I'll try to expedite the process as much as I can, I promise... ;)

[Mastertank1]

First... We could be less at war with Islam by moving away from foreign oil. Focus on alternative energy and domestic defense.


Huh? It takes two sides to make peace, but only one determined agressor to make war.
Do you really think the islamic terrorists will leave us alone if we stop buying oil from Islamic states?
They'll just call it a plot to deprive them of financial rsources and hate us worse than ever.
What independance of foriegn oil WILL accomplish is, it will set us free to fight the war on terror without needing to be careful not to offend our Arab "allies" who use part of the money we pay them for oil to support terrorism.

As for Canada; a government that wants to take care of it's people is one thing. One that gives political correctness the force of law and passes laws to protect us against ourselves? No, thank you.
Some of the countryside up there is SOOOOO beautiful though. I adore the Nova Scotian countryside and bowhunting up north in the District of Keewatin, Northwest Territories.

[MrMacphisto]

Huh? It takes two sides to make peace, but only one determined agressor to make war.
Do you really think the islamic terrorists will leave us alone if we stop buying oil from Islamic states?
They'll just call it a plot to deprive them of financial rsources and hate us worse than ever.
What independance of foriegn oil WILL accomplish is, it will set us free to fight the war on terror without needing to be careful not to offend our Arab "allies" who use part of the money we pay them for oil to support terrorism.

Don't you get it? We can't win the War on Terror unless we enlist the help of the Muslims themselves. Until we can get the majority of Middle Eastern governments on our side (Iran included), we can't win this. Therefore, we need to get the hell out of the area and stop funding Israel. Once we do all that, then eventually, we can become friends with them again.

Yes, the terrorists will fight us no matter what, but blowing up their countries doesn't fix anything. It just creates more terrorists.

As for Canada; a government that wants to take care of it's people is one thing. One that gives political correctness the force of law and passes laws to protect us against ourselves? No, thank you.
Some of the countryside up there is SOOOOO beautiful though. I adore the Nova Scotian countryside and bowhunting up north in the District of Keewatin, Northwest Territories.

Canada has plenty of problems, but political correctness is a very small problem compared to America's problems. They aren't being run by the military industrial complex like we are, for one thing.

[drew70]

Mac, exactly what IS this "military industrial complex" you keep ranting about, other than a popular catch phrase from the Ultra Liberal Anti Defense handbook? Without our "complex" as you put it, we'd probably all be speaking German of Farsi by now. But let me guess. You still "support the troops," right? :blaugh:

[Headsnap]

Firstly, I recently took a McJob and I spend a lot of my time washing up (because it's easier than doing anything else and I don't like working on the counter in case someone I know sees me :( ). The substance which collects in the bottom of the tray they use to hold the chips (or "fries" as we're supposed to call them) can only be described as toxic, and contains what must surely be a lethal dose of salt and so much grease it would give you a stroke like, instantaneously. It takes me ages to clean it because it is so caked on, and the grills they use to make the burgers are no better; the grease-traps are always full of nastyness and at the end of the day I always reek of fat. The fact that the food is disgusting plus the fact that they advertise it aggressively means that banning it might not be a bad idea, because although there's the argument that people should have a "choice" there's also a case to be made for some people being too poor or working too long to properly make that choice, and thus the kids and themselves get McDonalds three or four nights a week because it's easier than shopping and cooking. If you'd rather keep the choice then perhaps make healthier foods cheaper or raise the fucking minimum wage to something that people could be reasonably expected to live on (i.e more than 10,000 a year, I've been living on or around that since I left college at 18 and it doesn't work) so they're not working 48 hours a week just to pay the bills.

Secondly this whole American delusion that their stepping in to "save our asses" in World War 2 was some magnanimous act of friendship for which we should be greatful is getting a bit annoying. Lend Lease, friend. You sent us some men and materiele and you were paid handsomely for these goods. Europe owes you nothing. Besides which even if the Federal Government hadn't sold us a few hundred thousand lives the likelihood is it wouldn't have mattered much because let's face it Hitler was gunning for the ethnically inferior Slavs of Russia in a big way, meaning Barbarossa would've likely gone ahead even without American involvement in Europe and failed to the same disastrous extent. Hitler wasn't a war leader, he was a psychopath; the Nazi ideals and pride were far more important to him than anything else, and that's what eventually fucked him and Germany over. If you hadn't "saved" us, the Russians probably would've won the war anyway. Making it more likely that we'd all be speaking Russian.

[Mastertank1]

Don't you get it? We can't win the War on Terror unless we enlist the help of the Muslims themselves. Until we can get the majority of Middle Eastern governments on our side (Iran included), we can't win this. Therefore, we need to get the hell out of the area and stop funding Israel. Once we do all that, then eventually, we can become friends with them again.

Yes, the terrorists will fight us no matter what, but blowing up their countries doesn't fix anything. It just creates more terrorists.



Canada has plenty of problems, but political correctness is a very small problem compared to America's problems. They aren't being run by the military industrial complex like we are, for one thing.
That will NOT happen unless we repeal freedom of worship and make Islam our state religion. Even that will only stop attacks by whichever sect we chose to join. The others will all keep attacking to try to make us convert to their flavor of Islam.

So tell me, can you pinpoint exactly when you stopped recieving any communications from reality?
I'm sure the nice doctors up in Canada can help you regain contact.
Just make sure to take the meds they prescribe.

[Headsnap]

Repeal Christianity as your religion, become Islamic and rule by Sharia law and the fundamentalists will simply call it a ploy to curry favour. The attacks will continue.

Repeal the blind patronage of Israel and the Islamic fundamentalists will eventually destroy Israel. They will also see it as a victory, and think if you can be defeated so easily on one issue then you'll crumble on the others too. The attacks will continue.

Repeal the aggressive foreign policy which chases oil wells and rapes those nations who refuse to sell to you and the economy will suffer. The average American on the street will end up paying too much for petrol, and the Islamic fundamentalists will most likely (as someone has already pointed out) twist it into some ploy to deprive Muslim nations of finances. The attacks will continue.

Repeal every point of policy which the Islamic fundamentalists find objectionable and they will complain that America is a morally bankrupt nation which debases women and worships the dollar. In the eyes of Allah such a nation must be punished. The attacks will continue.

The only way to win the War on Terror is to fight it; normally it would be a case of "kill all they send and eventually they'll stop sending", but there's a new dogma in play which extols death for the cause as some sort of ultimate sacrifice that will land you a bed with 72 virgins in heaven, and thus the attitude has to become "kill all they send until they CAN'T send any more". The battle that the US and it's allies have been brought to is a good old fashioned war of destruction against a fanatical enemy prepared to stand to the last man, and until the governments start realising that and begin to fight it in the spirit that the Islamists do then they'll never get anywhere.

[MrMacphisto]

Mac, exactly what IS this "military industrial complex" you keep ranting about, other than a popular catch phrase from the Ultra Liberal Anti Defense handbook? Without our "complex" as you put it, we'd probably all be speaking German of Farsi by now. But let me guess. You still "support the troops," right? :blaugh:

I had a feeling you knew nothing about the military industrial complex. It's the large group of defense contractors we use to develop our military. Having a large industrial base for the upkeep of defense is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, but the problem is that, by now, it's not the politicians making policy. It's the corporations that profit from war that drag us into war.

Government isn't serving the interests of its people or sincerely protecting us -- we're entering conflicts because the contractors want more of our money. We've seen this kind of thing in the blatant overcharging that the contractors have done to us with the Iraq operation.

Several decades ago, President Eisenhower warned us of the influence of the military industrial complex. His last speech to the nation seemed to be a realization that much of what he had done in office was serving the interests of companies instead of the nation as a whole.

I'm suggesting that most of the War on Terror isn't about national security, but instead, it's a conflict we've intentionally escalated in areas like Iraq, so that warfare remains constant. The country may be going further into debt, but companies like Halliburton are making billions at taxpayers' expense.

Essentially, the war profiteers are running the show, because most of America is too paranoid to realize that Iraq has little to do with our national security at all. Another piece of this puzzle is that our dependence on oil is linked to our dollar's dependence on hegemony in the oil trade. Without most of OPEC trading oil in U.S. dollars, our currency would fall dramatically in value. So, when a nation like Iraq or Iran threatens to switch to the Euro for their oil trade, we move toward removing the government that proposes such a thing. Iraq switched to the Euro for oil trade about a year before we attacked them. Iran mentioned switching to the Euro not long before we started making a big deal about their nuclear program.

In short, this is about war profiteering and dollar hegemony in the oil trade, not terrorism or national security.

If you'd like to know more about all this, read about Ron Paul. He's a member of the House who talks a lot about this stuff, and he's Republican too, so that should at least make it easier for you to suspend your disbelief somewhat. Chuck Hagel is another notable Republican who gets the big picture.

[MrMacphisto]

That will NOT happen unless we repeal freedom of worship and make Islam our state religion. Even that will only stop attacks by whichever sect we chose to join. The others will all keep attacking to try to make us convert to their flavor of Islam.

So tell me, can you pinpoint exactly when you stopped recieving any communications from reality?
I'm sure the nice doctors up in Canada can help you regain contact.
Just make sure to take the meds they prescribe.

You've become rather militant in the last few months. It sounds like you're using the same fallacious logic as the terrorists.

Few Muslim states want to repeal our freedoms. Our enemies are mostly nonconventional fringe groups of extremists. So, attacking countries in a conventional manner (like Iraq) usually doesn't work to our advantage. When we remove governments through warfare, the people who live in these countries feel firsthand the strife and death from our actions. Even though we entered Iraq with noble intentions, you can't expect many Iraqis to see an occupying force in a positive light. Even if our government became dictatorial, how would you feel if the Russians came in and overthrew our government? Would you help them rebuild America to their designs, or would you fight them with the hope of removing them from your land?

Regardless of how illogical and insane the insurgency looks to us, occupying forces will always be subject to attacks. Extremists can easily convert people that are ignorant or desperate to their side. By staying in Iraq, we're only postponing the inevitable: all-out civil war. As sad as it might be, Iraq will need a civil war to settle things properly. This will happen as soon as we leave, regardless of whether it's today or 10 years from now. So, essentially, we're just wasting money and lives right now for a country destined for civil war.

And yes, Iran may likely take over Iraq when we leave, but is that such a bad thing? So many Americans act like Iran is the most evil country on Earth, but in truth, they do have one of the more stable governments in the region. We may not like their politics or their president's harsh rhetoric for Israel, but in the end, it is just words. The Ayatollah isn't stupid enough to attack Israel. He knows what kind of retaliation would come about if he did.

If Iran takes over Iraq, then it's basically just a matter of handing a massive burden over to them that will likely handicap their progress in making nukes. Look at how much money we're having to spend on Iraq right now. Now, think about how much harder such expenses will be for a nation with a fraction of our money.

Afghanistan was one of the few cases where a conventional attack worked, but that was also one of the few cases where the government was truly a terror state. Saddam was a brutal dictator, but he was only a threat to his own people, not us.

More warfare in the Middle East will only make it easier for terror to spread, since war-ravaged areas are far more vulnerable to extremism than most countries in their current state. Fighting terror takes a very different approach from the current one used.

[MrMacphisto]

The only way to win the War on Terror is to fight it; normally it would be a case of "kill all they send and eventually they'll stop sending", but there's a new dogma in play which extols death for the cause as some sort of ultimate sacrifice that will land you a bed with 72 virgins in heaven, and thus the attitude has to become "kill all they send until they CAN'T send any more". The battle that the US and it's allies have been brought to is a good old fashioned war of destruction against a fanatical enemy prepared to stand to the last man, and until the governments start realising that and begin to fight it in the spirit that the Islamists do then they'll never get anywhere.

So, your answer to dealing with a fringe group is to blow up the countries involved, regardless of how much collateral damage is involved? That's a great recipe for terror recruitment, my friend.

[Headsnap]

So, your answer to dealing with a fringe group is to blow up the countries involved, regardless of how much collateral damage is involved? That's a great recipe for terror recruitment, my friend.

Fringe group? Singularly they might be fringe groups, but put enough fringe groups together and you've got yourself a credible threat.

As far as working with the Muslim communities to solve the problems they tried that in Britain. It doesn't work, because the Muslims see themselves as being "victims" (whilst the cuntbags who preach anti-Western sentiment and call for attacks on British citizens live well off our welfare system until we eventually get our finger out and deport/ jail them).

So, if even moderate Muslims are becoming less receptive to working alongside us Infidels to sort out the mess we're in, what other option are we leaving ourselves but to fight a war of destruction?

[MrMacphisto]

Fringe group? Singularly they might be fringe groups, but put enough fringe groups together and you've got yourself a credible threat.

As far as working with the Muslim communities to solve the problems they tried that in Britain. It doesn't work, because the Muslims see themselves as being "victims" (whilst the cuntbags who preach anti-Western sentiment and call for attacks on British citizens live well off our welfare system until we eventually get our finger out and deport/ jail them).

So, if even moderate Muslims are becoming less receptive to working alongside us Infidels to sort out the mess we're in, what other option are we leaving ourselves but to fight a war of destruction?

Here's an idea. STOP LETTING IN MUSLIMS.

I'm aware of the problems that the U.K. faces with Islamic extremists. Yet, all you have to do is stop letting Muslims immigrate there. Yes, it would be construed as racist policy, but you have to be upfront about these things. The message should be clear: "I'm sorry, but your community is too much of a liability to continue to allow to immigrate to our country, and if you want this policy to change, you will have to eliminate the extremism among your own communities." If this causes more extremism to occur, then you just find a nice remote island to deport the troublemakers to.

Yes, it's not a very polite or democratic way of dealing with the problem, but it's one of the few ways you can fix it.

War isn't the answer, but immigration control and deportation sometimes are.

You also have the advantage of being a pair of islands. You can cover your borders better than a country like America can. Our situation forces us to be more "creative" (so to speak) with immigration issues. Putting up a wall next to Mexico would cost too much....