Mr. Cavuto sums up the way I feel about things as of late. http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,71247,00.html The McDonald's lawsuit got me thinking about something grander than the Golden Arches: The government and what it should and shouldn't do. I think it was Gerald Ford who once said in a television debate, a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take away everything you have. My fear is that bit by bit, lawsuit by lawsuit, taxing claim by taxing claim, the government is taking something away from us every day: sometimes clearly, oftentimes insidiously, but always consistently. It gets bigger and bigger, despite clarion calls to make it smaller and smaller. It makes the decisions many of us are afraid to. It tells us what to eat. It tells us what to drive. It takes our money and decides how to spend it. We are given lip service, but we pay the ever-increasing bills for its service. It means well, but it taxes much. It talks of our interests, but it feeds its interests. It clamors for the rights of all, but feeds the causes of a few. We expect friendly handouts, but we see greasy palms out. The government tells us it's not our fault, when it is. We tell the government it's the solution, when it is not. Life is a series of choices. We make them, not the government. Just as we should enjoy the fruits of the good moves we make, we should take the lumps for the bad moves we make. Government shouldn't make jerks whole, or lawyers rich. It should let people think, make up their own minds, take their own hits and enjoy their own successes. We teach our kids that there are no short cuts in life. Yet we have a government that aims to shelter all from the cold, hard realities of life.
Are there any short Foxnews op pieces that you do not find "really good." Short + Fox = birlliant? One thing I don't get: why is it the gov'ts fault that eight private citizens are suing McDonalds? Did Jr. decide this was a great way to get back at Clinton? All of these lawsuits have little to do with government, IMO, it has more to do with selfish, me-first, greedy, etc culture and people that comprise this country.
I post two articles by Mr. Cavuto that I found partcularly in line with my views and all of a sudden I am given some smartass equation. Ref thread + rimbaud= quantum leap in logic Since the courts are an arm of government...if they allow a judgment against the company to stand, it will be government allowing it. It would, in effect, be government telling us what to eat...because McDonald's certainly would not be able to afford to stay in business...not with all those fat kids suing. Personally...were I McDonald's...I'd interplead Nintendo, Sega, and any other game manufacturer out there. After all without the games, little Johnny would get up off his fat ass and go play outside, right?
Regardless of the outcome of the McD case, the Republic will survive. Whether it can survive the following is a much more important question. http://www.darpa.mil/iao/
Ref: I think you would lend a little more credibility to your "this is a really great story/column" posts if you actually read stories or columns from a source other than Fox. There are hundreds of news sources available on the internet and some of them might even be unbiased!
That is part of what Mr. Cavuto is talking about. The government has gotten so large that it can take EVERYTHING from you. As to the McDonald's case...I maintain that if it is successful it sets a dangerous precedent. People won't be allowed to sell burgers, fries, etc etc anymore due to certain legal liability. A good point on this was brought up yesterday. How many people would be suing if McDonald's didn't sell food to anybody over 160 pounds?
I'm really not concerned with whether or not you or any other individual poster thinks this is somehow not credible because he works for News Corp. Personally I couldn't care less who Mr. Cavuto works for. People obviously see that it is from Fox and disregard the substance of the article. Let me sum it up. The government can take your freedoms from you. They claim they won't...but they do. They are trying to make it so that you can't have an SUV. They very well might tell you that you can't eat fast food anymore through a civil judgment rendered by courts. They will take your information in the name of safety. How much is too much? Personally I think we hit that point a few years back...but that's just my opnion. Good premise, eh? Nah...of course not...it'd only be good if came from someplace other than Fox.
My point is that the current media configuration is content to whip things up like the McD case at the expense of the important stuff. The anecdotal over the substantial. The ephemeral over the critical. Bread and Circuses. (Admittedly, I fall for it quite a bit.)
Oh man, I am still laughing. I didn't know you were so paranoid Ref, chill out. There's no way in hell these fattys are gonna win this case. Do you really believe that Govt is taking away your SUV? They can't outlaw a car, they can just raise the standards. Is that bad, forcing the car companies to make cleaner and more effecient cars? There's a new hybrid Ford Escape coming out soon that gets like 40 miles to the gallon. Why can't they build on that and expand to the Explorer, Expedition, and Excursion? Well, I shouldn't tease, we are the same except you look at the Govt as a source of people with "evil" agendas and mysterious people who want to mess up your life. I, on the otherhand, view big businesses that way. I think we are both wrong.
Agreed. It gets ratings. I can see the relevance though. An arm of the government - the courts - have agreed to entertain this action. What would the result be, and how would the business (and cultural) landscape change should this case result in a judgment? Everybody does...because it's a story and it borders on the ridiculous.
Hey Ref, being you are a lawyer, you could answer this. Since the courts are entertaining this case, if they find McD not responsible, wouldn't that set a precedent that could end lots of frivilous law suites before they start?
And nobody thought a woman would win $32M because she spilled coffee in her lap. The point is that nobody can predict what a judge and a jury might do. Actually I'm all for it. But the problem is that once the standards are so high the companies won't be able to make an SUV that will comply. When the gov raised the standards for passenger cars, it made it so that you had to have a truck or SUV in order to tow a boat. What if we do away with SUVs now? BTW...the state of California is trying to impose a $3,000 a year tax for owning an SUV. They can...but like anything else that is worth doing it will take time. The technology isn't there yet. It is my fear that the technology won't be able to keep pace with the edicts of government. To each his own. I can see where you might think that. I don't agree but yours is a reasonable view. To be perfectly honest...this is the smartest thing I have ever seen posted here.
Keep your SUV! Or, better yet, trade it in for a new Ford Escape. here's a chicken mcnugget- http://www.wvec.com/news/local/mcchicken_head_inspection.htm a succesful lawsuit against McDonald's http://www.greenconsumerguide.com/news587.html another lawsuit against Mickey D's http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/pretrial/defence/environment.html The total information access by the government is a window into your life to determine whether or not you are a threat to the government or the citizens of the nation. Nothing is private, which can only affect you if you break or plan on breaking the law. It's a little scary if you think the government is capable of enforcing unjust laws or if you value your privacy. Otherwise, it is good for national defense against terrorism. Unless, of course, the government inflicts its own brand of terror or control that doesn't meet the same standards of law that it requires of its individual citizens. Which, in this case, can be rather confusing and hypocritical.
I don't think people who eat at McDonald's and get fat can successfully sue the corporation, unless there has been some form of false advertising. Personally, I don't see the plaintiffs winning this lawsuit. I could be wrong, though. A $3,000 tax for an SUV in California? I don't think that is the right way to go about this. A strong incentive for a trade-in might be more just for the consumers. I know the technology is there, even with the major lack of funding and incentives given for sustainable development.
<b>In the past, the government:</b> Sanctioned slavery Allowed child labor Allowed discrimination against women Lynched African Americans Sent people to jail or deported them for their beliefs <b>Currently the government can:</b> Put me in jail for smoking mar1juana Ticket or arrest me for having sex with someone of the same gender Keep me from marrying someone of the same gender <b>If the patriot act is any indication, the government WANTS to:</b> Listen to my phone conversations Read my emails Look through my books to see if I support terrorism Keep track of all of my purchases to see what I'm buying <b>There are plenty of others who would love to:</b> Outlaw burning the flag Outlaw protest against the government in time of war Please tell me your biggest concern isn't the freedom of Americans to eat fast food and drive SUV's. The irony is that YOUR profession is responsible for your specific concerns. Without the lawyers looking for all that cash, we wouldn't have ridiculously frvilous lawsuits. Maybe you should re-think what you do for a living.
o.k, now the mcnuggets picture can be linked for those hungry bbs members . I'm sure most of you have seen it before, but I hadn't. yum.
Ref, I didn't realize they were both by the same guy...but I guess the fact that both are overly simplistic and written for people with ADD, then it makes sense. Does this mean that you are a burgeoning Anarchist? Incidentally, did the courts create this lawsuit? They are a branch of the government, but unless they are the ones coming up with this crap, or until they actually do something as far as finding in favor of the eight fatties, then you have no argument with this example. Again, this is the parents of eight fat kids and some lawyers all seeing cash at the end of the golden double rainbow. If all of these bad things happen will Fox (and people like yourself) back up their rhetoric and lead the charge against Bush, the courts, etc, and "take our country back" in an anarchistic rebellion? If not, why bother?
Here's an idea...let's NOT poke fun at a disorder that affects thousands of Americans. No this means that I want to inject this little notion called common sense into government. Something that both sides of the aisle seem to lack these days. Nope...but they didn't throw it out based upon stating a claim without a remedy either. I love it...it always comes back to Bush...forget about the fact that this is a NY STATE court...which Bush has nothing to do with.
I would rather the courts act just this way: Take apparently stupid cases instead of making a judgement before hearing the facts. If it was the other way, there would be a greater disconnect between what is just and what is legal than there is now.
