Busy Execs now dining at McDonalds

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha
Pretty sad that McD's (and other unhealthy fast food joints) continue to be so much cheaper than the healthy options, like sandwiches and salads.

People should be looking at other methods for saving money that aren't so detrimental to their health.

People are going to do what they want and eating McD's doesn't automatically make you fat, it's the lack of physical activity.

It's not just the fat in fast food that is unhealthy. There are ridiculous levels of sodium, and a plethora of chemicals (some are known to be harmful, others have unknown effects).

However, it is well known that you need both exercise and healthy food for a healthy body. Someone who, in a week, runs 100 miles and hits the gym 4 times but eats most meals at McDonalds, is not as healthy as someone with the same exercise regimen who prepares their own, healthier meals.

I understand that people will make the choices they make, and I'm not advocating banning fast food. However, cost drives behaviour. Subsidize healthy foods and tax unhealthy ones. People will continue to eat the cheaper foods more often (which will now be the healthier ones).

Ladies and gentlemen, the fascist food police has arrived. :roll:

I don't need a nanny to tell me what to eat, or punish me financially for not eating what THEY think is healthy.

I'll keep my freedom and you can shove your fascist policies up your ass and use them as a holistic Colon cleanse.

See the bolded. I'm well aware that prohibition is ineffective.

You should be able to consume whatever substances (including food) you wish, as long as you pay for the associated external costs. If you want to smoke, fine. But the tax revenue from cigarettes should be directed towards smoking cessation programs and increased health care to deal with the results of smoking.

And there's simply no disputing that you can make a homemade sandwich with healthier ingredients than a fast-food burger. It's not about what I think is healthier; it's about what nutritional analysis actually demonstrates is healthier.

And this is why socialism is anathema to freedom, folks.

Be it a ban, a "sin tax" or a "health tax," your freedom will disappear.

Again, take your socialist fascism and keep it. My health is MY business. Don't like it? Don't pay for it. I can cover my own insurance/healthcare, thank you. I do not need a nanny government to "influence" my health risks by punishing me financially.

MY body, MY choice.

Since, I eat healthy, can I get lower health insurance compared to you?

Actually, I'll bet I'm in better health than you.

If you want PRIVATE health insurance companies to scale rates according to diets, demand they do so or shop around until you find one that does. I am against government involvement through rule of law.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: Zebo
I'm surprised you didn't mention smokers are cheaper to society than non-smokers even under a socialistic state - Norway just did a study recently.

Link?

Smokers tend to die earlier, and have a far shorter term of assisted living.

Being old is expensive. 20 years of old folks home is a HELL of a lot more expensive than 2 years of cancer.

Plus, the longer they live past retirement, the more SS and Medicare they eat up.

Dying early, even due to catastrophic disease, saves money.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha
Pretty sad that McD's (and other unhealthy fast food joints) continue to be so much cheaper than the healthy options, like sandwiches and salads.

People should be looking at other methods for saving money that aren't so detrimental to their health.

People are going to do what they want and eating McD's doesn't automatically make you fat, it's the lack of physical activity.

It's not just the fat in fast food that is unhealthy. There are ridiculous levels of sodium, and a plethora of chemicals (some are known to be harmful, others have unknown effects).

However, it is well known that you need both exercise and healthy food for a healthy body. Someone who, in a week, runs 100 miles and hits the gym 4 times but eats most meals at McDonalds, is not as healthy as someone with the same exercise regimen who prepares their own, healthier meals.

I understand that people will make the choices they make, and I'm not advocating banning fast food. However, cost drives behaviour. Subsidize healthy foods and tax unhealthy ones. People will continue to eat the cheaper foods more often (which will now be the healthier ones).

Ladies and gentlemen, the fascist food police has arrived. :roll:

I don't need a nanny to tell me what to eat, or punish me financially for not eating what THEY think is healthy.

I'll keep my freedom and you can shove your fascist policies up your ass and use them as a holistic Colon cleanse.

See the bolded. I'm well aware that prohibition is ineffective.

You should be able to consume whatever substances (including food) you wish, as long as you pay for the associated external costs. If you want to smoke, fine. But the tax revenue from cigarettes should be directed towards smoking cessation programs and increased health care to deal with the results of smoking.

And there's simply no disputing that you can make a homemade sandwich with healthier ingredients than a fast-food burger. It's not about what I think is healthier; it's about what nutritional analysis actually demonstrates is healthier.

And this is why socialism is anathema to freedom, folks.

Be it a ban, a "sin tax" or a "health tax," your freedom will disappear.

Again, take your socialist fascism and keep it. My health is MY business. Don't like it? Don't pay for it. I can cover my own insurance/healthcare, thank you. I do not need a nanny government to "influence" my health risks by punishing me financially.

MY body, MY choice.

I agree with you, except for the comment about health care - the risk is spread out, so the more sick you are making yourself, the more other people have to pay.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha
Pretty sad that McD's (and other unhealthy fast food joints) continue to be so much cheaper than the healthy options, like sandwiches and salads.

People should be looking at other methods for saving money that aren't so detrimental to their health.

People are going to do what they want and eating McD's doesn't automatically make you fat, it's the lack of physical activity.

It's not just the fat in fast food that is unhealthy. There are ridiculous levels of sodium, and a plethora of chemicals (some are known to be harmful, others have unknown effects).

However, it is well known that you need both exercise and healthy food for a healthy body. Someone who, in a week, runs 100 miles and hits the gym 4 times but eats most meals at McDonalds, is not as healthy as someone with the same exercise regimen who prepares their own, healthier meals.

I understand that people will make the choices they make, and I'm not advocating banning fast food. However, cost drives behaviour. Subsidize healthy foods and tax unhealthy ones. People will continue to eat the cheaper foods more often (which will now be the healthier ones).

Ladies and gentlemen, the fascist food police has arrived. :roll:

I don't need a nanny to tell me what to eat, or punish me financially for not eating what THEY think is healthy.

I'll keep my freedom and you can shove your fascist policies up your ass and use them as a holistic Colon cleanse.

See the bolded. I'm well aware that prohibition is ineffective.

You should be able to consume whatever substances (including food) you wish, as long as you pay for the associated external costs. If you want to smoke, fine. But the tax revenue from cigarettes should be directed towards smoking cessation programs and increased health care to deal with the results of smoking.

And there's simply no disputing that you can make a homemade sandwich with healthier ingredients than a fast-food burger. It's not about what I think is healthier; it's about what nutritional analysis actually demonstrates is healthier.

And this is why socialism is anathema to freedom, folks.

Be it a ban, a "sin tax" or a "health tax," your freedom will disappear.

Again, take your socialist fascism and keep it. My health is MY business. Don't like it? Don't pay for it. I can cover my own insurance/healthcare, thank you. I do not need a nanny government to "influence" my health risks by punishing me financially.

MY body, MY choice.

I agree with you, except for the comment about health care - the risk is spread out, so the more sick you are making yourself, the more other people have to pay.

Insurance companies already scale rates higher for smokers/obesity and other preexisting conditions or risky behavior.

 

[imported_Devine]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
In-n-Out around here is always packed.

That's because In-n-Out is *drools*

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Originally posted by: Amused

And this is why socialism is anathema to freedom, folks.

Be it a ban, a "sin tax" or a "health tax," your freedom will disappear.

Again, take your socialist fascism and keep it. My health is MY business. Don't like it? Don't pay for it. I can cover my own insurance/healthcare, thank you. I do not need a nanny government to "influence" my health risks by punishing me financially.

MY body, MY choice.

Actually, it's called a Pigovian tax. And whether I like what you're doing or not, I am paying for it in some respect.

When eaten in excess, fast food contributes to heart disease, obesity, and hypertension, among other health problems - all of which increase the burden on the health care system. That is a negative externality, and it costs everyone.

The "nanny state" you talk of seeks to ban these sorts of behaviours entirely, and that is not what I'm proposing.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha
Pretty sad that McD's (and other unhealthy fast food joints) continue to be so much cheaper than the healthy options, like sandwiches and salads.

People should be looking at other methods for saving money that aren't so detrimental to their health.

People are going to do what they want and eating McD's doesn't automatically make you fat, it's the lack of physical activity.

It's not just the fat in fast food that is unhealthy. There are ridiculous levels of sodium, and a plethora of chemicals (some are known to be harmful, others have unknown effects).

However, it is well known that you need both exercise and healthy food for a healthy body. Someone who, in a week, runs 100 miles and hits the gym 4 times but eats most meals at McDonalds, is not as healthy as someone with the same exercise regimen who prepares their own, healthier meals.

I understand that people will make the choices they make, and I'm not advocating banning fast food. However, cost drives behaviour. Subsidize healthy foods and tax unhealthy ones. People will continue to eat the cheaper foods more often (which will now be the healthier ones).

Ladies and gentlemen, the fascist food police has arrived. :roll:

I don't need a nanny to tell me what to eat, or punish me financially for not eating what THEY think is healthy.

I'll keep my freedom and you can shove your fascist policies up your ass and use them as a holistic Colon cleanse.

See the bolded. I'm well aware that prohibition is ineffective.

You should be able to consume whatever substances (including food) you wish, as long as you pay for the associated external costs. If you want to smoke, fine. But the tax revenue from cigarettes should be directed towards smoking cessation programs and increased health care to deal with the results of smoking.

And there's simply no disputing that you can make a homemade sandwich with healthier ingredients than a fast-food burger. It's not about what I think is healthier; it's about what nutritional analysis actually demonstrates is healthier.

And this is why socialism is anathema to freedom, folks.

Be it a ban, a "sin tax" or a "health tax," your freedom will disappear.

Again, take your socialist fascism and keep it. My health is MY business. Don't like it? Don't pay for it. I can cover my own insurance/healthcare, thank you. I do not need a nanny government to "influence" my health risks by punishing me financially.

MY body, MY choice.

I agree with you, except for the comment about health care - the risk is spread out, so the more sick you are making yourself, the more other people have to pay.

Insurance companies already scale rates higher for smokers/obesity and other preexisting conditions or risky behavior.

Obviously, if the insurance company knows about those risks. You can look fine and have terrible cholesterol though, for example. I have insurance subsidized through work, and I've never had to submit any health information to get the benefits I have.

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: Zebo
I'm surprised you didn't mention smokers are cheaper to society than non-smokers even under a socialistic state - Norway just did a study recently.

Link?

Smokers tend to die earlier, and have a far shorter term of assisted living.

Being old is expensive. 20 years of old folks home is a HELL of a lot more expensive than 2 years of cancer.

Plus, the longer they live past retirement, the more SS and Medicare they eat up.

Dying early, even due to catastrophic disease, saves money.

What about the years of lost productivity? What about someone who dies of lung cancer at 35 compared to someone who works until age 65 or 70? That's 30-35 years worth of lost productivity, which is an enormous loss to the economy.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: Zebo
I'm surprised you didn't mention smokers are cheaper to society than non-smokers even under a socialistic state - Norway just did a study recently.

Link?

1) They don't use SS or Medicare because they don't make it that far
2) All people will have same diseases eventually, however it's the 90 yr old heath nut that survives multiple bypass only to live for the next crisis cost the same for that bypass as the 50 year old in addition 40 more years of crisis surgeries and treatments.


We should be encouraging people to eat fatty foods and smoke - taxes like you advocate won't do it and we will pay, big time.

Smokers, the obese cheaper to treat than healthy, long-living people: study


University of Chicago- Journal of Law & Economics. Studies at the national level indicate that cigarettes are self-financing since external costs such as those due to illnesses are offset by cost savings associated with premature death, chiefly pension costs.

N Engl J Med - If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha
Pretty sad that McD's (and other unhealthy fast food joints) continue to be so much cheaper than the healthy options, like sandwiches and salads.

People should be looking at other methods for saving money that aren't so detrimental to their health.

People are going to do what they want and eating McD's doesn't automatically make you fat, it's the lack of physical activity.

It's not just the fat in fast food that is unhealthy. There are ridiculous levels of sodium, and a plethora of chemicals (some are known to be harmful, others have unknown effects).

However, it is well known that you need both exercise and healthy food for a healthy body. Someone who, in a week, runs 100 miles and hits the gym 4 times but eats most meals at McDonalds, is not as healthy as someone with the same exercise regimen who prepares their own, healthier meals.

I understand that people will make the choices they make, and I'm not advocating banning fast food. However, cost drives behaviour. Subsidize healthy foods and tax unhealthy ones. People will continue to eat the cheaper foods more often (which will now be the healthier ones).

Ladies and gentlemen, the fascist food police has arrived. :roll:

I don't need a nanny to tell me what to eat, or punish me financially for not eating what THEY think is healthy.

I'll keep my freedom and you can shove your fascist policies up your ass and use them as a holistic Colon cleanse.

See the bolded. I'm well aware that prohibition is ineffective.

You should be able to consume whatever substances (including food) you wish, as long as you pay for the associated external costs. If you want to smoke, fine. But the tax revenue from cigarettes should be directed towards smoking cessation programs and increased health care to deal with the results of smoking.

And there's simply no disputing that you can make a homemade sandwich with healthier ingredients than a fast-food burger. It's not about what I think is healthier; it's about what nutritional analysis actually demonstrates is healthier.

And this is why socialism is anathema to freedom, folks.

Be it a ban, a "sin tax" or a "health tax," your freedom will disappear.

Again, take your socialist fascism and keep it. My health is MY business. Don't like it? Don't pay for it. I can cover my own insurance/healthcare, thank you. I do not need a nanny government to "influence" my health risks by punishing me financially.

MY body, MY choice.

I agree with you, except for the comment about health care - the risk is spread out, so the more sick you are making yourself, the more other people have to pay.

Insurance companies already scale rates higher for smokers/obesity and other preexisting conditions or risky behavior.

I've never had to indicate if I was a smoker or my weight when I've applied for health insurance. That might be for individual health insurance but in the five states that I've worked in for companies, that hasn't been the case.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: Amused

And this is why socialism is anathema to freedom, folks.

Be it a ban, a "sin tax" or a "health tax," your freedom will disappear.

Again, take your socialist fascism and keep it. My health is MY business. Don't like it? Don't pay for it. I can cover my own insurance/healthcare, thank you. I do not need a nanny government to "influence" my health risks by punishing me financially.

MY body, MY choice.

Actually, it's called a Pigovian tax. And whether I like what you're doing or not, I am paying for it in some respect.

When eaten in excess, fast food contributes to heart disease, obesity, and hypertension, among other health problems - all of which increase the burden on the health care system. That is a negative externality, and it costs everyone.

The "nanny state" you talk of seeks to ban these sorts of behaviours entirely, and that is not what I'm proposing.

A nanny state can seek to control behaviors in more than one way. Bans are not the only way. Economic oppression is another way.

ANYTHING done to excess can be unhealthy. Even vegetarianism.

LIFE is a burden on the healthcare system, as is aging. Are you going to tax people who live excessively long and require decades of managed care?

AGAIN, this is why socialism is anathema to freedom. When the government/taxpayer becomes your caretaker, they get to limit/tax/ban/control what you do.

How different is this than the attempts to legislate sex? STDs are a burden on our system too. Do you advocate bans on pre/extramarital sex? If not, why not?

It's funny how the left is the exact same as the right now. BOTH seek to control you in the name of svaing you from yourself. When that doesn't work, they crow about "cost to society."

"Cost to society" and "think of the children" will end up costing us every last freedom we have.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ---C. S. Lewis

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: Zebo
I'm surprised you didn't mention smokers are cheaper to society than non-smokers even under a socialistic state - Norway just did a study recently.

Link?

1) They don't use SS or Medicare because they don't make it that far
2) All people will have same diseases eventually, however it's the 90 yr old heath nut that survives multiple bypass only to live for the next crisis cost the same for that bypass as the 50 year old in addition 40 more years of crisis surgeries and treatments.


We should be encouraging people to eat fatty foods and smoke - taxes like you advocate won't do it and we will pay, big time.

Smokers, the obese cheaper to treat than healthy, long-living people: study


University of Chicago- Journal of Law & Economics. Studies at the national level indicate that cigarettes are self-financing since external costs such as those due to illnesses are offset by cost savings associated with premature death, chiefly pension costs.

N Engl J Med - If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs.

From your first link:

The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.

I can't access the full text of the other two articles.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: zerocool84I k

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha
Pretty sad that McD's (and other unhealthy fast food joints) continue to be so much cheaper than the healthy options, like sandwiches and salads.

People should be looking at other methods for saving money that aren't so detrimental to their health.

People are going to do what they want and eating McD's doesn't automatically make you fat, it's the lack of physical activity.

It's not just the fat in fast food that is unhealthy. There are ridiculous levels of sodium, and a plethora of chemicals (some are known to be harmful, others have unknown effects).

However, it is well known that you need both exercise and healthy food for a healthy body. Someone who, in a week, runs 100 miles and hits the gym 4 times but eats most meals at McDonalds, is not as healthy as someone with the same exercise regimen who prepares their own, healthier meals.

I understand that people will make the choices they make, and I'm not advocating banning fast food. However, cost drives behaviour. Subsidize healthy foods and tax unhealthy ones. People will continue to eat the cheaper foods more often (which will now be the healthier ones).

Ladies and gentlemen, the fascist food police has arrived. :roll:

I don't need a nanny to tell me what to eat, or punish me financially for not eating what THEY think is healthy.

I'll keep my freedom and you can shove your fascist policies up your ass and use them as a holistic Colon cleanse.

See the bolded. I'm well aware that prohibition is ineffective.

You should be able to consume whatever substances (including food) you wish, as long as you pay for the associated external costs. If you want to smoke, fine. But the tax revenue from cigarettes should be directed towards smoking cessation programs and increased health care to deal with the results of smoking.

And there's simply no disputing that you can make a homemade sandwich with healthier ingredients than a fast-food burger. It's not about what I think is healthier; it's about what nutritional analysis actually demonstrates is healthier.

And this is why socialism is anathema to freedom, folks.

Be it a ban, a "sin tax" or a "health tax," your freedom will disappear.

Again, take your socialist fascism and keep it. My health is MY business. Don't like it? Don't pay for it. I can cover my own insurance/healthcare, thank you. I do not need a nanny government to "influence" my health risks by punishing me financially.

MY body, MY choice.

Since, I eat healthy, can I get lower health insurance compared to you?

Actually, I'll bet I'm in better health than you.

If you want PRIVATE health insurance companies to scale rates according to diets, demand they do so or shop around until you find one that does. I am against government involvement through rule of law.

I know that I'm healthier than you.

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Originally posted by: Amused

How different is this than the attempts to legislate sex? STDs are a burden on our system too. Do you advocate bans on pre/extramarital sex? If not, why not?

Ok, I'll bite.

This is a poor example because there are plenty of ways to protect against STIs (they're not called STDs any more 😉) - condoms and knowledge of the sexual history of your partner(s) to name two.

However, if you smoke or eat fast food, there is no method to protect yourself. You are exposed to all of the chemicals in those products. Your only measure of control is how much of those substances you consume, and how often.

Restricting premarital or extramarital sex is not a good idea. If people are free to consent to the sexual activities they choose, they will lead happier, more productive lives, and externalities such as divorce and domestic abuse are lowered. As well, wouldn't sex fall under the category of freedom of expression? I wouldn't want to restrict that.

 

[JMapleton]

McDonalds is like injecting poising into your veins. I feel like I need to take a shower after eating that stuff.

 

[PieIsAwesome]

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha
Pretty sad that McD's (and other unhealthy fast food joints) continue to be so much cheaper than the healthy options, like sandwiches and salads.

People should be looking at other methods for saving money that aren't so detrimental to their health.

Eating McDonalds is not unhealthy. Eating too much McDonalds can be unhealthy. And even then it depends on what is ordered.

I never eat at McDonald's though, but being loaded with cash doesn't mean I would not eat fast food.

EDIT: Oh crap there appears to be a passionate debate, I don't mean to be a part of that.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: JMapleton
McDonalds is like injecting poising into your veins. I feel like I need to take a shower after eating that stuff.

Oh, FFS, drama queen much?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

I know that I'm healthier than you.

Care to put your money where your mouth is?

 

[Chunkee]

you guys are McNuts eaten that crap

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: Amused

How different is this than the attempts to legislate sex? STDs are a burden on our system too. Do you advocate bans on pre/extramarital sex? If not, why not?

Ok, I'll bite.

This is a poor example because there are plenty of ways to protect against STIs (they're not called STDs any more 😉) - condoms and knowledge of the sexual history of your partner(s) to name two.

However, if you smoke or eat fast food, there is no method to protect yourself. You are exposed to all of the chemicals in those products. Your only measure of control is how much of those substances you consume, and how often.

Restricting premarital or extramarital sex is not a good idea. If people are free to consent to the sexual activities they choose, they will lead happier, more productive lives, and externalities such as divorce and domestic abuse are lowered. As well, wouldn't sex fall under the category of freedom of expression? I wouldn't want to restrict that.

Weak sauce. And you know it.

You're a hypocrite. Period. It's all fine and dandy until it's your bull getting gored.

As soon as your realize you have no less oppressive ideals than the religious right, you'll realize that freedom is FAR better than trying to manipulate society's habits and personal choices through force of law.

You want to control/limit, what people eat... they want to control/limit who people fuck.

What's the difference?

None whatsoever. Your own moral busy bodying is no less oppressive than theirs just because you found a way to justify yours through your own conscience.

 

[Red Squirrel]

It's been a while since I had mcD's. Think I'll get some tomorrow.


I don't get these people that get sore stomacs or gases over mc Ds. You must all have a weak stomac. 😛

 

[meltdown75]

i had a sausage & egg mcmuffin and a hash brown this morning

between that and Tim Horton's breakfast sandwiches, there is no delicious grease i'd rather eat in the morning!!

i wish i could eat a nice bacon, egg & toast breakfast every morning at a greasy spoon. mmmmmmmm. i never get up early enough to make it at home.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

I know that I'm healthier than you.

Care to put your money where your mouth is?

Sure - http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=38&threadid=2250306

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
It's been a while since I had mcD's. Think I'll get some tomorrow.


I don't get these people that get sore stomacs or gases over mc Ds. You must all have a weak stomac. 😛

I have a weak stomach, and you are a fucking loon.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

I know that I'm healthier than you.

Care to put your money where your mouth is?

Sure - http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=38&threadid=2250306

Obviously *someone* has never seen a pic of Amused.

The meningitis he contracted probably would've killed someone who wasn't in the shape he's in.