Saving you from yourself.

What do you call one thousand lawyers tied to an anchor and thrown overboard into the Mariana Trench?


[YT="Not ambitious enough."]ERNONerHQg8&[/YT]

Isn't she a little cutie? Got kind of a Sara Silverman thing going on.

I, of course, agree with the rebutting arguments. It doesn't matter how tempting and manipulative the advertising and happy meal toys make it, the undeniable fact remains that parents are responsible for the health of their children. Introduce them (and yourself, as the case may be) to the word "NO." Their fate is in your hands, and you are not a powerless victim of predatory advertising. You have a choice, and you shouldn't expect anyone else to make it for you.

The thing which really slayed me was the presumption of this lawyer when he remarked about how they, "asked McDonalds nicely to remove the toys from happy meals".

Stephen Gardner needs to get hit by a fast-moving bus and then drown in elephant shit.

What a fucking douchebag.

When I was a kid, I would often ask my parents to go to eat in a fastfood restaurant. The answer I always got was 'NO', no matter how hard I insisted. Instead they prepared great and healthy meals at home. About two to three times a year, my parents would then eat at a fastfood restaurant with me.

Just makes you wonder how hard it can be to raise a child when you see the victim parents of today. Those children are innocent victims. But not to fastfood companies, but to their imbecile parents.

Agreed.

So why McDonald's specifically? Is this a case of hit the giant, the others fall in line?

For an ambulance chaser, if you attack the giant, it's like getting a whole advertising campaign for nothing.

I'd call it "One thousand reasons to throw one helluva party," but that's just me.

Mickey D's is gross.

Wow.

They are going to lose this lawsuit big time, and I'll tell you why...

You can buy the toy separately and without buying any food at all. So even if a child wants the toy, the parent makes the choice to feed the kid junk food. McDonald's isn't forcing or manipulating anyone into eating anything they don't want.

No argument there. It may sound good when you're hungry. It might smell good when you're ordering. The first few bites might even taste good, but invariably, you're going to feel like shit for having eaten it.

That said, I don't want some legal prohibition on what I (or any member of my family) can or cannot eat.

Cretins. Big Macs and "Chicken Nuggets" are two of my guilty pleasures.

The Bacon Egg and Cheese Biscuit is the only McDonald's product that I eat, and I only do it two, maybe three times a year (if that).

I used to work in a fucking McDonald's. Back in my brief "eat blotter acid for breakfast" phase. I'll still meet someone else there for lunch 'cuz I try not to be difficult about things like that, but I get a little PTSD about it.

A few years ago, some obese slob sued McDonald's for making him fat. The case was thrown out for obvious reasons, but the company discontinued the Super Size combos soon after for "the health of their costumers."

You know what I like better than a Big Mac?

A cold Big Mac.

That's right fuckers. In the post-apocalyptic world, it's gonna be just me and the cockroaches.

Besides, for the marginally higher level of work in going after someone with a big legal department the exponentially higher potential payout is worth it.

If you can sue an unemployed meth-head for beating someone to death with a rusty pipe in front of a dozen witnesses or you can sue McDonald's for making people fat, you go after the clown.

I haven't had McDonalds in two or three years.

Ever since I stopped playing with toys.

Some kids just eat the toys.

[?=The United States of....][/?]

Candy cigarettes banned by the FDA.

Wasn't that also in response to Supersize Me?

I love that...discontinuing super-sizes like it was all that was available to people....like "small" isn't an option?

And all a person has to do is order two large fries if that is really what they want.

Symbolism over substance. Useless maneuvers to make morons feel like they "are doing something!"

The McDonald's I worked at sold you the toy for $2. They also had all the nutrition facts for everything on the menu in the back of each place mat, and offered apple juice (or lowfat milk) and sliced apples in happy meals instead of fries. They've tried to tell people exactly how healthy or not their food is, so with that, added to the fact that the toy is separate... yeah, you're right, they'll lose big time, no pun intended.

Oh shit I know they're gonna lose and its gonna be HILARIOUS!!!!!! I work in a Mcdonalds right now. Actually got on here to blow off steam from a beyond shitty night at work, but that's another story.

Anyway....you can buy the toys for 1.64 including tax, and some parents actually do that.

And Talka, they still have the nutrition facts on the back of the tray liner, as well as the kids meal nutrition facts also on the side of the kids meal bags.

You can see all over the place exactly what you're eating when you order at Mcdonald's, so the lawyers can take this suit and shove it up their asses if they can fit it up there with their egos and do something useful with their time.

And even if you don't see the nutrition facts, you have to be pretty fucking stupid to NOT know that you can't eat there on a daily basis and still stay healthy.

Right on.

It's the same thing with cigarettes. I'm a former smoker, and after having been away from it for 5 years, I've gotten to the point that being around second-hand smoke is irritating, in a physical sense. That notwithstanding, I think it sucks that the government punishes smokers each and every opportunity they get. As much as the smoke bothers me, it bothers me that the government has decided to twist the arm of businesses, forcing them to adopt non-smoking policies. The solution is really very simple: If I hate the smoke that much, I don't have to fucking do business with the establishment which allows it's patrons to puff away. Limiting my choice is worse than having to put up with the second hand smoke.

Taxing the shit out of cigarettes and putting ludicrous restrictions on how tobacco companies can advertise? Get the fuck out of town. The former is very convenient for the Nanny-state: Because the government is, ostenisbly, going to have a stake in everyone's health, it's a tidy justification for them to impose unreasonable tariffs on tobacco as a deterrent (and just you wait, they're going to do the same with each and every kind of "vice related" food or substance). As for the advertising, beyond insisting that companies aren't misleading when they shill for their wares, Uncle Sam has no goddam business interfering. The warnings which have accompanied tobacco products for decades should suffice. But if they put the same restrictions on campaign advertising that they do on products like cigarettes, the bureau of consumer protection would have done a product recall on Obama's election in 2009.

I'm wondering, if this suit did win, just what effect that would have on cereal. No more toys, children's designs, or anything else to attract kids? And what about the effect on all the other products that are sold for kids? Candy? Anything kids like to eat, and which has a "child-attractive" aspect to the way it's marketed? It would all be affected.

This really is taking stupidity to new heights.

On the upside, with a legal prohibition on marketing directed a children, we wouldn't have to endure another Transformers flick!

Well, there is that...

However, on thinking about it, this is more than just about marketing directed at children. It is about selling products specifically for children. The man's complaint was that they are using children as a way of getting parents into the store, which (in his distorted concept of reality) is illegal. If children even know there are toys in Happy Meals, even if no advertising is done, that would still be against what he stands for.

Basically, he is opposed to any products or services that are specifically attractive to children. If such products or services exist, then those selling them are using them as a way of "getting parents into the store," which is "wrong."

He is just deluded on all kinds of levels. Completely out of touch with reality.

I don't see how the plaintiffs have a leg to stand on.

McDonald's is a business, selling a legal product and breaking no laws. Its customers are there by choice. Don't like it? Go somewhere else...and take your kids with you.