If someone can't "afford a computer and internet to look up caloric information online at restaurant websites". They probably can't afford to be going to a restaurant anyway. It's that personal responsibility stuff RTS and other conservatives speak of quite often.

 

The "menu mandate" or having to post nutritional values is not the core problem we have...It's a government MANDATE that that is 95% useless that stings.

 

I think I can speak for many conservatives on BGP when saying, we get it, we understand your point of view. You are fine with government sticking their nose into things as petty as posting caloric intake on menus at private restaurants among other things. We assume you are very happy right now, congratulations. What gets me is the way some of you don't seem to "get it" or understand our point of view. You just want to cast it aside or throw it in the WRONG box. Sort of like our arrogant President and Nancy Pelosi do.

 

Again, my elevator doesn't go all the way to the top floor, but I do believe I can handle small things like what foods are good for me without the help of the government. I know its such a little thing but I honestly believe little things like this fuels dependence, not independence. Do any of you understand?

 

So if I can't afford a 600.00 computer and in some places 50.00 per month for internet service and should not take my wife and kids (or husband) to McDonald's for a 25.00 meal (assuming a family of 4) once a month or so. That is silly.

So if I can't afford a 600.00 computer and in some places 50.00 per month for internet service and should not take my wife and kids (or husband) to McDonald's for a 25.00 meal (assuming a family of 4) once a month or so. That is silly.

 

I don't know what YOU should do ACE. From my point of view though, which obviously you think is wrong, I have a family of five, and if I can't afford to purchase a computer or afford monthly internet service I will feel as if I can't afford a $30 trip to McDonald's. I probably wouldn't have time to go anyway, I'd be looking for more work so maybe my family could have those things. Silly ain't it?

So if I can't afford a 600.00 computer and in some places 50.00 per month for internet service and should not take my wife and kids (or husband) to McDonald's for a 25.00 meal (assuming a family of 4) once a month or so. That is silly.

Then go to the library, it's free... Oh no, instead we have to have the government do the work for you. :ohbrother:

I like the idea of me having all the information that I need to make my decision on what I would get to eat.

 

I see this as no difference than clothing having a tag to show size, what material it is made of, etc, etc.

But you don't need a Federal mandate to get that info. :thumb:

I don't know what YOU should do ACE. From my point of view though, which obviously you think is wrong, I have a family of five, and if I can't afford to purchase a computer or afford monthly internet service I will feel as if I can't afford a $30 trip to McDonald's. I probably wouldn't have time to go anyway, I'd be looking for more work so maybe my family could have those things. Silly ain't it?

 

 

I actually know people who do not own a computer NOR a cellphone because they don't feel it's a necessity. These aren't people who can't afford them. They simply feel it's not necessary in the home.

 

There are more reasons than poverty that one may not own a computer.

I actually know people who do not own a computer NOR a cellphone because they don't feel it's a necessity. These aren't people who can't afford them. They simply feel it's not necessary in the home.

 

There are more reasons than poverty that one may not own a computer.

 

Respectfully...It didn't have anything to do with who does or does not have a computer. My post was referring to a family that could not afford a computer or internet service. Just because you don't have one doesn't mean you can't afford one.:idunno: Even I know that.

:lol: This is hilarious, you are explaining the BGP rules to me. Could you explain the others to me, I sometimes have trouble with Rule 2? When is it a violation, when is it not? :lol:

 

I have evidently (unintentionally) struck a nerve with you. Where did I attempt to explain a rule to you? I simply posted a link to a lengthy P/R thread in which it was quite obvious that I am a female. You said that you read P/R extensively, but I assumed that you missed that thread.

 

If you are hanging your hat on the "Roadsigns" argument go ahead. But, if I was going to argue that the constitution should be changed, I would argue for term limits for elected officials. But, that's just me.

 

I'm all in favor of term limits for elected officials. I'd love to spend some time discussing that, instead of something so benign as caloric information on a menu. Let's move on to something worthy of discussion.

Then go to the library, it's free... Oh no, instead we have to have the government do the work for you. :ohbrother:

 

Who pays for the public library? Taxpayers?

Currently around 57%.

 

That's a lot of "poor" people with computers.

 

Does common sense not work for the poor?

 

Link? I'd like to see what standard that they are using for poor.

I think when we refer to "the poor" we should be more specific. Many that are poor are that way because that's what they have chosen to be. Many are that way because of laziness. Some are poor because of unavoidable circumstances, and they are the ones that should be referred to as "poor". The ones that are poor due to simply being lazy, sorry, they're just going to have to be poor.

I don't know what YOU should do ACE. From my point of view though, which obviously you think is wrong, I have a family of five, and if I can't afford to purchase a computer or afford monthly internet service I will feel as if I can't afford a $30 trip to McDonald's. I probably wouldn't have time to go anyway, I'd be looking for more work so maybe my family could have those things. Silly ain't it?

 

In the spirit of personal responsibility, I don't think that a private decision of whether to buy a computer, buy a Big Mac or look for a second job is anyone else's decision. As for me, I have I have three computers, an iphone and a Garmin. I also travel a lot, so nutritional information and road signs are helpful to me. Without road signs or nutritional information I won't sit at the side of the road and starve, but I still find them useful and by using those signs I won't consider myself to be a ward of the state. I do not find a requirement that a restaurant post nutritional information to be any more intrusive than a requirement that it post its sanitation rating. Those that find such requirements to be an unwanted government intrusion can ignore both signs. And by the way, I didn't have to wait for the bill to be passed to know that this was in the bill. I knew before it was passed. I took the time to inform myself. I considered it a matter of personal responsibility.

In the spirit of personal responsibility, I don't think that a private decision of whether to buy a computer, buy a Big Mac or look for a second job is anyone else's decision. As for me, I have I have three computers, an iphone and a Garmin. I also travel a lot, so nutritional information and road signs are helpful to me. Without road signs or nutritional information I won't sit at the side of the road and starve, but I still find them useful and by using those signs I won't consider myself to be a ward of the state. I do not find a requirement that a restaurant post nutritional information to be any more intrusive than a requirement that it post its sanitation rating. Those that find such requirements to be an unwanted government intrusion can ignore both signs.

 

I fully understand your point of view. I respect your stance. Our opinions differ. You feel as if you're right and I feel as if I'm right. I have used nutritional information as much as anybody, I just don't agree that it is something our government needs to mandate. Not a big deal. See my post #282.

 

As far as road signs go, I think it's a total waste of time to discuss.

I have evidently (unintentionally) struck a nerve with you. Where did I attempt to explain a rule to you? I simply posted a link to a lengthy P/R thread in which it was quite obvious that I am a female. You said that you read P/R extensively, but I assumed that you missed that thread.

 

 

 

I'm all in favor of term limits for elected officials. I'd love to spend some time discussing that, instead of something so benign as caloric information on a menu. Let's move on to something worthy of discussion.

You didn't strike a nerve, but it is generally viewed by the BGP staff to be a violation to give clues to a members identity in a thread, unless they have already mentioned it, in that thread. It is generally a violation to mention, in this case, gender in a thread that the member has not mentioned in THAT thread already.

 

Sorry to interrupt our regularly scheduled programing, as you were.

I like putting calorie numbers on the menu. That way I can get the most(calories) for my money.

 

Heck, if a Big Mac has say 500 calories and a Whopper has 600 calories and they are the same price. I will go to BK and get more for the same price.

I'm all in favor of term limits for elected officials. I'd love to spend some time discussing that, instead of something so benign as caloric information on a menu. Let's move on to something worthy of discussion.

If it was really so benign would you really post this much in it?

 

The thread isn't about caloric information on a menu, it's about a Federal mandate for caloric information on a menu. Big difference.