Say Goodbye to the King-Sized Snickers Bar

How Michelle Obama is fighting to make excessive chocolate consumption legal but rare-and giving Big Candy a boost in the process


In 1998, a Colorado handyman was snowmobiling in the mountains outside of Steamboat Springs when he got swept up in an avalanche that buried his vehicle and left him stranded in a blizzard. Provisioned with nothing more than two butane lighters and a Snickers bar, the man endured 40 mph winds and near-zero temperatures for five days and four nights as rescue teams struggled to locate him. Luckily, the Snickers bar he'd carried was the king-sized version. Every one of its 510 calories helped him persevere through the course of his ordeal.  

In the future, anyone caught in similar circumstances better hope for a faster search and rescue team. Mars Inc., the manufacturer of Snickers and many other convenience store treats, has decided to phase out chocolate products that exceed 250 calories per portion. By the end of 2013, consumers will no longer be able to purchase king-sized Snickers bars. Instead, they'll have to make do with a product that Mars introduced in 2009, Snickers 2 To Go, which features two 220-calorie bars in a single "resealable" wrapper. In addition, Mars will also need to reduce the size of a standard Snickers bar. It currently contains 280 calories and thus exceeds the new calorie cap by 12 percent.  

Mars is implementing the 250-calorie threshold as part of an agreement with Partnership for a Healthier America (PHA), a non-profit organization that aims to "broker meaningful commitments" from commercial food manufacturers like Mars to "end childhood obesity." PHA was founded in 2010 in conjunction with the Let's Move! program, First Lady Michelle Obama's federally funded government initiative that aims to shape up the nation's tubby youth through a vigorous regimen of legislation, regulation, and mass jumping jacks. Mrs. Obama serves as PHA's honorary chair, and according to its website, PHA's mandate is to "monitor and publicly report on the progress" of its private-sector partners like Mars, and, more generally, to "make the healthy choice the easy choice."

While Snickers may seem like an immutable staple of American culture, it's actually been quite protean since its 1930 introduction. In its initial incarnation, for example, it weighed 2.5 ounces. In 1941, it hit 2.75 ounces, but by 1958, it had shrunk to less than half that size, to a wispy 1.25 ounces—clearly, mid-century snackers were much more easily satisfied than the hungry souls of Depression-era America. At some point after that mid-century low, Snicker started an upward climb, hitting 1.80 ounces in 1981, upsizing again in 1986, and eventually settling on its current weight of 2.07 ounces around a decade ago.

In England, the standard Snickers bar was slightly larger than its American counterpart until just a few years ago. In 2008, however, Mars U.K. reduced its size from 62.5 grams to 58 grams (or 2.2 ounces to 2.04 ounces). It didn't publicize this change, but according to the Daily Mail, when observers started noting that Mars U.K. was still charging the old price for the newly shrunken bar, the company explained that it had downsized its products to "help tackle the nation's obesity crisis."

That Mars U.K. had failed to publicize this noble effort in any way cast doubts upon the sincerity of its claims, and under further prodding, the Daily Mail notes, Mars U.K. acknowledged that "continued cost increases over the last few years" had been the real catalyst behind the decision to reduce the size of its bars.

Apparently, the various outposts of the Mars empire learned from this experience. In 2009, when Mars Snackfood Australia reduced the size of its bars by 11 percent, it prefaced the change with press releases and advertisements citing its desire to cater to consumer demand for smaller portion sizes. And now here in the United States, Mars Inc. has further refined this approach by getting the First Lady and the Partnership for a Healthier America to position its cost-cutting measures as a mandate for improving public health.

On the one hand, everybody wins. Big Candy gets an endorsement from the First Lady and her government-flavored organizations that lends credence to its supposed civic altruism. The First Lady, Lets Move!, and PHA get bullet-point fodder that show they really are making a difference in the fight against obesity. Hopeless Snickers addicts get a relatively painless way to ameliorate the negative consequences of their habit. (If you consume a Snickers bar every workday at 3 PM, and that bar is downsized from 280 to 250 calories, you'll decrease your annual calorie intake by 7,500 calories and thus lose a little over two pounds.)

But what about the children? Surely we want our nation's youth to be morally fit as well as physically fit—and what sort of example is being set for them when corporate dissembling is not just tolerated but actually rewarded simply because it happens to line up nicely with some powerful person's worthy cause?

The new Snickers calorie cap is also notable for the way in which it illuminates the way anti-obesity advocates tend to view the world. "The public needs all the help we can get and it is crucial that food companies get on board with this," Kristie Lancaster, an associate professor of Nutrition and Public Health at New York University, exclaimed to the New York Daily News in the wake of Mars' announcement. "This is both the manufacturer responsibility as well as a personal responsibility. There is a huge problem when most of the choices out there are bigger and more calories. It makes it so much harder for people to do what they need to do to be healthy."

In reality, Mars has offered smaller versions of Snickers bars for decades. A "fun-size" Snickers bar contains 80 calories. A Snickers Mini contains 42.5 calories. And while these items must be purchased in packages that contain multiple pieces, Mars also makes numerous bars which can be purchased individually that contain 200 or fewer calories. According to Vending Times, 3 Musketeers Coconut, M&M's Dark Chocolate Mint, and Dove Chocolate Singles all come in under that limit. Similarly, a standard package of Reese's Peanut Cups contains 210 calories, as does a standard Hershey's bar. A York Peppermint Patty has 140 calories. If you can't find at least a half dozen treats  on virtually any well-stocked candy rack in America that contain about the same amount of calories or less than a Starbucks Grande Latte, you're just not looking very hard.

And of course your patronage of the candy rack is wholly elective. In theory, at least, PHA champions the conceit of "choice architecture" or "libertarian paternalism," which holds that institutions like the government can help people make better decisions for their lives not by compelling them to act in specific ways but simply by making "good" choices easier to choose than "bad" choices. Thus PHA's mandate "to make the healthy choice the easy choice."

The Let's Move! campaign and its advocates sound similar themes. Here, for example, is Eddie Gehman Kohan, founding editor of Obama Foodorama, which bills itself as "the blog of record about White House food initiatives," discussing Let's Move! in a PBS interview. "Let's Move! has been pointed to by a lot of critics as an example of big government intervening and the Obama administration wanting to expand the role of government to the point that it controls what American citizens eat," she exclaims. "For its part, the campaign says it's about giving people choice and educating them about food and nutrition and physical activity and allowing them to have access to a wide range of choices."

Certainly there are examples where this holds true. Installing a salad bar in a school where none existed before will likely increase access to a wider variety of fruits and vegetables. Identifying healthy food choices with highly visible labeling, as Walmart is doing with its "Great for You" campaign, can help educate consumers and encourage them to make better choices without reducing their ability to ultimately decide for themselves what they want to eat.

In the case of Mars' candy bar purges and calorie caps, however, "making the healthy choice the easy choice" is achieved not by expanding choices but rather by narrowing them—call it "Yes, we can't" progressivism. While this tactic may improve corporate profits and help the most avid Snickers eaters shed a few pounds, the Orwellian doublespeak is sure to leave a bad taste in one's mouth.

Contributing Editor Greg Beato writes from San Francisco.

NEXT: Chart of the Day, Newspaper Ad Revenue Edition

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Funny Michelle says “lets move!” I bet her folds are still moving long after she’s done making the third round at King’s Wok.

    1. Dance, puppets!

      1. Agricultural city-Statism is perpetuated by constantly reinforcing fear of wilderness.

        Stay close to the mommy city-State, dearie. Don’t venture out with the savages (literally, dwellers of the forest.)

      2. Don’t fear the GAMBOLing yetis.

        1. Greg Beato on the End of the King-Sized Snickers Bar,


          Why Nobody Takes Libertarians Seriously, Part MCMLXIX.

          1. Ha ha! I make funny!

            1. That’s why you ignored me!
              You’re the bestest puppet ever.

              1. Primitard told me so.

              2. Jason Godesky|2.29.12 @ 7:06PM|#
                Ha ha! I make funny!

                Puppets!|2.29.12 @ 7:21PM|#
                That’s why you ignored me!
                You’re the bestest puppet ever.

                Jason Godesky talking to himself. Priceless.

            2. Ha Ha! I make poopy.

          2. “Why Nobody Takes Libertarians Seriously, Part MCMLXIX.”

            Or, How I Learned To Shut Up, March Straight and Realize that Leftist Behavior Dictators Can Run My life Better Than I Can

        2. Clocks are bad.

          Primitard told me so.

          1. The further we go in time the worse it gets. We inhabit an age of the disintegration of experience, according to Adorno. The pressure of time, like that of its essential progenitor, division of labor, fragments and disperses all before it. Uniformity, equivalence, separation are byproducts of time’s harsh force. The intrinsic beauty and meaning of that fragment of the world that is not-yet- culture moves steadily toward annihilation under a single cultures-wide clock.

            Time And its Discontents
            John Zerzan

            1. Time is bad.

              Primitard told me so.

      3. Primitard told me so.

    2. Michelle and Mars fecks goats. Drink! Arse! Girls!

    3. Let the crybaby libertarian goons begin their bitching! STATE OPRESSION STATE OPRESSION WAHHHH!!!

      1. Makes sense that the asshole who seized private property, skyrocketed taxes and forced 100,000 people into prison camps based on their race when he wasn’t busy sucking Stalin’s dick would want to downplay any infringement by the government over the self determinism of the people or government.

        1. Not to mention made the private ownership of gold illegal. That alone should have gotten him impeached and put in front of a firing squad.

      2. Meanwhile, maybe you can go back to whining about how people are *REALLY* oppressed by a lack of unjust taxes and centralized government interference.

  2. That fat fucking whore.

    1. So much hate in such a little man.

      1. Feck off, you gobshite bastard!

          1. shit guess im gonna just have to buy two chocolate bars.

            1. Only until our betters impose a 7 day waiting period before you can buy a second snickers bar.

              Resistance is futile.

      2. I showed you John!!

  3. So no one can buy multiple candy bars, then?

    I miss at least the illusion of a free market.

    1. It was a voluntary agreement chicken little.

      1. In a country near you. In Barack Obamas war on Obesity the government will now ration the amount of chocolate a person can consume

        1. Let me guess: You really like the movie “Red Dawn”?

          1. If it involves open season on fucks like you, then hell yeah.

          2. And you wept for a world that could be when you saw thx1138. Difference?

  4. Here’s what will happen:

    The candy makers will roll out new, “right-sized” products.

    Many customers will buy two of the right-sized products (because one just isn’t quite enough, you know?), instead of just one of the old ones.

    Net result: Candy makers sell more candy, consumers eat more candy, than they would have without the meddling by Queen Nanny.

    1. It’s like lowering nicotine in cigarettes. Smokers will smoke more of the toxic chemicals in cigarettes to get the nicotine they crave. So, less ends up being more.

    2. Please, God, can we end the social engineering? So what if some people are fat. They shouldn’t be, but it’s their choice! Theirs! Fuck!

      1. Yes, and let’s stop using federal subsidies to drive down the cost of high-carb foods like wheat and corn.

        That is the most expensive social engineering?the kind that makes us fat and sick and drives independent farms out of business.

        1. Okay, no subsidies and no social engineering!

          1. [F]ood production is taken up in all its deadly earnest to generate the surpluses required by “Big Men” for competitive feasting.

            Thesis #10: Emergent elites led the Agricultural Revolution.
            by Jason Godesky | 11 October 2005

            1. No Ring-Ding subsidies, no peace!


            2. P.S.: I am not a crackpot.

            3. Primitard told me so.

      2. Hey, I just gots large bones.

      3. “Please, God, can we end the social engineering? So what if some people are fat. They shouldn’t be, but it’s their choice! Theirs! Fuck!”

        Given that we will soon be paying for each other’s health care, the social engineering has just begun.

    3. What a defeatist attitude. It’s like you think there’s something wrong with a person who has the time and money to stay in shape shouldn’t be telling other people how to.

      1. We used to call fitness assholes like you “Body Nazis” back in the Navy!

        Well, that’s the POLITE term we used around children and civilians…

  5. We won’t live any longer, it’ll just seem that way.

  6. She could run a half inch of water in the bathtub and it would overflow when she wedged her girth in there, with her flab lopping over the rim.

    1. Luckily Taft’s old tub is still in the White House so she’s covered.


  7. The wookie threatened to pull their arms out if they didn’t go along.

  8. Now if they will only reduce the portion size for lobsters at five star New York hotels…

  9. As long as we can still deep fry the regular sized ones, I don’t see a problem here.

      1. If everybody deep fried their food, there would be no war…

        *Drinks beer and sadly looks off to the horizon*

        1. There would be war, but:
          Captain – 1st waddle-ers – charge!!!
          3 steps…huffing and puffing.
          Corporal – is this up hill?
          Another corporal – actually, its downhill.
          Sargent in A company collapses from lack of food (he last ate 6 minutes ago)…
          MEDIC!!!! we need snickers!!!

  10. While I think it is a bad call, obviously they believe this will result in higher sales or they wouldn’t be doing it. It sales drop then the larger bars will be reintroduced. This is how the market is supposed to work. This isn’t the government imposing this limitation. Move in, nothing to see here.

    1. No, I won’t move in to your evil world!

    2. Not good enough. Giving these fucking paternalist groups an inch at all creates conditions for more legislative bullshit. The market is not working right, yet.

  11. This is fucking bullshit!

    I have a bunch of neighbors that work at Mars, I will confirm this damn story.

    1. I have a bunch of neighbors that work at Mars

      The commute must be a bitch!

    2. I knew a union machinist that gets payed to go to Mars to not work.

    3. bring back M&M’s for everybody!

  12. Sounds like Mars thinks there is more profit in smaller servings purchased more often.

    Its the free market at work and this formula has been adopted by every fucking cheese/yogurt/blah food packager in the USA.

    Leave it to Right Wing-Nut ‘John’ to piss on the free market.

    1. Just when you think Shriek can’t possibly be more obsequious to the Obama agenda, he posts again.

    2. It’s not the free market when someone twists your arm to do something. But then you being a rational capitalist already knew that.

    3. Sounds like Mars thinks there is more profit in smaller servings purchased more often.

      But there’s no inflation, right shrike?

      1. Does the government impose a 250 calorie-limit in a free market?

  13. So Mars has jumped on the “more for less” bandwagon – meaning more money for less product. I was at a supermarket yesterday and I noticed there was one bottle of a particular brand of dishwashing liquid weighing 30 ounces and all the others were 28 ounces – a price increase by another name.

    1. It’s just shrinkage.

      I first noticed this practice with ice cream. We got some for a party, and I’m just shocked at how light the package felt.

      People are very sensitive to increases in food prices, and food has been skyrocketing. Only choice is to shave off the quantity provided. It’s like selling gas by the liter in Europe.

      1. Yeah, ice cream shrinkage is ridiculous. We aren’t talking about an ounce or two any more. Packages are 1/3 smaller than they used to be.

        Luckily we have Publix down here. Their store brand is pretty high quality – and it comes in full half-gallon containers. Sorry Breyer’s, but when I can get 50% more product for less money and it is of similar quality…. you lose!

    2. Good point. As commodity prices run up, everyone is charging the same for smaller packages.

      This is just Mars getting some feel-good PR to go with their subterfuge.

  14. Hey Obama administration, why don’t you stop giving MY money to pay farmers to grow wheat and corn surpluses? Why are you continuing to lie and say that high-carb low-fat diets are healthy? The people are learning the truth anyway: eating “whole grain” bread all day makes you just as fat as a king-size candy bar, and it’s just as non-nutritious.

    When the corporate farm subsidies stop, and REAL FOOD (meat and vegetables) return to fair prices, the obesity epidemic will sort itself out. The rest of this crap is counterproductive window dressing (are we surprised?) to cover up how brutally our government has damaged our health with our own money.

  15. Fuck that pig Michelle Obama right in her big fat disgusting cellulite-ridden ass. The next time she goes skiing I hope she pulls a Sonny Bono.

    1. That’ll show ‘er!

      1. Mike M. is one of the brain-rotten rednecks who can’t get over the Bushpig’s Big Gov failure 2001-2009. So he projects that failure onto whoever he can to mask his wretched impotence.

        1. Just one of many here who are blinded by hate and rage and who cannot read (nobody forced Mars to reduce the size of its friggin’ candy).

          1. I didn’t claim that. I specifically claimed the opposite.

            I am ragging on the knee-jerk Archie Busnkers.

          2. I’m righteous. Righteous. Righteous. FauxNewswatchingfatasses Righteous. Righteous. Archie Bunkfucks. Righteous. Righteous. Dittoasses. Righteous. Righteous. Righteous. Righteous. Sleestak fucks. sleestacks everyfucking where. Fucking hate them.

        2. Yeah cause Obama has been a STELLAR president.

          Keep sucking that cock Demfag.

        3. shrike is one of the brain-rotten demfags who can’t get over the Obamapig’s Big Gov failure 2009-2013. So he projects that failure onto whoever he can to mask his wretched impotence.

  16. She went to a concert and when she started to dance made the band skip.

  17. Mars is implementing the 250-calorie threshold as part of an agreement with Partnership for a Healthier America

    In other words, nobody forced them to do it, certainly not “the government.” They did it voluntarily.

    Nothing to see here. No government bogey-man. Move along, now.

    1. Stossel has showed us what the government can do to people who don’t “play nice”.

      1. Regardless, the rage here is misplaced, as usual. Blame Mars, not Lady Obama.

        1. My point is: the government doesn’t have to make laws to shut you down anymore, they can just do it. If Mars hadn’t played along with Michelle Obama’s idea, she could just make a call to the EPA. They would’ve marked a Mars facility as a “wetland” or something equally absurd and forced them to pay a fine or shut down, without any appeals process.

          We already know how easily they can do this once you’ve offended some bureaucrat. Imagine what they would do if you offended the First Lady!

          1. Paranoid much? Mars made a business decision. Blame them, if you must blame somebody.

            1. Feck off, Obamasucker. Drink! Arse! Girls!

            2. Yea, that’s just paranoid crazy talk.

          2. Mmm, chocolate wetland!

      2. This. “Voluntary” my behind, especially with this administration.

        Hey Michelle, if you want to fight obesity, why don’t you try hitting the treadmill.

        1. Keep digging.
          And kudos on the personal attacks. Brilliant.

          1. First Lady Michelle Obama’s federally funded government initiative

            1. Let’s Move! is the federally funded program, not Partnership for a Healthier America. Mars’ agreement is with the latter. Reading is hard, but ignorance is bliss. You must be a very happy fellow.

              1. …to involuntarily fund this bitch’s pet project, Anyway?

              2. Anyway|2.29.12 @ 6:29PM|#
                “You must be a very happy fellow.”
                And you’re a dimwit. Doesn’t all that spinning make you dizzy?

    2. Doesn’t matter. This hit the trifecta – Michelle Obama, food “police”, and purported social engineering.

      The blastocysts rejoice.

      1. “Purported”? Fuck, shrike, BOTH Teams LOVE social engineering, and you know it.

        Quit being a disingenuous schmuck.

        1. Ooops, forgot… you’re Team Blue.

      2. MMM, Team Blue cock!

        1. You have no idea where that thing has been, do you?

    3. Yeah, blaming this on Michelle Obama is a bit of a stretch. Mars is perfectly happy to sell a smaller candy bar at the same price. Who wouldn’t?

      This is part of a larger trend where fat people are starting to count calories. They’re not doing anything about the calories, but at least they are well informed about their apathy.

      1. +1 on that last part… great observation.

      2. “Yep, 5000 calories today, just like I expected.”

    4. If you give your wallet to an armed robber, you did so voluntarily because he didn’t shoot you.

      1. Oh, I see! Partnership for a Healthier America is an armed robber!


        1. h, s! Prtnrshp fr Hlthr Amrc s n rmd rbbr!


        2. O, I ee! aei o a eaie Aeia i a ae oe!


      2. Stop using my name, you idiot.

  18. When I want something sweet, I often just buy ten to twenty Snickers/Mars/Hershey bars and just eat them all on the same day, for example. I get days-long cravings like that sometimes. This stupid bullshit isn’t going to achieve anything.

    My neighbor’s kids stuff their faces with “unhealthy” stuff all day, every day, and neither of them is even remotely overweight.

    Also, I wonder WHY the price of food is increasing. Hmmmmm. Must be the libertards and their free-market anarchy!

    1. Capitalist markets require aggressive suppression of foraging Non-State lifeways whereby one may gather and hunt a free lunch.

      “You’ll know you’re among the people of your culture if the food is all owned, if it’s all under lock and key. But food was once no more owned than the air or the sunshine are owned. No other culture in history has ever put food under lock and key?and putting it there is the cornerstone of your economy, because if the food wasn’t under lock and key, who would work?” ~Daniel Quinn

      1. Cuz all the productive land is….mine, Mine, MINE!

        Sorry, sucker. Dat’s teh “free” market. hehe

        1. “Prehistorical Man lived in a Garden of Eden. Then along came agriculture, Man’s original sin.

          “But fear not – civilization will inevitably collaspe! Your salvation is at hand!”

      2. The food is NOT under lock and key, we have food stamps for anyone who’s willing to quit their job… yet 85% of us work. Because working is awesome.

      3. The food is NOT under lock and key, we have food stamps for anyone who’s willing to quit their job… yet 85% of us work. Because working is awesome.

      4. I post the same shit day in and day out from crackpot primitards like myself. Is it a wonder I don’t work?

  19. Get Your Large Ass To Mars.

  20. All I know is when I used to cycle and jog (50k’s plus and 10ks plus on average respectively) a Mars bar was the food of choice to carry, before, during and after.

    Eating habits have been evolving. Soft drink companies now sell sodas – well before sugar zealots came into the picture – in 237ml cans for quite a while now.

    Not sure how much of it is government and how much is attributed to personal choices already changing.

  21. They came for the whole milk, and I said nothing because I drink soy milk.

    They came for the big Mac, and I said nothing because I only eat lettuce.

    They came for my candy bar, but I could say nothing since I had starved to death.


    Hey Michelle! Go to Hell!

    1. Is that ok with Fibertarian city-Statists?

      1. You’re not clever

        Just go to hell.

      2. Religion is bad…except for mine!

    2. That seems to be what happened to Bob Cogen.

  22. On the one hand, I want to go out and buy a King-sized Snickers to say fuck you to Michelle Obama and her ilk. But on the other hand, I want to boycott Mars for pulling such a PR stunt. It’s lose-lose.

    1. Go and buy a king sized Hershey product.

  23. This kind of product size/price manipulation is commonplace. I worked in a grocery store as a kid. Companies were constantly modifying the mass/volume of their products ever so slightly. The trick was to shrink the volume without alterring the face of the product. That way, when stacked on the shelves it looks just as big as ever, but isn’t. You can even mix the old and the new and nobody notices.

    If your product gets too small you can do this: Increase the size while temporarily leaving the cost alone (20% more FREE!) After a few weeks you change labels and up the price. Everyone is used to the larger containers, but don’t notice that the per unit price has gone up. Then you can start slowly decreasing volume again.

    tl;dr Price per unit mass is all that matters and producers are constantly changing it in ways you probably don’t notice.

    1. Kroger always provides the price per unit on the price tags, which makes it a lot easier to comparison shop. And of course prices for almost everything (except electronics, hm) keep going up.

  24. This is plain silly. It’s not as if people decide how much candy to eat by the size of the units. It’s also not as if people didn’t know how to bite off part of a candy bar and save the rest for later. The composition of the candy is unchanged. You might as well fight obesity by making spoons smaller.

  25. Hahaha, a decision made by a private company in conjunction with a private nonprofit on which Michelle Obama serves an honorary position, and Reason takes the time to piss on it. And the commentariat gleefully piles on with fat jokes acting as though the First Lady was some kind of health dictator. This article, in a nutshell, is why you will always be tools of the Republicans.

    1. You embarrass your mother, illiterate.

      1. Show her the article and ask her which comments she finds most embarrassing!

    2. … I learned it’s mean to point that out to them every day. I try to hold it down to just a few days a week, at least.

      1. It’s none of Mrs. Obama’s fucking business, Anonymous.

        First Ladies (and, in the future, First Husbands [or whatever the fuck we wind up calling the husband of a female president]) need to be banned from any involvement in public policy. Starting with Michelle, if possible, but definitely after Barry is out of office.

        We elect presidents, not their spouses. Spouses of presidents need to stay the fuck out of the public sector decision-making process.


        1. Oh, and to “Anyway”… either you’re a troll, or you’re a retarded troll.

          Fuck the fuck off.

          1. Get over it. You’ll live longer.

            1. Okay, I’m allowed one snickers bar every day. You know… these aren’t as satisfying as they used to be. (eats a second one) (feels guilty, eats a third one) (gains weight, gives up on diet, develops 20-snickers-a-day habit)

              1. Threading. What is it?

            2. Anyway|2.29.12 @ 6:24PM|#
              “Get over it.”
              Fuck you.

            3. This Anyway person barely rates being called a person.

              1. I smell Derider in Anyway’s posts.

                1. If you are smelling the internet something is going wrong.

        2. Every single first lady in American history has done this shit.
          “Knit socks for Our Troops!” – Martha Washington.

          What a fat uppity bitch!

          1. “Fund my non-profit or go to jail*.” -Michelle Obama

            *Publically funded, therefore lives off taxes. Ever try to skip on paying your taxes?

            1. “Fund my troops or go to jail” – Martha Washington.

              Every single first lady in American history has done this shit. Those fat cunts!

              1. …then yes, fuck her, too.

                1. This is why you guys will never win elections.

                  1. …for not supporting whatever I think is important?

                  2. …might makes right.

                2. As Mr. FIFY pointed out, that needs to stop. Now, if not next time.

                  The Clintons tried to pull that “we are the President” co-ruler thing. It was a bad idea then, and it should be forbidden henceforth.

                  1. How do you intend to outlaw the freedoms of a private citizen?

                    1. …with access to public monies really be considered a private citizen?

                    2. If she didn’t have a chance to consent, I don’t think you can remove her rights. She doesn’t run for first lady. Even if you strip all head of state functions from the first lady (which isn’t electable) she’ll still have intense access and some influence.

                    3. …married to a public person, she’s already consented implicitly.

                      If she’s still a private citizen, why does she have the “right” to use public monies?

                    4. It’s a “freedom” for the spouse of a president to meddle in public policy?

                    5. If we’re stopping her, why not the Koch brothers?

              2. Fail – no income tax under Pres. Washington

                1. Fail – The continental congress was printing worthless money and forcing people to accept it!

                  1. Are the Koch brothers the spouses of a sitting president?

                    Do you include Soros and Buffett, or just the Kochs?

                    Fly your Team Blue flag, Derider. It looks good on you.

    3. Hahaha, a decision made by a private company in conjunction with a private nonprofit on which Michelle Obama serves an honorary position, and Reason takes the time to piss on it. And the commentariat gleefully piles on with fat jokes acting as though the First Lady was some kind of health dictator. This article, in a nutshell, is why you will always be tools of the Republicans.

        1. The spouse of this – or any future – presidents, should not have “clout”. They should shut up and mind their non-elected business.

          1. So because she’s in a contract with somebody who works for the government, she loses her freedom of speech?

            1. …do you not understand?

              1. So, you’re in favor of the spouse of the highest-elected figurehead, to be able to sway or direct public policy?

                Fuck that. Make the First Spouse a Cabinet position, or (better yet) don’t. But don’t GIVE them power, especially when they don’t deserve it.

                1. Being in favor of =/= believing there is no reasonable solution to.

                  1. Why should the spouse of the president, be able to directly influence public policy?

                    She can talk all she wants, but Michelle’s gone beyond talking. Just like Hillary did.

                    We don’t elect the spouses of presidents. They have free speech, but no right to influence policy – and, no right to be heard.

                    There IS no right to be heard… you knew that, right?

      1. …powerful individual in the world has not clout. Nope.

        1. But if she uses it she becomes a bitch.

          1. …isn’t abused. The right people and all that.

            1. Voluntary agreements are not abuses of power!

              1. The Derider|2.29.12 @ 9:06PM|#
                “Voluntary agreements are not abuses of power!”

                Yep, sort of like paying taxes is “voluntary”.
                You’re an ignoramus.

                1. Hey, at least you have a choice of whether to pay your taxes or go to jail. See? It IS voluntary!

                2. No, it’s not like that because paying taxes isn’t voluntary. Mars was free to not enter into this voluntary agreement with a non-government organization. They had to pay taxes either way.

                  1. Derider, do you truly think there would be zero repercussions if Mars didn’t do what it did?

                    If you do, you’re a fool.

                    1. I think Mars acted to maximize profits, like the article stated.

                      Do you think Seal Teams are on their way to Hershey’s right now?

                  2. Fund my non-profit or go to jail.

                    For the children.

                  3. Is Ron Paul abusing his power every time he waves a silver coin around because his salary is taxpayer funded?

                    1. And yet nobody calls him a fat bitch! Intriguing.

                    2. Is Ron Paul a fat woman?

                    3. True, but they don’t call him an old gnome either.

                    4. …I just couldn’t refuse to be a pedant.

                    5. The Derider|2.29.12 @ 10:12PM|#

                      True, but they don’t call him an old gnome either.

                      They don’t?

                    6. …take no public monies. As much as I like his words and actions, accepting taxpayer funds is hypocritical on his part.

                    7. How is taking a salary for being an elected Representative hypocrytical? It’s in the Constitution, or, as the liberals call it, the speedbump.

                    8. TAXEZ R STEALING DUH

                    9. This is about the wife (or, eventually, husband and maybe even same-sex spouse) of a sitting president, having any level of power and/or influence on public policy… *not* about Ron Paul.

                      But you knew that.

                    10. No, see, you morons wanted to make it about her nominal involvement with an organization that is partially funded with tax dollars.

                    11. Keep defending a non-elected spouse making public policy, Derider. It shows your true colors.

    4. Well, that’s why it’s Reason and not Liberty. Not everything here relates directly to freedom. They’re also about things making fuckin’ sense.

  26. Hmmm, what if everyone who disagreed with this bought a few king sized candies? Made it worth the company’s time to keep it on.

  27. It remimds me of that political incorrect toon…

  28. Feck Mars. I shall never dine upon another of their products. Drink! Arse! Girls!

    1. Nice candy-bar factory you have here. Suuuuure would be a shame of something… happened to it. Ain’t that right, Tommy Three-Thumbs?

      1. D’ah, dat’s right, uh, Boss. You wan’ I should rough ’em up a bit?

  29. Where the hell is that bitch’s hair net? That situation looks wholly unappetizing.

  30. “As short a time ago as February, the Ministry of Plenty had issued a promise (a ‘categorical pledge’ were the official words) that there would be no reduction of the chocolate ration during 1984. Actually, as Winston was aware, the chocolate ration was to be reduced from thirty grammes to twenty at the end of the present week. All that was needed was to substitute for the original promise a warning that it would probably be necessary to reduce the ration at some time in April.”

  31. This thread is why women aren’t here.

    1. worship at the Team Blue altar, The Derider.

      1. No shit! But nearly all women object to being called fat bitches.

        1. Team Blue Guy: “That man is a scrawny dick.”

          The Derider: “HAHAHA!!!”

          Libertarian Guy: “Michelle Obama is a fat bitch.”

          The Derider: “MISOGYNIST!!!”

          1. Nice pointing-out *ahem* of the hypocrisy.

            Much as I despise Rush Limbaugh, there should be no double-standard when calling *him* fat, but saying it’s wrong to call Michael Moore fat.

            Logic. How do it work?

            1. Rush Limbaugh + Michael Moore = 5 X (Michelle Obama)

              She’s a 48 year old woman with 2 kids and weighs 160 pounds. She’d be fat if she was first lady of Ethiopia, maybe.

              1. Way to be obtuse, Derider.

                What he was getting at is, if it’s not “okay” to poke fun at the wife of the Top Figurehead in the country, then it’s not okay to do it to ANYONE in public life.

                She – and any First Lady/Dude, from this point on – should shut their fucking mouths and stay the fuck out of public policy decisions. They can run for office (e.g., Hillary Clinton) AFTER the spouse leaves office.

                1. They have no elected power. They are private citizens. If they want to use their access to influence policy, who are you to regulate their speech?

                  1. She can *alk* all she wants… it’s the DOING, you seem to encourage.

                    This isn’t about free speech, and you fuckin’ well know it.

          2. I don’t think the first statement is funny and I don’t think the third is analogous to the first.

  32. So they’ll just change the labels to say “2 servings per package.” Nobody reads that stuff anyway.

  33. I see a market opportunity for “Jupiter” bars about 5 times the size of a Mars Bar.

    As marketing and packaging make up a huge percentage of the price in any case, I’d bet they could sell it for no more than 3x the price of a Mars Bar.

  34. Almond Joy’s got nuts, Mars don’t.

  35. And yet the King Cunt and his bitch wife are still in the White House.

    Can’t wait to see those chocolate nuts GTFO 2012

    1. C’mon, man… let’s leave their melanin content out of the equation.

      Besides… Barry’s hAlfrican-American.

      1. Yeah, let’s leave race out of this.


        1. I don’t care which half of Barry’s racial makeup drives his stupid goddamn policymaking decisions, and I would despise Michelle just as much if she looked like Kathy Griffin, you stupid cocksucker.

          Don’t call me a racist and think you can get away with it. Fuck you.

  36. It’s funny reading comments from trolls trying to spin this into their confirmation bias-fed fantasies of Libertarians as being whiney and overreactive when in actuality their scorn would be better reserved for the people in the government that think candy bar size is where our the priority of our focus, time and money should be currently spent.

    1. That would make a lot of sense if Michelle Obama was in the government. Which she is not.

      1. She’s PRETENDING she’s “in the government”, and don’t tell us she isn’t doing as such.

        She’s trying that Hillary Clinton bullshit, and it needs to be stopped.

  37. Nom, nom, nom, nom, nom!

  38. Who elected this broad to…whatever position she thinks she holds?

    1. nobody did, and that’s the sad part…

  39. classmate’s mother brought home $18499 a month ago. she makes money on the laptop and got a $524600 home. All she did was get fortunate and put to work the clues made clear on this site Nuttyrich DOTcom

  40. I won’t get too concerned until Man Vs. Food is cancelled by the regime.

  41. No wonder I couldn’t find any King-Sized Snickers at the store! Great article. I excerpted it and recounted my own ‘horrifying’ experience at the supermarket:…..-snickers/

  42. Hey, Derider… did you pleasure yourself when Hillary uttered this?

    “I’m not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers.
    We are the president.”

    Hillary Clinton commenting on the release of subpoenaed documents.

    Or this?

    See the pattern?

    1. And let me be clear:

      1. It was wrong when Nancy Reagan did it.

      2. No, “the wife of Clarence Thomas” doesn’t count, because she is not there with him in the Supreme Court while he’s on the job. Michelle Obama IS there when HER husband is on the job.

      3. This still isn’t about free speech. Michelle can say whatever she wants, but she is MEDDLING in public policy while her husband is on duty as Chief Hood Ornament*. That shit needs to end with the next First Spouse, if not right goddamned now.

      4. I don’t know why I’m trying to explain this to a Team Bluetard, but I’m hoping at least someone with common sense will be reading it.

      * Political comedian Will Durst:

      “…Face it, most Presidents are figureheads, Reagan was a hood ornament. He had the intellectual depth of a ashtray. …”…..president/

  43. Oh my gosh – such gov’t overreach. But let’s legalize marijuana, right, Michele?

  44. Conservatives… get out of my bedroom!

    Liberals… get out of my supermarket!

  45. ted to by a lot of critics as an example of big government intervening and the Obama administration wanting to expand the role of government to the point that it controls what America

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.