Los Angeles

Los Angeles May Back Down on Fast Food Paternalism


Better than broccoli

Matt Welch and Reason TV have previously reported on the City of Los Angeles' paternalistic treatment of South L.A.'s residents by banning the opening of new fast food restaurants.

Now it's possible that the city may scale back on its regulatory meddling. Via CBS Los Angeles:

Dozens of South Los Angeles residents Thursday were expected to attend a hearing about a plan that opponents fear could crowd the city with fast-food restaurants.

Officials with the city Planning Commission are scheduled to consider a draft of the West Adams-Baldwin Hills-Leimert Park Community Plan that would exempt the 10th Council District from a ban on new fast-food eateries that has been in effect since 2008.

Love the framing of that first paragraph there. Not banning the construction of fast food restaurants is the same as creating a huge eruption of them everywhere, right?

The story notes that a study from the National Institutes of Health determined that the density of fast food restaurants in Southern Los Angeles is not out of line with other neighborhoods. As somebody who lives in mid-L.A. and drives through that area to get to our lovely new Reason offices every day, I can anecdotally declare that there is absolutely no difference with the fast food density there compared to other places.

But that didn't stop William McCarthy, a professor at the UCLA School of Public Health, from giving this remarkably revealing and insulting soundbite regarding the general public's personal choices:

However, McCarthy said personal responsibility for dietary choices is only one factor involved in the health issues raised by allowing more fast-food restaurants into the neighborhood, and that lawmakers can, and should, be doing more to protect the public.

"It's more than that because people are influenced by visual cues and by other influences that they're not totally aware of, so there is a role of government to help nudge them in the direction of healthier choices," he said.

Below, watch Reason TV analyzing L.A.'s food police in 2011:

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories at @reason247.

NEXT: Reebok Dumps Rapper over Rape Lyrics

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I imagine a conversation between Dr. McCarthy and a patron of a fastfood restaurant would go something like this

    Rob Reiner: Oh my God! Excuse me!
    BUDS Man: Yes?
    Rob Reiner: Would you mind putting that death stick out?!
    BUDS Man: But, uh, this is a bar.
    Rob Reiner: Isn’t smoking illegal in bars here?
    Bartender: Not in Colorado
    Rob Reiner: Oh my God! What kind of backward hick state is this?!
    BUDS Man: Look man, I work fourteen hours a day at the saw mill. I just got off work and I need to relax.
    Rob Reiner: Well when I relax I just go to my vacation house in Hawaii!
    BUDS Man: I ain’t got a vacation house in Hawaii!
    Rob Reiner: Yuh your vacation house in Mexico, then, whatever it is!

    1. “My name is Rita Poon. I called about my boys wanting a tour.”

  2. Please, can we use the full names of geographical locations? It’s El Pueblo de Nuestra Se?ora la Reina de los ?ngeles del R?o de Porci?ncula, not the intellectually slovenly “Los Angeles.”

    And don’t get me started on Rhode Island and Providence Plantations or La Villa Real de la Santa F? de San Francisco de As?s, New Mexico.

    1. And of course Presidio San Antonio de B?xar.

  3. The absurdity of our culture is reaching all-time highs. Too bad Dal? isn’t around, anymore. He’d love all of this.

    1. Dali would never put up with being a realist.

  4. “It’s more than that because people are influenced by visual cues and by other influences that they’re not totally aware of, so there is a role of government to help nudge them in the direction of healthier choices,” he said.

    Fuck off, slaver.

    1. Nudging per se doesn’t bother me, it’s useless and incompetent nudging. The number and density of fast-food restaurants has basically ZERO to do with the obesity of any individual. It’s like trying to lower the number of spree killings by “expanding background checks,” when none of the spree killers would have been stopped by them.

  5. Is the argument that maximum fast food proliferation is a good thing, or that a city shouldn’t have the right to determine its own standards through local democratic governance? I’ll assume you don’t want to put the federal jackboot down on the autonomy of LA…

    It must be that a laissez-faire market in restaurants or more broadly commercial property produces the best possible outcomes. Like maximum availability of fast food and minimum availability of healthy choices and everyone being fat and disgusting. Optimal!

    1. So if a city notices an uptick of gay males with HIV and it costs the city/state more money, you’d be okay (given that 51% of the voters approved) with a ban on gay sex?

      1. Personal sexual autonomy is considered a civil right, while building a Taco Bell is not.

        1. If I want to build a Taco Bell on my property, I have every right to.

          If you don’t like burritos, don’t eat one, right, Tony?

          1. HE CANT STOP HIMSELF, YOU FUCKING MONSTER!!11onewoneone

        2. Beg the question much?

        3. So you’re allowed to choose what you put in your butt, but not what you put in your gut?

          And if sexual autonomy is a civil right, then why is it illegal to masturbate in public?

          Finally, why do you hate democracy?

          1. why do you hate democracy?

            “Because I would hate to imagine myself in the 49%”

        4. They’re both a right. Building a T-Bell on my property is a right, as is who I want to bang.

        5. Personal diet autonomy isn’t a civil right?

          Or to put it another way: is building a gay bar a civil right? Limiting opportunities for HIV transmission is a public health goal, correct? A gay bar is to AIDS precisely what a Taco Bell is to obesity.

          1. Now Tony’s going to call you a homophobe. Just wait.

          2. No, building a gay bar isn’t a civil right. I’m talking about the difference personal rights and business rights. Conventionally we enjoy autonomy over ourselves, including who we have sex with and what we eat. That is not the same type of right as a business being able to open on whatever plot of land it wants. Businesses have some measure of social responsibility because they serve the public. And we wouldn’t need to regulate them if they took that responsibility on themselves.

            Fast food in particular is without question a social institution. That makes it society’s business.

            1. Fast food in particular is without question a social institution. That makes it society’s business.

              Begging the question.

            2. And I’ll note that individuals too have social responsibility and you will totally agree. They have the responsibility not to kill people, etc. If a person could effect the negative health effects allegedly perpetrated by the fast food industry and do it all at once, even you might agree it was criminal.

              1. Society =/= government. Society arises through the individual interactions of people and the natural creation of traditions. Government has the ability to force 49% of people to obey the tyrannical will of 51% of the population.

                Do you notice the difference, Tony? The government of Las Angeles is not the society of Los Angeles. The government of Los Angeles, in this instance, is attempting to stifle the society of Los Angeles because it doesn’t like what the society is doing.

                Try to keep up, Tony. This was pointed out by Bastiat in 1858. You’d think you’d know this by now, given that it’s been 150 years.

                1. The society of LA responds to its environment, which is in large part created by government at all levels. Bastiat was against all government plunder, even that perpetuated on behalf of privileged classes. That’s what you’re ignoring and what libertarians consistently ignore. Privileged classes will always have more political influence than the underprivileged, but it’s the latter you are obsessed with.

                  And Bastiat, having died in 1850, is really very irrelevant to the global economy and technological environment he never saw.

                  1. And Bastiat, having died in 1850, is really very irrelevant to the global economy and technological environment he never saw.

                    “Like, they didn’t even speak English back then, man.”

                    1. the global economy and technological environment he never saw

                      Because 1850 totally predated the industrial revolution. And the rum triangle. And the spice roads to the east.

                  2. This is where liberal orthodoxy gets all messed up and retarded.

                    Tony, GLOBAL ECONOMY AND TRADE is NOT, I repeat IS NOT and NEVER WAS EXCLUSIVE TO ANY ONE ERA, DECADE, CENTURY OR SOCIETY. The world has witnessed multiple “Global trades.”

                    The term is vague and pointless.

                    I don’t get liberals. On one hand they claim to know history using it as leverage to prove contemporary positions and refute it when it doesn’t serve their needs.

                    In this manner, past historical figures become extremely relevant for something they support. BUT, the second CERTAIN thinkers don’t support their views, they’re dismissed as “old” and “irrelevant.”

                    They do it with the Founding Fathers too I noticed.

                    And Tony, really, it’s MIND BOGGLING how you can support a paternalistic dick who makes no sense but not the small business owner who is a much more organic reflection of societal needs, wants and demands.

                    Parks has no right or is in no position to make any damn decisions for anyone.

                    That hamburger stand owner is endlessly more productive than that mayor will ever be. He hit the nail on the head: You fuckers have no clue of what you’re talking about.

                    The ignorance about business is beyond the pale if you ask me.

            3. And we wouldn’t need to regulate them if they took that responsibility on themselves.

              “Why do you make me beat you, Baby? I just want what’s best for you. Bitch.”

            4. I’m talking about the difference personal rights and business rights

              There isn’t a difference. The business is made up of individuals with rights. This violates those individuals’ rights.

              1. The business is made up of individuals with rights.

                But, but, but, the fact that they earn a profit negates their rights, because, like, I want what they have and don’t want to work for it.

            5. Conventionally we enjoy autonomy over ourselves, including who we have sex with and what we eat.

              Bingo. People who live in LA have a right to eat at fast-food restaurants if they want to. Prohibiting the construction of such restarants for the purpose of denying Angelinos that opportunity violates their autonomy.

              1. Not anymore than allowing a fast food restaurant prohibits the construction of a health-foods store on that same plot of land.

                Why do rich people not eat fast food as much and are thinner? Because they have more choices because they are richer. People with more choices and who have more money make BETTER choices, naturally.

                1. Why do rich people not eat fast food as much and are thinner?

                  [Citation Needed]

                2. So you’re saying that poor people are too stupid to order a salad at McDonald’s?

                3. Not anymore than allowing a fast food restaurant prohibits the construction of a health-foods store on that same plot of land.

                  So, two story buildings that have different businesses on each floor don’t exist?

                  Why do rich people not eat fast food as much and are thinner? Because they have more choices because they are richer.

                  Poor people can’t afford to exercise and eat less? WTF?

                4. Better choices? lol.

                  Rich people don’t eat fast food because it’s declasse. They instead eat burgers with foie gras buns woth a side of beef marrow. Yeah it’s better but not necessarily better for you.

                  1. besides, research has shown that the middle class eats more fast food than the poor.

    2. People depend on superior intellects like you to make their choices for them. Joy to you, friend. Peace and contentment. It is the gift of Tony.

    3. I’d like to hear your policy position on fixing obesity in “food deserts.”

    4. Hey, do you remember how the popularity of the KKK grew in the 1920s because of their support for progressive policies?

    5. You’re a fucking idiot.

    6. or that a city shouldn’t have the right to determine its own standards through local democratic governance?

      No gay people in this neighborhood. You know, AIDS and all… isn’t it the responsibility of government to, you know, nudge people to make healthier choices?

      Serious question, Tony, you know who else used to make the community standards argument?

      1. Building whatever type of business you want wherever you want is not a personal civil right.

        1. Yes it is.

          1. So I can build a toxic waste disposal business across your backyard fence, one whose business model perhaps takes into account the dumping of my waste into your water supply?

            Or do you have some excuse for that in order to maintain the absurd libertarian fantasy that your free-whiling, naturally more risky society will always benefit you personally?

            1. Across my backyard fence? Nope, that’s trespassing. Across from it? Yep.

              Dumping waste into my water is assault. Selling tacos isn’t.

            2. Allowing people sexual autonomy is more risky than not.

              At least admit that you think liberty only extends to the things that you find acceptable, and have no moral or philosophical basis for what you advocate. In other words, you think overweight people are “disgusting” hence it’s okay to limit their behavior at the point of a gun, but you enjoy butt sex so that’s off limits.

              1. I’m not suggesting limiting people’s ability to choose whatever they want to eat. I would abhor such a policy. But choices are always made in a given limited environment. All I’m suggesting is encouraging a better environment so people are more free to make better choices. I am always on the side of freedom.

                1. But choices are always made in a given limited environment. All I’m suggesting is coercing the limitations of that environment. Why can’t you fucking peons just agree with me?

                2. I am always on the side of my freedom.

                  1. Since choices are always made in a limited environment, we should beat gay people. It’s not illegal to be gay, we won’t throw you in jail, you’ll just periodically catch a beating.

                    After all, you have the choice to stop having sex with men. I’m just creating an environment in which you can make that choice.

                    1. If you could get a large majority of people to agree with you, I’d be SOL. The Rights Fairies aren’t going to save me, are they?

                    2. If you could get a large majority of people to agree with you, I’d be SOL.

                      And yet you still don’t understand the problem with mob rule.

                    3. you’ll just periodically catch a beating

                      Irish if you keep up this kind of sexy talk I’ll have to track you down and molest you.

                3. I’m not suggesting limiting people’s ability to choose whatever they want to eat.

                  That is exactly what you are doing.

                  I would abhor such a policy. But choices are always made in a given limited environment.

                  So, you would be OK with banning all gay bars in a limited area to encourage what socons consider better choices, if socons were 50.1%+ of the voters?

        2. All negative rights are civil rights. All positive rights are wrong. All progressives are racists.

          1. So the positive right of access to land and taxpayer-funded protection of your claim to it is off the table, I presume?

            1. “Access to land” is not a positive right. I have the right to attempt to purchase acquire from its rightful owner via trade.

              So if a piece of property is protected by the police, the government has total control over it? I guess that means you completely support the Drug War, warrantless wiretapping, etc.

              1. The ability to claim land as your own is absolutely a government entitlement. Hence the “title.” Without government, you could claim a plot of land but the legitimacy of that claim would extend as far as the influence of your private thug force. Police protection–even more unquestionably a positive right as you define it–is inherent to property rights in the even most rudimentary form of a property-based society.

                This is what I’m talking about. You are making an exception to your supposed principles because you like being able to own property. Even though your society is going to be much riskier for everyone, somehow you always come out on top in your own mind. Oh what a psychotherapy session could do with this.

                1. Shorter Tony: might makes right.

                2. no way legitimacy requires government? Wow, how could we possibly ever figured out that the root legos had something to do with the law?

                  1. seriously thouh you all need to pay more attention to the words Tony uses. He uses specific words to bait the more impulsive amobg us.

        3. You know who else agrees with you?

    7. Is the argument that maximum fast food proliferation is a good thing, or that a city shouldn’t have the right to determine its own standards through local democratic governance?

      False dilemma, as usual. It’s amazing how you can haunt this place for so long and not learn a fucking thing.

      1. I presented a third choice.

        1. Still wrong.

          1. 3 whole choices. You people just can’t be satisfied with the choices your betters have provided you with.

            Fucking Ingrates.

          2. People’s choices, left to their own devices, will always be WRONG to the government.

            Super Size me was a silly movie. If you eat ANYTHING often like he did there will be consequences of some sort. Besides, not every body reacts the same.

            I grew up in a family where everything was home made, we often used to go to the farm to buy food, my mother was always shopping endlessly for fresh ingredients. We ate damn well – still do.

            But I don’t force it down anyone’s throat. People have different needs and quite frankly may not have the time to focus so much energy on cooking.

            Guess what? Those values passed on to how we feed our kids at our daycare. Guess what else? Despite loving prosciutto, my seven year-old daughter loves going to Subway and having a shish-taouk pita from a local Lebanese place.

            ‘Fast food’ joints to the statists. My brother in law – who can be a pain in the ass sometimes and who never played sports like I did and is in Homeopathy – never quits talking about how bad it is for her – salt and all that.

            We’re fucking aware. It’s not a means to a fucking end. I can’t stand the smugness.

            We have no qualms taking her there because we know she eats well at home.

            MOST PEOPLE behave this way I reckon.

            Basically, what I’m saying is I probably eat better than the fucker politicians who look to ‘help” me.

            Fuck them and fuck people like Tony. No offense Tony, you seem like a nice guy. Just too fucking gone up the state’s ass is all.

            1. He’s not a nice guy. He’s a vile, piece of shit, facicst.

    8. If people are building fast food restaurants, that’s because there’s demand for fast food. But leave it to Tony to come in and tell these people what’s best for them

      1. Of course there’s demand. But that demand is motivated by the factors I listed. Are you saying that we have a free market and the demand is based on free choice? Or do we live in a regulatory cesspool that distorts all that? Does it depend on what you’re talking about in the moment?

        1. Shorter Tony: The last vestiges of demand have not yet been stamped out! This means you glibertarians are being hypocrites, when you point to the negative impact of the regulatory state! Touche, glibertarians!

          Admittedly, I’m not actually sure that was shorter.

        2. Here’s the problem Tony, corporate manipulation isn’t the only reason that people seek out fast food. Time constraints, lack of knowledge (I’m shocked how many people can’t prepare a simple meal), lack of choice, and cultural preferences.

          Limiting access to fast food doesn’t remove demand, it concentrates more demand on fewer resources, and limits competition.

          If you’re concerned about food deserts, start a charity that has cooking classes in inner cities, takes into account neighborhood cultural tastes and presents healthier versions of them.

          The state has tried to impose nutrition education before but they’ve generally been 30 years behind on the science, flogging products the USDA has in excess, and totally fucking wrong (cheese and white bread as staple foods springs to mind). They also have a history of trying to enforce cultural homogeneity (I can’t find it, but there’s an excellent article titled something like “Go after the women” about how they tried to culturally whiten Mexican families during the Bracero program)

          1. What’s wrong with cheese? Aside from the natural inclination to pair it with white bread?

            Oh, and, get of white bread’s back. Any bread worth eating is bad for you.

            1. even home made focaccia?

              1. That definitely sounds like it’s worth eating, so yes.

            2. I love cheese, and I bake bread (a lot of bread). I’m just not eating 8 servings of white flour per day (which is what the FDA used to recommend with the food pyramid).

              If you want to impress your spouse, date, gimp, try making zatar flatbread.

              It’s more likely to get you laid than a Gibbs slap.

              1. wait.
                do you mean giving the ladies a Za’atar flatbread instead of a Gibbs slap will get me laid
                do you mean giving the ladies a Za’atar flatbread will get me laid instead of Gibbs slapped?

              2. I’m just not eating 8 servings of white flour per day

                I’m convinced that years of eating 2 packs of ramen daily, mixed with a generous amount of grilled cheese, plus a few years where I substituted my water intake with beer, snacking on cheezits and pretzels, caused my diabetes.

                And back to my point about people harping on white flour/bread: whole grain just adds some fiber. It’s not like it has reduced carbs.

                So, enjoy your Safeway 7-Grain Baguette, but don’t lie to yourself about it being much healthier.

                1. Pantsfan: for you the second, for everyone else the first.

                  wylie: I think the main difference is the extra fiber is more filling than plain white bread is and therefore your total ratio of carbs consumed to fullness achieved is better. I agree that it’s not better than grilled salmon with a side of veggies or something. My main concern was that the government spent decades telling people that pasta and bread were acceptable dietary staples and then everyone got fat and the government is like “WAH HAPPEN?”

                  1. Fred Willard is great.

              3. It’s more likely to get you laid than a Gibbs slap.

                I just got back from her place. She’s almost as good in the sack as she is crazy.

                1. I thought when you found out she was crazy you had “dodged a bullet” or something. You’re still giving it to her good and hard?

                  1. Very hard. I mean honestly, she’s going to be bruised tomorrow. If any of you watch Archer, she’s like a tiny version of Cheryl Tunt.

                    1. she’s like a tiny version of Cheryl Tunt.

                      You may want to start running NOW.

                    2. Haha I ain’t skerred.

                      Well, I mean just because I came home instead of sleeping over because I don’t want to be defenseless around her…that’s totally normal.

                    3. I’m all about the crazy girls, as evidenced by the earlier thread that Jesse mentions, but that’s a little weird.

                    4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kr7A2x1WgU

                      She’s not actually as crazy as Cheryl. But she does like to be choked.

                    5. I hear attempted knifing makeup sex is the best!

                    6. Talk about double penetration!

                    7. I do. I like me some freaky people but the hard physical stuff is not my bag. If it’s good for you and good for her awesome, just be careful that she’s not all bruised up when you break it off with her.

                      Also please review Cheradenine Zakalwe’s harrowing tale of sleeping with crazy if you haven’t already.

          2. If you’re concerned about food deserts, start a charity that has cooking classes in inner cities, takes into account neighborhood cultural tastes and presents healthier versions of them.

            If there’s one thing Tony can’t possibly conceive of, it’s voluntary cooperation. He probably just broke out in a sweat upon reading that sentence.

          3. As I’ve said, you’ll get no argument from me that our food culture is heavily distorted by bad government decisions. Of course those are almost always encouraged by a culture of corporate cronyism, but I endorse strategies for combating that and you don’t. (Free market makes magic! is not a credible strategy.)

            I endorse a robustly free market in food, provided that whatever subsidies are necessary are in place in order for people to afford to eat. Think if they simply had more healthy options.

            1. None of your strategies would combat that. None. There is no effective strategy to combat that, and you know it.

              A basic rule of life is that you cannot force people to not consume something they like. They will always find a way. This has been shown through prohibition, the drug war and your idiotic attempt to construct an anti-gun war.

              Stop pretending you’re not an idiot and realize that people can’t be controlled.

              1. People can be controlled and not just by government. People are always controlled by their environment, which they have limited freedom to change. Actually only government can facilitate that to any large degree. This is an important fundamental point: endorsing a smaller role of government is the same thing as endorsing a bigger role for the often unpredictable (and usually riskier) role of whatever environment we find ourselves in. It’s only because of your philosophy’s misguided fixation on atomistic human agency (as a causal force) that you forget the latter can be just as “tyrannical.”


                2. I also notice that when I schooled you completely in the other threads on this page, you promptly disappeared. It’s unsurprising given your various intellectual disabilities and total lack of reasoning capacity, but I just thought I’d point out that you’re a coward, in addition to being a fascist.

                  1. Have I not made enough posts? At least mine contain substance unlike that one.

                    1. At least mine contain substance unlike that one.

                      In the same way that wonderbread contains substance, maybe.

                  2. I’d point out that you’re a coward, in addition to being a fascist.

                    There’s a difference?

                  3. You don’t understand Irish. If you aren’t free to do exactly what tony thinks you should, you aren’t free at all.

                    Honestly, I don’t care if the evil little facicst is real or a sockpuppet, the only thing he deserves (besides a bullet in the ass) is the dollar sign that I started giving him the other night.

                    Having said that, I fucking love how you completely destroy him in every thread.

          4. The government of Canada wanted to ban the import of Parmiggiano-Reggiano baclk in the 1990s because they didn’t like how it was made. It suddenly posed a “risk” to Canadians despite being eaten by MILLIONS on the continent.

            Kraft cheese and knock-off parmesan cheeses on the other hand was safe.

            I’m not kidding when I tell you that’s when I began my journey into skepticism for the government looking out for my best interests.

            Dunno ’bout you but risotto without parmiggiano is not the same.

        3. “But that demand is motivated by the factors I listed.”

          What factors?

          I’m not saying we have a totally free market, but that doesn’t mean that a lot of people clearly like to eat fast food and other unhealthy options. I’m all for getting rid of distorting regulations, but for some reason I don’t think you are

          1. I think it would be a step in the right direction to end the corn monopoly of all food we eat. Any regulatory tweaks I’d put in place would pale in comparison to the present distortion. And I’d only endorse them if they were tested and proven to increase choice and healthiness.

            The problem is free market advocates have a tendency to endorse the corporate favor status quo in fear of a slippery slope toward granola tyranny.

            Look I want to be able to eat whatever I want to eat, and fois gras bans and such make me consider becoming a libertarian. But I have to consider that I fully support regulations on food safety, so what’s the fundamental difference between a poison that acts in days and one that acts over decades?

            1. Any regulatory tweaks I’d put in place would pale in comparison to the present distortion.

              Tweaks applied to the present distortion would pale in comparison to the current distortion?

              Please, elaborate.

            2. “what’s the fundamental difference between a poison that acts in days and one that acts over decades?”

              The scientific definition of what a poison is.

            3. I would agree with you on ending subsidies, protective tariffs and other such distortions. But I think you still simply don’t understand that people like to eat certain things, even if they know they’re unhealthy, and even if there are better alternatives. I go to school in a low-income neighborhood. The grocery stores nearby sell healthy items at affordable prices. There are still a lot of obese people (and there are plenty of obese people in wealthier areas with even more food options). That isn’t the problem.

              “what’s the fundamental difference between a poison that acts in days and one that acts over decades?”

              Really? Well for one, I don’t think anybody without a death wish would eat a food that they know was contaminated with toxins or microbes that would cause imminent harm. People voluntarily choose to eat unhealthy food all the time. It’s not like people aren’t aware that McDonald’s burgers are unhealthy

        4. Are you saying that we have a free market and the demand is based on free choice?

          Tell you what, Tony, try opening a restaurant that serves food you think people ought to want, instead of researching what consumer demand niches are currently unfulfilled and then serving that food, and see how long you stay in business.

          Government can try to distort that dynamic by subsidies and whatnot, causing marginal changes in behavior due to over- or under-pricing of ingredients, but people want what they want.

    9. —“Like maximum availability of fast food and minimum availability of healthy choices and everyone being fat and disgusting.”—

      Healthy choices my ass. In California, you can use EBT welfare cards to eat at most fast food restaurants.

      1. you can use EBT welfare cards to eat at most fast food restaurants.

        “That’s the fault of Evil Corporations.”

        Saved you from having to make that assertion, Clowny.

    10. Freedom requires no justification. When you seek to override the choices that other people make through force, the burden of proof that it’s necessary to do so is yours.

      If someone gets fat eating food you disapprove of, it’s none of your fucking business.


      1. You’re overestimating the amount of choice that actually exists.

        1. Sorry, massa tony says you don’t have any free will, so he’s got to make your choices for you!

          That’s precisely the kind of bullshit I’ve come to expect from you, Tony.


  6. The main problem- LA doesn’t have Taco Time, with its delicious deep fried bean burritos. Two of those and I could fill the Hindenburg.

    1. Yo, fuck highspeed rail.

      Highbean Dirigible is the future of Green Transportation.

    2. Any time is Taco Time.

      And crisp chicken burritos are way better, but probably just as gas inducing.

  7. I stopped reading at “city planning”. Thats your problem.

  8. I don’t know. A lot of fast food restaurants means a lot of obese people. A lot of obese people means a lot of burdens on state resources. And many of those obese people – if not statistically all of them – are children. A lot of fat kids means a long lifetime of the government using its hard-earned medical dollars up on lost causes. End of story.

    1. Doesn’t a city have the right to determine its own standards by banning Negros and Mexicans? They tend to be fat.

      1. Speaking of which, notice how there is never any movement to ban any ethnic food restaurants, even the big chains, despite some of which might have virtually all high-calorie dishes on the menu? No, just ban big-pockets national burger and fried food chains. They are the only ones who cause any weight problems, especially because their irresistible advertisements force people to eat there.

        1. None of the proprietors of authentic foreign foods in my city is fat. None. And I’ve been everywhere. None of their immigrant customers is fat either (though that might have something to do with all the backbreaking physical work they do.)

          Only once you become Americanized and start eating the typical American diet do you become obese. This even happens in other countries as American fast food pops up, so it’s not just that Americans are culturally prone to maximum gluttony.

          You’ll be happy to know, though, that it’s all the federal government’s fault. The food market is distorted unhealthily because of a) massive specific crop subsidies that basically overtake the market with a few fundamentally unhealthy ingredients and b) outrageous economic inequality that forces the increasingly large underclass to seek cheap calorie-dense foods. Add to that perpetual government support for land-use policies that promote cars over walking, and it’s pretty much all government.

          A free market in food sounds comparatively fantastic, actually.

          1. As long as you’re willing to admit that, now we can talk about your bigoted ideology.

            1. Rightwingers adopting liberal grievance language is always so cute.

              1. But you literally just admitted that you are proud of your “movement’s accomplishments in evicting Seneca Village in 1922, murdering 23 replacement workers in Williamson County in 1922, and arresting Rosa Parks in 1955”. You fucking sicken me.

                1. The first one was 1857. I was paraphrasing.

                  1. The ancestry of my political movement was no white supremacists, no matter what lies Glenn Beck tells you and you ignorantly believe.

                    1. Woodrow Wilson wasn’t a progressive? Say what you want about Beck, say he’s hyperbolic about Wilson, but the guy was a member of the progressive movement and he was a white supremacist

                    2. Were there puritanical prohibitionists?

                      Were there union members who liked job protectionism that disadvantaged blacks?

                      Were those two movements ever combined in to one that burned crosses?

                    3. I take no ownership of philosophies I disagree with. And I’m too tired to deal with your Glenn Beck U history lesson because it’s not relevant to what people believe now.

                    4. So first it was there no white supremacists, now it just isn’t relevant?

                    5. Why did you just try to convince me that your movement had better origins, if you “take no ownership” of it?

                    6. The ancestry of my political movement was no white supremacists,

                      Your political movement is still lousy with white supremacists like yourself. You, for example, believe that black people can’t make up their own mind about what to eat without your benevolent pasty-white ass there to decide for them.


                2. Tony’s a fascist, racist, and a sociopath who has admitted that he is in favor of murder, so long as it results in a favored social consequence.

                  He’s either a sock puppet or pure evil.

                  1. Either/Or? Sock puppetry isn’t pure evil?

                    1. Sock puppetry isn’t pure evil?

                      Sorry, rethinking, I got sock puppets confused with clowns.

                      Blame Clowny.

          2. You’ll be happy to know, though, that it’s all the federal government’s fault.

            The same gov’t you want to have making healthier choices for everyone?

            1. Most of the time there is no such thing as not making a choice. The second point I made was about economic inequality. That’s the result of government tilting toward too much laissez-faire deregulatory policy, especially in finance. I don’t blame people for maximizing their wealth in their given environment. To expect anything else would be naive. So let’s blame government for everything that’s wrong–as long as you don’t slap a gold star on your policy preferences as if they somehow aren’t making a specific active choice about how people should live.

              Yeah I want government to make choices that result in healthier choices. It would hardly make the food market more distorted than it already is. And I don’t see where you get off in this case having a higher authority dictate to a municipal jurisdiction what it can and can’t do.

              1. Seriously, just shut the fuck up.

              2. You think inequality is the result of government being too laissez-faire? Inequality has exploded over a period of time in which the number of federal regulations and the number of regulators has exploded. If anything, there’s greater correlation between more regulation and more inequality than the other way around.

                1. Not only that, but inequality has grown worldwide over the last 30 years or so. If inequality is the result of government being too laissez-faire then why is it an international issue, as opposed to only happening in the United States?

                  Or do you think Russia and China, both of which have experienced exploding income inequality, are too laissez-faire?

                  1. In order for your narrative to make sense you’d have to claim that the Reagan/Thatcher neoliberal economics revolution was totally ineffective. Sure regulatory states still exist, but just look at the damage done by the limited achievements of laissez-faire advocates. All I see is a governing philosophy that causes a hell of a lot of harm even in small degrees.

                    1. What revolution? At best Reagan and Thatcher were speed bumps in the road toward bigger government. Tax rates may have fell under Reagan, but spending (both real and as % of GDP) is much higher than it was when he took office, there are more federal regulations on the books, more agencies and departments, more programs, etc. To pretend like the economy is or has been anywhere near laissez-faire is ridiculous

                    2. Tony takes an hour to respond to me after I hit him with evidence. You hit him back with evidence. He disappears for an hour.

                      Quite the dumbass we’re dealing with, huh?

                    3. He’s got a long refractory period

                    4. Also, you really don’t understand how history works, do you Tony? Even under Thatcher and Reagan, the deregulation was mild compared to the massive amount of regulation that’s occurred over the last 30 years.

                      I honestly think the world might be a worse place today thanks to Thatcher and Reagan, but it isn’t because their ideas were wrong. It’s because progs like you get to ignore the massive expansion of the regulatory state and the subsequent damage it caused by absurdly claiming that the mild deregulations of Reagan and Thatcher are at fault.

                      Let me put this in language you can understand: Let’s say I eat fast food 3 times a day every day. I stop eating fast food for two weeks. Then I start eating fast food again. I become fat. Am I fat because I stopped eating fast food for two weeks? No, I’m fat because of all the days I ate fast food.

                      By the same token, our regulatory state has undoubtedly expanded over the last 30 years. Am I supposed to believe that our problems are the result of an eight year period where it expanded less rapidly than it historically has?

                      Please. You’re delusional.

                2. Irish has got you there, Tony.

                  1. He argues by assertion, not through evidence, and then disappears once you call him out and actually force him to defend his points.

                    1. I don’t get and never will I get why you people waste your time. Not only is he trolling you but he is so fucking boring. You’re going to contact anuerysms in your heads if you keep it up.

                3. You think inequality is the result of government being too laissez-faire?

                  He should be, because it’s probably true (at least in this country). If your only goal (as a government) is to minimize inequality there’s a very small region of a mixed market where you can actually operate.

                  That assumes that all inequality is equal; in actuality this is not the case. In centralized systems, inequality abounds but each person’s status never really changes and said status remains in place over generations. In a free system the opposite occurs; the Vanderbilts transmit their wealth to their heirs but their heirs are usurped in the rankings by the Rockefellers. They remain wealthy but not nearly to the same degree. It’s static inequality versus dynamic inequality.

              3. Laissez-faire in finance? I think there are a few battalions of compliance officers and attorneys who would like to learn of this laissez-faire you speak of.

          3. Only once you become Americanized and start eating the typical American diet do you become obese.

            And I’ve been everywhere.

            Apparently not Samoa. You overgeneralizing, lying sack of shit.

            1. The U.S. is eighth in the world in obesity. We only have a 6% higher rate of obesity than Mexico, 7% higher than UK, 8% higher than Greece. Kuwait and Argentina are also very close to us. Which, of course, doesn’t fit the narrative so Tony will disregard.

              This also isn’t taking into account the fact that obesity statistics don’t take muscle mass into account so a body builder or Brad Pitt are considered obese.

          4. Horseshit. There is nothing less expensive at the supermarket than the produce section. I can fill my cart with vegetables and lettuce and leave the cash register for under twenty bucks.

            You statists love to believe it is economic inequality that leads people to different food choices. Wrong. It is ease of obtaining prepared food and its taste that drives people to eat less healthy foods.

            To make yourself a very inexpensive salad, you’d have to buy the ingredients, take them home, spend time peeling, slicing, cutting and tossing.

            To get fries and a coke at McD, you go up to a window and you get it hot and ready for you in seconds. And it tastes good. AND it costs a lot more than if you made it yourself. So quit saying people are doing it because of economics.

            1. Of course they’re doing it because of economics. Even if we’re just talking about meal prep time–the economic insecurity of more and more people has resulted in the necessity of more people in a household working more hours. There is an economy of time as well. And you just can’t get the same caloric density in the produce section at the same price as you can at a McD. On top of that is the ubiquity and convenience of fast food and the results of its massive investments in advertising and even food engineering, all of which affect people’s choice making.

              I think a free market and food would be healthier, and I’d love to get to that point. But it’s theoretically plausible that a free market in food will produce bad social outcomes. In that case it’s still not true that I favor more control than you do–you just favor the control that environment imposes.

              1. “But it’s theoretically plausible that a free market in food will produce bad social outcomes.”

                What exactly is a “bad social outcome?” Who defines this? What gives you the right to say it is bad?

                “you just favor the control that environment imposes.”

                You mean the “control” of people making their own decisions?

                People were much poorer a hundred years ago, and they had time to cook and were less obese. And there are plenty of fat people who aren’t poor.

                1. What exactly is a “bad social outcome?” Who defines this? What gives you the right to say it is bad?

                  A bad social outcome is, for example, high rates of morbidity and early death. If you want to get really freshman philosophy about it, we can argue about whether early death is a bad thing, but I make no claims that my truths are universal truths. I just kind of assume that death is bad as an axiom.

                  It’s defined by social convention more than anything, which in the context of a properly functioning socially responsible government is something that is usually acted upon in policy. Nothing gives “me” the right, but we do have rights to act collectively in our own best interest. Whether human interests can be objectively determined is an interesting thought experiment, but we can pretty much agree that death is bad, I should think.

                  You mean the “control” of people making their own decisions?

                  Sure. As I said I am in favor of free decisionmaking with respect to eating. With respect to murdering? Not so much. All of these things are individual considerations based on social outcomes.

                  less obese

                  Let me take the opportunity to say that I don’t know everything, and I don’t even think nutritional and social scientists know everything they need to with respect to food culture and obesity. But something is causing our very bad statistics and that it’s only free choice doing it is implausible.

                  1. Some people are willing to make a tradeoff of a shorter lifespan in exchange for eating unhealthy food, smoking, unhealthy sexual habits, etc etc. That’s their decision to make, not yours

              2. Let’s say I agree with you about calorie density (if you’re invoking food deserts than you’re implying that the problem is not enough produce available, so I’m confused why you’d open up a line of attack that supports our contention that the problem is low demand for fresh produce, not lack of availability), do morbidly obese people need as much or more calorie density or do they need less?

                We all agree with you that time constraints can make fast food more appealing than home cooked food. You’re now arguing the opposite of what you were earlier and arguing that forcing people to have less accessible fast food is an imposition on their time.

                1. I think the most efficient policy to tackle many of our social problems is to redistribute wealth back downward. Yeah it involves more government control of the economy than you’re comfortable with. But who gives a shit really–life is about tradeoffs, and the outcomes of the outrageous inequality we have and have had in the past are pretty much the worst of possible worlds.

                  1. I think the most efficient policy to tackle many of our social problems is to redistribute wealth back downward.

                    I would expect nothing less from a lazy, greedy, know-it-all sack of shit.

                  2. Do you seriously think simply giving poor people money would resolve the obesity problem in this country?

                  3. Ok, so we’ve redistributed wealth downward. Now everyone who suddenly has a few more hours in their day will prepare Giada inspired food? Grilled aubergines instead of carne asada and Spanish rice? Quinoa and roasted beet salads instead of soul food?

                    I don’t think that’s what’s going to happen. I’d be curious to see how rates of obesity change when someone is on disability, unemployment, retired, or food program like SNAP (actually I know for SNAP obesity rates in women go up) where their income isn’t directly tied to how many hours they work.

                  4. But who gives a shit really–life is about tradeoffs, and the outcomes of the outrageous inequality we have and have had in the past are pretty much the worst of possible worlds.

                    HAHAHAHAHAHA! Seriously? The worst of possible worlds? Do you even know how bad things could get if we followed your advice, Tony? 60% tax rates! Don’t allow drilling for oil! Huge amounts of money spent on failed green energy programs! Don’t allow people to eat the food they want, but heavily subsidize the food people don’t want.

                    We would be Mexico. Your policies would quite literally drive us to the third world, and you’re whining that we are currently living in the worst possible situation?

                    Wrong. The worst possible situation would occur if we listened to you.

                  5. No dumb-ass, more government control of the economy results in wealth being redistributed upward. You correctly acknowledge that the rich have more influence over government, but then somehow conclude that giving government MORE power will somehow result in wealth being redistributed downward. Are you really this stupid, or just a sock posting stupid shit to get a rise out of the commentariate?

              3. Yeah, except unemployment is up in recent years, and hours worked is down for those employed (and even more so because of ObamaCare), so this nonsense of more people in a household working more hours is bullshit. The other day I made lamb loin chops with a red wine and shallot reduction, and roasted asparagus for less money than McDonalds, and it didn’t take that long to make, either. My wife and I both work, and she goes to school to boot, and we have an eight year old daughter, as well, so I doubt the average family has so much less time than we do to prepare meals, so the economic argument that people just can’t afford to eat healthier is absurd. And you know it.

            2. Have you seen the price of arugula lately?

          5. So, is this about forcing people to count calories and slip into a size 0 dress in the name of public health? (which is utter bullshit)

            Or do fatties just offend your sensibilities?

            1. I don’t want to tell people to do anything, and don’t think it would be effective. I’m for doing the only thing we can do: change our environment with collective action for our own self-interest.

              1. “I don’t want to contradict myself in two sentences, but here goes…”

              2. “I don’t always like to tell people what to do, but when I do, I drink a dos equis. Man I drink a lot of dos equis”

                -The Most Intelligent Man In The World

              3. “I don’t want to tell people to do anything, and don’t think it would be effective.”


          6. None of the proprietors of authentic foreign foods in my city is fat. None.

            Do tell us what is and is not “authentic” foreign foods.

            Pizza is not foreign because Italians are now considered white?

            Hamburgers are not foreign because, according to Wikipedia, “According to White Castle, Otto Kuase was the inventor of the hamburger”, and Germans are now considered white?

            How about corned beef and cabbage? Authentic?

            1. Tacos and burritos — not authentic?

              And why are you focusing on the thinness of the proprietors, and not the employees or customers?

            2. Corned beef and cabbage is a Jew thing picked up and modified by Irish Americans. and burritos were an American invention that got exported back down to Mexico.

              Your point is still entirely valid, I was just really surprised by those two things and think they’re interesting.

              1. The “real” [insert ethnicity] food thing always pissed me off. Food within countries can vary wildly and evolve quite quickly. When I say I love Mexican food non-Texans (and snotty Texans) will say it’s not real Mexican food, it’s Tex-Mex. Nevermind that Mexican food is quite varied (and almost every kind is available in Houston); Nevermind that Tejanos are Mexican/Spanish descendents; Neverfuckingmind that the regional cuisine was already developing when Mexico wasn’t even a country yet.

                1. Mexico is also right behind us on the obesity scale, and have a very similar obesity rate.

                  As a result, it strikes me as unlikely that Mexicans are all thin, as Tony claims.

                  1. If my coworkers and their families are any indication, either Mexican diet or genetics lead them merrily down the path of diabetes. Everyone seems to have a parent, aunt or uncle who had something amputated due to gangrene.

                    I had great Mexican food in Salt Lake City and it was regionally distinct from the Mexican food I get in Los Angeles. I meant to ask one of the waiters what region of Mexico the owners were from.

                    1. I’m sure Salt Lake has variety but the general Utah Mexican food would be New Mexican style, which is again an “American” style that began developing before Mexico even existed.

                    2. Not just you. A buddy of mine has grandparents who live in Mexico, and obesity is a major issue there. Obesity among Mexican Americans is also very frequent.

                      Huh, it’s almost like people from similar cultures are obese no matter where they go.

    2. You know, a lot of “quality food” restaurants can make one fat just like fries and cokes do. When I go into a fast-food place, I see plenty of options like salads and wraps. Then I go into an upscale restaurant, and I see fettucini alfredo, which has a lot more carbs, calories and other no-nos than just about anything at McD’s. So is it the restaurant that’s causing the obesity, or the choices?

      1. Arguably, a quality food restaraunt would make you fatter. As Anthony Bourdaine said, no matter how much olive oils or vegetable oil your favorite restaraunt claims it uses, somewhere, back in the kitchen, there’s a large tub of butter.

        1. I think butter is actually healthier than any liquid fat, since butter has a proportion of water. Olive oil is all 9kcal/g-fatty acids, isn’t it?

          1. Butter from grass fed cows is much better for you than most commercial butter. The cow’s diet makes a huge difference in both taste and nutritional quality. Same with meat.

            I buy a side of beef every year. Grass fed beef. Imo, tastes much better and far more nutritious.

            Water has nothing to do with it. Olive oil has a very healthy ratio of fats (EFA’s etc.). Butter, on the whole, arguably not as healthy. Otoh, you do NEED saturated fat in your diet and too little (not a problem for most americans ) can suppress testosterone. Butter has PLENTY of saturated fat. Butter should be eaten in moderation. Olive oil can be pretty much eaten at will.

            1. are there any subjects in which you are not the expert?

            2. Water has nothing to do with it.

              9 kcal per gram, whether the fat is saturated or not.

              Remind me again how many calories water has?

      2. Actually the salads and wraps are probably worse for you than the burgers.

        When the Double Down came out, Consumerist looked at the 10 worst offenders and a few of them were salads. DON’T EAT THE SALADS AT WENDY’S.


          Unless you enjoy tasty salads.

          1. I love tasty salads, which is why I make them at home with an olive oil, balsamic and herb dressing and an immersion blender.

            1. Point taken. Which is why I get a burger and fries if I go to McWendiesKingckers.

              1. Agreed. But all of them have salads on the menu just to make people like the LA cognoscenti happy, then nobody orders them and they throw them out at the end of the day. My wife gets some trade mags that include info on fast-food chains, and apparently they all take a beating on their salad offerings — but don’t dare discontinue them.

        2. Going to Wendy’s for salad is like going to a used car lot for a Lambo.

          1. Well, I sure as shit can’t afford a new Lambo.

            1. you can’t?
              what kind of libertarian are you!

              1. Clearly someone hasn’t been paying attention to his monocle polish bills.

                By which I mean to say, the orphan you have assigned to pay your bills is not doing a satisfactory job of it.

                1. My monocles are polished as part of room and board.

  9. I can’t believe they’d let a little thing like principle get in the way of some extra sales tax revenue.

    Fast food restaurants generate a ton of that!

  10. Your wife? Is she a goer? Nudge, nudge…

  11. How about a ban on Public Health professionals?

  12. But who will think of the children?

  13. Speaking of food choices, Tony Bourdain is on Piers Morgan tonight.
    I am almost tempted to watch.

    1. Stossel’s on, then Archer.

  14. a city shouldn’t have the right to determine its own standards[?]

    There’s your trouble.

    A “city” is not an autonomous, reasoning entity.

    1. that’s the least of his trouble.
      the first being he’s a sockpuppet.

    2. A “city” is not an autonomous, reasoning entity.


  15. I didnt read the whole thread, but I noticed y’all arguing with the vile sockpuppet that calls itself Tony.

    Dont forget, this is the shitstick that has argued that when we think we are making decisions on our own, we are not. All of our choices are pre-determined for us by the nature of the universe, thus we should stop valuing liberty, which is non-existent, and submit to authoritarianism; i.e. wear chains gladly.

    What a piece of shit you are Tony.

    1. He’s also the one who argued that Obama should murder people who don’t agree with him on climate change and then attempted to defend that position when called on it.

      I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was joking at first, but he’s literally in favor of the murder of political opponents.

      1. plus

        1. I’m not so sure. American is probably a sockpuppet. I don’t know about Tony.

      2. Yes, that was a keeper. I saved it. Here it is in all it’s glory.

        “Round up any denier with a microphone and shoot him. Then declare a state of emergency, have Obama crowed god-emperor for life, at which point he can personally eliminate polluting industries by fiat and direct as many resources as necessary to develop clean energy tech and convert energy production and consumption to it nationally.”

        Yep, pure fascism. You know who else would have advocated that strategy?

        1. I’m sure poor people would have an incredibly easy time finding food if we clamped down on all polluters, too.

          Notice how all of his beliefs contradict each other? His anti-business beliefs drive up the price of food, and then he complains poor people have trouble getting healthy food.


          1. Notice how all of his beliefs contradict each other?

            Tony: “I want the gov’t that’s responsible for grain subsidies and the food pyramid to be responsible for healthier choices. With The Right People In Charge, fascism can, and will, work. As soon as we herd the opposition into solar ovens.”

            1. There is no such thing as no policy. You want our government overlords to make choices about all the same things I do. You just want them to make different choices. Only your choices are stupid and ideologically based.

              1. Seriously Tony, keep it up and I’m going to need a gov’t subsidy to replace my Retard-o-meter.

              2. I assume you learned reading comprehension in a public school?

                1. I assume you learned reading comprehension in a public school?

                  Fun fact: I failed most of my middle school english classes. Too busy covertly reading the Dune series in class.

                  1. That’s sick. Dune sucked. You’d have done better spending your time smoking dope and chasing girls, like I did.

      3. You should know that I have strong beliefs about very few things. Of course I’m not endorsing Obama murdering climate change deniers. I’m saying that in a rationally approached world, measuring the relative harm to human beings of certain actions, Obama murdering deniers is less harmful than the deniers’ effect on political inaction. Far more people are going to die because of the latter than ever could be accomplished by the former–which is of course an absurdity.

        1. Holy shit.

          1. Obama murdering anyone is an absurdity. Climate change deniers have had real and devastating success.

            Silly humans.

            1. Obama murdering anyone is an absurdity certainty. As in, it has happened.

            2. Climate change deniers have had real and devastating success.

              Please cite examples of the devastation caused by “deniers”.

              1. The fact that an effective proportion of the Republican party has an excuse, however lame, to refuse to allow any energy or climate policy changes, and the longer we wait the more people are going to die–first in poor countries that aren’t doing all the polluting. I wonder, will they be able to sue rich countries for the destruction we cause? Or is this libertarian “freedom” wherein you take what you can get your grubby hands on, and fuck everyone else, oh and “property rights!”?

        2. He has to be a sock puppet. He’s literally pro-murder. If he isn’t a sock puppet, then I’m glad he posts here, because it makes the rest of us look so good compared to his murderous, fascistic ideology.

          Any lurker looking at this thread right now has to be tending towards libertarianism.

          1. Tony: covert libertarian proselyte?

            1. That’s why I assume he’s a sockpuppet.

        3. Of course I’m not endorsing Obama murdering climate change deniers.

          Let’s see how long you stick to that … oh, wait, THE NEXT FUCKING SENTENCE.

          I’m saying that in a rationally approached world, measuring the relative harm to human beings of certain actions, Obama murdering deniers is less harmful than the deniers’ effect on political inaction.

          So, Obama drone murdering me would be less harmful than me pointing out a scientific fallacy?

          Got it.

  16. OT: My GF and I were discussing whether most men would prefer their women

    1) naked

    2) wearing sexy lingerie

    around the house.

    I said I thought about 90% of men would go for the lingerie option. She said I was the first BF of hers who preferred lingerie. I said her past BFs were freaks of nature — jokingly — sort of.

    Your thoughts?

    1. tell her you need 3 weeks of both to make a properly informed decision.

    2. There’s that Seinfeld joke: if all women walked around naked and one girl had a band-aid on her shoulder, men would be paying her to take it off.

      A girl who isn’t clothed is a like a gift that isn’t wrapped.

    3. Naked.

      I find the sight of a woman’s body incredibly pleasurable in motion and not in motion. I dont mean this in a sexual way. I mean, to me, a woman’s body is the most beautiful work of art in all of creation. I dont need lingerie or teasers, or to be sexually aroused all the time. I dont need her to be a sexual object.

      All I need is to see the beauty of her. So, yeah, naked.

      1. I mean, to me, a woman’s body is the most beautiful work of art in all of creation.

        Eh, I’d vote for either Betta fish or pine trees. Or copper. Or Galaxies. Women would be up there on the list, sure, but “all of creation” is pretty broad (pun? you decide.)

      2. I agree with this

    4. Switch it up. Lingerie, naked, fully clothed, lumberjack….

      1. lumberjack

        Sometimes it’s just too cold for nudity, which where Form Fitting Flannel comes in.

        1. Also, it is a very sexy experience to liberate a woman of her oppressive Victorian furnishings.

          1. Trying to undo a hoopskirt causes me more frustration than arousal, but to each his own.

            1. You don’t “undo” it. You have the most fun when they are one time use.

    5. In tasteful pantsuits.

      1. You’re sick in the head.

        1. It might be the most fucked up thing he’s ever said.

          1. Well, to be fair, dude is gay. He’s trying to minimize the competition.

      2. That will explain his vote for Hillary in 2016.

    6. Naked but with a strap on is always good, too.

    7. Lingerie.

      Her ex BF’s were barbarians with no imagination.

    1. But Tony tells me there were never any white supremacist progressives

      1. Almost all white people were white supremacists in 1913. But from which political movements did yours descend and from which did mine? The more or less racist ones?

        1. You already know the answer.

        2. Almost all white people were white supremacists in 1913.

          [Citation Needed]

        3. Lysander Spooner and Frederick Douglass were obviously huge racists, unlike Wilson or FDR.

        4. The less.

          Lysander Spooner. John Stuart Mill. Herbert Spencer. Richard Cobden and John Bright. Charles Dunoyer and Charles Comte. Frederic Bastiat. William Lloyd Garrison. Moorfield Storey.

          1. There is no need to come out with the laundry list of names. Progressivism loses on the motives and outcomes of its policies.

        5. Yours is still the one that demands routine racial discrimination as a sacrosanct public policy.


        6. What happened to the ones who ended slavery? Did they all get abducted by aliens?

  17. Obama murdering anyone is an absurdity.

    Not with his own hands, anyway.

    He probably gets Her Highness kill spiders for him.

    1. HIllary?

      1. What difference, at this point, does it make?

  18. Never get in a lifeboat with Tony. You’re better off going down with the ship.

    1. I’ll get in the life boat. And then blow it up with the flare gun to be sure.

      1. Just remember, flare gun = VUFA if you’re a convicted felon!

        1. you’re quite the walking encyclopedia.

        2. I would get in your life boat, too, friendly friend.

    2. Never get in a lifeboat with Tony.

      What, you’d rather starve?

  19. Anyone up for some frolf?

    1. Frisbee golf is pretty fun when you are dunk and/or high but I’m not really impressed by trick shots in it.

  20. you’d rather starve?


    1. And how does that help the important people?

      (important people = not Canadians)

      1. there are so many errors in your comment I can’t imagine where to begin.

        1. Is it really that good, Archduke? I went to college in Wisconsin, and they pride themselves on their beer.

          Of course, European beer is still superior to most of the stuff that comes out of Wisconsin, but I really haven’t drank that much Canadian beer.

          1. I find it has a really pleasant flavoUr.
            Their IPA is very bitter.

            1. Wisconsin overrates their beer. I’ve had better house beer in Chicago than a lot of Wisconsin beer. There’s a place near me that has stupendous pale ale, but it’s only a house beer so I can’t buy it anywhere else.

              1st world problems, man.

              1. If you want Wisconsin beer, you need to drink New Glarus. Belgian Red and Serendipity are awesome. That is, if you aren’t a real man and you like fruity beers. Like me.

                1. No, that’s exactly what I’ve had. I had a room mate who was from New Glarus for a short period of time.

                  They have some good beers (Spotted Cow, Fat Squirrel, the Belgian Red) but they have some really mediocre beers too.

                  I had an IPA from them that was absolutely awful. It was the most bitter thing I’ve ever drank.

            2. Your application of the extra u is pure theatre.

              Seriously though, now I want to try this beer and the website only lists Canadian purveyors. I’m soory aboot calling your people unimportant, I’m sure most of your mothers think you’re the most important people on earth.

              1. Out in that neck of the woods, let’s call it the northern Midwest, or whatever, this place is the best micro brewery that I have personally experienced. I’ve already convinced my wife into planning a vacation there because they have the worlds biggest year round Christmas store. While’s she shopping for decorations, I’ll be at the brewery getting totally too drunk.

                Frankenmuth Brewery

              2. This “Saaz Republic Pilz” they have is also decent.

  21. I apoligize if this has already been stated but I couldn’t wait to scroll through the comments before posting.

    “William McCarthy, a professor at the UCLA School of Public Health” = Asswipe

  22. “Los Angeles May Back Down on Fast Food Paternalism”

    Get the fuck outta here

  23. Is this thread just one more tick in the iteration of Tony’s short journey to ultimate stupidity?

    1. We got him to admit that he believes murder of climate change ‘deniers’ would be for the greater good. We got him to admit that he believes the government unilaterally shutting down small businesses is for the ‘greater good.’

      He’s lost his mind.

      1. I could have sworn I just also read him saying that gays have a right to force taco bell to serve them, but no one has the right to build a taco bell in the first place. Something like that.

        He’s stark raving mad.

        Also, he’s apparently pissed at all of us because he’s fat and ugly and lives alone in his mommies basement, and that’s somehow our fault because we don’t want the state to force him to not be a fat loser?

    2. Come on Hyperion, let’s give him a little credit. It’s a pretty long road he’s walking to reach peak stupidity

      1. I have a feeling that the journey is almost over, judging by his descent during the last several months.

  24. FACT:
    Taunting chant at the Winnipeg Jets game this evening was “Parros’ mustache!

    1. I only understood half the words in that sentence.

      1. This is all you need to know to understand the game.

        1. Canada = America jr.
          TSN = ESPN jr.

          Don’t tell a Canadian nationalist.

          All I know is I went to watch the Rangers play last month and boy did I enjoy watching Rick Nash.

          1. you’re half right.

            1. Meant to say:

              Canada is America jr.

              TSN is ESPN jr.

              1. Hey man, I’d much rather have Canada’s PM than America’s President.

                If trends continue, America will be Canada jr. in about 30 years.

                1. I’m betting Canda will have a new left-leaning PM before you have a new President.

                  1. Canada has never had the crazed, dangerous leftists that America has, though. Your left wing PMs are much less frightening than Pelosi, Obama, or Feinstein.

                    1. As they say

                      f you’re not for SOCIAL JUSTICE, what are you for? if you’re not for FAIR trade, what are you for??

                    2. Freedom and Prosperity.

      2. It’s Canuckistanian, that’s why.

      3. The Archduke is Canadian, they slip French in all higgledy piggledy to confuse us.

        Why would you be showing off that one of your athletes has a terrible case of ’70s pornstache? You know that shit is contagious and takes decades to heal, don’t you?

        1. That ‘stache belongs to one of the opposition Florida Panthers players.

          1. We’d better evac ProL then and burn the state to the ground.

            Be aware, your people have come in contact with ’70s pornstache. Should they start showing signs or symptoms apply shotgun liberally until cured.

          2. One of the best rivalries in pro sports is the Habs v. Bruins. Amazing how it never relents.

        2. they slip French in all higgledy piggledy to confuse us

          It’s Porco Francais! I knew it!

          1. what did I say that was french?

            1. The Porco Francais that you slipped into your Canuckistanian.

              Look, it was Jesse that exposed you, not me.

  25. Is anyone going to watch A Jaqueta on Colbert?

    1. is it tonite? my program guide says “Legal Scholar Cass Sunstein”

      1. It’s over now.

    2. Watching right now, even though Colbert is a tool.

      1. Colbert is working over Gillespie in this format. I don’t know how good of an idea it was to come on here.

        1. Isn’t he on there to talk about pot? Why would Colbert be working him over? I assumed they’d agree about this.

          1. But Colbert’s is still his Republican character for as long as he’s been on the air. So he went pro War on Drugs and while I disagree with every one of his arguments, Nick seemed flustered.

            1. Yes, but you can always tell where Colbert actually falls on an issue. If he agrees, he’ll normally throw up soft ball, straw man questions to make the person he agrees with look good.

              If Gillespie can’t handle that…well, maybe he shouldn’t quit his day job. Nick normally does pretty well on T.V. though, so I’d be surprised if he didn’t hold his own.

            2. I don’t think he was flustered, but he didn’t have a lot of charisma. He was just relegated to the fact that the audience will only respond on cue to Colbert, and that Colbert is just going to continue to be silly and score comedy points, no matter what he said.

              The one good point that Nick got in, is that Rand Paul is way ahead of any so called liberals in congress on WOD reform. That’s why he was there.

          2. It’s just what I said in an earlier thread. Colbert will always awkwardly step over an interviewee’s remarks with in-character jokes. Colbert is just a poor interviewer.

            But to be fair, I think they went a little long on the interview, so Gillespie got to say about as much was necessary to make his point about the failure of the Drug War, prohibition in general, and the Democrats.

            1. It’s this. Nick, like Rand Paul, and all the rest right now, are out there to spread the message that Libertarians have the right message, not the statist Dems, or SoCons, or NeoCons. Most won’t listen, some will however, and that is the point.

        2. I thought Nick done well, but the audience is obviously being restrained to only respond to Colbert.

          The one thing that I was disappointed with about Nick, was when Colbert asked him what’s next, prostitution?, Nick should have just looked at him seriously and said ‘YES’.

          1. Yeah, Nick did well. Like I said, the interview would have normally be a short few minutes, but I think the show went a little longer than normal, and Gillespie was rapid fire with his responses, so I think he got the message across to the audience, even if Colbert was trying his best to goof it up.

            1. Good to hear. Nick’s always good on T.V. and in his long form articles.

              The only place he struggles is that some of his blog posts are lazy as all hell and filled with bad reasoning. I don’t know if he’s just busy and cranks out blog posts without reading them, or what.

              1. You can watch the early morning repeat if you’re up in a few hours, or I’m sure Gillespie will post a video in the morning once Colbert’s site puts it up.

                And to be fair, Colbert’s humor was more enjoyable than usual with a lot of drug references. But Gillespie’s rapid fire response was the best antidote against being shut out by Colbert’s in-character schtick.

    3. Did anybody notice the chyron plug for The Declaration of Independents? I’ve always been a little surprised that neither Stewart or Colbert booked Welch and Gillespie, considering they’ll just about book anybody (left or right) if they got some sorta public policy book to publish.

      1. Wait, Gillespie and Welch wrote a book?

        1. !

        2. Hey, I agree. The constant plugging on this site gotta old after the first month. But Stewart and Colbert love to plug public policy authors, no matter how silly the book can seem. (I remember first hearing about Thomas Friedman’s The World is Flat on The Daily Show). I’m just surprised that Gillespie and Welch gotta spot on CSPAN but not one on Comedy Central.

          1. I’m actually really hoping Radley Balko can get a spot on either Stewart or Colbert when his book comes out.

            1. I’m getting that the first chance I get. I love Balko, even though I wasn’t reading Reason back when he was writing here.

              I also don’t have much of a problem with the constant plugs by Welch and Gillespie on this site. There aren’t that many libertarian news outlets, and if you have the opportunity to plug a libertarian book on Reason, you might as well take it.

              1. I love Balko too. I guess I would prefer that he go on Stewart, who actually knows how to conduct an interview on a serious subject.

                I’m not the biggest Ken Burns fan, but his interview last night with Stewart on the Central Park Five was fascinating. I imagine Balko could do at least 10x as well on the subject of criminal justice while also focusing on a narrower, but more tangible, aspect of society on which libertarians have something important to say.

                1. Little known fact: Balko’s work on No-knock police raids was cited by the Supreme Court in Hudson v. Michigan.

                  1. Balko is an awesome dude. I met him at a local pizza joint in Nashville and we talked about the Cory Maye story. He said the Bosnian (?) camera guy he brought with him had to take a moment when they were interviewing Cory’s mom. This guy had probably seen shit that would seem crazy to us but even that story was FUCKED UP.

                    WHEN JOURNALISM DOES RIGHT.

  26. Community never fails to entertain.

    1. Community fails.

  27. Fuck the what?

    Now, we finally know for sure, why the Romulan lost.

    Romney supporters

    Yep, the GOP does not need a Rand Paul. They just need to double down on stupid.

    1. I dunno man, dude was kinda a dbag to start. I’ll admit I didn’t watch the rest but running up to someone and jamming a mic in their face while you shout “DO YOU BELIEVE IN PERPETUAL WAR??” is sorta ridiculous.

      1. Actually, Kokesh can come off that way, but he is totally awesome. Guy has titanium ballz.

        I think you missed the point, which is not the questions, but the totally brain dead team drone from this person.

        It’s almost like it has to be staged, but no, unfortunately, people that ignorant are the norm.

        1. I’ve seen videos like that for Obama and Romney supporters. Most of them really don’t think. You need to have the widespread support of thoughtless drones to be politically viable.

          1. ^^^this.

            It’s easy to find stupid people to talk to at a political rally.

            Too easy…

        2. Romneybots being brain dead and Kokesh being a douchebag are not mutually exclusive. This is Paulitics 101, douchebags are unfortunately attracted like flies to the movement.

  28. Our local PD issued a warning about “bad meth”.

    1. Did they at least tell you where you could get some “good meth”?

      1. alas, no

        1. I suppose you’ll just have to continue cooking it at home. It’s far healthier than getting it from a fast meth restaurant.

          1. best part of the story is they’re denying some guy was on the “bad meth” when he blocked traffic at a busy intersection and it took 8 officers to hold him down, and now he’s “not doing well” in hospital but they wont’ confirm his condition.

            1. Well, all drugz make people supernaturally strong.

              1 pot smoker = 16 cops in strength.

              Therefore, militarized swat teams.

              That’s your brain on drugs.

              Any more questions?

              Oh, and this is why cops need to shoot dogs first, and then ask questions.

            2. Well to be fair PCP isn’t meth.

  29. Wow man, I never thought about it like that.


  30. as Roy answered I am impressed that people able to get paid $4868 in 4 weeks on the computer. did you see this webpage — Gig60.?OM

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.