Link Stats
Added By: Jeremy
Added on: 01/12/2009 @ 2:21:00 PM
Link View Count: 550
Politics
Politics
Rate this Link
Yours:

Rated 0 times.

New York, Massachusetts Will Require Restaurants To Post Calorie Count

Dear Nanny State,

Those of us that are smart enough to comprehend numbers know that McDonalds is bad for us. The rest of the people aren't going to be able to read the menu anyway.

The full cost of sending your food into a lab and re-making your menu has to be bared by the restaurant owners who own more than (x) restaurants in a chain. This needs to be done for every possible combination of items. You can imagine then, what this is doing to local pizza chains in New York.

I am so sick of the idea that "Well, sure, almost everyone knows what's good and bad for them, and this is costing restaurant chains tens of thousands in a razor thing profit line, cut-throat, industry, but if it can save one person, it's worth billions."

Not to mention, this is a terrible thing for furthering growth. If the cutoff is 15 stores than how many businesses will stop at their 14th location? If they own 16 locations how many places will choose simply closing 2 locations over spending thousands on advertising how bad their items are for you?

The free market system already accomplishes this goal. The places that are GOOD for you, or the items that are GOOD for you are advertised as such. 95% of all Subway commercials are about how good they are for you, relative to other fast food. Salads and such are being introduced at other fast food places and being advertised as healthy options. Just assume the other items AREN'T as good for you.

Also, the WPR show about this has callers, and a diabetic called in and said this was a great idea because it's hard to find stuff to eat as a diabetic. I loathe this ultra-left movement of society. There is a big push out there that any problem, any person can have, in any facet of life, is everyone's problem.

Your problems are YOUR problems, it's YOUR job to figure out what you can and can't eat. Most places already provide nutritional info anyway. Your argument is then that those places should redo their menus so that info is literally on it so you don't have to look at two things.

If the mom and pop pizza place doesn't have nutritional info, and that info is very important to you, then don't eat there. If Pizza place A loses half it's business to Pizza place B because PPB has nutritional info, then PPA might find it profitable to do the pamphlets. It's just that easy.

Sincerely,

The Rational Members of Society
View External Link [www.allheadlinenews.com]
Back to Link List
face.bmpCarlos44ec - What the F@#$ am I being arrested fo?
01/13/2009 @ 08:36:34 AM
 Quote this comment
How soon before we're bailing out PPA?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - I believe virtually everything I read.
01/13/2009 @ 11:57:09 AM
 Quote this comment
Well, never, because that would be the governments fault, so they don't deserve a bailout. The only businesses who get bailouts are those that are incompetently mismanaged huge corporations.

Incidentally, everyone who is in love with this idea spouts that we all get the benefits of this and that "it wont cost the taxpayers a nickle."

Let's ignore most aspects of that stupidity, and if there even is a "benefit" to be had and focus on the finances involved, and why these people should be deported.

Taxpayers = General Public
Business Owners = Smaller subset of the General Public
Restaurant Customers = General Public

In what sort of logic-less parallel universe won't this effect the wallets of the tax paying community? Does everyone really think business owners will eat 100% of the cost, and not pass it along to their customers? It's money out of one pocket and into another.

Furthermore, if your argument for this is that it's for the "greater public good" than the public SHOULD pay for it, and you should be outraged that a relative few have to pay the cost for everyone.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - 3618 Posts
01/13/2009 @ 01:20:00 PM
 Quote this comment
I've been outraged.

Wouldn't it be everyone paying the cost for the benefit of a relative few though? Assuming that the cost gets passed to the consumers, all consumers will be paying the cost for the benefit of the few who really "need" this info.

Plus businesses pays taxes too, so taxpayers = anyone who actually works for a living or owns a bunch of stuff. Which I guess doesn't really contradict with what you said. But anyway, the point is that if the government pays for it somehow, that means taxpayers paid for it, and if the costs are on the businesses, that means "taxpayers" paid for it, and if the costs are on the consumers, that means taxpayers paid for it (unless there isn't any sales tax and the source of the money was not taxable by the US government). So unless Canada is paying for it, taxpayers will be taking the hit one way or another.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
01/13/2009 @ 01:26:23 PM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - Today @ 01:20:00 PM
Wouldn't it be everyone paying the cost for the benefit of a relative few though? Assuming that the cost gets passed to the consumers, all consumers will be paying the cost for the benefit of the few who really "need" this info.


Well, I think it's a terrible idea. I was merely arguing that if you are FOR the idea the #1 selling point shouldn't be that it won't cost the taxpayers anything because a) that's not even true, albeit in a slightly indirect route and b) you shouldn't even want that - if you're truly convinced that society as we know it will be saved by this, you should think it's important enough for the government (and thus society as a whole) to fund directly.

Indeed very few people will benefit. Most of this info is available at the big guys anyway, so essentially these people want something done so that the people who care too little to look at the other 19 places the calories in a Big Mac are listed can see it and suddenly care about it. Which isn't to say that WON'T have any impact at all, but that doesn't make it a great idea, and it certainly doesn't make it the government's job.

Alex Wrote - Today @ 01:20:00 PM
Plus businesses pays taxes too, so taxpayers = anyone who actually works for a living or owns a bunch of stuff. Which I guess doesn't really contradict with what you said. But anyway, the point is that if the government pays for it somehow, that means taxpayers paid for it, and if the costs are on the businesses, that means "taxpayers" paid for it, and if the costs are on the consumers, that means taxpayers paid for it (unless there isn't any sales tax and the source of the money was not taxable by the US government). So unless Canada is paying for it, taxpayers will be taking the hit one way or another.


Right, but the cost would be spread out over thousands of more people, rather than being a prohibitively expensive cost for a business.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 4 times, last at 01/13/2009 1:35:26 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist
01/13/2009 @ 01:48:33 PM
 Quote this comment
Also, I find it very hard to believe that a person who's diabetic, has allergies, etc, wouldn't have a pretty good grasp on what they can and can't eat and where they shouldn't risk eating. Does everything really have to be flagged as this and that? If onions killed you, couldn't YOU just ask if the item you're ordering has onions? Isn't it really that easy? If inhaling or injecting one molecule of peanut killed you then shouldn't it be your burden, or your parents burden, to undertake the extreme caution that would necessitate? Sure some sane policies could be put in place, like no more school sponsored peanut fights, but we've reached a point where schools are tossing lockers for peanut butter like they're looking for drugs or a weapon.

Can't a diabetic look up what is good and bad for them before they go to Burger King? Does Burger King really have to alert the diabetic, "You know, you really should avoid the King Size Coke, look at all the sugars!" Sure there might be items, like ketchup, that contain a surprising amount of sugars that the average person might not need to know, but you do need to know. Shouldn't the burden of knowing fall on the person?

Life isn't fair, it's time to stop trying to legislate a level playing field.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this 3 times, last at 01/13/2009 2:18:08 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
01/13/2009 @ 03:00:56 PM
 Quote this comment
In the Mythbusters' "We've busted this, now let's try to replicate the results" vein: What are somethings that could be done, leaving out the debate of whether or not it's the government's business?

A tax credit could be offered for businesses that feature their nutritional info in a "featured manor." The amount could vary based on just how prominent the information is.

Pro: Option is open to businesses. There's no "punishment" aspect.
Con: Like the plan above, there would be a cost in regulating it. Many businesses wouldn't "comply" out of fear no one would continue eating there.

A tax credit could be offered to businesses that sell a certain percentage of healthy food.

Pro: Optional. Cost of having healthiness of food is payed for by businesses hoping to eventually "profit" on the information. Once the stats are known, they can be made available to customers. There would be an incentive to push healthy options, and de-emphasize unhealthy ones.
Cons: More regulation. What constitutes "healthy?" Should it be a set standard, or should it adjust? - If it's a set percent, someone like McDonalds, who likely couldn't hit a 25% "healthy" level , wouldn't even try. If it were a variable "you showed x amount of improvement" level, it might not be fair.

Obesity is an epidemic in America, and it costs us all lots of money in insurance premiums every year. It's not preposterous that the Government attempt something to try and nip it in the bud, there just must be a better way than what NY and MA are doing.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 01/13/2009 3:01:13 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
01/13/2009 @ 03:06:31 PM
 Quote this comment
To add to myself, I wonder though if the laws really need to be fair. Enacting a policy that doesn't hurt McDonalds, BK, Carl's Jr., et al really ignores the elephant in the room. Would the government have to enact across the board laws, that either penalize or help everyone?

Couldn't a reasonable approach be to work "one on one" with the corporations we're really trying to reach and say, McDonalds, if you do this, you'll get this, BK, if you do this, you'll get this, etc?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
01/14/2009 @ 02:04:23 PM
 Quote this comment
Seriously, I thought Matt would be all over this thread. Liberals behaving like brain-dead dictators? Big Government. It's got everything he needs.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
01/14/2009 @ 03:04:39 PM
 Quote this comment
It doesn't have J-ello puddin' pops.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
01/14/2009 @ 03:16:57 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 03:04:39 PM
It doesn't have J-ello puddin' pops.
There's very little right with this.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - 3355 Posts
01/15/2009 @ 03:13:23 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 02:04:23 PM
Seriously, I thought Matt would be all over this thread. Liberals behaving like brain-dead dictators? Big Government. It's got everything he needs.


I've almost commented a couple of times on this thread, but I've been too lazy to actually do so. Especially, since you did a fine job arguing against this liberal/big government idiocy yourself.

Jeremy Wrote - 01/13/2009 @ 03:00:56 PM
Obesity is an epidemic in America, and it costs us all lots of money in insurance premiums every year. It's not preposterous that the Government attempt something to try and nip it in the bud, there just must be a better way than what NY and MA are doing.


Well, mostly a fine job. emoticon
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Matt screwed with this at 01/15/2009 3:13:39 am
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
01/15/2009 @ 10:05:56 AM
 Quote this comment
Well, I'm not saying they should do anything about that either, just that the issue isn't a complete non-starter. The government is one of the few entities widespread enough to make some changes. Unfortunately their attempts at it thus far have been moronic.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
01/15/2009 @ 11:27:47 AM
 Quote this comment
The Govt should have the right to ASK them to provide nutrition values, but they by no means own the right to FORCE them to.

What's a guy or gal gotta do in this country to own and run their own business the way they want? There is no free enterprise, it's all a farce.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
01/15/2009 @ 12:21:38 PM
 Quote this comment
Honestly, how hard it is to figure out the calorie count in most foods? Goto Calorieking.com and you can find calorie counts for pretty much anything. All a restaurant would have to do it go to this website and plug in their food and stuff. I guess the same could be said for the individual.

We already ask places to include the ingredients. I suppose this is a bit easy that getting calorie count though.

Honestly though, I don't necesssarily disagree with Jeremy's original post, but the degree of disagreement doesn't seem rational. I'll the there were people who were just as upset when the government decided to require that foods include the nutrition facts. But really, that is a very important thing in terms of consumer protection. While this issue requiring all restaurants to include similar info might seem more harsh and might be impracticle, don't act like it is the govt trying to make the tiniest problems into everyone's problem. Because that's probably what a lot of people thought about the whole nutrition facts thing.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this 2 times, last at 01/15/2009 12:36:23 pm
newalex.jpgAlex - You've got to trust your instinct, and let go of regret
01/15/2009 @ 12:43:09 PM
 Quote this comment
Matt Wrote - Today @ 03:13:23 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 02:04:23 PM
Seriously, I thought Matt would be all over this thread. Liberals behaving like brain-dead dictators? Big Government. It's got everything he needs.


I've almost commented a couple of times on this thread, but I've been too lazy to actually do so. Especially, since you did a fine job arguing against this liberal/big government idiocy yourself.

Jeremy Wrote - 01/13/2009 @ 03:00:56 PM
Obesity is an epidemic in America, and it costs us all lots of money in insurance premiums every year. It's not preposterous that the Government attempt something to try and nip it in the bud, there just must be a better way than what NY and MA are doing.


Well, mostly a fine job. emoticon


I too was going to say something about you starting with "Dear Nanny State" and then a day later trying to come up with "better" ways to be a nanny.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
01/15/2009 @ 12:48:00 PM
 Quote this comment
Well, that's the thing. I doubt the businesses would be "allowed" to just go see what a generic slice of pepperoni pizza contains. They'd have to get theirs tested. People, on the other hand, could probably count on that info to be accurate to a certain percent. If Pizza hut is 300 calories a slice and Dominos is 350 it's a reasonable assumption that Papa Johns is going to be in that neighborhood.

As to Carl's point a total "free for all" system is a pretty bad idea as well. Having standards for food and medicine, and safety requirements, and what not, are generally good ideas. They overstep boundaries in practice every so often, but that doesn't mean they are altogether terrible.

The free market WOULD handle all that. Thousands of people start dieing from taking Viagra and everyone will switch to Cialis. (What does it say about our society, or me, that the only two competing meds I could think off are boner medication?) That doesn't mean that a reasonable set of standards to avoid the original people dying is a big government trying to quash business.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
01/15/2009 @ 12:49:28 PM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - Today @ 12:43:09 PM
Matt Wrote - Today @ 03:13:23 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 02:04:23 PM
Seriously, I thought Matt would be all over this thread. Liberals behaving like brain-dead dictators? Big Government. It's got everything he needs.


I've almost commented a couple of times on this thread, but I've been too lazy to actually do so. Especially, since you did a fine job arguing against this liberal/big government idiocy yourself.

Jeremy Wrote - 01/13/2009 @ 03:00:56 PM
Obesity is an epidemic in America, and it costs us all lots of money in insurance premiums every year. It's not preposterous that the Government attempt something to try and nip it in the bud, there just must be a better way than what NY and MA are doing.


Well, mostly a fine job. emoticon


I too was going to say something about you starting with "Dear Nanny State" and then a day later trying to come up with "better" ways to be a nanny.


Well, because being told what to do and working together to solve a problem are two very different things. One is treating us like children, the other isn't.

(Not to mention I still wasn't necessarily advocating it, I was just seeing if perhaps we could come up with a handful of ideas in a matter of a few minutes of pondering that are superior to what these governments no doubt spent thousands in research on.)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 01/15/2009 12:53:46 pm
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - Tag This
01/15/2009 @ 01:19:44 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:48:00 PM
As to Carl's point a total "free for all" system is a pretty bad idea as well. Having standards for food and medicine, and safety requirements, and what not, are generally good ideas. They overstep boundaries in practice every so often, but that doesn't mean they are altogether terrible. .


Don't take the comment out of proportion: I was refering to nutritional values and whether or not the restaurant provided them, not whether they would adhere to health, cleanliness, and quality standards.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children.
01/15/2009 @ 02:16:41 PM
 Quote this comment
Well, what's your definition of "running their business the way they want" then?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist
01/15/2009 @ 02:32:35 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 12:21:38 PM
Honestly though, I don't necesssarily disagree with Jeremy's original post, but the degree of disagreement doesn't seem rational. I'll the there were people who were just as upset when the government decided to require that foods include the nutrition facts. But really, that is a very important thing in terms of consumer protection. While this issue requiring all restaurants to include similar info might seem more harsh and might be impracticle, don't act like it is the govt trying to make the tiniest problems into everyone's problem. Because that's probably what a lot of people thought about the whole nutrition facts thing.


There may have been people who disagreed with nutritional facts, but it's not really the same thing. For starters, there's not 95 other places to get that info, and that was certainly so back in the pre internet days. (And I imagine virtually all versions of the info in the internet are get the info from the labels) Secondly, any time you see a "homemade" or mom/pop style item it doesn't have it, so there must be reasonable exceptions. Big brother isn't cracking down on every high school bake sale for failure to disclose the brownies contain chocolate. Lastly, obviously the size of the company can vary, but virtually all the items in your grocery store are from big companies that test the food once than churn out 3 trillion cans of it. The potential to cripple a small company isn't as big of a factor. Which in principle doesn't make it more acceptable, I guess, but it's not really the same thing either.

At any rate just because one is done doesn't make the other ignorable. Two wrongs don't make a right.

As for the "everyone's problem" comment:

I would agree that on the surface this doesn't seem like the classic "tiny problem = everyone's problem" after all, we're almost all overweight. However, every single person that called the radio show in support of the plan, or doing it here in WI, had a story about their diabetes, or their 12 year old being obese, etc, and how we "had to do more" to help them. One mother was practically in tears over how fat her children were and thought that everyone who was against this idea was personally murdering her kids.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 01/15/2009 3:02:54 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Super Chocolate Bear
01/15/2009 @ 03:06:08 PM
 Quote this comment
Also, the nutritional facts point brings up another case against this. Most people consume most of their calories at home, and we have this info plastered right on the item of food there, and we're all still fatties. If anything the fact that "we already have nutritional info on our food" should be the definitive argument of why this is such a worthless idea, not an argument for doing it.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it.
01/15/2009 @ 06:02:06 PM
 Quote this comment
True. Getting fat probably has less to do with what you eat and more to do with the fact that fat people aren't exactly running to the gym or looking to live the active lifestyle. Tell your fat kids to get off the wii or the xbox and get off their fat butts and go outside and play.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
01/15/2009 @ 06:06:35 PM
 Quote this comment
Not so fast, Mr.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings
01/15/2009 @ 06:07:54 PM
 Quote this comment
well, I didn't say "wii fit", I said "wii"
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
01/15/2009 @ 06:14:12 PM
 Quote this comment
Not so fast Mr.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - 3618 Posts
01/15/2009 @ 11:07:16 PM
 Quote this comment
Nintendo Wii, ruining carpets all across the world!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - I believe virtually everything I read.
01/16/2009 @ 12:17:31 AM
 Quote this comment
Because it makes people urinate with excitement?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - 3618 Posts
01/16/2009 @ 01:25:42 PM
 Quote this comment
That, plus instead of sitting on your rear playing video games like they were meant to played, people are traipsing around the room (extra carpet wear) and probably spilling more drinks and food on the floor. And there's probably more furniture being pushed around more often to make room for wiiing.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
01/16/2009 @ 01:27:57 PM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - Today @ 01:25:42 PM
And there's probably more furniture being pushed around more often to make room for wiiing.


You lost me again, are you talking about playing the wii or urinating?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
scott.jpgScott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone!
01/16/2009 @ 02:21:06 PM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - Today @ 02:25:42 PM
...make room for wiiing.


My dog used to have this problem in the house. We've got it straightened out though. He does his wiing outside now.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - As Seen On The Internet
01/16/2009 @ 02:47:23 PM
 Quote this comment
Hooch like to sneak some wiis in the house, but he knows he's supposed to go outside.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
flower .jpgPackOne - No matter how many MC's I eat up ... oh, it's never enough.
01/16/2009 @ 09:44:04 PM
 Quote this comment
I didn't read any of these comments on purpose.

Good for those States, I as a consumer would like to know those things.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Robots don't say 'ye'
01/17/2009 @ 01:38:20 AM
 Quote this comment
You already can know
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jon.jpgJon - 2847 Posts
01/17/2009 @ 07:16:46 PM
 Quote this comment
I feel like we should merge this thread with the paint/primer-buying thread by trying to get a law passed where you'd have to show your id to get a Big Mac. That way they can track if you're going around to different McDonald's restaurants and buying them up to use as ingredients in your basement big mac lab.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 3 times.
scott.jpgScott - On your mark...get set...Terrible!
01/18/2009 @ 07:17:57 AM
 Quote this comment
I should be able to by as many Big Macs as I want, for any reason, at any time.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - Since 1980!
01/19/2009 @ 12:33:53 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 07:17:57 AM
I should be able to by as many Big Macs as I want, for any reason, at any time.


Big macs can be used to feed cows, whos manure can be used to make fertilizer, then bombs. No, you should not be able to, there is a threshold, and only a permit from The Man can help.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
hoochpage.JPGSarah - 4091 Posts
01/19/2009 @ 06:49:36 PM
 Quote this comment
Carlos44ec Wrote - Today @ 12:33:53 PM
Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 07:17:57 AM
I should be able to by as many Big Macs as I want, for any reason, at any time.


Big macs can be used to feed cows, whos manure can be used to make fertilizer, then bombs. No, you should not be able to, there is a threshold, and only a permit from The Man can help.


Why would you feed a cow a Big Mac?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
01/19/2009 @ 06:59:58 PM
 Quote this comment
With Fries and a Coke. How else?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 3 times.
hoochpage.JPGSarah - 4091 Posts
01/19/2009 @ 07:38:41 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 06:59:58 PM
With Fries and a Coke. How else?


That would be witty if it answered my question at all.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Sarah perfected this at 01/19/2009 7:38:55 pm
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - You had me at "Hello"
01/20/2009 @ 01:35:21 PM
 Quote this comment
Because everyone's doing it.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
scott.jpgScott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue.
01/20/2009 @ 04:39:08 PM
 Quote this comment
Sarah Wrote - Yesterday @ 08:38:41 PM
Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 07:59:58 PM
With Fries and a Coke. How else?
That would be witty if it answered my question at all.


Oh crap, I read it as "how do you feed..." I deserve the 0 nut.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Robots don't say 'ye'
02/06/2009 @ 11:09:06 AM
 Quote this comment
Though, we can always take solace in the fact that no matter how bad things get here, there will always be a bigger nanny across the pond.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1136092/Chocolate-bars-smaller-Government-anti-obesity-drive.html
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Leave a Comment of your very own
Name:
Comment:
Verify this code
Verify the Code in this box, or sign in, to post a comment.
click me!
There's an emoticon for how you feel!
click me!
My Files
Sign up, or login, to be able to upload files for Nutcan.com users to see.