http://www.slashfood.com/2009/08/25/kfc-double-down-chicken-sandwich-loses-the-bun/?icid=main
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogcdn.com%2Fwww.slashfood.com%2Fmedia%2F2009%2F08%2F082509-dbldkunwchsnd.jpg&hash=13a75b71e71b7ddda1a22eed4e99b868dbec7868)
QuoteKFC Double Down Chicken Sandwich Loses the Bun
Posted Aug 25th 2009 3:30PM by Sara Bonisteel
KFC is currently testing the Double Down.
Why bother with the bun? That's the premise of KFC's latest offering -- the Double Down -- a sandwich that replaces the traditional bun with two Original Recipe chicken fillets.
"It's such a meaty chicken sandwich, there's no room for a bun," Rick Maynard, a KFC spokesman told Slashfood.
But the sandwich -- currently being tested in Omaha, Neb., and Providence, R.I. -- has some wondering if the Colonel has gone too far.
Newspapers like the Hartford Courant called the appearance of the Double Down a "complete 180" for the chain, and the Vancouver Sun estimated that the sandwich -- two chicken fillets sandwiching Swiss and pepper jack cheeses, bacon and "the Colonel's sauce" -- weighs in at 1,228 calories.
Maynard told Slashfood that KFC estimates the sandwich's caloric count at "just under 600," though the final nutritional data is not in.
Earlier this year, the chain unveiled a healthier dining option -- Kentucky Grilled Chicken -- under the Unthink ad campaign. But KFC uses the same Unthink logo in a Double Down TV advertisement, where a man exclaims "there should be more chicken in a chicken sandwich!"
The price of the sandwich varies but in Omaha, one foodie found it selling for $4.99, with combos -- including fries and soda pop -- going for $6.99.
Has potential; almost like a faux "chicken cordon bleu" that you eat with your hands. :mmm:
USA! USA! USA!
I want one without Bacon.
[Berkut]Obesity is genetic. There is no evidence that people who eat this sandwich will grow more obese than people who don't.[/Berkut]
That sandwich is my new desktop.
For the sake of controlling medical costs, I hope the people eating this sandwich would die right there on the spot, and not later on the operating table.
Wow.
Disgusting.
Quote from: Martinus on August 26, 2009, 09:58:09 AM
[Berkut]Obesity is genetic. There is no evidence that people who eat this sandwich will grow more obese than people who don't.[/Berkut]
:jaron:
Awesome.
:mmm: Looks delicious.
Quote from: Valmy on August 26, 2009, 10:05:59 AM
Wow.
Disgusting.
What's disgusting about mixing chicken, cheese and bacon? People do it in salads all the time.
Nobody said you had to eat the whole thing.
The more of these you buy, the better my mother-in-law's retirement gift will be, so buy them all up, folks.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 26, 2009, 09:54:01 AM
But the sandwich -- currently being tested in Omaha, Neb., and Providence, R.I. -- has some wondering if the Colonel has gone too far.
THIS TIME COLONEL SANDERS HAS GONE TOO FAR! :mad: :mad: :mad:
;)
Tim, it is your sacred duty to try this and report back.
I've never understood sandwiches at KFC. You go to KFC you want best tnot to think about it and just eat chicken lumps.
How many calories it has is meh, the more calories the better. It means I then have to eat less the rest of the day.
How is this "going to far" anyway?
Its not like if KFC doesn't sell this, then people won't be able to buy themselves a heart attack at KFC anyway - they will just do it buying some other item that is an entire days calroie intake in one go, and eating that instead.
Seriously, they sell fried chicken.
@ Tyr
:huh: The twister sammiches were good (not sure if'n they still have those). Also, their BBQ sammich is pretty good considering the fact that it's fast food... though the sauce is waaaaay too sweet. :x
Quote from: DGuller on August 26, 2009, 10:05:09 AM
For the sake of controlling medical costs, I hope the people eating this sandwich would die right there on the spot, and not later on the operating table.
Well, you already increase health insurance costs for people who smoke, and in many cases liver transplants are denied to people who are still alcoholics when their liver goes bust. Is there any logical argument against applying the same policy to obese people? If you don't respect your body and eat shit like that you shouldn't expect the healthy-lifestyle individuals to pay your medical bills for you.
Quote from: Caliga on August 26, 2009, 10:13:50 AM
@ Tyr
:huh: The twister sammiches were good (not sure if'n they still have those). Also, their BBQ sammich is pretty good considering the fact that it's fast food... though the sauce is waaaaay too sweet. :x
Yes. The Twister wraps are almost the only thing I get from there.
Quote from: Caliga on August 26, 2009, 10:13:50 AM
@ Tyr
:huh: The twister sammiches were good (not sure if'n they still have those). Also, their BBQ sammich is pretty good considering the fact that it's fast food... though the sauce is waaaaay too sweet. :x
They still do around here. I've never had one tho. I much prefer the Classic Colonel sandwich with a bucket of Macaroni Salad to try anything else really.
I tried the McD's wraps not too long ago, it was surprisingly good. Much better then what Subway serves.
Quote from: Martinus on August 26, 2009, 10:20:49 AMWell, you already increase health insurance costs for people who smoke, and in many cases liver transplants are denied to people who are still alcoholics when their liver goes bust. Is there any logical argument against applying the same policy to obese people?
I guess the argument would be that, at least in the US now, the majority of people are obese to an unhealthy degree? I guess what would make more sense to me is a discount for those people that can deomonstrate that they are in extremely good shape (though I guess there isn't that much of a material difference between a discount for a minority vs. a rate hike for a majority).
Well FUCK. This thread made me hungry. I'm off to Hardee's.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.crainium.net%2FjdjArchives%2FThickBurger.jpg&hash=c71629994070a8125ed48127d19273db0b97c78d)
Without the white shit on it of course.
Quote from: Martinus on August 26, 2009, 10:20:49 AM
Well, you already increase health insurance costs for people who smoke, and in many cases liver transplants are denied to people who are still alcoholics when their liver goes bust. Is there any logical argument against applying the same policy to obese people? If you don't respect your body and eat shit like that you shouldn't expect the healthy-lifestyle individuals to pay your medical bills for you.
How are you going to enforce it? "Do you eat junk food?" is a horribly vague question. The only effective way would be to levy sin taxes on junk food.
I stopped at a Hardee's in Bowling Green for lunch on Monday :cool:
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 26, 2009, 10:24:43 AM
Well FUCK. This thread made me hungry. I'm off to Hardee's.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.crainium.net%2FjdjArchives%2FThickBurger.jpg&hash=c71629994070a8125ed48127d19273db0b97c78d)
Without the white shit on it of course.
Damn you. The closest I can get is a Classic Triple from Wendy's. :(
Quote from: Martinus on August 26, 2009, 10:20:49 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 26, 2009, 10:05:09 AM
For the sake of controlling medical costs, I hope the people eating this sandwich would die right there on the spot, and not later on the operating table.
Well, you already increase health insurance costs for people who smoke, and in many cases liver transplants are denied to people who are still alcoholics when their liver goes bust. Is there any logical argument against applying the same policy to obese people? If you don't respect your body and eat shit like that you shouldn't expect the healthy-lifestyle individuals to pay your medical bills for you.
Agreed - same applies for fags of course, and their dangerous homo lifestyle. We should not have to pay more for their expensive AIDS treatments because they cannot control themselves.
Quote from: Caliga on August 26, 2009, 10:25:48 AM
I stopped at a Hardee's in Bowling Green for lunch on Monday :cool:
I miss the old Burger Chef chain, which CKE absorbed. :(
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 26, 2009, 10:26:11 AMDamn you. The closest I can get is a Classic Triple from Wendy's. :(
DSB - I have access to both Wendy's and Hardee's here and generally prefer Wendy's... but Hardee's has the most kickass breakfast biscuits ever. I think they actually make them there from scratch, which might be why.
Btw, I find that http://thisiswhyyourefat.com/ is a good source for recipes. :blush:
Like:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F9.media.tumblr.com%2Fi2dw5nf19oqvrfjwqsX7DNP0o1_r2_500.jpg&hash=ef59662cb48feaf40becb8125abd970f3cd1380a)
QuoteThe Smoker
A half pound ground ribeye, sirloin, prime rib patty topped with Havarti cheese, seven pieces of maple bacon, sauteed onions and smoked pepper mayo.
This would probably be fine for Caliga:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.media.tumblr.com%2Fi2dw5nf19m20ldhdObiNeog8o1_500.jpg&hash=131d901f4ff9a947a15856622d6370d19229f1f5)
QuoteA pile of 3 sunny side up eggs, beans, red chile sauce, cheddar cheese, 4 corn tortillas and 3 hash browned potatoes.
looks like an evil mutated mother teresa
Quote from: Syt on August 26, 2009, 10:38:09 AM
This would probably be fine for Caliga:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.media.tumblr.com%2Fi2dw5nf19m20ldhdObiNeog8o1_500.jpg&hash=131d901f4ff9a947a15856622d6370d19229f1f5)
QuoteA pile of 3 sunny side up eggs, beans, red chile sauce, cheddar cheese, 4 corn tortillas and 3 hash browned potatoes.
That is just plain revolting. :lol:
Quote from: Syt on August 26, 2009, 10:38:09 AM
Btw, I find that http://thisiswhyyourefat.com/ is a good source for recipes. :blush:
that reminds me, fall festival season is coming up. :)
Quote from: Syt on August 26, 2009, 10:38:09 AM
Btw, I find that http://thisiswhyyourefat.com/ is a good source for recipes. :blush:
Like:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F9.media.tumblr.com%2Fi2dw5nf19oqvrfjwqsX7DNP0o1_r2_500.jpg&hash=ef59662cb48feaf40becb8125abd970f3cd1380a)
QuoteThe Smoker
A half pound ground ribeye, sirloin, prime rib patty topped with Havarti cheese, seven pieces of maple bacon, sauteed onions and smoked pepper mayo.
This would probably be fine for Caliga:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.media.tumblr.com%2Fi2dw5nf19m20ldhdObiNeog8o1_500.jpg&hash=131d901f4ff9a947a15856622d6370d19229f1f5)
QuoteA pile of 3 sunny side up eggs, beans, red chile sauce, cheddar cheese, 4 corn tortillas and 3 hash browned potatoes.
Havarti is a pussy cheese.
This is total bullshit, my work firewall is blocking the 2nd picture for cause of "Pornography" but the first one is just fine.
Piece of Crap. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 26, 2009, 10:09:23 AM
What's disgusting about mixing chicken, cheese and bacon? People do it in salads all the time.
Nobody said you had to eat the whole thing.
Well I like salad dressing on my salads as well but it would be sorta gross to just drink a bottle of salad dressing.
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2009, 10:26:23 AM
Agreed - same applies for fags of course, and their dangerous homo lifestyle. We should not have to pay more for their expensive AIDS treatments because they cannot control themselves.
I wouldn't have a problem with that for people who regularly engage in bareback sex with strangers.
Quote from: Syt on August 26, 2009, 10:38:09 AM
Like:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F9.media.tumblr.com%2Fi2dw5nf19oqvrfjwqsX7DNP0o1_r2_500.jpg&hash=ef59662cb48feaf40becb8125abd970f3cd1380a)
QuoteThe Smoker
A half pound ground ribeye, sirloin, prime rib patty topped with Havarti cheese, seven pieces of maple bacon, sauteed onions and smoked pepper mayo.
That sounds terrific actually. I'd have to split it with a couple other people but hey.
That's a nasty looking sandwich... over 1200 calories!
I thought KFC was into more healthy foods, along with their old fare? This is a bit of a throwback. But hey, no bun on that sangwitch - that ought to please the enviros since that means fewer acres devoted to crops!
I don't eat stuff like that at all, but I really don't care if others do. Not a good idea, but I'm not going to join the bashing that goes on for people who do things that others, the more politically correct or what ever, find objectionable. Such as the grief given to smokers, who in fact are usually out of our way since they have to smoke outdoors in many venues. But still they get grief. The latest is the costs of health care for those unwashed, dumb, fat people! An argument that could be made for lots of activities, eating or personal habits, or what ever.
Quote from: Savonarola on August 26, 2009, 10:10:00 AM
Tim, it is your sacred duty to try this and report back.
Agreed. Take one for the team, Tim. :)
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 26, 2009, 09:57:40 AM
I want one without Bacon.
You've just revoked your North American citizenship. please move somewhere outside of North America. :p
KFC Bacon is gross. It's always overcooked.
Canadian bacon :x
Quote from: garbon on August 26, 2009, 11:52:24 AM
Canadian bacon :x
It's not the 90's anymore, it's called ham again.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 26, 2009, 11:00:28 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2009, 10:26:23 AM
Agreed - same applies for fags of course, and their dangerous homo lifestyle. We should not have to pay more for their expensive AIDS treatments because they cannot control themselves.
I wouldn't have a problem with that for people who regularly engage in bareback sex with strangers.
Yeah, but you can't tell the one from the other, so why not just lump them all together?
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2009, 12:03:19 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 26, 2009, 11:00:28 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2009, 10:26:23 AM
Agreed - same applies for fags of course, and their dangerous homo lifestyle. We should not have to pay more for their expensive AIDS treatments because they cannot control themselves.
I wouldn't have a problem with that for people who regularly engage in bareback sex with strangers.
Yeah, but you can't tell the one from the other, so why not just lump them all together?
Pardon the pun?? :lol:
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2009, 12:03:19 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 26, 2009, 11:00:28 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2009, 10:26:23 AM
Agreed - same applies for fags of course, and their dangerous homo lifestyle. We should not have to pay more for their expensive AIDS treatments because they cannot control themselves.
I wouldn't have a problem with that for people who regularly engage in bareback sex with strangers.
Yeah, but you can't tell the one from the other, so why not just lump them all together?
You mean without using an HIV test?
I wouldn't order that because it's too much food, but it doesn't look bad. Just a chicken version of a double quarter pounder without a bun.
Quote from: Scipio
Havarti is a pussy cheese.
Did your wife feed you Havarti on your honeymoon or did the whipping start later on?
Quote from: Martinus on August 26, 2009, 10:20:49 AM
Well, you already increase health insurance costs for people who smoke, and in many cases liver transplants are denied to people who are still alcoholics when their liver goes bust. Is there any logical argument against applying the same policy to obese people? If you don't respect your body and eat shit like that you shouldn't expect the healthy-lifestyle individuals to pay your medical bills for you.
That's already done in the private sector. My best friend has to pay a fee for being overweight. They've told her that for every 10 pounds she loses, her health insurance will go down. And it's worked to lower her weight. She's lost 20 pounds in the last four months, and will be running a marathon in October.
The problem I have with this is the scale they use. Not one of my doctors use the BMI anymore as a standard for weight because it doesn't take into account anything but weight, height, and age which is crap. There are a lot of other factors that make a difference in whether you're healthy or not, and the BMI doesn't bother with those. Since that's what the insurance company is using - as well as all of these studies on obesity - I tend to ignore them entirely. Of course, I can do that, since I'm not buying my insurance through a private company.
Quote from: Caliga on August 26, 2009, 10:29:25 AM
DSB - I have access to both Wendy's and Hardee's here and generally prefer Wendy's... but Hardee's has the most kickass breakfast biscuits ever. I think they actually make them there from scratch, which might be why.
:yes:
I was the biscuit maker at Hardee's in downtown Iowa City for two years to pay my way through college. :elvis:
Those biscuits certainly sound a hell of a lot better than the sausage, egg, and cheese Lean Pocket that I had for breakfast. ;)
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 26, 2009, 11:00:28 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2009, 10:26:23 AM
Agreed - same applies for fags of course, and their dangerous homo lifestyle. We should not have to pay more for their expensive AIDS treatments because they cannot control themselves.
I wouldn't have a problem with that for people who regularly engage in bareback sex with strangers.
And how would you ascertain that status? Have the government officials do random inspections?
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 26, 2009, 10:24:43 AM
Well FUCK. This thread made me hungry. I'm off to Hardee's.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.crainium.net%2FjdjArchives%2FThickBurger.jpg&hash=c71629994070a8125ed48127d19273db0b97c78d)
Without the white shit on it of course.
Ed's Lunch AAR:
I had the Burger Shef Sandwich and a medium fries. My wife however, ate the 1400 calorie thickburger. Eating for two my ass. Fast metabolism little shit.
I got a fries for the twins, and this being the first time they ate any fast food, they took to that like a fish in water. Like proper American kids, they loved it.
USA! USA! USA!
Just fries?
JARONS LUNCH AAR:
I had my new Hollywood Diet Juice meal for the day and Don't I feel glamorous? ^_^
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 26, 2009, 02:25:03 PM
I got a fries for the twins, and this being the first time they ate any fast food, they took to that like a fish in water. Like proper American kids, they loved it.
USA! USA! USA!
I've been taking Tommy to Gold Star every now & then (but only on Tuesdays when kids eat free). A french fry is more of a utensil to eat ketchup, though he will occasionally actually eat a fry.
That is the perfect place to take him. They bring out oyster crackers as soon as you sit down, and you never have to wait more than a couple minutes to get your food. So I don't have to figure out how to counteract his short attention span & try to keep him in his seat.
Quote from: Jaron on August 26, 2009, 03:47:13 PM
Just fries?
They had some yogurt before we left. 18 month olds don't eat burgers.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 26, 2009, 03:48:37 PM
Quote from: Jaron on August 26, 2009, 03:47:13 PM
Just fries?
They had some yogurt before we left. 18 month olds don't eat burgers.
American ones do , you Red Obamafreak bastard.
Quote from: derspiess on August 26, 2009, 03:48:11 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 26, 2009, 02:25:03 PM
I got a fries for the twins, and this being the first time they ate any fast food, they took to that like a fish in water. Like proper American kids, they loved it.
USA! USA! USA!
I've been taking Tommy to Gold Star every now & then (but only on Tuesdays when kids eat free). A french fry is more of a utensil to eat ketchup, though he will occasionally actually eat a fry.
That is the perfect place to take him. They bring out oyster crackers as soon as you sit down, and you never have to wait more than a couple minutes to get your food. So I don't have to figure out how to counteract his short attention span & try to keep him in his seat.
I'll keep Gold Star in mind. And try duct tape for securing kids.
Quote from: derspiess on August 26, 2009, 03:48:11 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 26, 2009, 02:25:03 PM
I got a fries for the twins, and this being the first time they ate any fast food, they took to that like a fish in water. Like proper American kids, they loved it.
USA! USA! USA!
I've been taking Tommy to Gold Star every now & then (but only on Tuesdays when kids eat free).
:malthus:
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 26, 2009, 03:48:37 PM
They had some yogurt before we left. 18 month olds don't eat burgers.
Tommy has been eating steak :Argie:
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 26, 2009, 03:48:37 PM
Quote from: Jaron on August 26, 2009, 03:47:13 PM
Just fries?
They had some yogurt before we left. 18 month olds don't eat burgers.
No chicken nuggets at Harbee's?
That's awesome. The less filler(ie bread) involved the better.
Quote from: Caliga on August 26, 2009, 10:13:50 AM
@ Tyr
:huh: The twister sammiches were good (not sure if'n they still have those).
Yeppers. The roasted chicek Twister is probably the best fast food sandwhich going, and not too many calories or saturated fat. Just don't eat the fries.
Quote from: grumbler on August 26, 2009, 04:54:47 PM
Quote from: Caliga on August 26, 2009, 10:13:50 AM
@ Tyr
:huh: The twister sammiches were good (not sure if'n they still have those).
Yeppers. The roasted chicek Twister is probably the best fast food sandwhich going, and not too many calories or saturated fat. Just don't eat the fries.
The grilled chicken they have now isn't bad, but unfortunately their side choices are horrible.
Real people eat like this:
Parmesan Chicken aka Super-Fantastic Chicken Schnitzel (http://munchandnibble.blogspot.com/2008/09/parmesan-chicken-aka-super-fantastic.html)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_Ll12ZRAmKJ4%2FSN9pPSdmtKI%2FAAAAAAAAAPo%2FQXzDmRT5-7A%2Fs320%2Fchicken%2Bschnitzel.JPG&hash=8dc315eb736b83c9a19dab6ab63e15129b7b22c4)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_PcEo5caoEvs%2FSW8G7KkyC1I%2FAAAAAAAACh0%2FDXBggMrtE4U%2Fs1600%2FP1031436.JPG&hash=05a8a69fefee7667742bd296fa9171253a745988)
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 26, 2009, 04:25:02 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 26, 2009, 03:48:37 PM
Quote from: Jaron on August 26, 2009, 03:47:13 PM
Just fries?
They had some yogurt before we left. 18 month olds don't eat burgers.
No chicken nuggets at Harbee's?
I have no idea. Fries are good enough for them anyways.
You guys need to control your calorie intake.
http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa090901_wz_statefairfoods.13a95680b.html
Quote• Deep Fried Butter could push the grease-o-meter to a new high. "100 percent pure butter is whipped 'til light and fluffy, then specially sweetened with a choice of several flavors." It is then surrounded by a "special dough" and quick-fried.
Quote• Fried Peanut Butter Cup Macaroon is about what you'd expect from the description. It is, of course, "dusted with powdered sugar" after the oil drains. And you probably wouldn't want to get it without the available scoop of Blue Bell ice cream, would you?
Awesome.
Oh Hod...you guys have a problem... :x
Quote from: The Larch on September 02, 2009, 09:44:41 AM
Oh Hod...you guys have a problem... :x
State fair food is supposed to be wildly gross. And delicious. :P
I'm scared of the "special dough" :o
Mmmmm, fried butter. :blink:
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 02, 2009, 09:46:56 AM
Quote from: The Larch on September 02, 2009, 09:44:41 AM
Oh Hod...you guys have a problem... :x
State fair food is supposed to be wildly gross. And delicious. :P
Heh, I remember an Onion piece. It said "Alabama fattest state", and one of the anwers from the stock three guys that commented it was "Enjoy it while it lasts, Wisconsin's state fair is next week". :lol:
Quote from: The Larch on September 02, 2009, 09:54:43 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 02, 2009, 09:46:56 AM
Quote from: The Larch on September 02, 2009, 09:44:41 AM
Oh Hod...you guys have a problem... :x
State fair food is supposed to be wildly gross. And delicious. :P
Heh, I remember an Onion piece. It said "Alabama fattest state", and one of the anwers from the stock three guys that commented it was "Enjoy it while it lasts, Wisconsin's state fair is next week". :lol:
Speaking of Wisconsin (and Minnesota), bring a harpoon is you ever visit those states. The white whale stalks those states.
The porkgasm:
http://www.porktopia.com/2009/03/porkgasm.html
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 02, 2009, 10:18:34 AM
The porkgasm:
http://www.porktopia.com/2009/03/porkgasm.html
:mmm:
Pig, the magical animal. :wub:
Though I'd probably add cheese to the filling.
One more, because I'm bored:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/attackcat/2765226646/in/photostream/
Awesome.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 02, 2009, 09:46:56 AM
State fair food is supposed to be wildly gross. And delicious. :P
I missed the Kentucky State Fair this year due to my Nashville vacation and various other commitments. I WANT MY DAMN FRIED PORKCHOP SAMMICH DAMMIT. :mad:
The Dazzling Urbanites of Rochester have spoken! Popeye's Chicken Rulez!
Seriously, how bad do you have to screw up your fired chicken that a ton of KFC restaurants have closed in and around Rochester. A majority of the city residents are black and yet KFC cannot survive. Popeye's Chicken runs out of meat usually by the early evening it's so popular. Probably the funniest thing about the situation is that the old KFC buildings all seem to have been converted into Chinese Take-Out restaurants.
Popeye's Chicken is the shiznit. :cool:
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 02, 2009, 10:18:34 AM
The porkgasm:
http://www.porktopia.com/2009/03/porkgasm.html
Franzia :lol:
Classy.
So, Tim---what's the holdup?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 02, 2009, 12:55:19 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 02, 2009, 10:18:34 AM
The porkgasm:
http://www.porktopia.com/2009/03/porkgasm.html
Franzia :lol:
Classy.
So, Tim---what's the holdup?
I'm not really a KFC guy, I'm not gonna go into Providence just for that.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 02, 2009, 01:00:46 PM
I'm not really a KFC guy, I'm not gonna go into Providence just for that.
:thumbsdown:
If you don't buy one, I won't get a chance to.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 02, 2009, 01:02:26 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 02, 2009, 01:00:46 PM
I'm not really a KFC guy, I'm not gonna go into Providence just for that.
:thumbsdown:
If you don't buy one, I won't get a chance to.
How can you be so selfish, Tim? :(
This thread gives me meat sweats
Popeye's is vastly superior to KFC.
Quote from: Berkut on September 02, 2009, 01:17:38 PM
Popeye's is vastly superior to KFC.
indeed. I like their hot sauce too.
Quote from: Caliga on September 02, 2009, 10:52:46 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 02, 2009, 09:46:56 AM
State fair food is supposed to be wildly gross. And delicious. :P
I missed the Kentucky State Fair this year due to my Nashville vacation and various other commitments. I WANT MY DAMN FRIED PORKCHOP SAMMICH DAMMIT. :mad:
I just couldn't take any fairs this year. The fall festival season is coming though, and delicious fried foods are always there.
I loved going to Popeyes on the Army bases with my sister/brother in law. I miss them (Popeyes, that is). :(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAn8zclX3Po
Ah Paula. I like Giada's boobs better.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 02, 2009, 03:54:22 PM
Ah Paula. I like Giada's boobs better.
O, Food Network!
I came for Giada and Rachel,
I stayed for the food.
Quote from: FunkMonk on September 02, 2009, 04:28:04 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 02, 2009, 03:54:22 PM
Ah Paula. I like Giada's boobs better.
O, Food Network!
I came for Giada and Rachel,
I stayed for the food.
:lol:
Quote from: FunkMonk on September 02, 2009, 04:28:04 PM
O, Food Network!
I came for Giada and Rachel,
I stayed for the food.
:yes: I found myself wanting to try out Rachel Ray's pizzaiola pork chops. :mmm:
We're going to KFC Friday, if the nearest one has this, I'll get it.
Quote from: FunkMonk on September 02, 2009, 04:28:04 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 02, 2009, 03:54:22 PM
Ah Paula. I like Giada's boobs better.
O, Food Network!
I came for Giada and Rachel,
I stayed for the food.
Rachel annoys me. I'd pound her ass into nothingness, where light can't even escape but her voice grates.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 02, 2009, 04:58:27 PM
Rachel annoys me. I'd pound her ass into nothingness, where light can't even escape but her voice grates.
Praise Hod for the ball gag. ;)
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 02, 2009, 05:01:10 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 02, 2009, 04:58:27 PM
Rachel annoys me. I'd pound her ass into nothingness, where light can't even escape but her voice grates.
Praise Hod for the ball gag. ;)
Panties jammed in and duct tape work just fine.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 02, 2009, 05:03:17 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 02, 2009, 05:01:10 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 02, 2009, 04:58:27 PM
Rachel annoys me. I'd pound her ass into nothingness, where light can't even escape but her voice grates.
Praise Hod for the ball gag. ;)
Panties jammed in and duct tape work just fine.
"That was great, Ed! Can I make ya a sammo?"
:lol:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 02, 2009, 04:56:01 PM
We're going to KFC Friday, if the nearest one has this, I'll get it.
Who makes advance plans to go to a fast food joint? :huh:
Quote from: Caliga on September 02, 2009, 06:50:17 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 02, 2009, 04:56:01 PM
We're going to KFC Friday, if the nearest one has this, I'll get it.
Who makes advance plans to go to a fast food joint? :huh:
It isn't that uncommon. Could be as simple as "Lets grab a movie and some KFC on Friday. You down?"
Quote from: Jaron on September 02, 2009, 07:01:22 PM
It isn't that uncommon. Could be as simple as "Lets grab a movie and some KFC on Friday. You down?"
You stole that line straight from an original episode of the Mod Squad, didn't you?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 02, 2009, 04:56:01 PM
We're going to KFC Friday, if the nearest one has this, I'll get it.
:swiss: :swiss: :swiss:
Quote from: Caliga on September 02, 2009, 06:50:17 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 02, 2009, 04:56:01 PM
We're going to KFC Friday, if the nearest one has this, I'll get it.
Who makes advance plans to go to a fast food joint? :huh:
This isn't just fast food; it's a quest to expand the base of knowledge of the glorious nation of Laguidesh.
there's this Pizza joint I like that just reopened after a summer off. The guy is a 50 year old Vietnamese who escaped the Fall of Saigon in a fishing boat with 100 people. they had little food, and only rainwater. he says 90% of the men died over the three months they spent aboard.
anyhow, he makes this great pizza. thick, light crust made with real yeast, he layers the tppings under the cheese, he uses real bacon. closest I have found to Regina-style in Toronto.
he took six weeks off this summer and I was counting the days until he reopened. Yesterday I had two Hawaiian slices (@ $3.50 a slice). good times. he told me his boat people story too.
Dundas Pizza & Wings
http://toronto.ibegin.com/restaurants/dundas-pizza--wings
Quote from: saskganesh on September 03, 2009, 10:41:02 AM
he took six weeks off this summer and I was counting the days until he reopened. Yesterday I had two Hawaiian slices (@ $3.50 a slice). good times. he told me his boat people story too.
Dundas Pizza & Wings
http://toronto.ibegin.com/restaurants/dundas-pizza--wings
I work with two Vietnamese men who went through that kind of hardship, finally reaching the US. I really had to give them a lot of credit for what they'd been through, and now raising families and working hard, or two or more jobs.
Giving him your business is the equivalent of setting out saucers of milk for stray cats, Sask.
Do not feed the strays.
Quote from: Jaron on September 03, 2009, 02:36:17 PM
Giving him your business is the equivalent of setting out saucers of milk for stray cats, Sask.
Do not feed the strays.
that's stupid. he makes good pizza.
Speaking of artery-clogging goodness, I propose some of us meet up and "research" this place:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbKRSYAuSNg
"Live for the day... or if you're lucky, into the early evening hours."
Is this a real piece, or one from the Onion?
I'm so fucking going there.
Real place. Chandler, AZ.
http://www.heartattackgrill.com/
Fucking Awesome! :mmm:
Actually... come to think of it I need to go out there on business in the next six months or so. :cool:
Quote from: Caliga on September 03, 2009, 06:32:33 PM
Actually... come to think of it I need to go out there on business in the next six months or so. :cool:
You won't come back.
Full picture AAR please.
Obviously none of the waitresses eat there.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 03, 2009, 07:46:22 PM
Obviously none of the waitresses eat there.
Maybe they do and work it off by "taking care of the patients." :perv:
...Hey, a guy can dream. :(
Quote from: saskganesh on September 03, 2009, 03:15:06 PM
Quote from: Jaron on September 03, 2009, 02:36:17 PM
Giving him your business is the equivalent of setting out saucers of milk for stray cats, Sask.
Do not feed the strays.
that's stupid.
D'oh. It's Jaron.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 03, 2009, 06:26:36 PM
Real place. Chandler, AZ.
http://www.heartattackgrill.com/
Double Bypass Burger and Lucky Strikes please.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 03, 2009, 06:01:34 PM
Speaking of artery-clogging goodness, I propose some of us meet up and "research" this place:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbKRSYAuSNg
"Live for the day... or if you're lucky, into the early evening hours."
:D
I could eat 6000 calories, but then I wouldn't have to eat the next day. and maybe the 2nd too.
in Regina, the Serbian club has the serbburger. it's a foot wide and it's no problem. but it is not something you can eat every day. or week.
if it was organic and lean, more people could digest that shit.
Quote from: saskganesh on September 03, 2009, 10:55:09 PM
:D
I could eat 6000 calories, but then I wouldn't have to eat the next day. and maybe the 2nd too.
in Regina, the Serbian club has the serbburger. it's a foot wide and it's no problem. but it is not something you can eat every day. or week.
if it was organic and lean, more people could digest that shit.
More locally, we've got the Charcoal Pit (http://charcoalpit.net), which has to be somewhere in the low thousands for the 8oz. Pit Special. It's delicious, but you can feel your arteries clogging as you chew. :D
I hate fried chicken. But after a couple beers and on an otherwise empty stomach, Popeye's chicken tasted awfully good at the tailgate tonight.
Quote from: derspiess on September 03, 2009, 11:27:12 PM
I hate fried chicken. But after a couple beers and on an otherwise empty stomach, Popeye's chicken tasted awfully good at the tailgate tonight.
You got some nigger in you afterall. :cheers:
One place here (small restaurant) has wonderfully filled Schnitzels. They take one, slightly larger than plate sized, schnitzel. Then they put a filling on top (my favorite is onion, chili peppers, bacon). Then they put a bit smaller schnitzel on top and fix it with tooth picks to keep the filling inside. Then the whole things is breaded and deep fried. It's served with a helping of fries or fried potatoes. Yum.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 03, 2009, 06:26:36 PM
Real place. Chandler, AZ.
http://www.heartattackgrill.com/
:lol: @ the nurses. I'd go there just for them.
Quote from: Syt on September 04, 2009, 02:35:58 AM
One place here (small restaurant) has wonderfully filled Schnitzels. They take one, slightly larger than plate sized, schnitzel. Then they put a filling on top (my favorite is onion, chili peppers, bacon). Then they put a bit smaller schnitzel on top and fix it with tooth picks to keep the filling inside. Then the whole things is breaded and deep fried. It's served with a helping of fries or fried potatoes. Yum.
:mmm:
There's a restaurant here called Flabby's Schnitzelburg and I think they may do a schintzel like that.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 04, 2009, 11:01:24 AM
:lol: @ the nurses. I'd go there just for them.
Buns are a good thing. :D
I love meat, fried food, cheese, and bacon. But this is too much even for me.
Quote from: DGuller on August 26, 2009, 10:25:13 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 26, 2009, 10:20:49 AM
Well, you already increase health insurance costs for people who smoke, and in many cases liver transplants are denied to people who are still alcoholics when their liver goes bust. Is there any logical argument against applying the same policy to obese people? If you don't respect your body and eat shit like that you shouldn't expect the healthy-lifestyle individuals to pay your medical bills for you.
How are you going to enforce it? "Do you eat junk food?" is a horribly vague question. The only effective way would be to levy sin taxes on junk food.
That's be a bit ridiculous but then again I do hate fat people.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 26, 2009, 11:00:28 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2009, 10:26:23 AM
Agreed - same applies for fags of course, and their dangerous homo lifestyle. We should not have to pay more for their expensive AIDS treatments because they cannot control themselves.
I wouldn't have a problem with that for people who regularly engage in bareback sex with strangers.
You just reminded me of a website I saw on somethinawful called bareback exchange where people wanted to get aids and give aids on purpose. :x
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogiversity.org%2Fblogs%2Fcstanton%2FHAG18.jpg&hash=b3b9b6514b66db7573d37f1e8be230946036afcd)
:lol: Is it just me, or is the sandwich in that pic using a plastic knife as the "toothpick?"
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 04, 2009, 01:17:16 PM
:lol: Is it just me, or is the sandwich in that pic using a plastic knife as the "toothpick?"
Nope, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what it is.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 04, 2009, 01:07:45 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogiversity.org%2Fblogs%2Fcstanton%2FHAG18.jpg&hash=b3b9b6514b66db7573d37f1e8be230946036afcd)
Am I the only one thinking "eat that burger or get in shape and hit that?" I usually try and order something healthy when the waitress/barrista is hot.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 03, 2009, 11:23:29 PM
More locally, we've got the Charcoal Pit (http://charcoalpit.net), which has to be somewhere in the low thousands for the 8oz. Pit Special. It's delicious, but you can feel your arteries clogging as you chew. :D
Didn't realize you lived that close to Delaware. Loved the Charcoal Pit when I lived there.
KFC fell through today.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 04, 2009, 01:17:16 PM
:lol: Is it just me, or is the sandwich in that pic using a plastic knife as the "toothpick?"
There4 was a sandwich in that picture?
Quote from: Queequeg on September 04, 2009, 03:41:17 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 04, 2009, 01:07:45 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogiversity.org%2Fblogs%2Fcstanton%2FHAG18.jpg&hash=b3b9b6514b66db7573d37f1e8be230946036afcd)
Am I the only one thinking "eat that burger or get in shape and hit that?" I usually try and order something healthy when the waitress/barrista is hot.
that's a low return strategy as everyone hits on waitresses. like they care, they just want your tips.
you are much better off flirting with bored shop girls.
Quote from: derspiess on September 03, 2009, 11:27:12 PM
I hate fried chicken. But after a couple beers and on an otherwise empty stomach, Popeye's chicken tasted awfully good at the tailgate tonight.
Try the chicken bowl some time. Deliciousness.
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2009, 03:55:03 PM
Didn't realize you lived that close to Delaware. Loved the Charcoal Pit when I lived there.
The
only good thing about Cumberland County- placement. Driving, less than an hour from Philly and Wilmington, two hours from NYC, and averaging three from Washington, DC.
Quote from: Martinus on August 26, 2009, 10:20:49 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 26, 2009, 10:05:09 AM
For the sake of controlling medical costs, I hope the people eating this sandwich would die right there on the spot, and not later on the operating table.
Well, you already increase health insurance costs for people who smoke, and in many cases liver transplants are denied to people who are still alcoholics when their liver goes bust. Is there any logical argument against applying the same policy to obese people? If you don't respect your body and eat shit like that you shouldn't expect the healthy-lifestyle individuals to pay your medical bills for you.
The same reason you expect people to pay for your treatment when you get AIDS.
Quote from: Korea on September 04, 2009, 12:46:17 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 26, 2009, 11:00:28 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2009, 10:26:23 AM
Agreed - same applies for fags of course, and their dangerous homo lifestyle. We should not have to pay more for their expensive AIDS treatments because they cannot control themselves.
I wouldn't have a problem with that for people who regularly engage in bareback sex with strangers.
You just reminded me of a website I saw on somethinawful called bareback exchange where people wanted to get aids and give aids on purpose. :x
That's what gays do. AIDS is an essential part of their lifestyle, and helps feed their victim mentality. Every gay must be killed.
Quote from: Neil on September 07, 2009, 09:50:37 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 26, 2009, 10:20:49 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 26, 2009, 10:05:09 AM
For the sake of controlling medical costs, I hope the people eating this sandwich would die right there on the spot, and not later on the operating table.
Well, you already increase health insurance costs for people who smoke, and in many cases liver transplants are denied to people who are still alcoholics when their liver goes bust. Is there any logical argument against applying the same policy to obese people? If you don't respect your body and eat shit like that you shouldn't expect the healthy-lifestyle individuals to pay your medical bills for you.
The same reason you expect people to pay for your treatment when you get AIDS.
To be fair though, there are a lot of obese people suffering from legitimate diseases and mental health problems that contribute to their weight issues. People getting AIDS from unprotected sex only have themselves to blame.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 04, 2009, 03:41:17 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 04, 2009, 01:07:45 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogiversity.org%2Fblogs%2Fcstanton%2FHAG18.jpg&hash=b3b9b6514b66db7573d37f1e8be230946036afcd)
Am I the only one thinking "eat that burger or get in shape and hit that?" I usually try and order something healthy when the waitress/barrista is hot.
On the contrary, knowing one's not going to be able to hit that causes depression which leads to eating more.
Quote from: Korea on September 04, 2009, 12:46:17 PM
You just reminded me of a website I saw on somethinawful called bareback exchange where people wanted to get aids and give aids on purpose. :x
Yay for buying up myth and hysteria. The incidence of bugchasing is quite low and I think there was a documentary on sites like this which found that almost never does anyone meetup to actually get AIDs.
Quote from: Martinus on August 26, 2009, 10:20:49 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 26, 2009, 10:05:09 AM
For the sake of controlling medical costs, I hope the people eating this sandwich would die right there on the spot, and not later on the operating table.
Well, you already increase health insurance costs for people who smoke, and in many cases liver transplants are denied to people who are still alcoholics when their liver goes bust. Is there any logical argument against applying the same policy to obese people? If you don't respect your body and eat shit like that you shouldn't expect the healthy-lifestyle individuals to pay your medical bills for you.
Well, no one has to smoke tobacco or drink alcohol, but everyone has to eat. It seems more unfair to penalize those who damage their health by engaging in a necessary activity to excess than to penalize those who damage their health by engaging in unnecessary activities.
Quote from: dps on September 07, 2009, 10:03:54 PM
Well, no one has to smoke tobacco or drink alcohol, but everyone has to eat. It seems more unfair to penalize those who damage their health by engaging in a necessary activity to excess than to penalize those who damage their health by engaging in unnecessary activities.
Eating a supersized meal at McD's is not a necessary activity.
Quote from: dps on September 07, 2009, 10:03:54 PM
Well, no one has to smoke tobacco or drink alcohol, but everyone has to eat. It seems more unfair to penalize those who damage their health by engaging in a necessary activity to excess than to penalize those who damage their health by engaging in unnecessary activities.
I agree. But do they have to have poor diets?
I'm really undecided on the issue of penalising people for their lifestyle in healthcare. Largely because I agree with John Reid, who was our Health Minister a few years ago and himself an ex-smoker and ex-alcoholic. He got into a bit of a storm because he basically said penalising smokers was in effect middle class puritanism, because a ciggy was a real pleasure that the poor could afford. While we should reduce smoking and should try and educate people to its health costs and we should reduce obesity and educate people on how to eat well, the truth is that a fag, a pint and a kebab are affordable pleasures, overwhelmingly enjoyed by the poorer sections of society.
I think it'd be great if we stopped smoking, drank only a glass of red a day and ate delicious, ideally organic, local and seasonal salads. But at the minute I think that it's largely something the middle class and the wealthy can afford more than the poor.
Besides, smoking and drinking are at the heart of what it means to be human. :angry:
FYI, smokers' lifetime medical costs are less than nonsmokers due to the early heart attacks and massive cancer. If you want to keep costs down, hand your buddy a pack or two.
Quote from: ulmont on September 07, 2009, 10:12:09 PM
FYI, smokers' lifetime medical costs are less than nonsmokers due to the early heart attacks and massive cancer.
I'd always wondered about that. Thanks :)
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 07, 2009, 10:10:03 PM
Quote from: dps on September 07, 2009, 10:03:54 PM
Well, no one has to smoke tobacco or drink alcohol, but everyone has to eat. It seems more unfair to penalize those who damage their health by engaging in a necessary activity to excess than to penalize those who damage their health by engaging in unnecessary activities.
I agree. But do they have to have poor diets?
I'm really undecided on the issue of penalising people for their lifestyle in healthcare. Largely because I agree with John Reid, who was our Health Minister a few years ago and himself an ex-smoker and ex-alcoholic. He got into a bit of a storm because he basically said penalising smokers was in effect middle class puritanism, because a ciggy was a real pleasure that the poor could afford. While we should reduce smoking and should try and educate people to its health costs and we should reduce obesity and educate people on how to eat well, the truth is that a fag, a pint and a kebab are affordable pleasures, overwhelmingly enjoyed by the poorer sections of society.
I think it'd be great if we stopped smoking, drank only a glass of red a day and ate delicious, ideally organic, local and seasonal salads. But at the minute I think that it's largely something the middle class and the wealthy can afford more than the poor.
Well, trying to eat healthier foods and to avoid the least healthy ones is more expensive and time-consuming. But eating smaller portions is less expenive, so it cuts both ways.
There's an easy way for people to lose weight if they can't afford eating organic salads from Whole Foods. What ever it is that you normally eat, shove less of it in your mouth.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on September 08, 2009, 12:27:32 AM
There's an easy way for people to lose weight if they can't afford eating organic salads from Whole Foods. What ever it is that you normally eat, shove less of it in your mouth.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I could lose weight on a diet of nothing but BK Whoppers. I'd just have to limit how many of them I eat.
Quote from: dps on September 08, 2009, 01:21:41 AM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on September 08, 2009, 12:27:32 AM
There's an easy way for people to lose weight if they can't afford eating organic salads from Whole Foods. What ever it is that you normally eat, shove less of it in your mouth.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I could lose weight on a diet of nothing but BK Whoppers. I'd just have to limit how many of them I eat.
DP = owned. ^_^
FAT PEOPLE RULE, SKINNY PEOPLE DROOL
Quote from: dps on September 08, 2009, 01:21:41 AM
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I could lose weight on a diet of nothing but BK Whoppers. I'd just have to limit how many of them I eat.
1 whopper with cheese 760 calories. You could even eat two.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on September 08, 2009, 01:47:45 AM
Quote from: dps on September 08, 2009, 01:21:41 AM
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I could lose weight on a diet of nothing but BK Whoppers. I'd just have to limit how many of them I eat.
1 whopper with cheese 760 calories. You could even eat two.
I don't like cheese on my burgers. Well, I do sometimes, but that processed stuff that fast food restaurants call cheese is nasty.
I don't remember the exact numbers, but a big portion on the calories in a whopper comes from the mayo, so if you want to eat 'em without too big an impact on your weight, leave off the mayo.
Quote from: dps on September 08, 2009, 01:21:41 AM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on September 08, 2009, 12:27:32 AM
There's an easy way for people to lose weight if they can't afford eating organic salads from Whole Foods. What ever it is that you normally eat, shove less of it in your mouth.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I could lose weight on a diet of nothing but BK Whoppers. I'd just have to limit how many of them I eat.
Buy the Junior instead of the Triple Whopper. ;)
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 07, 2009, 10:10:03 PM
Quote from: dps on September 07, 2009, 10:03:54 PM
Well, no one has to smoke tobacco or drink alcohol, but everyone has to eat. It seems more unfair to penalize those who damage their health by engaging in a necessary activity to excess than to penalize those who damage their health by engaging in unnecessary activities.
I agree. But do they have to have poor diets?
I'm really undecided on the issue of penalising people for their lifestyle in healthcare. Largely because I agree with John Reid, who was our Health Minister a few years ago and himself an ex-smoker and ex-alcoholic. He got into a bit of a storm because he basically said penalising smokers was in effect middle class puritanism, because a ciggy was a real pleasure that the poor could afford. While we should reduce smoking and should try and educate people to its health costs and we should reduce obesity and educate people on how to eat well, the truth is that a fag, a pint and a kebab are affordable pleasures, overwhelmingly enjoyed by the poorer sections of society.
I think it'd be great if we stopped smoking, drank only a glass of red a day and ate delicious, ideally organic, local and seasonal salads. But at the minute I think that it's largely something the middle class and the wealthy can afford more than the poor.
To my mind, adding some sort of calculation of the relative "morality" of various lifestyle choices to the mix of what ought to be publicly safety-netted is a legal, ethical and accounting morass which we would be well advised to avoid. Particularly as the desions are bound to be made on political grounds and not on any hard-headed objective basis.
It sounds good in theory, but it opens up a mess of other issues.
What about people who do not take their vitamins? What about people who engage in dangerous activities like driving cars? Why should people who don't drive cars have to pay for those who do?
I am with Malthus on this - the entire idea is pretty silly. There is no way you can possibly start down that road without ending up somewhere we don't want to be.
eating healthy is cheap. just shop the specials, eat lower on the food chain, spend a bit of time cooking, and read a bit on nutrition. that's it.
Quote from: saskganesh on September 08, 2009, 09:45:26 AM
eating healthy is cheap. just shop the specials, eat lower on the food chain, spend a bit of time cooking, and read a bit on nutrition. that's it.
That looks like a LOT of work.
Quote from: sbr on September 08, 2009, 10:15:44 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on September 08, 2009, 09:45:26 AM
eating healthy is cheap. just shop the specials, eat lower on the food chain, spend a bit of time cooking, and read a bit on nutrition. that's it.
That looks like a LOT of work.
Way too much work. Get out the Hamburger Helper.
I was mad the first time I opened a box of Hamburger Helper and the little living glove guy wasn't in it. I wanted to poke his tummy and make him laugh. RIPOFF! :mad:
Quote from: Caliga on September 08, 2009, 10:59:31 AM
I was mad the first time I opened a box of Hamburger Helper and the little living glove guy wasn't in it. I wanted to poke his tummy and make him laugh. RIPOFF! :mad:
:lol:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fxs843.xs.to%2Fxs843%2F09372%2Fb91a1dd8a1e7249261ca547e2c0f13bc908.jpg&hash=1589127f9444dfb7b697c3d30aa257a35eb7e3d6)
My miss my old bachelor cooking. :(
Quote from: saskganesh on September 08, 2009, 09:45:26 AM
eating healthy is cheap. just shop the specials, eat lower on the food chain, spend a bit of time cooking, and read a bit on nutrition. that's it.
Or, I could just not waste my time on that, eat fast food, and use some of the money savings from saving my time to pay for a quadruple bypass.
Quote from: sbr on September 08, 2009, 10:15:44 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on September 08, 2009, 09:45:26 AM
eating healthy is cheap. just shop the specials, eat lower on the food chain, spend a bit of time cooking, and read a bit on nutrition. that's it.
That looks like a LOT of work.
nah. you actually have to work less to earn $ to eat fast food/take out/restaurants all the time.
but it is a cultural shift. do you want to live with things like heart disease, type II diabetes, high cholesterol, diet-related cancers and feeling lazy and overweight as a cultural birthright? and pay more money for that pleasure? sure it's "convenient" but I don't think it's very a good deal.
Quote from: DGuller on September 08, 2009, 11:16:11 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on September 08, 2009, 09:45:26 AM
eating healthy is cheap. just shop the specials, eat lower on the food chain, spend a bit of time cooking, and read a bit on nutrition. that's it.
Or, I could just not waste my time on that, eat fast food, and use some of the money savings from saving my time to pay for a quadruple bypass.
exactly.
being lazy is my birthright, you goddamned commie. :mad:
:P
Quote from: saskganesh on September 08, 2009, 11:17:15 AM
nah. you actually have to work less to earn $ to eat fast food/take out/restaurants all the time.
but it is a cultural shift. do you want to live with things like heart disease, type II diabetes, high cholesterol, diet-related cancers and feeling lazy and overweight as a cultural birthright? and pay more money for that pleasure? sure it's "convenient" but I don't think it's very a good deal.
Why are you grouping fast food and take out with restaurants? The first two provide very cheap but crappy food, while restaurants provide crappy food that's extremely over-priced. It's difficult to make an argument that you spend more money on fast food, it's really dirt cheap compared to alternatives.
Quote from: DGuller on September 08, 2009, 11:24:42 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on September 08, 2009, 11:17:15 AM
nah. you actually have to work less to earn $ to eat fast food/take out/restaurants all the time.
but it is a cultural shift. do you want to live with things like heart disease, type II diabetes, high cholesterol, diet-related cancers and feeling lazy and overweight as a cultural birthright? and pay more money for that pleasure? sure it's "convenient" but I don't think it's very a good deal.
Why are you grouping fast food and take out with restaurants? The first two provide very cheap but crappy food, while restaurants provide crappy food that's extremely over-priced. It's difficult to make an argument that you spend more money on fast food, it's really dirt cheap compared to alternatives.
just for brevity. obviously there are differences, but judging on what many of you guys prefer to eat, it made sense to lump them together.
Review of the Double Down Sandwich (http://www.avclub.com/articles/kfcs-double-down-sandwich,32804/)
Quote...I began to feel sick. Merely looking at my beloved potato wedges made me queasy. Who could possibly devour two chicken breast patties, greasy bacon, and two slices of cheese, and still have room left over for fried potato wedges and a soda? For that matter, who would want to simultaneously eat two cheese-and-bacon-addled chicken-breast patties? What began as a pleasant surprise quickly devolved into a nightmare. I struggled to keep the sandwich down. I felt defeated, lost, overwhelmed. I like cheese, I like bacon, and I like chicken breasts, but the combination was too much of a greasy thing. I left that KFC a shattered man. I had finished the Double Down. Or had the Double Down finished me?
So consider me your fast-food Paul Revere, sending out a warning throughout the land: The Double Down is coming! The Double Down is coming! Be afraid, dear reader. Be very, very afraid.
Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2009, 09:10:14 AM
To my mind, adding some sort of calculation of the relative "morality" of various lifestyle choices to the mix of what ought to be publicly safety-netted is a legal, ethical and accounting morass which we would be well advised to avoid. Particularly as the desions are bound to be made on political grounds and not on any hard-headed objective basis.
I disagree. I think there are certain things government should do because they are better for society. For example I think it's right that benefits should encourage people into work, I think we should encourage marriage because that has social benefits, I think we should discourage smoking and drinking because they have negative social and health effects for which government ultimately pays. We tax cigarettes a huge amount, at the same time we don't tax childrens' books at all - but we do tax video games and kids' DVDs. All of these actions make judgements about morality and try to change individual behaviour. So I don't think food necessarily should be separate from those attempts.
My only worry is that what all this ultimately leads to is a victimisation of the poor.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 16, 2009, 11:04:13 AM
I disagree. I think there are certain things government should do because they are better for society. For example I think it's right that benefits should encourage people into work, I think we should encourage marriage because that has social benefits, I think we should discourage smoking and drinking because they have negative social and health effects for which government ultimately pays. We tax cigarettes a huge amount, at the same time we don't tax childrens' books at all - but we do tax video games and kids' DVDs. All of these actions make judgements about morality and try to change individual behaviour. So I don't think food necessarily should be separate from those attempts.
My only worry is that what all this ultimately leads to is a victimisation of the poor.
There was an interesting programme on Radio 4 (of course) exploring how the government can persuade people to do things that are good for their health, environment and so on, employing the much-hyped "Nudge" principle. The idea is that statistics saying, for instance, "30% of the population is now clinically obese" or having a sign in the doctor's waiting room saying "127 hours of appointments were missed last month" normalise the behaviour they are trying to change. "If everyone else is like me, why should I change?"
They should instead give facts related to the healthy or target norm, such as "50% of the UK population is a normal weight which they maintain through a mostly healthy diet and light exercise."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00mk7rq
Quote from: Brazen on September 16, 2009, 11:22:53 AM
There was an interesting programme on Radio 4 (of course) exploring how the government can persuade people to do things that are good for their health, environment and so on, employing the much-hyped "Nudge" principle. The idea is that statistics saying, for instance, "30% of the population is now clinically obese" or having a sign in the doctor's waiting room saying "127 hours of appointments were missed last month" normalise the behaviour they are trying to change. "If everyone else is like me, why should I change?"
They should instead give facts related to the healthy or target norm, such as "50% of the UK population is a normal weight which they maintain through a mostly healthy diet and light exercise."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00mk7rq
I'll watch that. I've read about the 'nudge' theory. It's incredible some of the stuff to do with that. One of the ones that interested me was like your example but to do with littering. The wording of the sign apparently had a pretty large impact on the amount of litter that was dropped in the park.
I really need to read the book at some point.
More here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8255153.stm
QuoteCan politicians shape our behaviour?
By Martin Rosenbaum
Producer, BBC Radio 4's Persuading Us to be Good
Are you a good citizen?
The kind who doesn't drink too much but always puts the empties in the recycling box? The kind who ignores tempting store credit card offers but does give blood, who saves prudently for your pension while avoiding unprotected sex?
In short, the kind who does what the nanny state might want you to do?
And if you're not yet perfect, how can the state persuade you to become better?
That's the question a growing number of politicians, local government officials, health professionals and think-tank members are grappling with, as they puzzle over how best to change public behaviour to achieve their policy goals.
Personal choices
And they are now turning to the increasingly influential ideas of social psychology and behavioural economics in their search for answers.
"In many areas now there are limits to the cures that can be achieved by government alone," says the climate change minister, Joan Ruddock.
"Behaviour change is a very important priority because we know that things like health and the environment are affected by the choices people make."
And the Conservatives are also interested, according to the shadow chancellor George Osborne.
He argues: "Social psychologists are helping governments around the world design policy solutions that are more effective than big state solutions. If you go with the grain of people's instincts you are more likely to achieve the public policy outcomes you want, rather than sitting in a government department dreaming up some rational scheme that doesn't work in practice."
Barnet Council in north west London is one of those local authorities trying to improve its population.
In one pilot scheme in Finchley, the residents have been asked to reduce their carbon footprint by turning down their heating, reducing their car use, and so on.
A traditional persuasive strategy would be based on stressing how this could benefit the environment. But the council is going further in testing out techniques of influence.
The residents are asked to make pledges in a face-to-face conversation with one of the canvassers who have been going door-to-door in this area.
They are only asked to make some limited pledges - to choose three out of nine options on the pledge card they are shown.
And posters on lampposts proclaim the number of households in that street who have agreed to participate.
Peer pressure
In other words, this project is based on enticing people into making a small but face-to-face commitment and then using the force of peer pressure to encourage others.
"If you go to someone's door and say 'can you do a great deal for the environment?', they're probably going to back off," says Daniel Delange, of the charity Groundwork, which the council has employed to implement the project.
"But if you say 'a little bit for the environment', they feel they can do a little bit and feel good about themselves for doing it."
"We put these posters up, so we hope the neighbours see," he adds. "We hope the neighbours will feel 'if they're all doing it, maybe I should be doing it as well'."
But there is still some way to go.
When we asked one resident if she was impressed by the posters about the number of neighbours taking part, she replied: "Not knowing who the neighbours were, I don't know."
For the council leader, Mike Freer, this approach is an idea whose time has come.
He says: "The role of the council has shifted away from being a provider of services to being responsible for helping local citizens improve their lives. Nudging people along is a terrific idea, we've got to stop nagging. If nagging worked we'd all be skinny, we'd all be recycling and we'd all be walking to work."
The Barnet pilot scheme is being funded by the Department of Communities and Local Government, which wants to examine how well the academic theories involved can be implemented in practice.
Similar ideas are also being employed at the national level.
If you fill out the "carbon calculator" on the government's Action CO2 campaign site, you will see that at the end it compares your carbon consumption to that of other households like yours.
Some of this is based on the work of the leading American social psychologist, Professor Robert Cialdini.
He argues that the key role of peer pressure or "social proof" is illustrated by a Californian experiment about trying to reduce household energy consumption.
The participants were given information about how cutting consumption could benefit the environment, and also about what other households were doing to save energy.
The outcome?
"The messages we sent to them about what their neighbours were doing were the only ones that made a difference," he says.
New jargon
But this also suggests that politicians who complain about how widespread an undesirable behaviour is can inadvertently be encouraging it, because it can help that behaviour become a social norm.
This applies to everything from young people carrying knives to patients who don't turn up for their medical appointments.
Thus Professor Cialdini believes that talk of an "obesity epidemic" simply encourages more obesity.
"Instead of normalising the undesirable behaviour, you want to marginalise it," he adds.
All this may mean that we have to learn a new item of political terminology.
"I'm starting to hear local authorities that were quite recently using the phrase 'place-shaping' as the jargon for what they did now talk about 'person-shaping'," says Matthew Taylor, a former Downing Street policy aide to Tony Blair.
The term "person-shaping" probably won't appeal to politicians, but it could increasingly describe what they are trying to do.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 16, 2009, 11:04:13 AM
I disagree. I think there are certain things government should do because they are better for society. For example I think it's right that benefits should encourage people into work, I think we should encourage marriage because that has social benefits, I think we should discourage smoking and drinking because they have negative social and health effects for which government ultimately pays. We tax cigarettes a huge amount, at the same time we don't tax childrens' books at all - but we do tax video games and kids' DVDs. All of these actions make judgements about morality and try to change individual behaviour. So I don't think food necessarily should be separate from those attempts.
My only worry is that what all this ultimately leads to is a victimisation of the poor.
I think that when society takes on the role of caring for peoples' health and whatnot, it must do so with the understanding that that does not give it the right to use that as an excuse to start using state power to control peoples' personal choices. Taxing certain behavior because you don't like it or want to discourage it is a repugnant practice, even if it's done for the good of society as a whole. What would we have said if Brown decided to tax voting Tory because he thinks it's bad for society, for example? It can lead any ridiculous place.
The Tories are spouting "Nudge principle" left, right and centre, so it just may be evil.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 16, 2009, 11:04:13 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2009, 09:10:14 AM
To my mind, adding some sort of calculation of the relative "morality" of various lifestyle choices to the mix of what ought to be publicly safety-netted is a legal, ethical and accounting morass which we would be well advised to avoid. Particularly as the desions are bound to be made on political grounds and not on any hard-headed objective basis.
I disagree. I think there are certain things government should do because they are better for society. For example I think it's right that benefits should encourage people into work, I think we should encourage marriage because that has social benefits, I think we should discourage smoking and drinking because they have negative social and health effects for which government ultimately pays. We tax cigarettes a huge amount, at the same time we don't tax childrens' books at all - but we do tax video games and kids' DVDs. All of these actions make judgements about morality and try to change individual behaviour. So I don't think food necessarily should be separate from those attempts.
My only worry is that what all this ultimately leads to is a victimisation of the poor.
A selective tax on certain activities raises quite different issues than deciding whether or not to fund healthcare based on the victim's past lifestyle choice.
The latter strikes me as leading into a morass of mostly pointless micro-management. How, practically, would it work? Someone gets sick or injured, and you send out private investigators to determine whether or not they were living an "approved" lifestyle? Would the "savings" in terms of punishing those who ate fritos rather than carrots as a snack by depriving them of healthcare costs on the public dime really be worth the expense of rooting out such food criminals?
A tax on certain goods (such as cigarettes) is simplicity itself compared to this. That's saying nothing of the sense in having our political overlords dictate nanny-state-wise what's good for us.
Well the nudge idea is largely about benign and almost unnoticeable changes - not sin taxes. For example the stimulus tax cut not being heralded as tax cuts normally are (a cheque in the post, I'd guess) but just people receiving a larger paycheque so that, instead of saving it, they spend it because they don't entirely realise. Similarly the phrasing of government adverts about obesity.
We have the health costs of obesity. So why not tax certain foods?
Quote from: Malthus on September 16, 2009, 11:36:55 AM
A selective tax on certain activities raises quite different issues than deciding whether or not to fund healthcare based on the victim's past lifestyle choice.
Oh no, I mean that's madness.
Give me Shoo Fly pie or give me death.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 16, 2009, 11:40:54 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 16, 2009, 11:36:55 AM
A selective tax on certain activities raises quite different issues than deciding whether or not to fund healthcare based on the victim's past lifestyle choice.
Oh no, I mean that's madness.
It's basically the same thing as making them may for it in the form of sin taxes beforehand.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 16, 2009, 02:17:21 PM
It's basically the same thing as making them may for it in the form of sin taxes beforehand.
Not at all. The smoker pays a bit more for a packet of ciggies, but goes to hospital and gets treatment for lung cancer. That's very different from having cheap cigarettes, but not being given treatment for lung cancer. I mean the big difference is that in the former the state exacts an extra amount of money for the future cost of illness, in the latter because someone smokes the state allows them to die. I think a sin tax is inconvenient but it doesn't turn the government into an Old Testament God.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 16, 2009, 02:24:30 PMI mean the big difference is that in the former the state exacts an extra amount of money for the future cost of illness, in the latter because someone smokes the state allows them to die.
That's a difference without a distinction. In the former, it's charging more due to the fact that the patient smokes. In the latter that is substituted for simply not treating because the person smoked. In either case, the state is attributing the monetary value of the person's medical care on the lifestyle choice of the smoker and acting accordingly. The difference between "we won't treat you because you smoke" and "you have to pay more if you want to smoke and also be treated" is in practical terms only a difference of degree---and in moral terms no difference at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjnh1I5k-jM
Lard? Man, that's gross.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 16, 2009, 01:45:05 PM
Give me Shoo Fly pie or give me death.
Do you have ANY IDEA how many Amishmen had to die so you could enjoy this delicious piece of Shoo Fly Pie, soldier!? :mad:
Quote from: Caliga on September 23, 2009, 11:18:20 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 16, 2009, 01:45:05 PM
Give me Shoo Fly pie or give me death.
Do you have ANY IDEA how many Amishmen had to die so you could enjoy this delicious piece of Shoo Fly Pie, soldier!? :mad:
As long as the supply of shoo fly pie continues, I don't care.
Someone really needs to go & try this.
Quote from: Caliga on September 23, 2009, 11:18:20 AM
Do you have ANY IDEA how many Amishmen had to die so you could enjoy this delicious piece of Shoo Fly Pie, soldier!? :mad:
Shoo, fly, don't bother me.