Clay Bennett Editorial Cartoon, March 13, 2013 on GoComics.com

2011worldchamps said, 2 months ago

Yeah but it’s your choice to put your mouth there. Whatever happen to personal responsibility?

Radish said, 2 months ago

Food producers can’t afford for you not to like their products. So they figure out exactly what you want. Not only do they have food labs designed to find our “bliss spots”—the point when the sugar and salt levels are just right—but they also have people like Howard Moskowitz, a crave consultant, who figures out what levels of salt, sugar, and fat are just right. The difference between wanting more and getting bored is a fine line. Except in one area: there’s no “bliss spot” for fat content. Kraft used the more-the-merrier tactic when it pushed cheese, the fattest of fat-based foods, into the markets in the 1990s.
.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/25/speed-read-fast-food-giants-secrets-in-salt-sugar-fat.html

DrCanuck said, 2 months ago

@2011worldchamps

2011worldchamps said, “Whatever happen to personal responsibility?”

Apparently, you were incapable of exercising it.

ansonia said, 2 months ago

@DrCanuck

As evidenced by 51% last November, who voted for the “take things away from you for the common good” politicians.

SkepticCal said, 2 months ago

@DrCanuck

Your logic criticizing 2011worldchamps totally escapes me.
.

.
2011worldchamps has produced a reasoned argument for support of companies that produce only products nobody wants. This goal should be completely supported. Even if it requires taxpayer’s money.
.
Are you listening Barack Obama? Oh, he is already backing production of products that nobody wants. Sorry!

curtisls87 said, 2 months ago

Once again, we have an implication by a comic that infers something separate from reality with respect to the ruling in this case. The judge actually recognized that it could be within the purview of a local government to regulate a product, but struck down the law because of it’s capricious and arbitrary nature. As an example, 7-11s were exempt, but restaurants were required to comply.

Rockngolfer said, 2 months ago

@Radish

Do you follow Over The Hedge? RJ has been eating Smackees all week. Comments are good.

d_legendary1 said, 2 months ago

@SkepticCal

“Even if it requires taxpayer’s money.”

So you’re in favor of corporate welfare?

Rickapolis said, 2 months ago

More guns. That’s the answer. MORE GUNS. Give everybody all the guns they want. No limit. No law. THAT will lower gun violence. Right GOP?

ARodney said, 2 months ago

Yes, but the judges ruling is pretty squirrely. It’s like the cigarette companies saying that they should be legal, even though any new toxic product would be illegal to sell, because addicted Americans want to be able to choose to keep smoking. Then when you try to restrict smoking in restaurants, they say “but it’s a legal product! You can’t restrict it!” The point of the law is that people can get more than 16 oz by ordering another drink. That’s fine! It’s America, a free country. But enough people will stop at 16 oz. to save New York taxpayers a huge amount in future health costs.

dtroutma said, 2 months ago

I totally agree with “personal responsibility” angle, but, with commerce and advertising, and the fact you can’t BUY a “small” size any more, marketing HAS taken away a lot of that “freedom of choice” from a brainwashed populace.

Of course the marketing of more guns,mostly to those who already HAVE a lot of guns, and a lot of paranoia, is the result of the same marketing and brainwashing issue.

1opinion said, 2 months ago

@2011worldchamps

“Yeah but it’s your choice to put your mouth there. Whatever happen to personal responsibility?”
I am not arguing against you, but would that be anything like cigarettes in the past when some did not know how bad they were and the tobacco companies lied and said they were not harmful? Even now, few people know what all the additives are in a cigarette.