Stuff a chicken inside a duck
I'm like holy shit what the fuck?

Then put the thing in a turkey
Wow that makes me wanna jerk it

Sweet delicious meats
A wondrous culinary feat

A tasty sensation in your mouth
Not unlike "going south"

I am Batman you are not
Without Turducken you are squat

Oh the pleasures of Turducken
Second only to ass fuckin'!

And Anchorite go fuck your fat self.

If I recall correctly, the high-fructose corn syrup content in McDonald's salads drove the calorie count way up. I've been trying to avoid HFCS but it's almost impossible.

I think you need to relax. Chew on a tofu brick or something.

http://tinyurl.com/282lhj

A documentary should show things as they are. I could really care less if it tries to get me to do/think anything.

Talkbacker: Hippos are the most dangerous animals in Africa.

anchorite: I'm sure liberal feminazis would have you believe that.

Talkbacker: what does that have to do-

anchorite: just last week, 3 people were killed by monkeys. are you saying monkeys aren't dangerous

Talkbacker: well I'm sure that overall, many more pe-

anchorite: are you trying to argue that 3 people were not killed by monkeys last week? here's the link, bucko: {link}

Talkbacker: but my point is that in general, Hippos kill more people in Africa than any other animal.

I just saw a video the other day where people had a Hippo living in their house with them, like a dog. it was even housetrained. [note: this is actually true, look it up -Wonka]

Talkbacker: um...

anchorite: you're damn right, "Um". I just deflated your whole argument. how could these people live in perfect harmony with an animal that is supposedly so dangerous?

Talkbacker: but that's not the point. you've just latched on some minute detail and used it to try to derail a perfectly valid overall point. the statistics show that-

anchorite: liberals always use facts and statistics as their fallback. why not use lyrics from a song?

Talkbacker: what?

anchorite: stupid liberals

Talkbacker: just look it up, Hippos kill more people every year-

anchorite: liberals always whine about Hippos. why not think for yourself and decide for yourself what is the truth?

Talkbacker: the goddamn FACTS are the truth! you can't decide the facts for yourself

anchorite: another liberal bashing religion, how refreshing!

Talkbacker: sigh...

I used to wave that shit away from me even as I was inhaling the cigarette. And it's foul - you can barely wash it off your hands after a smoke. I think banning smoking is a public service, and I encourage it. What people don't realize is how much of an addictive drug nicotine is. It's the most addictive substance known to man - yet unknown, as a fact, to the general public.

Anchorite, in his non-existent wisdom, thinks that just the knowledge that smoking kills is sufficient to get people to stop. Every smoker, I can tell you, KNOWS smoking kills. But the addiction to nicotine, like any addiction, trumps logic and common sense. The addiction controls the person, and until the person is given the tools (i.e.: knowledge) to understand his/her addiction and thereby conquer it, he/she needs something else to help them, and I think a ban is a useful tool because it stigmatizes a deadly habit, and ultimately serves a useful purpose.

I know children don't go to bars but the ban applies to restaurants and other places where children are present.

On the art vs artist argument. This is uttery insolubule. There are countless artists in all forms of art that have turned out to be utterly despicable people- Wagner, Picasso, Polanski, Britney Spears (just kidding, she isn't that bad) etc. The point remains that if you can seperate the artist from his work then you can find and appreciate aesthetic brilliance. If you can't the knowedge of the composer/ painter/ author/ film maker's identity will taint the value of the work for you. The only question should be that if you are exposed to 2 different works, one of which is objectively superior to the other (think Chinatown v Alone in The Dark) does the fact that the "better" work was created by a shitweasel elevate the lesser work?

Really, the only answer I can ever come up with to this is that the work of genius is still a work of genius, but it is a damned travesty that it came from such a turd. Whereas the work of hackitude it still utterly dismal, and it is a shame that the authors were not reversed.

I'm not saying that the lives of the authors should be celebrated, but the work- once it exists- is an entity in its own right and should therefore be judged on its own particular merits. Once it is created it exists in its own right- and any such judgement should be confined to its particular merits.

I would put it to you that he was actually more ill on a diet of McDonald's than he would have been with a similar calorie intake of something with some nutrition.

I stand by what I said above- it is a statement of the blindingly fucking obvious, but it did need to be said.

The answer clearly should be that he do a follow up where he eats the same calorie intake of vegan/ rabbit food (which I can't abide- I need dead animal), and honestly charts the results.

If he turns into a lard-arse with malnutrition then that answers that question.

And he has to do it, as it is his metabolism that went through the first test. Anyone else doing it is meaningless as they will have different metabolisms.

Seriously, is there a conservative issue in existence that you wouldn't eagerly suck the unholy cock of satan in order to defend?

Nicotine is more addictive than fucking heroin, and cigarettes happen to be the QUICKEST AND MOST EFFECTIVE delivery system for nicotine. The smoke also happens to be highly carcinogenic. It's a deadly combination that only a fucking moron of the highest order would compare to chocolate. No one is stopping anyone from smoking in their own home, you fucking tool. Quit exaggerating to make a point you don't have.

And the only reason you're criticizing Bush is because he's not brutal and inhumane enough for your taste. You're from the Michael Medved / Ron Silver school of Bush-bashing. You're all wackjobs slithering on the outskirts of decent society. Don't even pretend to denounce Bush for the right reasons. All you want is more bloodshed, and watch it all from the comfort of you basement.

You know the drill. Go fuck yourself.

Eric Schlosser's book (which I'm assuming was the inspiration for the film) does NOT call for a legal ban on fast food or try to make the reader feel guilty for eating it. Schlosser, who says he still eats at McDonald's, tries to give the entire picture of what fast food means to us: how its produced, what the dangers are, and the dirty secrets behind the counter.

Things like chocolate, alcohol and fast food have not been subject to the same kinds of legislation as cigarettes because its agreed that they are harmless if used in moderation. Epidemiology studies going back to the 1940's (some of them sponsored by tobacco companies) tend to agree that cigarette smokers have nearly double the rate of cancer, especially lung cancer. Mesothelioma is almost exclusively caused by exposure to asbestos, which was used as a filter in the first 'light' cigarettes. Although I do agree with you on second-hand smoking bans, which largely use a World Health Organization study for reference. The study initially showed people exposed to second hand smoke had a twenty percent higher rate of lung cancer but this was later revised to about two percent which is considered statistically negligible.

the fact of the matter is, certain things (most specifically cigarettes and alcohol) can be physiologically AND psychologically addictive, and should not be carelessly lumped in with donuts and ho-hos.

we regulate the SHIT out of alcohol. where you can get it and when, wht you can do with it, and how, how much you can have and still do this and that. and for the most part, people are not up in arms. (except maybe wanting to lower the drinking age to 18)...

so what's wrong with some restrictions on something that is as dangerous, or more so, than alcohol? I can have a beer in a restaurant, but I can't have 20. I can smoke a cigarette outside the restaurant, but not inside it. I can drink on my front porch, but not walking down the street. I can smoke a cigarette walking down the street, but not standing in the doorway of an elementary school.

the problem with these libertarian knee-jerk responses to any legislation, national or local, which proposes to help the common good, is that they mistake obstinance for idealism. we ALL accept restrictions on our behavior for the common good. from crosswalks to decency laws, we abide by them every day. but when one pops up that may be a little harder to swallow socially, it becomes the poster child for those who believe the right to have a cigarette trumps the danger it poses to a kid next to them.

smoking bans are to libertarian thinking individuals what evolution in public schools are to conservatives. and not coincidentally, both are simply good.

p.s. I'm a smoker

Nicotine addiction does have both a physiological and psychological component. The fact is, the withdrawal symptons from the physiological addiction are extremely mild and easy to overcome, but the psychological addiction is a roadblock to it.

If you want to quit, I cannot recommend more highly Allen Carr's Easy Way To Stop Smoking. The title says it all, and it truly worked for me - in a matter of just a few days.

Nice work. Now go back to telling us about the great humanitarians in the tobacco industry.

and aside from sodium I would expect to see other nutritional differences- lack of some vitamins/ minerals etc.

I can almost see him hunched over the computer with tear glistening eyes genty typing away (he doesn't type too hard in case it disrupts his plastic statue of liberty that he has sitting on top of the monitor). All the while muttering "they just don't understand. Traitors, all of them" to himself.

Then he pulls on his stars and stripe jim-jams and crawls into his big powder blue bed underneath his poster of Bill O'Reilly, where he dreams of a land without liberalism, where rampant capitalism roaring unchecked is great- and with such freedom, the sun shines every day, bunnies hop in tandem and man treats man with the respect and dignity owed.

we all accept RESTRICTIONS on our freedom, in order to protect the freedoms of the guy next to us. uless you support outright anarchy, you do it as well.

smoking is not, and should not, be considered any differently. saying, "people know the bar has smokers, so they choose to go in it" is no different than saying, "I know that highway is going to have drunk drivers on it, and I choose to drive on it." some behavior is unquestionably dangerous to others, and being so, must be regulated. how is ti unfair to say, "want to smoke? great, it's your personal choice. so you go outside where it remains a personal choice." you smoke in a small enclosed area, and you are making a choice for everyone around you. what could be more limiting to your freedom and liberty than having choices made for you?

again, when looked at logically, a libertarian case can be made for the sake of regulation. unfortunately, the knee jerk reaction (which, no offense, you are stating, albeit much more coherently) is: I want to smoke, the government says I can't smoke in certain places, my liberty is being infringed upon.

it's just not logical to me. there are millions of restrictions on us every day. this is just a clear, hot button issue that can be broken down easily into simple, but incorrect, pieces.