If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NYPost)   McDonald's McDouble cheeseburger: The cheapest, most nutritious, most bountiful food EVAR   (nypost.com) divider line 51
    More: Obvious, EVAR, Mcdonald, McDouble, Great Idea, gasoline taxes  
•       •       •

23770 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Jul 2013 at 9:15 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-07-28 01:46:23 AM  
6 votes:
Was the author raised as a ragging douchebag or did society make him that way?
2013-07-28 09:55:28 AM  
3 votes:
red beans and rice is cheaper and better for you.

so are many cabbage dishes.
2013-07-28 09:54:18 AM  
3 votes:

born_yesterday: I actually measure the cost of healthy food that I buy in McDoubles.  A few tomatos and a head of lettuce?  About 5 McDoubles.  A pound of carrots?  One or two McDoubles.  So heavily subsidized, that all of the processing and transport that goes into a McDouble allows them to offer it for less than locally grown produce.  Awesome.


A billion farking times  THIS.

Kill the corn subsidy and see what happens to the REAL price of food.
2013-07-28 09:45:09 AM  
3 votes:
"Junk food costs as little as $1.76 per 1,000 calories, ... A 2,000-calorie day of meals would, if you stuck strictly to the good-for-you stuff, cost $36.32, said the study's lead author, Adam Drewnowski."

This dude is a farking moran, this means you would have to spend over $1000 per month to eat the "good-for-you stuff." Here's the article he is refering too, it says:

"Energy cost of foods in the bottom quintile of energy density, beverages excluded, was $18.16/1,000 kcal as compared to only $1.76/1,000 kcal for foods in the top quintile."

Things in the bottom quintile: sugar, cookies, peanut butter, margarine, lard, olive oil
Things in the top quintile: lobster, oysters, red peppers, blueberries, cod

I didn't realize that eating well meant I had to eat 2000 calories per day of lobster.
2013-07-28 09:33:59 AM  
3 votes:

ZzeusS: Is this one of those articles where the college kid types in lots of words but doesn't really have a point, or make a whole lot of sense?

Yes.  Yes it is.


Yeah it was all over the place. We can't even get an article about the McDouble without weird, political insults and tangents? We've successfully politicized and internalized the McDouble? Awesome.
2013-07-28 09:28:11 AM  
3 votes:
Is this one of those articles where the college kid types in lots of words but doesn't really have a point, or make a whole lot of sense?

Yes.  Yes it is.
2013-07-28 01:55:23 AM  
3 votes:
That's the best article I've seen on fark in ages.
2013-07-28 11:43:52 AM  
2 votes:

Derigiberble: maniacbastard: red beans and rice is cheaper and better for you.

so are many cabbage dishes.

You are assuming the author gives a shiat.  How can he rage against liberals withe read beans and rice?


The authors point is, the liberal/foodie crowd would claim that eating white rice is a sin, and unless you know the farmer who grew your beans, you may as well be hitler.
2013-07-28 10:58:06 AM  
2 votes:
TFA inadvertently makes a case for replacing food stamps with food.

Mickey D's is hardly the only place to get cheap calories...pretty much every grocery store is stuffed to the rafters with products from the heavily-subsidized starch-industrial complex. A poor mom trying to make her EBT card last still gets to choose between crap, crap, and crap.

And no, the solution is NOT to increase the benefits level. That's just another subsidy for the Walmarts and big agriculture, and soon enough the mom is back where she started needing more benefits to buy the same crap she was buying before - plus everybody else also gets to pay more for their food. And their health care.

The only way to win is not to play a game that plays right into the hands of the big businesses that progressives supposedly despise. Blow up the entire food stamp system and start over.

I'd rather pay for healthy foods, ingredients and recipes to be delivered to poor families, or available at soup kitchens. Instead of having Vogon bureaucrats in offices giving people the runaround as they do half-assed asset checks on recipients, have more workers out actually interacting with people in need. You want that wonderful government health care system they have in places like Norway? First you have to have a government people trust, like Norways. And you sure as shiat don't do that by hiring bunches of people to sit behind desks in social-services offices telling people they don't have the appropriate documentation for form 6-8992-J(7) and they'll have to come back six Tuesdays from now, between 11:30 and 11:45am, with the correct documentation, during a new moon (bewareoftheleopard.jpg).

Fraud? Not a problem any more. There's no more EBT card to cash in at sketchy merchants, and if there's a thriving black market in the cauliflower-for-booze trade I haven't heard of it.

And since we won't be subsidizing businesses to grow and sell starchy crap any more, a lot of them will switch over to growing and marketing healthier fare...because there's more profit in it. I'd rather not subsidize anybody. But I also don't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good, so if the best that's politically possible is switching corn and wheat subsidies to subsidies for carrots, blueberries, broccoli, lentils and so forth, I'm okay with that.
2013-07-28 10:02:45 AM  
2 votes:

maniacbastard: red beans and rice is cheaper and better for you.

so are many cabbage dishes.


You are assuming the author gives a shiat.  How can he rage against liberals withe read beans and rice?
2013-07-28 10:02:19 AM  
2 votes:
But we all know fast food makes us fat, right? Not necessarily. People who eat out tend to eat less at home that day in partial compensation; the net gain, according to a 2008 study out of Berkeley and Northwestern, is only about 24 calories a day.

There's more to nutrition than calories, genius. Compare fat, cholesterol, and sodium (19g, 62mg/22%, 850mg/35%... huh, honestly that's lower than I thought.) to eating a similarly sized "meal" at home.

Okay, I gotta be honest, those numbers are way lower than I expected to be. Just don't get fries and that burger's really not bad if you're in a pinch. There are better options. And this is kind of exactly what "localvore, organic veggie foodies" or whatever are talking about, that nutritious food and things like fruits and vegetables, ready to eat (or at least remotely ready, not requiring much prep time) are always more expensive than dollar menu stuff.
2013-07-28 10:00:43 AM  
2 votes:

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: ZzeusS: Is this one of those articles where the college kid types in lots of words but doesn't really have a point, or make a whole lot of sense?

Yes.  Yes it is.

Yeah it was all over the place. We can't even get an article about the McDouble without weird, political insults and tangents? We've successfully politicized and internalized the McDouble? Awesome.


The author did that.  The farking title of the page (not the article, the page) is "Kyle Smith: Liberals say they care about the poor but drive up their cost of living."

So no, we apparently can't get an article about McDoubles without political attacks.
2013-07-28 09:38:02 AM  
2 votes:
Fracking is a bad idea. (Yes, that's the part I'm replying to) :D
2013-07-28 09:24:59 AM  
2 votes:
I grew up somewhere with no McDs so I never had their food as a child, first time I ever went in one was at age 15, I wanted to use the bathroom but I was on LSD and the whole experience was so plastic (even the lighting and air in there seemed plastic) that I left and have never returned.
So, I'm that guy, I've never eaten McD, but not because I'm a smug hipster, more because I'm odd.
2013-07-28 09:21:49 AM  
2 votes:
That story was actually pretty good.  It made sense.

The money line:  "If the macrobiotic Marxists had their way, of course, there'd be no McDonald's, Walmart or Exxon, because they have visions of an ideal world in which everybody bikes to work with a handwoven backpack from Etsy that contains a lunch grown in the neighborhood collective."


/funny, but true
2013-07-28 09:19:52 AM  
2 votes:
I actually measure the cost of healthy food that I buy in McDoubles.  A few tomatos and a head of lettuce?  About 5 McDoubles.  A pound of carrots?  One or two McDoubles.  So heavily subsidized, that all of the processing and transport that goes into a McDouble allows them to offer it for less than locally grown produce.  Awesome.
2013-07-28 09:15:18 AM  
2 votes:
Hate to admit it, but the article makes some sense.

/Whole Foods fanboy
2013-07-28 09:06:37 AM  
2 votes:
But it tastes like shiat.
2013-07-28 08:37:01 AM  
2 votes:
I will not give up my second piece of cheese.
2013-07-28 07:19:42 AM  
2 votes:
farker has got a point
2013-07-28 06:16:24 AM  
2 votes:
www.nypost.comIn terms of cost-per-calorie, no locavore, organic veggie can compete with the McDouble
By KYLE SMITH


cdnet.myxer.com
2013-07-28 07:42:25 PM  
1 votes:

Dwight_Yeast: fredklein: Dwight_Yeast: Personally, I'd rather the burgers had soy filler than "pink slime".

"Pink Slime" (and, as an aside, that's a perfect example how people's perception is influenced by the name of something. See also the dangerous 'chemically' sounding term Di-Hydrogen Monoxide) is nothing more than small scraps of... beef. It's too labor-intensive to re-trim it off the fat, so they heat it up to soften the fat, then spin it to make the scraps of meat come out. A quick puff of ammonia compound to make sure bacteria don't grow on/in it, and... That's it. The big kerfuffle about "pink slime" was pretty much cause by 1) it's name (which admittedly sounds gross), 2) the fact ammonia is used (in perfectly safe amounts) in it's processing, and 3) the fact that people started all sorts of lies about it (ie: 'they grind up tendons' or 'they soak it in bleach', etc).

So, if you have a problem with "pink slime", you have a problem with... beef.

Are you a shill or just disingenuous ?  The amonia is to kill the e colli likely present in the meat.


Yeah, so? E-coli can be present on any beef. With a cut of beef, it can be rinsed/washed off. With ground beef, it cannot be.

"Pink slime" is meat that the great meat processors of the 19th and 20th centuries, the ones who used all of the pig but the squeal, wouldn't have touched.


Um, no. It's just meat that's not very easy to get to. It's too labor-intensive to manually get it.

It's the last little bit stuck to the scraps of scrapsfat.

FTFY

The only reason for spending the time and effort to reclaim it and render it (relatively) safe is that it lets todays meat processors and fast food outlets make just a little bit more profit per pound.

Some might say it's so they waste less. Are you against less waste?

http://www.beefisbeef.com/faq-3/
Is it really necessary to try to get every small bit of beef from a carcass?

Necessary? No. Is it the right thing to do? Absolutely!

LFTB production makes it possible to have more of the leaner ground beef blends consumers desire at affordable prices. If LFTB were not produced, 850,000,000 lbs of lean beef a year would need to be generated from some other source to meet consumer demand. It would be like throwing away 5,700 cattle a day.


All those recalls for e colli in frozen hamburger patties in the last couple of years?  They're due to the use of "pink slime".


ANY ground meat product has the same problem.

Normal, grade-A beef of the sort that we've eaten for thousands of years is perfectly safe

...and that's all "pink slime" is- slivers of beef.

.This is a food product made from waste,

From previously wasted bits of beef, yes.

and it is inherantly unsafe

Nope.

, which is why people got pissed off when they found out they were being fed it without their knowledge.

No, people got pissed because they heard the term "pink slime", and their brains shut down.
2013-07-28 07:32:24 PM  
1 votes:
Lol. This is the same misleading tactic everyone with an agenda uses.  Compare the cheapest junk food you can find with the most expensive organic artisan seasonal produce. Conservative logic at it's finest.  A lot of conservatives in fark food threads do this too.

I'm a 190lb physically active guy and I eat mostly vegetarian for a total monthly grocery/food bill of about $220, which includes snacks, sodas at work, and lots of spices herbs for preparing meals.   It would be a lot less if I didn't love dark chocolate, curry and turmeric (expensive), thyme, etc. Sorry but that $36/day figure is too insanely stupid for any credibility.

And If all you care about is raw calories, then rice and pinto beans, are more calorie dense per dollar than McDs, without all the bad for you shiat.  They also make a damn fine burrito.  But he chose to ignore those because it doesn't fit the agenda.

Also look into nuts and seeds, if your goal is simply cheapo calorie dense foods that you can munch on the run, and requires no cooking or preparation time.   Peanuts, sunflower seeds, etc.  Fatty, but polyunsaturated healthy fats, no clogged arteries at age 40.
2013-07-28 05:02:53 PM  
1 votes:

secularsage: The point of the story is that cheap food is almost always dismissed as being bad for you, while expensive food is almost always embraced as being better for you.


[by whom?]
2013-07-28 04:51:18 PM  
1 votes:
The article has a few good points but a lot of troll.

Reality Check:

Article fails to mention the amount of fat and sugar in a double cheez-burglar. This is the real downside: low-grade carbs and lots of fat, especially the wrong sort of fat, and salt. Sure, there's about half a day's worth of protein in one. But it comes with about two or three times a day's worth of shiat.

If the burger has 7% of your daily fiber, where does the other 93% come from? I recommend kale.

Yes, we do cut back on meals when we know we are going to have a big calorie-heavy pig-out the same day, but we are cutting back on good food for bad, aren't we? Well, unless we eat nothing but bad food, that is. But where's the gain in swapping home-style junk food for restaurant-style junk food?

He's right about farmer's markets. The trendyites would love to drive us to them. Except that none of us have a car and the nearest farmer's market is too far to walk. And the upper middle classes won't really drive us to the farmer's market. We have to get there ourselves some how. How is not explained. Public transport? Maybe. If we could afford adding $6 to a grocery run. Bikes? Another luxury for many, especially the elderly shut-ins.

In the real world, many of the nutritionally deprived live in what are call "food deserts". They have no choice but to shop there as well, because the tony upscale food stores are in the tony upscale neighborhoods with the people who make a bundle advertising, marketing, subsidizing, etc., for corporations and goverments and universities.

McDonald's places its urban restaurants so you don't have to walk more than 10 minutes. There are three of them near me--guess how long it takes me to walk to one? Less than ten minutes for all three. There's another about 10 minutes on the other side of my workplace. WE HAVE MARKET SATURATION. I've seen maps which show the placement of restaurants and WalMarts and such, and in the continental US or Southern Canada, you can not escape them. WalMarts are beginning to move downtown with smaller stores, following the Boomers and their elders to the walkable and service-packed city neighborhoods (aka the Gold Coast and Hippie Heaven). Recently Sobey's, a large Canadian grocery chain bought Shoppers DrugMart, a pharmacy chain with a large food section and lots of urban locations. They know where the money is going: downtown, that's where the action is. I do a lot of my basic junk food and fast meals shopping in stores that are closer than the nearest grocery store, let alone the farmer's market.

Also, the farmers markets are full of non-local produce that is precisely the same as the stuff sold in regular stores. We do not grow bananas locally in Ottawa. In fact, most of our strawberries are marked "Grown in the USA" or even Mexico. It may be nice to wander the crowded aisles between the stalls and pretend it is 1587, but in reality you aren't getting many bargains or much local, organic, safe, clean, healthy food either. You are getting a shopping destination experience for those who can afford to pay and to load up the SUV.

In short, can't be done unless you shift the entire economy from insane-mode to health-mode.

The poor eat what I call  the Seven White Deaths because they lack 1) money; 2) capital (such as well-equipped kitchens); 3) capital (such as well equipped brains and libraries of cookbooks and stuff) and 4) capital (such as the power to change things to suit themselves).

The problem is capital. Especially the Capitol in Washington, DC. The White House can afford to preach a healthy upper middle class Dr. Huxtabile and Mrs. Dr. Huxtable lifestyle because they haven't really much say in what you poor farkers eat.

Neither side is realistic. Neither side is truthful. Neither side cares for anybody but their own well-padded asses, wallets and lifestyles. But, of course, the conservative crap-mongers are worse than the liberal crap-talkers. A hippie is not going to kill you unless he's on a bicycle or she's driving a 40-year-old Volkswagen.

Caveat emptor.

The only real way to fix the system is to rebuild it from the ground up.

Start with the oil wells, gas wells, and coal mines. You need to be able to walk to good food. You need food that is not half oil and half pesticides, fungides, herbicides, antibiotics and other things that are made from oil or natural gas. You need to make sure corporations and other users and absuers pay the US government what YOUR federal and state land is worth and what the water is worth--these are two big hidden costs (speaking of externalities).

Good food should be subsidized, not corporations. The small producer is usually the most efficient, cheapest and most concerned and honest producer. They are involved with farming for the love of farming and with customers they know rather than faceless corporation machines.

The liberals and radicals are mostly right about the evils of the big Industrial-Media-Government complex but not necessarily pragmatic and the conservatives are good at conserving--their pocketbooks and purses.
2013-07-28 04:35:30 PM  
1 votes:
Mickey D's   wi--fi, clean potty and cheap coffee.  When on the road, for less than $1 it is the cheapest office you can rent.

\\\ Angus mushroom burgers are also pretty good.
2013-07-28 03:18:36 PM  
1 votes:

fredklein: CheekyMonkey: evaluating food solely on the basis of cost-per-calorie is akin to Car & Driver putting a particular model on their "Ten Best" list just because it comes in a nifty shade of red.

If they had a column talking about "Ten cars we evaluate based on their color", then it's not surprising that that don't look at anything other than... color.

He never said it was nutritious. He never said it was a balanced meal (unless you hold one in each hand. har har). He just said it was a good deal in term of $ per calorie. Which is true.


Yes, I understand that.  As I said, it's a stupid way of evaluating food.
2013-07-28 03:00:19 PM  
1 votes:

Dwight_Yeast: Personally, I'd rather the burgers had soy filler than "pink slime".


"Pink Slime" (and, as an aside, that's a perfect example how people's perception is influenced by the name of something. See also the dangerous 'chemically' sounding term Di-Hydrogen Monoxide) is nothing more than small scraps of... beef. It's too labor-intensive to re-trim it off the fat, so they heat it up to soften the fat, then spin it to make the scraps of meat come out. A quick puff of ammonia compound to make sure bacteria don't grow on/in it, and... That's it. The big kerfuffle about "pink slime" was pretty much cause by 1) it's name (which admittedly sounds gross), 2) the fact ammonia is used (in perfectly safe amounts) in it's processing, and 3) the fact that people started all sorts of lies about it (ie: 'they grind up tendons' or 'they soak it in bleach', etc).

So, if you have a problem with "pink slime", you have a problem with... beef.
2013-07-28 02:43:26 PM  
1 votes:
It's a much, MUCH more fulfilling experience to listen to the Freakonomics podcast this article is based off than to read the submitted blog post, which is a half-understood rehash of what Dubner is saying.

The point of the story is that cheap food is almost always dismissed as being bad for you, while expensive food is almost always embraced as being better for you. Both points of view are untrue, because cost is not a surrogate for quality when it comes to food; there are many subsidies and economies of scale that make cheap food cheap and which don't have a lot to do with its nutritional qualities.

The problem with the McDouble is the same as anything on McDonald's menu: it's highly processed, which means that it won't make you feel full as quickly as more natural food, and a lot of the nutritional benefits of the processed ingredients are mitigated in favor of more calories, salt, fat and sugar. If you ate one a day, it would sustain you quite well. But many people eat two or three, followed by fries and a 32 oz soft drink, offering a meal costing $4-5 in most markets, but providing the calories of two meals.

And THAT is the issue at hand. Speaking of which, Freakonomics also put up a piece on the history of obesity recently and found that while it has been on the rise gradually since the Civil War era, it has risen the most sharply since the 1980s.

They don't go into causes, but it doesn't require a lot of imagination; during that same period, mothers increasingly began working full-time, pre-preapred, dine-out and highly processed meals became a way of life AND school lunches increasingly turned away from fresh preparation into processed frozen foods. We had a cultural shift that led us to eating less freshly-prepared food, and we're seeing the effect now.

Another problem is that in the last several decades, dairy producers have had to find ways to put cheese in things because the government stopped buying excess cheese in the late 1970s. Cheese makes food more fattening and higher in calories. You'll notice that cheese or whey, or other dairy derivatives are in almost EVERYTHING you buy that's processed today.

The easy fix is for our government to stop providing subsidies for foods we don't need (corn, beef, cheese) and to start providing subsidies to drive down the costs of foods that are easily eaten raw and fresh (like fruits, carrots, leafy vegetables, etc). The market will take care of the rest.
2013-07-28 02:23:58 PM  
1 votes:

CheekyMonkey: fredklein: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Dude never mentioned sodium or fat even once.

He never mentioned ferrets or popular cartoon villains, either. That's because he's only talking about calories. As it says in the article's sub-headline: "In terms of cost-per-calorie, no locavore, organic veggie can compete with the McDouble".

Thank you for highlighting the worthlessness of the article.

\evaluating food solely on the basis of cost-per-calorie is akin to Car & Driver putting a particular model on their "Ten Best" list just because it comes in a nifty shade of red.


It's like evaluating the best places to live based on cost-per-square-foot of real estate, or the best car on lifetime miles driven per dollar of purchase price.  If that were the case, the best place to live would be Detroit a few years back where they were giving away housing ($0/sq foot!), and the best car would be a late 80's honda accord or something similar, because they weren't expensive and lasted for 300,000 miles.
2013-07-28 01:50:02 PM  
1 votes:
Look, I am trying really hard to read the article without thinking that it's nothing more than just a rant against hipsters, but, it's impossible.

Hell, how hard is it to shop for food that is GOOD for you without emptying your wallet? I'm a fish-eating vegetarian that's married to a vegan. I live in Austin and NEVER go to Whole foods or Farmer's markets. I merely shop at either HEB or Fiesta, wash the fark out of the raw fruit, and cook my own shiat. It's not hard to do and it's cheap. There's no excuse for not eating healthy even if you are a broke motherfarker!

As for the article, ok, I understand the appeal of eating a cheap burger. You are hungry, you didn't pack your lunch the previous day, and only have a few bucks. Cool. But, if you are eating out MORE than cooking, yeah, then I find there is a problem with that. IMHO, people (and yes, I've been guilty of this myself) get the mindset of "ugh, I don't feel like cooking" and it becomes a habit. It's a hard one to break, but it' can be broken, trust me.

/steps off Fark.com soapbox
2013-07-28 01:07:38 PM  
1 votes:

fredklein: He never mentioned ferrets or popular cartoon villains, either. That's because he's only talking about calories. As it says in the article's sub-headline: "In terms of cost-per-calorie, no locavore, organic veggie can compete with the McDouble".


He whaps around the 'locavore organic veggies' while completely avoiding some of the big reasons 'locavore organic veggies' avoid Mickey D's: The fats and sodium. Instead he hits on cost-per-calorie and says 'BEHOLD! AFFORDABLE NUTRITION!'

His argument is bad and he should feel bad.
2013-07-28 01:06:34 PM  
1 votes:
I think the real takeaway from that article is that the author's a douchebag.
2013-07-28 12:26:55 PM  
1 votes:

AverageAmericanGuy: If I eat at McDonald's, I will invariably be shiatting liquids later that day.

I'll pass. Thanks.


I don't like McDonalds, and because I like to eat healthy food and cook I don't eat a lot of fast food. That said, I am always wondering if something is terribly wrong with these people who get so incredibly sick after eating fast food. I can eat a cheeseburger and fries and have no ill consequences. Are you allergic to something they are using? Lactose intolerant? Is that really normal?
2013-07-28 12:25:06 PM  
1 votes:
As a lefty elitist, this article has opened my eyes.  Here I've been hoping that supporting better quality foods and organizations that make them available to lower income families while working to encourage better wages, even if it means that Walmart and McDonalds will only exist on every other street corner was the thing to do.  The more sensitive and understanding thing is to just write off the poor as too stupid and lazy to understand the benefits of eating healthy and accept that the best thing for them is to gorge themselves on empty calories until they die of obesity, heart disease, and malnutrition (which occur at very high rates in many low income communities).   How inconsiderate of me!
2013-07-28 12:23:21 PM  
1 votes:

Tommy Moo: There's a whole lot of people in this thread just waving their hands and getting angry and calling the author a troll because they have this vague feeling that he MUST be wrong, but they can't come up with a single reason why.


Because a NY Post film critic built up a liberal strawman and knocked it down with crappy arguments to justify Brietbarting himself in 20 years?  Dude never mentioned sodium or fat even once.
2013-07-28 12:11:26 PM  
1 votes:
And the "cheese" is probably more vegetable oil than milk.
2013-07-28 11:52:47 AM  
1 votes:

Moreover, produce takes more time to prepare and spoils quickly, two more factors that effectively drive up the cost. Any time you're spending peeling vegetables is time you aren't spending on the job.



How many times has this fella run for office?
2013-07-28 11:43:10 AM  
1 votes:
I'm surprised this guy doesn't just subsist on glasses of canola oil or melted Crisco, because he's all about maximizing his calories-per-dollar.
2013-07-28 10:37:35 AM  
1 votes:
Anyone who feigns disgust at the idea of eating a Big Mac also tends to:

1. Own a TV but haven't turned it on in years
2. Drink microbrewery beer
3. Watch Japanese children's cartoons on a Mac
4. Appreciate the warmth of vinyl phonograph records
5. Read books at Starbucks
6. Claim to prefer girls with small breasts
7. Make snide remarks about Wal-Mart.
8. Walk past a smoker and force pretentious coughing noises
9. Take comfort in believing size doesn't matter
10. Ride a bike to work wearing spandex stretch trousers
2013-07-28 10:17:53 AM  
1 votes:
By the authors reasonings, the poor should just eat buckets of lard and be happy.

Hint: when your argument relies solely on semantics, you have already lost.
2013-07-28 10:14:23 AM  
1 votes:
Very good read about the differences between the McDouble and the Big Mac
 http://aht.seriouseats.com/archives/2012/04/the-one-dollar-poor-man s-b ig-mac-worth-it-or-not.html

and yes I order 2 or 3 McDoubles and im good for 8 hours.
2013-07-28 10:09:03 AM  
1 votes:
For the average poor person, it isn't a great option to take a trip to the farmers market to puzzle over esoteric lefty-foodie codes.

img.fark.net

I actually had the notion to stop in the previous paragraph, but thought I would give him a chance to make his point.  What a fool I was.
2013-07-28 10:02:58 AM  
1 votes:

AverageAmericanGuy: If I eat at McDonald's, I will invariably be shiatting liquids later that day.

I'll pass. Thanks.


If a trip to mcdonalds gives you the shiats you should probably go see a doctor to have your guts looked at.
2013-07-28 10:02:50 AM  
1 votes:
If everyone else is getting stuff I don't mind getting a single Mccheezburgr. It is for the value, probably the best thing on their menu.

For quality though, it has to be the Wendy's junior burger. It's twice as much but the quality is usually worth it.
2013-07-28 09:53:45 AM  
1 votes:
He seems really riled up by organic food or vegetables. I blame his ex-girlfriend with the dreadlocks and Japanese eggplant fetish.
2013-07-28 09:50:21 AM  
1 votes:
If the macrobiotic Marxists had their way, of course, there'd be no McDonald's, Walmart or Exxon...

Look out John Stossel there is a new journalist in town!
2013-07-28 09:40:20 AM  
1 votes:
I can only hope this politicization of fast food can lead idiotic teabaggers to show their stripes by eating more McDonalds and Chick a Fil....you show us, show us all!
2013-07-28 02:58:18 AM  
1 votes:
i usually order 3 of them. don't usually finish the third one.
2013-07-28 02:08:42 AM  
1 votes:
Things are so simple when you pick and choose which externalities you want to worry about.

And I always love the argument of "raising wages = raising prices" when those two things are assumed to cancel each other out perfectly or that somehow the higher prices will outstrip gains in wages. That's just one step below (and usually quickly followed by) the "durr... why not make the minimum wage $100/hour derp".
2013-07-28 01:48:30 AM  
1 votes:

NewportBarGuy: Was the author raised as a ragging douchebag or did society make him that way?


A little of column A, a little of column B.
 
Displayed 51 of 51 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report