Discussion

• February 28, 2007

  1:10 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  One more realization that the only thing government has left to do in our lives is nanny us to death.

  You would think with AIDS, Iraq, global poverty, global warming, and the injustices of the UK's tax system along with failing social programs, the young prince would more to worry about.

• February 28, 2007

  1:18 PM

  gr8fuldude writes:

  I don't eat there, but if it is such an issue, what say we just keep McDonald's and ban the horse-faced monarchs?

• February 28, 2007

  1:29 PM

  David Hakala writes:

  When did Prince Charles eat at McD's?

  I would think he'd be more interested in banning the Iraqi occupation. But maybe there's a bit of sibling rivalry at work.

• February 28, 2007

  1:36 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  I'll never defend Micky D's. You are talking about a company that stopped it's super size campaign the week after "supersize me" hit the theaters and denied any coincidence. They should pay a corporate health diabetes tax.
  

• February 28, 2007

  1:38 PM

  Food KING writes:

  hell ya, the brits finally are doing something right. Funny that a country will horible food would ban McDs

• February 28, 2007

  1:54 PM

  Dan2 writes:

  It's Prince CHARLES not Harry or William, but their Dad. Charles was Diana's husband.

• February 28, 2007

  2:25 PM

  R writes:

  When eaten in moderation McDonald's is no worse than many other fast food places.

  I dig thier double cheeseburgers - one or two a month wont hurt me.

  The problem is like what was pointed out in the doc "Supersize Me" is that it is cheap, filling, and convienant. Making it a mainstay of lower class people and thier kids who basically live on it.
  

• February 28, 2007

  2:27 PM

  Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

  ban the horse-faced monarchs?
  Posted by gr8fuldude on February 28, 2007 01:18 PM

  That's horse-faced, adulterating, boring viceroy. A viceroy is very similar to a monarch, but it is even more unpleasant-tasting.
  

• February 28, 2007

  2:37 PM

  gr8fuldude writes:

  If we are going to be banning things that are cheap, ugly and wildly popular can we also add Croc's to the list, in addition to shorts worn by anyone with a waist > 35"???

• February 28, 2007

  2:41 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  Hogar - let's get this straight - it's;

  horse-faced, adulterating, boring-as-death, wanking limey viceroy, who thinks that only royalty should be allowed to remain on the Earth and the rest of us worthless old sods can just die right this freaking minute and stop consuming and polluting

• February 28, 2007

  2:53 PM

  Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

  in addition to shorts worn by anyone with a waist > 35"???
  Posted by gr8fuldude on February 28, 2007 02:37 PM

  Some of us are big vikings, so a more fair limit would be waist of chest ratio of 0.8 or less.

• February 28, 2007

  2:54 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  Don't ban Crocs. I want to be one of the first to sue them when they cause me great back pain or fallen arches because of shoddy design.

• February 28, 2007

  2:59 PM

  gr8fuldude writes:

  Hogar - Deal!
  You have to admit, for all of Colorado's beauty, we do attract the overweight, underdressed folk who clog our malls, supermarkets and sidewalks every summer.

• February 28, 2007

  4:22 PM

  David Hakala writes:

  BTW, those who don't know Prince Charles personally may benefit from this National Geographic article:

  http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0605/feature3/index.html

• February 28, 2007

  4:53 PM

  benn writes:

  "Hogar - Deal!
  You have to admit, for all of Colorado's beauty, we do attract the overweight, underdressed folk who clog our malls, supermarkets and sidewalks every summer."
  - gr8

  Surely you refer to tourists. I think Colorado is the most 'fit' state of our union.

• February 28, 2007

  6:43 PM

  DJ writes:

  I think that Prince Charles could benefit from eating at McDonald's once in awhile. A little grease might possibly oil up that stiff face and lubricate his spine. I don't eat at McDonalds often and I actually really like their coffee (so there Starbucks) but there are many thnigs on their menu that could be eaten in moderation and not harm people. I have to admit that I do not understand the diabetic comment. Even diabetics can have a fast food meal on ocassion.

• February 28, 2007

  7:12 PM

  W writes:

  Anyone out there know what Brits eat ?

  Wonder if Tony Blair likes Mexican.

• March 1, 2007

  8:14 AM

  JS writes:

  I've never seen so many "Nanny" people in the world that want force their views down everyones throat by passing more and more laws, or just banning things they don't want! It is really getting to the rediculous when we start legelating what choices we have when we eat! Next we'll be have the "Food" police.

• March 1, 2007

  10:34 AM

  Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

  DH,

  Thanks for the link. Now I can add Imperious Tyrant to the list.

  "Most of the dukes left the tenants and lands alone. Not Prince Charles, who oversees the estate's work to an astonishing degree. His 72-strong duchy staff has learned not to build any new cottage, or fell an acre of woodland, without first seeking the royal nod. Most of the dukes left the tenants and lands alone. Not Prince Charles, who oversees the estate's work to an astonishing degree. His 72-strong duchy staff has learned not to build any new cottage, or fell an acre of woodland, without first seeking the royal nod. "

• March 1, 2007

  12:34 PM

  jay writes:

  "I've never seen so many "Nanny" people in the world that want force their views down everyones throat by passing more and more laws, or just banning things they don't want! "

  You bet! LIke not funding stem cell research because of religious beliefs, banning gay marriage because of religious beliefs, banning realistic sex ed, gutting the funding for clinics providing contraception that would reduce abortions, taking away civil liberties in the name of "terra", etc.

  Great point.

• March 1, 2007

  12:53 PM

  JW writes:

  Im fairly uncomfortable with the new assault weapon ban currently on the table. If they pass it, perhaps Bush can do some good and veto the damn thing. I want my AR 15. I want my semi-auto shotgun.