Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Seems like a fair call.
Smith realizes the theory isn't going to be a popular one amongst the Liberal 'coalition of class snobs, locavore foodies and militant anti-corporate types.'
- Inverse burger snobbery
- Fast food
_ Daily Mail
_ The Free will of the poor.
it's been about 2 months since i went to McDs. might get one tonight
I do enjoy McDonalds yep.
wouldn't a few bananas be better for you?
maybe get a fresh bread roll at the same time for 39p
bananas and bread rolls not as enjoyable as mcdonalds burgers
and a tiger roll, i think i'd probably have just as good a time.
You will die of malnutrition or potassium poisoning or by poverty.
certified nutwingery that makes the daily mail seem like a compilation of creakyknees posts
this is even worse obv. can't believe you didn't just say like 'lol yeah News Corp', but then we're all entitled to pedantically literal interpretations of what we're presented
By the way, have you seen this?
nobody coming out with much credit there
The necessary google search paid off.
The Washington Times maybe
that the double cheeseburger would win?
I mean, yeah, maybe it probably would, depending on how you weighted each factor.
loads of food is actually free ie it grows on trees
if we're talking 'in history' liek, then this is a big pile of bollocks
Also, surely the cheapest, most nutritional food in human history is breast milk?
In terms of 'free at the point of sale' (?) then sure, why not? But in terms of labour, resources invested and all that jazz it's pretty expensive stuff, no?
but it wouldn't be as nice, that's for sure.
We really do live in a pretty magical age, though I guess the sustainability of McDonald's food in the long run is an issue.
it all depends on how you measure it, innit.
Think Lard would probably win for calories only assessment.
pretty good nutritional credentials then