About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

"Real food" advocate Limbaugh falsely claims "leftist kooks ... want to ban Chinese food"

July 09, 2010 5:38 pm ET — 112 Comments

Rush Limbaugh attacked the Center for Science in the Public Interest as a "wacko bunch of leftist kooks" who "want to ban Chinese food." In fact, CSPI, which advocates for nutrition, health, and food safety, has lauded Chinese restaurants and labeled most Chinese dishes "healthy."

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Limbaugh: CSPI "want[s] to ban Chinese food"

Limbaugh attacks CSPI as a "miserable," "unhappy" group that will have you eating "cardboard" and "miniature rocks." On his July 9 radio show, Limbaugh discussed CSPI and its intent to file suit against McDonald's for its "unfair and deceptive" promotion of toys to children through its Happy Meals. Limbaugh stated of the Washington-based group: "They wanted to ban Chinese food. These people want to get in your life and tell you what to eat," and attacked them as "kooks, statists, [and] nannies."

From the July 9 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: You know, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, this wacko bunch of leftist kooks, statists, nannies -- these are the people who banned coconut oil from your popcorn in movie theaters, have gotten rid of MSG, the flavoring in Chinese food. They wanted to ban Chinese food. These people want to get in your life and tell you what to eat. If you look at these people, you'd say, well, they're barely alive. They're skeletal; they're miserable; they are unhappy; and they want to spread that misery to everybody else by having you eat basically nothing but tofu and cardboard, run around and eat miniature rocks and berries as you traverse the deserts of the world.

And their latest target was McDonald's Happy Meal. They wanted to sue McDonald's to remove the toys from the Happy Meal package because the toys were incentive to kids to go out -- and their parents -- to go out and buy Happy Meals, which the Center for Science in the Public Interest determined was unhealthy and unwise and in fact it's none of their business.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: You know, this group ought not get any attention. They've got a logo and a fax machine. Because they're a bunch of liberals, the media gives them instant credibility. They're just a bunch of kooks! They're no different than your crazy aunt in the basement who gives herself a logo and a fax machine and sends it out to the media and says she's against whatever. That's essentially who they are.

CSPI has labeled most Chinese food "healthy"

CSPI report on Chinese food: "Too much sodium in otherwise healthful food." In a March 2007 analysis, "Wok Carefully," on popular Chinese restaurant meals, CSPI stated that "Chinese food is often rich in vegetables and the fat comes mostly from heart-safe, trans-fat-free vegetable oils" and that "Chinese food hasn't gotten worse since CSPI first looked" in 1993. The study lauded Chinese restaurants for "keeping a lid on saturated and trans fat, thanks to vegetable oil, no cheese, and a host of seafood, poultry, and (hooray!) vegetable dishes." However, the study said, "Chinese restaurant food is loaded with salt and ... delivers a load of calories, thanks to its oil, noodles, and deep-fried batter or breading."

CSPI executive director: "Many Chinese entrées are loaded with healthy" ingredients. In the summary announcing the Chinese food analysis, CSPI executive director Michael Jacobson stated: "Many Chinese entrées are loaded with healthy vegetables and lean shrimp or chicken. However, when it comes to sodium, there's no real safe harbor on the Chinese restaurant menu."

CSPI urged FDA to ban grain imports from China in wake of pet food recall. In April 2007, CSPI urged the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ban imports of wheat gluten, rice protein, and other grain products from China in light of a pet food recall at the time due to contamination with the industrial chemical melamine. In its letter calling for the ban, CSPI wrote: "The danger to U.S. consumers from contaminated products is not limited to pets. The wheat gluten and rice flour implicated in the pet food recall are components of the human food supply as well, and contamination of human food on the scale of the pet food outbreak would be disastrous. The state of California has already quarantined a hog farm where hog urine has tested positive for melamine -- a result of the ingestion of tainted pet food used for pig feed."

CSPI mission is to "promote healthy diets, prevent deceptive marketing practices, and ensure that science is used to promote the public welfare." Contrary to Limbaugh's claim that the center "want[s] to get in your life and tell you what to eat," the group says on its website that it seeks "to educate the public, advocate government policies that are consistent with scientific evidence on health and environmental issues, and counter industry's powerful influence on public opinion and public policies." The website also states that "CSPI will keep fighting for government policies and corporate practices that promote healthy diets, prevent deceptive marketing practices, and ensure that science is used to promote the public welfare."

Touting "real food," Limbaugh has railed against government, food safety advocates

Limbaugh touts McDonald's hamburgers and slams the "wackos." On his July 9 radio show, Limbaugh said: "I remember back in the days of the global warming craze when the wackos were suggesting don't eat McDonald's, don't eat beef because it leads to cow methane, causing global warming." Limbaugh continued: "Remember, I sent one of the Snerdleys over to McDonald's in Times Square and picked up 240 Quarter Pounders with Cheese and Big Macs and brought them back to the studio and had the whole transaction take place on the phone on the air -- just to stand up and support McDonald's."

Limbaugh to children: Can't find food? "There's always the neighborhood dumpster" or "a Happy Meal." On his June 16 show, referencing a report that children "face a summer of hunger" because "[w]hile classes were in session, they relied on free or discount cafeteria meals ... [b]ut they will not be reached by the patchwork summer food programs financed by" the federal government, Limbaugh stated that "a summer off from government eating might be just the ticket" to curbing childhood obesity. He later characterized children "starving to death out there because there's no school meal being provided" as "one of the benefits of school being out." He also challenged Summer Food Service programs by criticizing children for not knowing how to find food. Limbaugh first suggested that children should "try your house," and "if that doesn't work, try a Happy Meal at McDonald's." He concluded, "There's another place if none of these options work to find food; there's always the neighborhood dumpster."

Limbaugh: "We can now thank the regime for seizing our salt shakers." On the April 20 edition of his radio show, Limbaugh commented: "We can now thank the regime for seizing our salt shakers." Limbaugh added that "they're going to take away our salt shakers, and we're supposed to thank the regime for seasoning our food." .In fact, the FDA review Limbaugh was referring to had nothing to do with consumers' use of table salt and instead involved examining warnings about high sodium content in processed foods and restaurant meals, the sources of 77 percent of sodium intake.

Limbaugh: President Obama is "hen-pecked" by his wife, who won't let him eat "real food." On his June 24 radio show, Limbaugh said that "half the reason" President Obama "leaves" the house "is to go get a burger because his wife is making him eat watercress and bamboo in there. He wants to get out and have some real food: some fries, some onion rings, some burgers. ... I mean, it's real food. Who knows what they're feeding the poor guy in the White House." Limbaugh concluded: "Obviously he's hen-pecked."

Limbaugh: Food safety advocates "going to go after Oreos." On his July 27, 2009, radio show, Limbaugh attacked the Cancer Project for its anti-hot dog billboard advertisement, which followed research into processed meat that also spurred a lawsuit against food companies to add cancer-risk warning labels on hot dog packaging. Limbaugh called the group "a bunch of wacko health freaks, health Nazis" and claimed that "if you relish hot dogs, beware." Limbaugh went on to call the suit "absurd" and "hilarious" and warned that this is "the starting point. ... [A]fter that, they're going to go for Oreos."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by southerngal (July 09, 2010 5:44 pm ET)
      6 24
      Another useless government agency with too much time on its hands and too much money at its disposal. Suing McDonalds! Incredible. Suing a private company because it wants to increase sales. Forget the parent's responsibility in all this, it's McDonald's fault.

      "Leftist kooks", that is a kind term.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by southerngal (July 09, 2010 5:45 pm ET)
        4 19
        Never mind, not a government agency, just a bunch of leftist kooks.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by txthinker (July 09, 2010 5:47 pm ET)
          18 3
          Never mind, not a government agency, just a bunch of leftist kooks.
          So sayeth one of our resident rightist kooks.....
          Report Abuse
        • Author by wookie (July 09, 2010 6:09 pm ET)
          16 2
          If they are not a government agency doesn't that blow yours and Rush's argument that they are evil statists who can control what you eat? And does it make them wrong about the health effects of the food? Maybe they should use Rush's method and say that the nanny state won't allow you to have a salad.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by southerngal (July 09, 2010 6:11 pm ET)
            6 15
            Rush is over the top on that, as I was on my first post. I apologize for that error. No, they won't control what anyone eats, you are right. But to sue McDonalds is ridiculous. They have that right, absolutely. But to waste time and tie up any court for one minute of such silliness is beyond me.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (July 09, 2010 9:16 pm ET)
              15 5
              STFU alert, Right GUARD. You based your entire initial post on what was a demonstrable fallacy, and are noe trying to walk it back by going off-topic by mentioning the McDonald's suit. You were wrong--period. No question mark. End of discussion...
              Report Abuse
              • Author by DellDolly (July 09, 2010 10:26 pm ET)
                9 5
                He couldn't be bothered to actually read the article before he posted. THAT'S how important it was for him to derail this thread, that he can't 'waste time' reading the words and understanding the concept. THAT'S how important it is for him to derail threads in general, because he is desperate to distract us!
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Floyd (July 12, 2010 8:35 am ET)
                  3 5
                  What would YOU know about posting "on-topic". You haven't done that in 3 years. It's either 'troll patrol' or 'liar patrol' from you. Your baseless rants are so wildly unacceptable even other left-wing poster (on this site) have derided your ineptness.
                  But, as long as you feel important to yourself, you keep doing what you do best: name-call and lie and miss-inform.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by DellDolly (July 12, 2010 2:21 pm ET)
                    2 2
                    I could link to literally hundreds (if not thousands) of my posts that are directly on topic in the 10 months I've posted here. The ratio of on-topic, original posts to replies to troll posts would benefit my argument also.

                    But it's not MY FAULT that I reply to and debunk dishonest posts or troll posts that aren't on topic.

                    In fact, in a REPLY, one's "topic" is the CONTENT of the post one is replying to.

                    But you don't understand that? Really?

                    And you're lying about what other posters here have written, but that's not a shock.

                    And how many troll names have you had that you accuse me of being here for 3 years? How many times have you had to come back with a new 'personality' because your previous one got banned or lost all credibility and you stopped getting the negative attention you crave?

                    You got nothing, and so you make a personal attack. You couldn't debunk what I wrote in any way, shape or form. I was totally accurate in saying that

                    (RightON) couldn't be bothered to actually read the article before he posted. THAT'S how important it was for him to derail this thread, that he can't 'waste time' reading the words and understanding the concept. THAT'S how important it is for him to derail threads in general, because he is desperate to distract us!
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by southerngal (July 12, 2010 2:49 pm ET)
                      2 3
                      Oh Suzy, You spend half your posts telling others not to do exactly what you're doing yourself, going off topic.

                      And the other half whining to others about your mistreatment while you're doing exactly that yourself, launching personal attacks.

                      One day you'll grow up, or get banned again, maybe then you will learn.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by DellDolly (July 12, 2010 3:57 pm ET)
                          2
                        Thanks for providing evidence of your accusations - oops, that's right, you didn't, because you couldn't even if you tried.

                        Again, all we see is baseless personal attacks that have been repeatedly debunked with examples, links and other documentation.

                        Are you going to try to contribute anything of value this week?
                        Report Abuse
              • Author by ilikeike (July 10, 2010 3:58 pm ET)
                   
                the fact that he made an error on one point does not discredit his argument. to say it does is being obtuse
                Report Abuse
            • Author by magnolialover (July 10, 2010 7:53 am ET)
              9 1
              I mean, god forbid that we have a group of people looking out for the health of the rest of us, and looking at what we're eating. God, that is SOOO horrible.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by ilikeike (July 10, 2010 4:04 pm ET)
                   
                we have plenty of people who ensure that our food is safe and uncontaminated. the right wing,esp. the bush admin tried to weaken those agencies and their rules in favour of profits. however i do not need anyone suing the purveyor of a legal product because some people abuse that product. I want the govt to ensure that food in the market is disease and contaminent free, I do not want or need anyone to try to block my access to any companies food. i will decide how much, if any, my family will consume.promoting healthy choices is great, removing junk food from schools, no problem, but suing mcdonalds because some people overindulge? thats ludicrous. are we going to sue the beer and wine makers next. they use advertising to attract people to their product.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by Floyd (July 11, 2010 10:31 am ET)
                1 9
                mmfa-- In fact, CSPI, which advocates for nutrition, health, and food safety, has lauded Chinese restaurants and labeled most Chinese dishes "healthy."

                Tell that to the dog/cat that just ate the Chinese manufactured dog/cat food and died of liver failure. Yes, I realize it was 'only' dog/cat food, but if you have a tire company that manufactures auto/bicycle tires and you get some bicycle tires being made defectively (which cause injury/death to several people), would you be concerned over the construction of the auto tires or would you be confident the auto tires are totally separate from the bicycle tires?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by bilbo_dies (July 11, 2010 12:37 pm ET)
                  10  
                  So, you are saying that the "Free Market" system doesn't work?

                  Pets dying from contaminated food was a product of the "entrepreneurial" spirit of finding a way to make the product as cheaply as possible.(and maximize profit) The lack of regulatory agencies made this worse, since there was no one watching over their shoulder to make sure their product met basic specifications. (and didn't contain poison)

                  BTW Comparing defective pet food/bicycle tires to healthy food is a bad simile.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Floyd (July 11, 2010 1:59 pm ET)
                    1 9
                    bil-- The lack of regulatory agencies made this worse, since there was no one watching over their shoulder to make sure their product met basic specifications.

                    Oh? So you mean there is no regulatory measures in place for pet food made in America? Just as you say there is none for pet food made in China. What makes you think that "entrepreneurial" spirit won't take hold concerning the food made in China for humans? So, the analogy of bike/auto tires fits just fine.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by bilbo_dies (July 11, 2010 2:44 pm ET)
                      7  
                      Oh? So you mean there is no regulatory measures in place for pet food made in America?

                      I never said there wasn't a regulatory agency in the U.S. The whole tainted milk, tainted pet food from China was brought about by Chinese entrepenaurs who were cutting corners to make more profit.

                      You are the one who brought up pets dying from eating pet food made in china, not me.

                      Somehow you were linking that, and defective bicycle tires, with an agency that supports "eating healthy".
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Floyd (July 11, 2010 3:52 pm ET)
                          7
                        bil-- The whole tainted milk, tainted pet food from China was brought about by Chinese entrepenaurs who were cutting corners to make more profit.

                        Yes, but you said there was a "lack of regulatory agencies" for animal foods. How do you equate that with the food supplied by the Chinese as related to human or animal foods? Did you mean there is no regulation for animal foods in the US, no matter where it originates? And, if so, what confidence can we have that human food will be safe? And, isn't that what Rush is concerned about? But, according to YOU'RE statements, no concern needs to be present, since profit isn't what the Chinese are concerned about. Which is the crux of this article; do the Chinese worry about cost or health when creating food products destined for the US.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by bilbo_dies (July 11, 2010 4:17 pm ET)
                          7  
                          Actually the crux of the article is that "leftist kooks want to ban Chinese food", meaning not food made in China but; Chinese style food.

                          My point was about the lack of Chinese regulation and the effects of an unregulated free market approach.
                          (actually they do have some, it is just lacking in certain aspects)

                          You are the one that brought up the whole:
                          Tell that to the dog/cat that just ate the Chinese manufactured dog/cat food and died of liver failure.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by Floyd (July 11, 2010 4:41 pm ET)
                              7
                            bil-- meaning not food made in China but; Chinese style food.

                            Ok, you can read that how you want. I read it the other way. So, I'll give you that one.

                            bil-- My point was about the lack of Chinese regulation

                            Now, that we have a problem with. It doesn't matter how much "Chinese" regulation there is. It's on the American side that makes the difference.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by bilbo_dies (July 11, 2010 5:13 pm ET)
                              6  
                              Now, that we have a problem with. It doesn't matter how much "Chinese" regulation there is. It's on the American side that makes the difference.

                              And how does that tie into Limbaugh's rant??
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by Floyd (July 11, 2010 5:35 pm ET)
                                2 7
                                Do you mean this part of it? "because the toys were incentive to kids to go out -- and their parents -- to go out and buy Happy Meals, which the Center for Science in the Public Interest determined was unhealthy and unwise and in fact it's none of their business." or this part "these are the people who banned coconut oil from your popcorn in movie theaters, have gotten rid of MSG, the flavoring in Chinese food."

                                I don't see any problem with "Chinese" style food being brought into the US. But, apparently, some do. And that is what he is whining about. That is the part you seem to disagree with. Why is it so important for CSPI to determin what I choose to eat with my "Chinese" version of food. Or, are they saying that certain chemicals are forbidden? Chemicals that the US has authorized as 'permitted', but they seem to think it should not be allowed. Just why exactly is mmfa whining about Rush's complaint? That "Chinese" food isn't healthy or isn't safe? CSPI seems to think I am not able to determine what I eat is healthy and are determined to regulate it on the assumption I cannot make my own decision. There is plenty of unhealthy American food being allowed, and I can make my own decision on what I want to eat, whether healthy or not. I agree they are trying to make this another 'nanny' issue by telling me what to eat without regard to the dangers already present in ALL foods gotten from pesticide ridden farm-lands in the US.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by bilbo_dies (July 11, 2010 6:49 pm ET)
                                  5  
                                  I must be getting denser as the day goes on.
                                  How does anything you say above have anything to do with "It doesn't matter how much "Chinese" regulation there is. It's on the American side that makes the difference."

                                  They've banned coconut oil from movie theatre popcorn!!
                                  OMG It is only 86% saturated fat. Why would they not want me to eat something like that????

                                  Why is it so important for CSPI to determin what I choose to eat with my "Chinese" version of food.

                                  I must of missed that part too. What does that hve to do with the "leftist kooks that want to ban Chinese food"?

                                  Personally I think CSPI is just doing the research to tell you what is good or not good. They aren't suing you to force you to eat well, that is still up to you.
                                  BTW CSPI has issues with unhealthy american foods, thus the whole McD's happy meal thing.
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by Floyd (July 12, 2010 8:54 am ET)
                                    2 6
                                    bil-- They've banned coconut oil from movie theatre popcorn!! OMG It is only 86% saturated fat. Why would they not want me to eat something like that????

                                    Well, I guess they should ban butter too. Again, it isn't their choice what I decide to eat. It is my choice. This isn't a nanny state, yet. If I like the taste of movie theater popcorn because it has coconut oil in it, then who are they to tell me 'no you can't eat that'? It's not like I'm a liberal who simply does what they are told, I have the freedom to choose what I want. If that includes eating excess saturated fat, then that is MY choice, not theirs.

                                    You know, when you say things like that, it only shows your aren't as centrist as you claim to be. Left-wing kooks think the public isn't capable of making up their own minds and want to create the illusion that the government is there to hold their hand on every decision we make. The government wants to take over health care, and you agree that high saturated fatty foods should be denied to those who want them. I'm sure your reasoning is that your tax dollars are paying for the insurance and health care of others so they should be forced to eat healthy. Which IS a nanny state. Isn't that what Rush was whining about?
                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by Old_Benjamin (July 12, 2010 3:49 pm ET)
                                      3 2
                                      I'm guessing you have no idea how stupid your posts are in this thread. Are you drunk?
                                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by Andy Kreiss (July 11, 2010 1:59 pm ET)
                    6  
                    True, bilbo, but I think you missed the bigger fail by Floyd the Failer here.

                    It sounds as though he believes Chinese restaurants in the U.S. import their meals from kitchens in China.

                    I've normally found pretty quick service at Chinese joints, but even the slowest never made me suspect they were sending my Kung Pao over on a slow boat. :)
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by bilbo_dies (July 11, 2010 2:46 pm ET)
                      4 1
                      Good point but; like most things Floyd he will ignore the facts that contrdict his post and charge forward anyway.

                      I am pretty sure he missed the sarcasm that was implicit in my post.
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by DellDolly (July 11, 2010 3:49 pm ET)
                  6 5
                  So, you're unable to understand the difference between Chinese manufacturers and Chinese food recipes?

                  Really?

                  Because both "Chinese manufacturers and Chinese food recipes" have the word "Chinese" in them, they should be treated equivalently?

                  I swear, you've made some bad arguments over the weeks, but this has to be a top 5 failure!
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Floyd (July 11, 2010 5:36 pm ET)
                    2 7
                    As usual, you have NO clue to what you're talking about. And, neither can anyone else figure it out. Please try to relate your rants with actual statements.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by DellDolly (July 11, 2010 6:24 pm ET)
                      6 5
                      Ah, no, that would be you whose rants make no sense.

                      I captured the nonsense that you said, and now you're frustrated that you got caught making a false equivalency between the Chinese food recipes that these folks say are healthy food (remember, this is about Limbaugh's rant, and it wasn't about food that comes from China, it was about recipes used in Chinese restaurants) and Chinese pet food!

                      You had a Massive Fail here. It's undeniable. So, what do YOU do? Make a baseless personal attack. What a shock!
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Andy Kreiss (July 11, 2010 8:12 pm ET)
                        6 2
                        I think Floyd's just a little embarrassed that he thought all Chinese food was made in China and shipped overseas.

                        You know you've got them flustered when they're not only telling you that they're confused, but they're insisting they somehow know that other people are as confused as they are.

                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by Floyd (July 12, 2010 9:01 am ET)
                        1 7
                        dd-- Make a baseless personal attack. What a shock!

                        What attack did I do? In other words; what are you whining about this time?
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by DellDolly (July 12, 2010 2:27 pm ET)
                          1 3
                          As usual, you have NO clue to what you're talking about. And, neither can anyone else figure it out. Please try to relate your rants with actual statements.

                          So, as you baselessly said to me, I accurately say to you, "you have NO clue to what you're talking about."

                          I had clearly pointed out the flaw in your argument - your bogus linkage of food made in American restaurants that follow recipes to make healthy-for-you Chinese food to pet food made in China!
                          Report Abuse
                • Author by bintx (July 12, 2010 10:03 am ET)
                  6  
                  Floyd, you're speaking of two different things. The Chinese MANUFACTURED dog food was not made in this country and it was contaminated with melamine in the factory.

                  The Chinese food which is being addressed in this article is food which is prepared in THIS country.

                  Wow.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by cugagcmu805031 (July 10, 2010 1:11 pm ET)
              9 1
              But to sue McDonalds is ridiculous.

              Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants
              From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

              Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, also known as the "McDonald's coffee case," is a 1994 product liability lawsuit that became a flashpoint in the debate in the U.S. over tort reform after a jury awarded $2.86 million to a woman who scalded herself with hot coffee she purchased from fast food restaurant McDonald's. The trial judge reduced the total award to $640,000, and the parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided. The case entered popular lore as an example of frivolous litigation; ABC News called the case “the poster child of excessive lawsuits.”
              Liebeck's attorneys argued that McDonald's coffee was "defective", claiming that it was too hot and more likely to cause serious injury than coffee served at any other place. Moreover, McDonald's had refused several prior opportunities to settle for less than the $640,000 ultimately awarded. Reformers defend the popular understanding of the case as materially accurate, note that the vast majority of judges who consider similar cases dismiss them before they get to a jury, and argue that McDonald's refusal to offer more than a nuisance settlement reflects the meritless nature of the suit rather than any wrongdoing.

              Facts
              On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49¢ cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her Ford Probe, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap. Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin as she sat in the puddle of hot liquid for over 90 seconds, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin. Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds. Two years of medical treatment followed.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Floyd (July 11, 2010 11:28 am ET)
                3 9
                cug-- She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.

                Puts the coffee on her lap then pulls the lid 'toward' her. Uhhh, how many of you put coffee on your lap when opening the lid? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if you place a flexible cup with a plastic lid in your lap and try to force open the lid something unexpected could occur. Was her grandson incapacitated? He could have done that, since she, obviously, didn't have the capabilities to open a cup of coffee. Just goes to show the dangers that milk and sugar products are to the safety of American idiots. Coffee isn't healthy either. So, she either gets injured from breast+ovarian cancer (from the cream) or heart disease (from the sugar) or decreased breast health, cancer, and osteoporosis (from the coffee {I'm sure she wasn't planning on drinking 2oz an hour}). Perhaps being an idiot saved her life. Hopefully she has given up drinking excessive amounts of coffee with excessive sugar/cream.


                BTW, how many of you boil water for your coffee? Do you know that boiling water is 212 degrees? Do you wait until the water temp is 150 degrees before you drink it?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by bilbo_dies (July 11, 2010 12:53 pm ET)
                  8 2
                  Perhaps being an idiot saved her life.

                  Ah yes, the compassion and understanding of the right.

                  I suppose that you are going to tell us that you have NEVER done anything, in your life, that when you looked back on it you said: "Well, that was stupid of me."??

                  As I remember the Ford Probe I used to own, I don't believe it had cup holders.
                  Coffee is usually brewed around 200° F and best served around 160° F.
                  Water above 140° F can cause third degree burns, especially if held against the skin by clothing.

                  Full disclosure: I was one of those people who tended to scoff at the whole "I was burnt by McD's coffee and am going to sue. There can be extenuating circumstances however. If the coffee is served hotter than it should be it can cause burns if spilled. I ALWAYS check the lid on the cup to make sure it is on correctly and ask the servers to put the cream and sugar in before hand.
                  Accidents do happen however, you need to develop some sympathy.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Floyd (July 11, 2010 1:36 pm ET)
                    2 9
                    bil-- I ALWAYS check the lid on the cup to make sure it is on correctly and ask the servers to put the cream and sugar in before hand.

                    Which makes you a non-idiot. Why didn't she do that? Perhaps that's why she was found to be 20% responsible for the accident.


                    bil-- Accidents do happen however, you need to develop some sympathy.

                    Ok, I feel sorry the grandson has her genes in him. How does that Darwin theory of evolution by natural selection go again?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by bilbo_dies (July 11, 2010 2:59 pm ET)
                      6 1
                      Which makes you a non-idiot. Why didn't she do that? Perhaps that's why she was found to be 20% responsible for the accident.


                      Well, if that doesn't make my day.
                      As far as the 20% responsible, I would guess that is where the court system came in. Does that mean that McD's is 80% responsible??

                      BTW I did notice you didn't answer the one question:
                      I suppose that you are going to tell us that you have NEVER done anything, in your life, that when you looked back on it you said: "Well, that was stupid of me."??
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Floyd (July 11, 2010 3:54 pm ET)
                        1 7
                        bil-- BTW I did notice you didn't answer the one question:

                        That's because that isn't the issue. Is it?
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by bilbo_dies (July 11, 2010 5:17 pm ET)
                          8  
                          bil-- BTW I did notice you didn't answer the one question:

                          That's because that isn't the issue. Is it?


                          Well, considering that you considered the granny that burnt to be an idiot for what happened, I think it ties in.

                          Of course, I don't suppose that you either:
                          A) did anything stupid
                          B) would be willing to admit it
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by Floyd (July 11, 2010 5:40 pm ET)
                            1 8
                            Well, let's be honest. I'd be an idiot to admit I have never did anything stupid and I'd be an idiot to admit I have in this forum. So, I left it up to you to form an opinion you formed already without any basis of reason. Which is a typical liberal function; forming opinion without any basis.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by pilotx (July 11, 2010 10:10 pm ET)
                              6 1
                              Uh, wasn't it a conservative that incorrectly labled this group as a government agency? Let's not get into which group does not do research. Too many examples of fails by your side.
                              Report Abuse
                            • Author by bilbo_dies (July 11, 2010 10:35 pm ET)
                              5  
                              So, I left it up to you to form an opinion you formed already without any basis of reason. Which is a typical liberal function; forming opinion without any basis.

                              Hey, thanks again. Now I'm a liberal, even though I don't consider myself one. Sweet!!!

                              Now who's forming opinions without any basis???


                              I love how I can be considered a "left winger" just because my centrist positions tend to be way to the left of people like Limbaugh and others who will remain nameless. ;-)


                              Report Abuse
                    • Author by bintx (July 12, 2010 12:30 pm ET)
                      5  
                      Floyd, you are completely misstating the facts of the McDonald's case. The coffee was so hot that it caused third degree burns which required skin grafting. This was not an isolated case. McDonald's "knew or should have known" that they were serving coffee which was heated to a very dangerous temperature. Coffee should NOT be hot enough to cause full thickness burns on someone. The woman simply wanted McDonald's to pay her medical expenses . . . the JURY determined that McDonald's was guilty of gross negligence, based upon the evidence presented, and the JURY assessed the huge punitives. Blaming the woman or her attorney for the JURY'S verdict shows that you know absolutely nothing about civil law.
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by aerdna (July 11, 2010 6:28 pm ET)
                  8  
                  all I know is I don't want to be served any product that I am expected to eat or drink that is hot enough to give me third degree burns. Can you imagine if the poor woman had DRANK some of that? She'd have lost her tongue.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Floyd (July 12, 2010 9:06 am ET)
                      7
                    She may have been smart enough to wait until it cools down to drink it. But, obviously, she wasn't smart enough to wait until it cooled before she poured it on her lap.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by bintx (July 12, 2010 10:12 am ET)
                      5  
                      Floyd, you know nothing of the actual facts of this case. A cup of coffee that is being served to the public should NOT be so hot that it causes third degree burns. The woman was required to have skin grafting to repair the damage that this coffee caused. I would suggest that you try reading the actual facts of the case. She just wanted her medical costs paid. The JURY, after hearing of McDonald's pattern of disregarding MULTIPLE complaints of the coffee being too hot, determined the punitive damages, not the woman nor her attorney. The JURY was angered by McDonald's blatant and willful disregard of an obvious problem with their coffee.

                      Learn before you speak. Makes you look really uninformed and silly.
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by bintx (July 12, 2010 10:08 am ET)
                  4  
                  Floyd, you have NO idea what you're talking about in the McDonald's case. Coffee should NOT be so hot that it causes third degree burns which require skin grafting, as was the case in the McDonald's case. The woman who was injured wanted only the cost of her medical expenses. When it was discovered and the facts were presented that this was not an isolated incident and that McDonald's had received and IGNORED multiple complaints of their coffee being served WAY too hot, the JURY, not the woman, decided that McDonald's willful disregard for the safety of its customers was GROSS negligence and was worthy of punitive damages.

                  Before you speak, you might want to know the facts of the case.
                  Report Abuse
        • Author by Invent a Scandal (July 09, 2010 6:48 pm ET)
          9 1
          Food is one subject I thought el Fathead might be able to get right,

          I see I was wrong.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Andy Kreiss (July 09, 2010 8:57 pm ET)
          12  
          RightOn, I went to the CSPI site and couldn't find anything about their leftist ideology. Can you give me a link to where you and Rush researched their politics ? Thanks.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by pete592 (July 09, 2010 9:17 pm ET)
            14  
            Science IS leftist, remember?
            Report Abuse
          • Author by mary59 (July 09, 2010 11:25 pm ET)
            12 1
            It's obvious that they're "leftist" because they are concerned about nutrition and health. And as Pete says, "science."
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Andy Kreiss (July 10, 2010 3:01 am ET)
              10  
              I just thought I'd ask. It's one of the staples of right wing radio, find their silly news item of the day ( kids can't play dodge ball, name-calling not allowed in school) , assume it's "leftists", and go from there.

              It's completely possible that the people involved are liberal in their politics, I just get a laugh when they find these extreme examples and use it to build their attacks.

              It would be like a liberal host reading about a gay-bashing incident, or a KKK rally, and using it as the foundation for their broad-brush condemnation of the GOP. Cheap and silly, righton's stock in trade.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by mary59 (July 11, 2010 3:57 pm ET)
                7  
                I used to get CSPI's newsletter. They did not express any political leanings whatsoever. It was all about the link between eating unhealthy food and developing health problems.

                Kind of like what savage weiner was into before his addiction to his own garbage mouth.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Andy Kreiss (July 11, 2010 8:18 pm ET)
                  4  
                  It looks like a few others have asked about the secret leftist leanings of the CSPI, but no answers yet.

                  I'll have to assume it's just more red meat from Boss Hogg. He simply says they're leftist kooks, and rightOn rubber stamps it, even adding in his own embellishment that they're an authoritarian government agency.

                  Easiest job in the world, that Limbaugh guy. Like getting seals to bark and flap their flippers for fish.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by Floyd (July 12, 2010 9:16 am ET)
                    9
                  Mary, if you read their mission statement, it is obvious they are a left-wing advocacy group. They state they "represent the citizen's interests". However, they only represent some of the citizens, not all. They have chosen NOT to help the fat citizens live life as they choose. And, since liberals are ALWAYS calling right-wingers 'fat' this or 'fat' that, then they are obviously a left-wing kook-group.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Andy Kreiss (July 12, 2010 9:27 am ET)
                    5  
                    Really ? You're going with that ?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Floyd (July 12, 2010 9:31 am ET)
                        6
                      You got a problem with that?
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by MiniTru (July 12, 2010 1:06 pm ET)
                        4  
                        With your misreading of their mission statement? Who wouldn't?
                        Report Abuse
                    • Author by southerngal (July 12, 2010 2:11 pm ET)
                        4
                      Really? Think about it, if they were a right wing outfit with right wing kooks Limbaugh wouldn't be calling them kooks and MMfA wouldn't be defending them.

                      Simple.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by DellDolly (July 12, 2010 2:32 pm ET)
                        4 1
                        MMFA isn't "defending" the CPSI.

                        They are attacking the misinformation that Limbaugh is spewing.

                        This isn't rocket science - how is it that you STILL don't get what MMFA does? Here, read the mission statement and see if that gives you a clue! They don't publicize stuff in FAVOR of anything. They are against the media (not the "conservative media", just the media) misinforming the public in a way that promotes the conservative agenda.

                        Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

                        Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by southerngal (July 12, 2010 2:37 pm ET)
                          1 4
                          Oh Sue, save your stupidity for someone who is impressed. If you don't know the agenda that MMfA pushes then you are more of a moron than you've let on for years here. And if you do know it and trying to cloud in under some measure of nonpartisanship, then you are a liar.

                          My guess is probably both, LuvLuLuBottleblonde. You've displayed them in equal dosages over dozens of previous screen names.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by DellDolly (July 12, 2010 4:02 pm ET)
                            1 1
                            MMFA doesn't push an agenda. That's YOUR spin to try to discredit them.

                            The moron here is you.

                            You used to have credibility that you didn't deserve here, and now you've lost it, and you don't grasp that there's nothing you can do to try to discredit me or MMFA that will work because you don't have any credibility!!

                            This is not rocket science, but you can't grasp it - because you're so blinded by your personal animus that you can't see straight!

                            The liar is you. The dishonest poster is you. And everyone knows that. Even you.

                            MMFA doesn't have an agenda to defend CPSI. They attacked a fool who was unfairly attacking the CPSI.
                            Report Abuse
                      • Author by internet soldier (July 12, 2010 3:07 pm ET)
                        5  
                        Do you think if Limbaugh attacked Islamic fundamentalists that would make Islamic fundamentalists leftist? Is Joe Scarborough leftist because MMFA documented Rush Limbaughs attack on him as a "chickified moderate".

                        I notice that you didn't say which positions CSPI took that were "leftist". You simply stated that it must be so because Rush Limbaugh attacked them.

                        Until you say what positions CSPI holds that lead you to believe they are leftist, I'm going going assume you're using the usual rightwing definition for the word "leftist"; any organization which advocates for citizens at the expense of corporations.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by southerngal (July 12, 2010 3:15 pm ET)
                          1 6
                          Yes, perhaps Limbaugh is a poor example, as he occasionally pokes at a rightwinger or two. But as far as I can see, MMfA doesn't take up thread space defending rightwingers, so that part of my response stands - which you did not take issue with I noticed.

                          If MMfA defends them, in this case CSPI, they are a leftist organization. There is no inconsistency on that.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by internet soldier (July 12, 2010 3:39 pm ET)
                            4  
                            I mentioned Joe Scarborough as an example of a righty MMFA sometimes defends; in fact, MMFA occasionally touts things he says on MMTV, particularly when he attacks rightwing talking heads.

                            But that's beside the point. The point is that you have repeatedly called CSPI "leftist" without noting any leftist positions they've taken. If you think it's because they recommend that the FDA ban potentially poisonous food sources, or that they seek to inform people about how healthy certain food is, that's fine, but most people wouldn't call that "leftist", they'd call that "common sense". But I must say it's flattering that you would so quickly assume that a group that did all these good things must be leftist; It would be like saying mother teresa, or Ghandi or Thurgood Marshall must be leftist. So thanks, I guess.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by southerngal (July 12, 2010 4:00 pm ET)
                              1 3
                              If you're flattered to be aligned with a group that wants to file an idiotic lawsuit against a private company and go after their marketing strategy, fine. I wouldn't be flattered by that, I'd be embarrassed.
                              Report Abuse
                          • Author by DellDolly (July 12, 2010 4:05 pm ET)
                              1
                            MMFA attacks misinformation that furthers the conservative agenda.

                            Show us some examples from the media where MMFA should have defended a rightwinger because they were being attacked in a way that furthered the conservative agenda!

                            But, of course we all know that you won't do that.

                            If there's a time where the MSM allows a rightwinger to be attacked which then furthers the conservative agenda, MMFA will cover it.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by Floyd (July 12, 2010 4:53 pm ET)
                                1
                              dd-- If there's a time where the MSM allows a rightwinger to be attacked which then furthers the conservative agenda, MMFA will cover it.

                              No they won't. That isn't their mission (as YOU stated it to be, and as they state it to be). That just proves you to be a liar. Typical liberal.

                              dd-- MMFA attacks misinformation that furthers the conservative agenda.

                              But they do it by providing miss-information and lies. Very well, I can accept that. Just making sure where they stand on miss-information... left wing miss-information=good, right wing miss-information=bad. Typical liberals
                              Report Abuse
                  • Author by bintx (July 12, 2010 10:13 am ET)
                    8  
                    So, "representing the citizen's interests" makes a group a "left wing advocacy group"? LOL!
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by mary59 (July 12, 2010 5:23 pm ET)
                      1  
                      Yep. Loved that one, too.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by southerngal (July 12, 2010 5:26 pm ET)
                      1 1
                      The "citizen's interest" would be to let parents decide whether they go to McDonald's for happy meals as they don't need, or shouldn't need, some buttinsky activist group suing McDonalds for doing what is their responsibility.
                      Report Abuse
        • Author by ilikeike (July 10, 2010 3:56 pm ET)
             
          absolutely right. i grew up in the fast food era. our parents limited our access to it and i knew it was not healthy to overindulge in it.also if i wanted to go to the burger joint ,as a kid, i walked there.the idea that i would have pressured my parents in to taking me out to eat where I wanted all the time is ludicrous.if any parent cannot set basic boundaries regarding their kids nutrition and allow their kids to tell them where they are eating ,than they have serious problems.there always seems to be those on the left and those on the right who want to control our private activities. as a liberal I find it is only consistent to decry the nannies who want to infringe on my rights regardless of their political persuasion.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by ilikeike (July 10, 2010 3:56 pm ET)
             
          absolutely right. i grew up in the fast food era. our parents limited our access to it and i knew it was not healthy to overindulge in it.also if i wanted to go to the burger joint ,as a kid, i walked there.the idea that i would have pressured my parents in to taking me out to eat where I wanted all the time is ludicrous.if any parent cannot set basic boundaries regarding their kids nutrition and allow their kids to tell them where they are eating ,than they have serious problems.there always seems to be those on the left and those on the right who want to control our private activities. as a liberal I find it is only consistent to decry the nannies who want to infringe on my rights regardless of their political persuasion.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by bilbo_dies (July 11, 2010 2:54 pm ET)
          5  
          by right ON
          Never mind, not a government agency, just a bunch of leftist kooks.



          Post of the day!!!!
          Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (July 09, 2010 5:46 pm ET)
        16  
        Another useless post from the proudly uninformed.

        The CSPI is a privately funded non-profit.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (July 09, 2010 6:19 pm ET)
        13 1
        Again, parental responsibility is not going anywhere and no one is attempting to relieve them of it.

        Neither the government nor the CSPI is going to be riding in the family vehicle and telling parents what to do when their kids start screaming for Chemical McNuggets the moment a McDonald's comes into view. The same thing goes for family visits to the grocery store with aisles and aisles of junk food adorned with cartoon characters.

        These places are where the actual battle between child insistence and parental will takes place, and no one else is going to be around to fight it for them. Your I-hate-the-government pant wetting over food safety and nutrition is really getting old.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by southerngal (July 09, 2010 6:26 pm ET)
          6 14
          If you can't control your screaming children in the car and you buy groceries based on what they want, instead of what you know is best for them and purchase accordingly, then you are a lousy parent. No government agency, or nonprofit full of leftist kooks is going to help you.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by pete592 (July 09, 2010 6:51 pm ET)
            10 1
            Which is pretty much what I said.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Floyd (July 12, 2010 9:22 am ET)
              1 8
              pete-- Which is pretty much what I said.

              But, you whined about "Your I-hate-the-government pant wetting over food safety and nutrition is really getting old". Which insinuates that his similar opinion (on that subject) isn't worthy and only YOUR opinion matters. That's the trouble with liberals; they whine when someone agrees with them and they whine when someone doesn't. Perhaps you could stop your whining long enough to realize you both agree that parents are the ones who should make the choices for a healthy diet.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by magnolialover (July 10, 2010 7:54 am ET)
            10  
            How is this group leftist? I'm pretty sure I know lots of conservatives who are concerned about what they're eating.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by pete592 (July 09, 2010 5:44 pm ET)
      7 1
      Oh come on, Rush. We all know that the Jews wouldn't allow it.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by rtejon (July 09, 2010 5:44 pm ET)
      10  
      Speaking for myself, I eat at the local Chinese place in my small town at least once a week to help keep the proprietors encouraged, because it was a rare victory for tolerance and diversity to even get one opened here.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by wookie (July 09, 2010 6:04 pm ET)
      11 1
      But Rush, after you had the 240 quarter pounders what did you have for a second course?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by indigo1968 (July 09, 2010 6:10 pm ET)
        8 1
        One of these days, Rush's heart is going to explode like the Death Star from within.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (July 09, 2010 9:18 pm ET)
          7 1
          Still waiting for that Wanda Sykes moment to happen. I already have the party favors bought...
          Report Abuse
    • Author by What Happened to Gannon (July 09, 2010 6:34 pm ET)
      10 1
      Leftist "kooks" want to ban Chinese food? That's a pu pu platter if I ever saw one.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by j238 (July 09, 2010 10:47 pm ET)
      7  
      Rush, how do you feel about the health impact of McDonald's food on your kids?

      Forgot, you don't have any.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by cugagcmu805031 (July 10, 2010 12:57 pm ET)
      8  
      The attitude of Limpy and RightOn toward the CSPI doesn't surprise me at all.

      Everyone knows that there is no connection between obesity and health problems, and everyone knows there is no connection between tanning beds and skin cancer. ***Heavy, heavy sarcasm intended***

      According to ajc.com, GA has some of the heaviest kids in America as this excerpt points out, and childhood obesity is a national problem:

      Georgia’s children rank as some of the heaviest in the country, with about 37 percent of children ages 10 to 17 overweight or obese, according to a 2009 Robert Wood Johnson study, “F as in Fat.” Nationally, since the 1980s, the obesity rate for children has tripled, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

      What sane parent would want to lose a child(ren) to the negative effects of childhood obesity?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by ilikeike (July 10, 2010 4:10 pm ET)
           
        no sane parent would, but their are lots of lazy, uninterested parents who are happy to let their kids sit in front of their computers stuffing their faces all day every day. silly lawsuits will not stop this.parental responsibility and setting good examples will
        Report Abuse
      • Author by rtejon (July 10, 2010 5:49 pm ET)
        5  
        Might not be a bad idea to show something like "Food, Inc." in our classrooms. You and I both know many GA parents won't stop serving biscuits and gravy with cheap bacon for their kids' breakfast every day, so maybe it wouldn't hurt to try to reach the kids themselves.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by DellDolly (July 10, 2010 7:20 pm ET)
          5 2
          Exactly.

          Education programs and voluntary guidelines are NOT mandates for people to stop being idiots about what they feed their kids.

          Some parents WILL learn from that education, and many more kids will.

          I have some older relatives who STILL won't use a seat belt, because they didn't grow up with that usage and they don't like being told what to do.

          I don't know a single person under 30 who doesn't use a seat belt every time they get into the front seat of a car. They learned through education that it's a smart thing to do.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by bilbo_dies (July 11, 2010 3:07 pm ET)
          3  
          You and I both know many GA parents won't stop serving biscuits and gravy with cheap bacon for their kids' breakfast every day, so maybe it wouldn't hurt to try to reach the kids themselves.


          Are you trying to say that biscuits and sausage gravy are not one of the essential food groups???
          Plus, if you can't afford bacon, you can just fry up some fatback.
          It's cheaper and almost as good. ;-)
          Report Abuse
          • Author by rtejon (July 11, 2010 11:04 pm ET)
            2  
            There's the practice of cooking up your sausage, eggs and biscuits in the same pan, reusing the fat. I've had it more than a few times, actually...
            Report Abuse
    • Author by jmh (July 10, 2010 12:59 pm ET)
      5  
      Dear Rush,
      If you ever become man enough to admit you truly belong
      in prison, then maybe I would listen to your shtick.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by soze169880 (July 10, 2010 2:19 pm ET)
      6  
      these are the people who banned coconut oil from your popcorn in movie theaters,

      ZOMG RUSH WANTS US TO SEE ANTI-FAMILY CLAPTRAP FROM HOLLYWEIRD!!!!!!!!1!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Dradeeus (July 10, 2010 4:50 pm ET)
      6  
      Let's uh, back up a bit.

      ...Am I missing something from the article that even suggests that this organization is all left-leaning? Are ALL dietitians liberals?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Ecotopian (July 10, 2010 7:51 pm ET)
        9  
        People who "think" like Rush automatically equate criticism of the American diet with "nanny state" meddling and attacks on the holy free market. Of course they never mention the David vs. Goliath aspect of a group like CSPI going up against the advertising resources of America's junk-food purveyors.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by MickD (July 10, 2010 5:52 pm ET)
      7  
      Rush stands up for Good Ol' American cuisine...Chinese Food. Boy the China influence is even effecting our right wing hot air product line.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by yankeefan19252745 (July 10, 2010 8:13 pm ET)
        7
      Dear Sirs,
      Remember when the Food and Drug Administration banned kid's toys because they contained lead paint?
      Let the buyer beware.
      He or she should know better.
      However, let an innocent beware is going a little too far.
      Clifford Spencer
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Dradeeus (July 10, 2010 9:28 pm ET)
        6  
        I remember when Bayer released a product in Europe, knowing it was potentially infected with HIV. This is as bad a thing as a corporation can do, and.. the free market didn't do squat. Bayer is still a large pharmaceutical corporation.

        I don't like the idea of.. "Well, now that you're infected with HIV, you'll know better about buying Bayer, next time."

        It also counts on the mainstream media, which is... well, fully corporate-owned, to actually get the word out on what products are potentially dangerous.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by little poncho (July 10, 2010 10:23 pm ET)
      5 1
      fat boy, should BAN his fat a** from the refrigator!!!!!!!!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by aerdna (July 11, 2010 6:21 pm ET)
      3 1
      Well, Limbaugh does LOOK like he has a lot of experience with food.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by marco21 (July 11, 2010 7:00 pm ET)
        3  
        Who in their right mind would take dietary advice from Limbaugh?
        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.