Why haven't liberals started suing fast food and alcohol corporations?

The Clintons new that tobacco corporations had lots and lots of money. So, they had their attorney general find a "legal" way to confiscate the tobacco company's money. Trial lawyers and government got lottery level payoffs.

Well, the "nanny state" that liberals advocate promised to confiscate the wealth from fast food and alcohol corporations; government knows whats best for you and wants to make decisions that you are not capable or entitled to make for yourself; SO, here comes the democrats to initiate their plans to decide what is healthy for you; they will tax citizens for making decisions that conflict with what democrats have decided is bad for you and possibly also seize the assets of corporations, who have profited from selling items that democrats have decided are unhealthy.

Is the the up-rise of the Tea Party a roadblock for socialists to complete their destiny, to tax citizens who eat unhealthy food and seize the assets of naughty corporations?

Is Obama's incompetence and plummeting approval ratings, a reason democrats have not taken their "nanny state" to fast food and liquor industries?

Is the socialist onslaught faltering?


_ Page 1

They have sued fast food before. Someone sued McDonald's before. And the result was that McDonald's had to serve something healthy in their menu which is why they now have salads.

It's really stupid. If you don't like the food they sell, go somewhere else like Subway or grow your own food.

I think the larger picture behind this is progressives are trying to force people into their lifestyle - kind of like how they did it with prohibition of alchohol.



The taxes we pay always goes some where else. It is not like the money is going into any ones pockets. You need to educate your self on what socialism really is. Remember there are conservative lobbyists like the NRA that are paying and getting paid the big bucks.

Bush didn't have strong approval ratings either.


No. Fast food is beginning to be regulated.

What you are advocating is unfair competition. Barack is asking the gov't to come in and level the playing field. Those companies are selling a product that has a huge back-end cost that the sellers don't have to pay. Now they'll have to pay the full cost of what they make, just like any other company.


They realize that there is a fine line and don't want to cross it.

That and they are in the process of suing animals with fur for using fur.


Liberals love both of those things. You can tell the first from their size and the second from their behavior.


Conservatives, just like liberals, tell you what is good for you and what is bad for you, and attempt to take it away if they deem it harmful. I say this from a non-bias standpoint. Conservatism believes in outlawing marijuana and soft drugs, liberals preach against tobacco. Personally I think both of these ideas are stupid as people should be allowed to do whatever they want to themselves, as long as noone else is affected. But tobacco has shown to be far worse than marijuana or other soft drugs so in this case, I'd have to say the liberal stance is at least a little closer to being reasonable than the conservative one, although still both are far from it.


LMAO i did the same thing as JUNE. FAIL! i stopped at new ( was suppsoe to be knew)


I'm a liberal and i love fast food.