Controversial McDonald's Ad from France

[Lazario]

Well, it looks like government officials here in the States were worried about American obesity, and how to get Americans to stop eating at McDonald's so much. Looks like McDonald's may have just answered the problem themselves.

This subject has never been serious. In fact, the whole idea is a big joke; the statement O'Reilly read on his show about homosexuality not being a problem in France is redundant and we all get it. Even that brainless tool.

But I fail to see the humor in what you're suggesting. McDonalds will never lose money over a gay ad. Where are the legions of fat-food eaters going to go- Burger King? They suck. Everyone knows that too. I can't tell you the last time I even bought a burger at a fast food place last time I ate out. They can't do fries to save their lives. Their onion rings are pathetic. And healthy alternatives - including plain ol' "not going to fast food places" - is out of the question. People will never think of this ad when they go out to eat. That's like the b.s. uproar over Heinz ketchup supporting John Kerry / Kerry's position on the war. I don't see their business hurting any.





(Just a note: I actually did mean fat food, not fat people)

[Disney Duster]

Iceflash, isn't it covenient you said all that about not bashing other's opinions and you just happen to also agree with him?

The point was this guy said it clearly a-holish. The way he said "it will never air in America" was a very thinly veiled way of saying "gay approval should never and will never be in America". A-hole! And they also have gathered he is an a-hole from other things he has said.

[The_Iceflash]

Iceflash, isn't it covenient you said all that about not bashing other's opinions and you just happen to also agree with him?

That would make what I said any less valid?

The point was this guy said it clearly a-holish. The way he said "it will never air in America" was a very thinly veiled way of saying "gay approval should never and will never be in America". A-hole! And they also have gathered he is an a-hole from other things he has said.

Was it clearly a-holish? Are you sure it's a thinly veiled way to say that or do you want it to be a thinly veiled way to say that? It could very easily be interpreted differently. You see the point I'm trying to make here?

[Lazario]

I've seen O'Reilly make very good points on different things. There are obviously things he says that I disagree with as well but I agree and disagree with things everyone says. I'm not going to agree with someone 100% of the time. I'm shocked by attitudes toward different opinions. When someone doesn't agree with an opinion of his, instead of saying "Fine. that's his opinion. I don't agree but whatev'. " we get "he's an idiot, a-hole, etc". Is that how you react to someone who shares a different opinion than you? Would you want someone reacting to you that way?

I applaud your strong moral stance here, if you really practice what you preach. It's too hard for me personally to be able to Gandhi-off everyone who says something seriously hateful or ignorant.

But... we are talking about Bill O'Reilly, here. You seen his track record?

[The_Iceflash]

I've seen O'Reilly make very good points on different things. There are obviously things he says that I disagree with as well but I agree and disagree with things everyone says. I'm not going to agree with someone 100% of the time. I'm shocked by attitudes toward different opinions. When someone doesn't agree with an opinion of his, instead of saying "Fine. that's his opinion. I don't agree but whatev'. " we get "he's an idiot, a-hole, etc". Is that how you react to someone who shares a different opinion than you? Would you want someone reacting to you that way?

I applaud your strong moral stance here, if you really practice what you preach. It's too hard for me personally to be able to Gandhi-off everyone who says something seriously hateful or ignorant.

But... we are talking about Bill O'Reilly, here. You seen his track record?

Thanks.

On Bill O'Reilly, There have been many things I agreed with him on and many things I disagreed with him on.

I've just through experience that people tend to be more critical and more slanderous to those who have a different belief system (i.e. political affiliation, etc.) than themselves. I know that's kinda obvious though. haha.

[Goliath]

If they didn't flash the McDonald's logo at the end, no one would know what the hell that commercial was advertising.

I see no problem with it, other than the fact that it has nothing to do with food. Apparently, McDonalds is the place to be to come out of the closet.

Most people in this thread seem to not grasp the idea behind modern advertising. This is a trend that has been going on for a long time. Just showing a product and telling people it's good, because... well... we said so, doesn't work anymore. Advertising agencies nowadays are trying to attach a feeling and/or an image or lifestyle to a brand. Brands are advertised as representing a certain way of life. And that's the way they hope to appeal to the viewers.

[Goliath]

I've seen O'Reilly make very good points on different things. There are obviously things he says that I disagree with as well but I agree and disagree with things everyone says. I'm not going to agree with someone 100% of the time. I'm shocked by attitudes toward different opinions. When someone doesn't agree with an opinion of his, instead of saying "Fine. that's his opinion. I don't agree but whatev'. " we get "he's an idiot, a-hole, etc". Is that how you react to someone who shares a different opinion than you? Would you want someone reacting to you that way?

I think most of us react that way to Bill O'Reilly because he systematically assaults other people because of what they believe in, because of their sexuality, because of their religion, because of their gender, because of their race... Bill O'Reilly isn't simply "just a person I disagree with". He's a bully. That's how he acts. He invites people on his show and then won't let them talk, shouts over them all the time, or simply cuts off their mics. Because he's the bully and everybody should be intimidated by him.

The examples are numerous. He told on his show that he went to a restaurant which was owned by African Americans and he said he was surprised they all ate with knifes and forks!?! He said he was surprised nobody was yelling for some "motherfucking ice tea"!?! Isn't that bigoted? He has, on more than one occasion, suggested that rape victims were to blame because of the way they dressed. Isn't that disgusting? He once said to John McCain that he's afraid that the "white christian male power structure" in the US will collapse. Isn't that offensive to women, *and* non-whites *and* non-christians? He once even dared to bully and threaten a boy who lost his father in the 9/11 attacks, because the boy stated for a fact that George H.W. Bush's policies had strenghtened the Taliban. He threatened the boy he would fysically attack him.

And THAT'S why Bill O'Reilly isn't "just a person with an opinion" but a racist, bigoted, ignorant, lying, bullying, sexist piece of shit.

[The_Iceflash]

I've seen O'Reilly make very good points on different things. There are obviously things he says that I disagree with as well but I agree and disagree with things everyone says. I'm not going to agree with someone 100% of the time. I'm shocked by attitudes toward different opinions. When someone doesn't agree with an opinion of his, instead of saying "Fine. that's his opinion. I don't agree but whatev'. " we get "he's an idiot, a-hole, etc". Is that how you react to someone who shares a different opinion than you? Would you want someone reacting to you that way?

I think most of us react that way to Bill O'Reilly because he systematically assaults other people because of what they believe in, because of their sexuality, because of their religion, because of their gender, because of their race... Bill O'Reilly isn't simply "just a person I disagree with". He's a bully. That's how he acts. He invites people on his show and then won't let them talk, shouts over them all the time, or simply cuts off their mics. Because he's the bully and everybody should be intimidated by him.

The examples are numerous. He told on his show that he went to a restaurant which was owned by African Americans and he said he was surprised they all ate with knifes and forks!?! He said he was surprised nobody was yelling for some "motherfucking ice tea"!?! Isn't that bigoted? He has, on more than one occasion, suggested that rape victims were to blame because of the way they dressed. Isn't that disgusting? He once said to John McCain that he's afraid that the "white christian male power structure" in the US will collapse. Isn't that offensive to women, *and* non-whites *and* non-christians? He once even dared to bully and threaten a boy who lost his father in the 9/11 attacks, because the boy stated for a fact that George H.W. Bush's policies had strenghtened the Taliban. He threatened the boy he would fysically attack him.

And THAT'S why Bill O'Reilly isn't "just a person with an opinion" but a racist, bigoted, ignorant, lying, bullying, sexist piece of shit.

*sigh*


Still it's no reason to stoop to his level. I've seen many comment his vids on youtube who after seeing what they said are no better than him. Him being all that you said he is or not isn't the issue. It's that I'm tired of the slander that come from people to others simply because of having a different political affiliation, etc. I've seen plenty who would attack any and everything about a person attempting to discredit them simply because their political affiliation isn't the same. Someone who does share political affiliations who is just as bad would hardly get criticized because of that affiliation.


Just because he may be all the things you say he is doesn't give anyone the right to look as bad as he does. Believe me, I've found myself reading threads here and elsewhere and ended up more disgusted by the comments people made about someone than what the person or thing being discussed was. In this specific case I didn't find anything wrong with his comments. I believe the criticism he's getting for this video alone is due to over-analyzing. I think that people are so used to criticizing him (Which he definitely invited plenty of it.) that when they see him they try to attack anything they can about what he's saying and making it out to be something it's not and they blow it up.

[Lazario]

*sigh*

Still it's no reason to stoop to his level.

What do you expect people to say?

[Goliath]

Still it's no reason to stoop to his level. I've seen many comment his vids on youtube who after seeing what they said are no better than him. Him being all that you said he is or not isn't the issue. It's that I'm tired of the slander that come from people to others simply because of having a different political affiliation, etc.

No, we should be nice to him. Right? That's exactly the problem with the media these days: the double standard. The right-wingers are fuming all day about the left, introducing one big ass lie after the other paranoid conspiracy theory, followed by a bit of name-calling and some racist innuendo... and when a left-winger says that the right-winger is a bully, the right-winger starts to cry... Boohoo! It's so unfair! You shouldn't be mean to me! Mommy, hold my hand!

Helen Thomas made an unfortunate remark about Israelis, after the brutal attack of Israel on the boat that brought aid to Gaza. She recognizes her mistake and apologizes, yet all the media fall over her and pile on her, and she's gracious enough to bow out and retire. At the same time, Michael Savage is on the radio every day spewing hate about homosexuals, Rush Limbaugh is insulting African Americans on a daily basis, Bill O'Reilly is vilifying muslims and Ann Coulter jokes about killing all the liberals. And none of them ever have to resign. They never have to quit. They never even apologize. They never recognize their mistakes. And no-one in the media piles on them the way they did with Helen Thomas. They just laugh at the right-wingers or make fun of them, treating their hateful remarks as if they're just innocent jokes.

I'm so sick of this... no, YOUR double standard. It's a shame and a disgrace that the last real journalist in this country, Helen Thomas, who has covered every president since Eisenhower and is still highly respected for her critical questioning of the politicians, has to retire, when political hacks like Bill O'reilly can continue to pollute the airwaves.

[The_Iceflash]

Still it's no reason to stoop to his level. I've seen many comment his vids on youtube who after seeing what they said are no better than him. Him being all that you said he is or not isn't the issue. It's that I'm tired of the slander that come from people to others simply because of having a different political affiliation, etc.

No, we should be nice to him. Right? That's exactly the problem with the media these days: the double standard. The right-wingers are fuming all day about the left, introducing one big ass lie after the other paranoid conspiracy theory, followed by a bit of name-calling and some racist innuendo... and when a left-winger says that the right-winger is a bully, the right-winger starts to cry... Boohoo! It's so unfair! You shouldn't be mean to me! Mommy, hold my hand!

Helen Thomas made an unfortunate remark about Israelis, after the brutal attack of Israel on the boat that brought aid to Gaza. She recognizes her mistake and apologizes, yet all the media fall over her and pile on her, and she's gracious enough to bow out and retire. At the same time, Michael Savage is on the radio every day spewing hate about homosexuals, Rush Limbaugh is insulting African Americans on a daily basis, Bill O'Reilly is vilifying muslims and Ann Coulter jokes about killing all the liberals. And none of them ever have to resign. They never have to quit. They never even apologize. They never recognize their mistakes. And no-one in the media piles on them the way they did with Helen Thomas. They just laugh at the right-wingers or make fun of them, treating their hateful remarks as if they're just innocent jokes.

I'm so sick of this... no, YOUR double standard. It's a shame and a disgrace that the last real journalist in this country, Helen Thomas, who has covered every president since Eisenhower and is still highly respected for her critical questioning of the politicians, has to retire, when political hacks like Bill O'reilly can continue to pollute the airwaves.

MY double standard? YOU are attacking me? (If I'm understanding this correctly.)

Besides that, what you made sense and I agree with you except for one thing. The double standard you pointed out happens both ways. The left wing sees the right wing as the evil incarnate and vice-versa. No side is immune to the double standard. They both do it. Let's not pretend that only one side is guilty of the double standard or of ignorance or hatred. From what I have seen, extremism of either side is a turn off to me for those reason I already said and the ones you have as well. That's why I am neither left wing or right wing. I try not generalize or stereotype all right wing people as a Rush Limbaugh as that would be ignorant of me to judge them as if they are all like him and it wouldn't be fair to those who are decent people. The same goes for the left-wing. I try not to generalize or stereotype them either as well as that's not fair. I try not to judge any of the two groups by a vocal minority. Both sides have shown that the vocal minority tend to bring out the worst.

Is that so hard? [/b]

[The_Iceflash]

If they didn't flash the McDonald's logo at the end, no one would know what the hell that commercial was advertising.

I see no problem with it, other than the fact that it has nothing to do with food. Apparently, McDonalds is the place to be to come out of the closet.

Most people in this thread seem to not grasp the idea behind modern advertising. This is a trend that has been going on for a long time. Just showing a product and telling people it's good, because... well... we said so, doesn't work anymore. Advertising agencies nowadays are trying to attach a feeling and/or an image or lifestyle to a brand. Brands are advertised as representing a certain way of life. And that's the way they hope to appeal to the viewers.

I think the commercial would have worked better if they showed the McDonald's logo more than they did. Like someone already said, if it weren't for the logo being shown at the end you never would have known it was a McDonald's commercial. How successful can a McDonald's commercial really be if you can easily miss that it was even a McDonald's commercial to begin with? Besides that I didn't think it was bad. I thought it was clever.

Who says the "showing people a product and telling people it's good" doesn't work any more?

[Margos]

No, we should be nice to him. Right? That's exactly the problem with the media these days: the double standard. The right-wingers are fuming all day about the left, introducing one big ass lie after the other paranoid conspiracy theory, followed by a bit of name-calling and some racist innuendo... and when a left-winger says that the right-winger is a bully, the right-winger starts to cry... Boohoo! It's so unfair! You shouldn't be mean to me! Mommy, hold my hand!

Helen Thomas made an unfortunate remark about Israelis, after the brutal attack of Israel on the boat that brought aid to Gaza. She recognizes her mistake and apologizes, yet all the media fall over her and pile on her, and she's gracious enough to bow out and retire. At the same time, Michael Savage is on the radio every day spewing hate about homosexuals, Rush Limbaugh is insulting African Americans on a daily basis, Bill O'Reilly is vilifying muslims and Ann Coulter jokes about killing all the liberals. And none of them ever have to resign. They never have to quit. They never even apologize. They never recognize their mistakes. And no-one in the media piles on them the way they did with Helen Thomas. They just laugh at the right-wingers or make fun of them, treating their hateful remarks as if they're just innocent jokes.

I'm so sick of this... no, YOUR double standard. It's a shame and a disgrace that the last real journalist in this country, Helen Thomas, who has covered every president since Eisenhower and is still highly respected for her critical questioning of the politicians, has to retire, when political hacks like Bill O'reilly can continue to pollute the airwaves.

Well said, Goliath. That's exactly what bothers me about stuff like Faux Noise. It really is a double standard, and it really makes me angry. And really, it does nothing for the general reputation of the GOP that all of these conservatives are making hateful comments all over the board. It's not as often that we hear such nonsense from the Left, no matter how you slice it, The_Iceflash. It's just not quite as common. (I do think that personally attacking The_Iceflash at the end there was a little harsh, Goliath, but your rant was still very meaningful, nonetheless.)

[Super Aurora]

Bill O'Rielly can say really asshole-ish crap but on plus side I don't think he hates gays as much as he lets on in the media. Recently father of a gay Iraq soldier was getting harassed by Westboro bapist church even at the son's funeral. The church even sued the father. O'Rielly was kind enough to write out the check for the father. The way I see it, O'rielly is more of a noob troll.


Now Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Rush, and Glen beck are real fuck-heads.(well....Glen is just a lunatic)

So yea while O' Rielly can be a prick sometimes at least he has the decency to help someone even if it someone that stand against his belief or whatever.

The others I list I haven't seen once do something of the same.

[The_Iceflash]

It's not as often that we hear such nonsense from the Left, no matter how you slice it, The_Iceflash. It's just not quite as common.

True but should we be attacking an entire side because of a handful of people that are a vocal minority? I agree with his criticisms he made of those people. The things he said they did are way wrong. My point still stands though that no side is inherently good or bad and no side should be treated as if they are. That goes for bashing of the left or the right. I think it would be wrong to think any one of those people define the side they're on. Attacking a whole side because of handful of outspoken people isn't really fair. I know many who would rather not have them be used by others to describe their side. No one has the right be as hateful and arrogant like they are. They give the political side they are on a bad name. It's a shame really.

I do think that personally attacking The_Iceflash at the end there was a little harsh, Goliath, but your rant was still very meaningful, nonetheless.)

and completely unnecessary and wrong as I never once attacked him. I was being civil this whole time. I don't even see a reason why I deserved to be attacked. I'm surprised that he'd even think I'd pull a double standard let alone accuse me of it. He could have responded to me respectfully instead of attacking me. No excuse for it whatsoever. I thought I made some good points. Particularly this one:

Naturally everyone comes from different political, religious, and cultural backgrounds and all have their own beliefs and opinions. To degrade, trash, and slander someone who happens to have some different beliefs and opinions than you is wrong. Who is any one of us to say our belief system is right and someone else's is wrong just because we disagree with it?

[Lazario]

Bill O'Rielly can say really asshole-ish crap but on plus side I don't think he hates gays as much as he lets on in the media. Recently father of a gay Iraq soldier was getting harassed by Westboro bapist church even at the son's funeral. The church even sued the father. O'Rielly was kind enough to write out the check for the father.

Yeah- I heard about that. I doubt however that it had anything to do with any shred of compassion he has toward people who are gay. If anything, it's his misplaced patriotism. Outrage at how they could attack the dignity of a soldier's funeral and the fact that they'll go after any soldier's funeral. Because he knows the Phelps Clan are bad publicity for the Republican cause. And that they are nothing but a cult full of wackjobs. He's basically saying- that's not the right way to express hate, it makes people like him look bad. Because he agrees with their sentiment. It's just the way they choose to express it that makes Fox News feel they need to do damage control, and quickly.

The double standard you pointed out happens both ways. The left wing sees the right wing as the evil incarnate and vice-versa. No side is immune to the double standard. They both do it. Let's not pretend that only one side is guilty of the double standard or of ignorance or hatred.

I'm sorry, Ice, but you simply can't compare one to the other. And even if you could - try it, right now. The Right media figures spew hate (and I've been saying this for years) based on the fact that they see themselves, The Right, as superior to everyone else. You're suggesting the Left hate the Right for ... hating people, and that that's an equal injustice... Do you see the conflict there?

To bring up your moral stance again... You might actually be on to something. At heart. I see a real Maleficent scenario developing here. That the foam pellets being tossed at the Righties sure aren't doing any good. Perhaps it's time for something they can't understand and won't expect. Now, all we have to do is to find out what that is.

[The_Iceflash]

The double standard you pointed out happens both ways. The left wing sees the right wing as the evil incarnate and vice-versa. No side is immune to the double standard. They both do it. Let's not pretend that only one side is guilty of the double standard or of ignorance or hatred.

I'm sorry, Ice, but you simply can't compare one to the other. And even if you could - try it, right now. The Right media figures spew hate (and I've been saying this for years) based on the fact that they see themselves, The Right, as superior to everyone else. You're suggesting the Left hate the Right for ... hating people, and that that's an equal injustice... Do you see the conflict there?

To bring up your moral stance again... You might actually be on to something. At heart. I see a real Maleficent scenario developing here. That the foam pellets being tossed at the Righties sure aren't doing any good. Perhaps it's time for something they can't understand and won't expect. Now, all we have to do is to find out what that is.

Think about it though, can we really judge the entire Right Wing based on a few outspoken people who self-proclaim themselves as spokes people for them? Is it fair to think that the entire Right Wing consists of Rush, Beck and Hannity clones? I know if my political stance was more to the right, I wouldn't want people thinking I'm like them. Besides, there's more to left and right politics than social issues. What about those who are left and right wing economically and/or environmentally? Is it fair to group them all as a whole when Left and Right politics are more complex than that? You can have someone be Left Wing in terms of social issues and the environment but Right Wing in terms of the economy. Should we put them in the same category as Hannity, Rush, or Beck? I know most arguments involving politics tend to revolve around the social issues. (Which is why I usually tend to stay out of those arguments. Too much passion gets involved naturally and it quickly turns into a s-t flinging contest and everyone gets way too personal in the arguments and they start personally attacking everyone.) If we're gonna criticize a group of people for having certain beliefs then we should aim that criticism toward that correct group.

I know I'm probably one of the few here who thinks this but shouldn't criticism of Rush, Hannity, Beck ,etc be directed at them and only them? They are the ones saying what they are saying and being hateful not their political affiliation. If a politician or commentator says something inappropriate I criticize that and not the party they happen to be a part of or who they are working for.


EDIT: I hope that I didn't offend anyone throughout this thread and I hope this doesn't change what you all think of me as a poster on here (Assuming I was liked to begin with. ) I think you all are a great group of people and I wouldn't like a discussion like this to change everyones view on everyone.

[Lazario]

Think about it though, can we really judge the entire Right Wing based on a few outspoken people who self-proclaim themselves as spokes people for them?

No. But, to hopefully keep weaseling my point ahead a little further... do you know of any politically "Right" celebrities or media figures taking their side's visible extremists to task?

Is it fair to think that the entire Right Wing consists of Rush, Beck and Hannity clones?

No.

I know if my political stance was more to the right, I wouldn't want people thinking I'm like them. Besides, there's more to left and right politics than social issues.

Yes.

What about those who are left and right wing economically and/or environmentally? Is it fair to group them all as a whole when Left and Right politics are more complex than that? You can have someone be Left Wing in terms of social issues and the environment but Right Wing in terms of the economy. Should we put them in the same category as Hannity, Rush, or Beck? I know most arguments involving politics tend to revolve around the social issues. (Which is why I usually tend to stay out of those arguments. Too much passion gets involved naturally and it quickly turns into a s-t flinging contest and everyone gets way too personal in the arguments and they start personally attacking everyone.) If we're gonna criticize a group of people for having certain beliefs then we should aim that criticism toward that correct group.

I know I'm probably one of the few here who thinks this but shouldn't criticism of Rush, Hannity, Beck ,etc be directed at them and only them? They are the ones saying what they are saying and being hateful not their political affiliation. If a politician or commentator says something inappropriate I criticize that and not the party they happen to be a part of or who they are working for.

To be fair, this discussion went down this road because the thread topic is about a social issue. Republicans take that into business territory and that becomes an economical issue when you consider things like - McDonalds' has an obligation to (fill in the blank) who pays the workers to never make controversial ads.

I don't see anyone arguing over Republican voters and less vocal politicians who vote Liberal on certain social issues. I think we're still talking about the media and those politicians don't get media attention. That's reserved for the people pushing the elitist agenda.

To answer your questions, I think the conversation topic has to turn off the media first. If you're wondering whether you'll be embraced or not for being to the Right if you are... I think you know that already.

[Super Aurora]

Bill O'Rielly can say really asshole-ish crap but on plus side I don't think he hates gays as much as he lets on in the media. Recently father of a gay Iraq soldier was getting harassed by Westboro bapist church even at the son's funeral. The church even sued the father. O'Rielly was kind enough to write out the check for the father.

Yeah- I heard about that. I doubt however that it had anything to do with any shred of compassion he has toward people who are gay. If anything, it's his misplaced patriotism. Outrage at how they could attack the dignity of a soldier's funeral and the fact that they'll go after any soldier's funeral. Because he knows the Phelps Clan are bad publicity for the Republican cause. And that they are nothing but a cult full of wackjobs. He's basically saying- that's not the right way to express hate, it makes people like him look bad. Because he agrees with their sentiment. It's just the way they choose to express it that makes Fox News feel they need to do damage control, and quickly.

I did think about that too and consider it a possibility but if someone really hates gays, they wouldn't give a second glance for them no matter what status that gay person was in or the method of action the the victim is receiving. All I'm saying is that even with given circumstance, Billo still got the balls to do anything remotely for that person unlike the other wacky republican celebrities.

[Lazario]

I don't believe anyone mentioned that the soldier who the funeral was for - or his father - are gay.

So, you've lost me.