I know this is terrible and all, but KFC set the bar pretty high (low?) with their 'Famous Bowls', which Patton Oswalt described pretty accurately, though he failed to mention that they also top it with cheese.

I'm only somewhat ashamed to admit that, once I overcame the initial fear and repulsion...they're actually quite good.

Aye, I'd want one too, too bad KFC isn't big in Finland.

Apparently it is real.

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/fitness_exercise_health/2009/08/double-down-chicken-sandwich-kfc-cardiac-special-of-the-day.html

But it's only being marketed in parts of Rhode Island and Omaha, Nebraska.

858 Calories; 62.4 grams of fat.

^ i had stop eating at places that gave me uncontrolable diarrhea.
KFC doesnt make you fat, it gives you bulemia.

i refuse to eat KFC but...
im pretty sure im fat because ive been eating birthday cake, birthday cake batter and frosting for 2 days.

WHAT! Is this real? Why isn't this in my stomach right now?? I'd head down to the local KFC post-haste, but we tend to get new fast food stuff late, if ever here in stupid lousy Canada.

I was eating KFC when he got to the Barbara part....

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Robot Chicken, chickens, Law and Order, bok bok bugok' to 'Robot Chicken, chickens, Law and Order, bok bok bugok, kfc' - edited by xxovercastxx

..now I want some KFC.

Roll me over with a Martian steamroller, but that KFC grilled chicken is pretty good. And if you say I'm wrong, I'll sue you.

>> ^imstellar28:
^When I see a cat eating a mouse, I think the same thing as when I see a human eating at KFC.

That's either coldblooded, or you're a vegetarian. Or you're full of it.

So tell me, if the mouse has liberty how can the cat be tyrannous?
Tyranny against any group is a tyrannical system. We are arguing for the complete absence of tyranny, aka, a system of complete liberty.

Okay, I think we're in agreement about this. If we have a system where liberty for the cat doesn't mean tyranny for the mouse, we're in a good place.

But how do we give liberty to the mouse without imposing tyranny on the cat?

Your answer has to do with innate human mammalian rights; again, so would mine.

Suppose both wanted to live in the same house, and had the homeowner's blessing to do so.

The cat knows that he has to respect the mouse's right to life, so eating the mouse is out. However, he does get to enforce property rights, and let's say the cat's parents were rich, so he claims all the floorspace in the house except for the basement. He thereby orders the mouse off his property, and threatens to use violence in defense of his land.

If the mouse wants to live in the nicer spaces of the house, he has to agree to terms of the cat's choosing, and since the cat thinks the mouse is a lesser being, he's never going to agree to a fair deal. At best, he might grant a couple square feet to the mouse in exchange for 30 years of service...at worst, he'll come up with a contract that allows him to demand the service up-front, and add years of service for transgressions (which are entirely within the purview of the cat to asses). Then he can just trump up unfair reasons to add service (he looked at me funny!), and keep the mouse enslaved forever, probably servicing the house's furnace with dangerous, unpleasant tasks.

See, liberty for everyone! The cat gets access to all the livable space, and the mouse has to live in crawlspaces and the basement, or possibly work in service of the cat. If the mouse steps foot onto the cat's property, he becomes dinner (like KFC).

I suppose the mouse could ask the human for help, but that would probably lead down the path of terrible, terrible socialism. The human might redistribute the wealth by forcing the cat to give a pittance to the mouse...and that would be slavery, unlike the glorious voluntary liberty the mouse had before.

To turn my metaphor into prose, I think the bottom line is that "liberty" includes one's access to the resources of the world, and under your system there's no counterweight of any kind to massive inequality of wealth, which can wind up looking pretty tyrannical.

All I really differ from you on with most things is that I think there should be a floor on how far people can fall to because of their lack of economic utility, and that there are many ways to structure our world that are or should be illegal or proactively regulated since they can lead to harm to society (like the problems OSHA, EPA, SEC, FCC, etc. were created to prevent).

I suppose I should echo your insult back at you; you don't seem to understand that to get liberty for all, people's actions need to be constrained in equal ways, not that they need to be free to constrain each other in whatever ways they can get away with.

^When I see a cat eating a mouse, I think the same thing as when I see a human eating at KFC.

DFT's explanation makes exactly as much sense as his original metaphor (none). The fundamental problem with your line of reasoning is that you are assuming that you understand liberty, which you clearly do not.

DFT's metaphor/explanation:

"Liberty for the cat is tyranny for the mouse", or "Liberty for [those who are powerful] is tyranny for [those who are not]."

Are both incorrect and irrelevant. I don't want to make it more complicated for you, so I will merely show you why it is irrelevant. The above statement, for one, assumes that different groups have different rights. Where in any discussion have blankfist, myself, or any other pro-liberty poster on this website ever said that we want liberty for only a certain group of people (only cats or only mice)?

We have been arguing ad nauseum for liberty for all people, of all classes, all genders, all races, all religions, all sexual orientations.

So tell me, if the mouse has liberty how can the cat be tyrannous?

Tyranny against any group is a tyrannical system. We are arguing for the complete absence of tyranny, aka, a system of complete liberty. If you open your counter-argument with any mention of tyranny, you are speaking nonsense - why is that so hard to comprehend?

The concept of liberty only allows one logical metaphor: "liberty for the cat is liberty for the mouse"

"During a Papal audience, a business man approached the Pope and made this offer: Change the last line of the Lord’s prayer from “give us this day our daily bread” to “give us this day our daily chicken.” and KFC will donate 10 million dollars to Catholic charities.

The Pope declined. 2 weeks later the man approached the Pope again. This time with a 50 million dollar offer. Again the Pope declined. A month later the man offers 100 million, this time the Pope accepts.

At a meeting of the Cardinals, The Pope announces his decision in the good news/bad news format. The good news is… that we have 100 million dollars for charities. The bad news is that we lost the Wonder Bread account!"

One odd thing about Beijing is that McDonald's, KFC, Starbucks, and Pizza Hut are actually incredibly expensive relative to traditional restaurants and eateries. But they are still very popular.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video "Get in the Kitchen!" KFC ad. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.