the worst of liberalism

Bfgrn said:
No. It is not an authoritarian act. WHO will be harmed? The parent's feelings...boo fucking hoo
Click to expand...

whoa. you're trying to say that a governmental entity enforcing a ban on the activities of a parent in pursuit of feeding their children is NOT an authoritarian act? for the simple fact that nobody is harmed?
 
Last edited:
Bfgrn said:
No. It is not an authoritarian act. WHO will be harmed? The parent's feelings...boo fucking hoo
Click to expand...
EVERYONE is harmed. It restricts a free individual without out any benefit besides a continued expansion of the power of an over reaching government.
 
This is America, whose founders made no distinction between governments committing murder and denying individuals their civil liberties. Bfrgjdbfsiufbief needs to try again.
 
Republicans would do better to just step aside and let the liberal nanny staters shoot both feet off. Free lunches for the poor you would think would be enough. Now they want to mandate what is eaten. Huge fail
 
King of Guns said:
EVERYONE is harmed. It restricts a free individual without out any benefit besides a continued expansion of the power of an over reaching government.
Click to expand...

The benefit is to the children. While there are parents who do pack a nutritious lunch the majority of them do not so how do we deal with the problem?

Child obesity is on the increase. It is one thing to tell a child what a nutritious meal should be and quite another to actually show them and give them one. Also, what can a child do even if it realizes the food it's given for lunch or at home is not healthy? Are parents going to change?
 
they are cutting pe from most schools which is more than equally as bad. The libtards aren't ranting on this one though.
 
an update to the state kidnapping of a child at gunpoint.

http://www.freep.com/article/201104...rl-taken-standoff-doesn-t-need-meds-right-now

Authorities have determined there is no emergency need for a 13-year-old girl to be on medication, after the girl's mother was accused of medically neglecting her by not giving her a psychotropic drug.

The girl has been in state custody since Child Protective Services workers showed up to take her, prompting an hours-long standoff between her mother and police.

Judge Lynne Pierce said during a hearing in Wayne County's juvenile court Wednesday that a jury trial in the case will begin June 8.

The girl's mother, Maryanne Godboldo, is accused of firing a gun at officers when CPS came to her Detroit home take her daughter.
 
King of Guns said:
EVERYONE is harmed. It restricts a free individual without out any benefit besides a continued expansion of the power of an over reaching government.
Click to expand...

Really? How about guaranteeing a child has at least one nutritious meal a day? Making sure he or she is not eating foods they packed with high sugar content that could amp up bad behavior and detract from mental concentration in the classroom?

The school is the guardian during school hours. With it comes responsibility AND some ability to decide what is best for the students.

You folks on the right need to grow up and start acting like responsible adults, instead of victims...
 
Bfgrn said:
Really? How about guaranteeing a child has at least one nutritious meal a day? Making sure he or she is not eating foods they packed with high sugar content that could amp up bad behavior and detract from mental concentration in the classroom?

The school is the guardian during school hours. With it comes responsibility AND some ability to decide what is best for the students.

You folks on the right need to grow up and start acting like responsible adults, instead of victims...
Click to expand...
Never thought of it that way. You just might be on to something. And since we're on this tangent, somethings come to my mind that I'm sure you'll be on board with. Curfews. Not ones just based on age mind you, but for everyone not a police officer or government official (after all, civil servants are the highest in society). What do you need to be out after dark for anyways? I mean it's statistically proven that the majority of crimes take place at night, so this idea will only help everyone. And since no one is harmed, it's not authoritarian.
 
Bfgrn said:
Really? How about guaranteeing a child has at least one nutritious meal a day? Making sure he or she is not eating foods they packed with high sugar content that could amp up bad behavior and detract from mental concentration in the classroom?

The school is the guardian during school hours. With it comes responsibility AND some ability to decide what is best for the students.

You folks on the right need to grow up and start acting like responsible adults, instead of victims...
Click to expand...
So the school, not the parent of the child, is the arbiter of what is and is not healthy for said child? Especially when the decision is made by the parents to not include the child in the schools lunch program? If a child is misbehaving than the school can punish the student and leave such decisions about sugar or transfat or whatever the nutritional boogy man of the day is. That's what parenting is.
 
King of Guns said:
Never thought of it that way. You just might be on to something. And since we're on this tangent, somethings come to my mind that I'm sure you'll be on board with. Curfews. Not ones just based on age mind you, but for everyone not a police officer or government official (after all, civil servants are the highest in society). What do you need to be out after dark for anyways? I mean it's statistically proven that the majority of crimes take place at night, so this idea will only help everyone. And since no one is harmed, it's not authoritarian.
Click to expand...

Ever try to pick up a gal at 10 am or 2 pm? Doesn't work very well. The young folks live for the night. :)
 
apple0154 said:
Ever try to pick up a gal at 10 am or 2 pm? Doesn't work very well. The young folks live for the night. :)
Click to expand...
Too bad for them then. It's for their own safety. Statistics say that over 90% of auto accidents (the leading killer under 25) are caused by youths at night anyways. Better they, and everyone else, not be allowed out after dark. It's just too dangerous.
 
King of Guns said:
Never thought of it that way. You just might be on to something. And since we're on this tangent, somethings come to my mind that I'm sure you'll be on board with. Curfews. Not ones just based on age mind you, but for everyone not a police officer or government official (after all, civil servants are the highest in society). What do you need to be out after dark for anyways? I mean it's statistically proven that the majority of crimes take place at night, so this idea will only help everyone. And since no one is harmed, it's not authoritarian.
Click to expand...

The standard right wing polarized argument. It is the device of the child mind. It reminds me of when my daughter was a little and rode into the street on her bike. I took her bike away for a week. She pleaded with me, but that didn't work. When she realized I was not going to give in, she said; 'now I will not remember how to ride a bike and it will be your fault!'
 
King of Guns said:
So the school, not the parent of the child, is the arbiter of what is and is not healthy for said child? Especially when the decision is made by the parents to not include the child in the schools lunch program? If a child is misbehaving than the school can punish the student and leave such decisions about sugar or transfat or whatever the nutritional boogy man of the day is. That's what parenting is.
Click to expand...

What is and isn't nutritionally healthy for a child is not much of an arbitrary decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top