Two active threads here, as I am writing this...

[pqr]

There is no assumption of guilt. I stated repeatedly that he may be entirely innocent, but he may not. And that given the history of racial tensions at this school and complains about the boy from other students at the school, that there may be more to the story than we get on Fox News.

 

Word twisting does not make for reason discussion.

 

If you don't want to recognize that people can fly our flag with a love of country and from the the best possible motives, while ofters will dishonor our flag by trying to use it to incite race-hate, then fine. Ignore reality if you choose.

 

Bill

 

I know that some people fly the flag for the worst reasons, show me where I ever denied that.

 

You lambasted the child with NO evidence. Rather than assume innocence (for a 13 year old) you dropped the "more to the story" line and cast doubt on his motivations. It is a standard tactic and was wrong, the boy is a patriot that is it.

 

Just admit that you went off half cocked, everyone does once in a while.

[Spy Car]

I think that Bill has me on ignore because he is continuing to argue the possibility of a racist agenda despite the conclusion to this whole scenario - look back through the thread, people - pqr linked it, I quoted it. . . You can discuss protocol taking into account something like racist agendas but now that there are more facts in evidence about this particular case, you can't go down that rabbit trail anymore.

 

Also - at issue was not the flag itself but the protocol the school used in solving the problem. The Superintendent (whom I applaud, by the way) recognized that and corrected the school's approach.

 

Not at all Jean. The boy looks like a sweet kid in the photo and I'd be nothing but pleased if he turns out to be a golden-hearted patriotic child. And would be rather sorry he had to go though all this.

 

But we have had incidents at schools here where our flag was used by racist groups to incite hostility at schools. I'm sure the administrators are aware of these incidents. It is a shame racist groups try to steal the flag, but they do. I'm sure you are aware of it.

 

Bill

[Tea Time]

That is not the way I read what she said. I comprehended her words as being an indictment of public officials and the schools where they work. They cannot stop bullies, they cannot teach, they cannot maintain discipline, they do not seem to do much and it is a real stretch to assume that they could stop a pedophile.

 

They can it seems stop 13 year old boys from flying Old Glory on a bike, that they can do well.

 

If a 13 year old brings an American flag to school with the aim of inciting racial hostility (which may or may not be the case here) he ought to be stopped.

 

We can't allow racists grab the flag, and they do try.

 

Schools can teach.

Bullies can be stopped.

So can pedophiles.

 

Bill

 

No. I have no idea if this is just a good sweet boy who just loves his country or if there is more to the story. Either seems like a possibility. It could very well be the school officials acted unwisely. Who knows?

 

Bill

 

The point is getting lost. How convenient.

 

We have reason to believe, bizarre as it may seem, that officials in general and especially school officials would be more interested in deterring a "potential" 13 year old racist (or a rabid happy meal) than they are in doing what schools are supposed to do (or officials are supposed to do - like balance a budget). It is so bad that some of us have some uncertainty as to whether or not the officials would fervently dissuade a sexual predator. Even if our fears are completely unfounded, the fact that we have them is a pretty bad sign.

 

And that brings us back to the OP. If these things being discussed are considered somewhat equal then there is a big, big problem.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Not at all Jean. The boy looks like a sweet kid in the photo and I'd be nothing but pleased if he turns out to be a golden-hearted patriotic child. And would be rather sorry he had to go though all this.

 

But we have had incidents at schools here where our flag was used by racist groups to incite hostility at schools. I'm sure the administrators are aware of these incidents. It is a shame racist groups try to steal the flag, but they do. I'm sure you are aware of it.

 

Bill

 

Bill, I've taught Neo-Nazi kids. So yes, I'm aware of them trying to steal the flag. But they were not subtle about it nor did they try to pass it off as anything else. They were proud of their racists agendas and used the flag to that purpose. This boy's public statement was that he was patriotic and wanted to honor veterans like his grandfather. That is not what a racist would say.

 

ETA: If it had been a case of a racist with an agenda (and it's already been established that it wasn't) then the protocol should have focused on the racist agenda, not the flag itself.

Edited November 12, 2010 by Jean in Newcastle

[cin]

Since rates of obesity, type II diabetes, and beginning stages of heart disease have skyrocketed in children as a direct result of these sorts of unhealthful diets.

 

Happy Meals are not fit for children.

 

Bill

 

To me, banning the happy meals is about the same as requiring children be in a carseat. With the rates of the above diseases are SKYROCKETING in children, there are parents out there who need some, um, guidance, in feeding their children.

 

A lot of these kids don't know any better. It breaks my heart to see kids under 10 that are FAT. Not pudgy, FAT. And if the parents won't take care of their kids, then somebody needs too. If the parents were starving the kids, the state would REALLY step in.

 

Here, the state isn't saying you can't buy a happy meal, they are just trying make them less appealing to the kids. And hopefully, bring some attention to the LACK of nutritional value, and maybe bring some attention to the problems Bill mentioned above.

 

:leaving:

[cdrumm4448]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/12/school-reverses-course-ordering-student-remove-flag-bike/

 

Boy wins!

 

 

:patriot:

[cdrumm4448]

I know that some people fly the flag for the worst reasons, show me where I ever denied that.

 

You lambasted the child with NO evidence. Rather than assume innocence (for a 13 year old) you dropped the "more to the story" line and cast doubt on his motivations. It is a standard tactic and was wrong, the boy is a patriot that is it.

 

Just admit that you went off half cocked, everyone does once in a while.

 

:iagree:

[cdrumm4448]

Here, the state isn't saying you can't buy a happy meal, they are just trying make them less appealing to the kids. And hopefully, bring some attention to the LACK of nutritional value, and maybe bring some attention to the problems Bill mentioned above.

 

It's not the state's job to make something less appealing to a child. As a parent I'm offended that anyone thinks I need a hand raising my kids.

[Spy Car]

 

You lambasted the child with NO evidence.

 

Lambasted? I said I could not possibly know his motives and there is too little evidence to know why the school acted as they did, and that a possibility exists that they acted unwisely. It could be either scenario.

 

Rather than assume innocence (for a 13 year old) you dropped the "more to the story" line and cast doubt on his motivations. It is a standard tactic and was wrong, the boy is a patriot that is it.

 

Just admit that you went off half cocked, everyone does once in a while.

 

I said there may be more to the story and it appears that's the case, including an atmosphere of racial tension at the school and incidents involving flags (including Mexican flags).

 

The boy may prove to be a complete innocent, or not. Saying there are two possible scenarios that may play out is not making an assumption as to what actually happened. It is saying we don't have the full story.

 

Bill

[CoastalGal]

These are Bill's words. He is drawing a potential link between a 13-year-old boy with the American flag on his bike with the KKK and neo-Nazi groups.

 

Frankly, we live in America. So, we fly our flag. Anyone who does not appreciate and love our country can go somewhere they feel more comfortable.

 

:iagree:

 

You lambasted the child with NO evidence. Rather than assume innocence (for a 13 year old) you dropped the "more to the story" line and cast doubt on his motivations. It is a standard tactic and was wrong, the boy is a patriot that is it.

 

Just admit that you went off half cocked, everyone does once in a while.

 

:iagree:

[pqr]

The boy may prove to be a complete innocent, or not. Saying there are two possible scenarios that may play out is not making an assumption as to what actually happened. It is saying we don't have the full story.

 

Bill

 

 

You are continuing....the boy IS an innocent. The school has now backed down and even though they NEVER (unlike you) claimed that he may be a racist they state that he may now bring the flag and that the school was wrong.

 

Why do you keep pushing the racist angle? It is not there.

 

Anyway back to the Happy Meal debate and the desire to determine how parents raise their children.

 

From Animal Farm, funny how it resonates and is worth repeating

"Do not imagine, comrades, that leadership is a pleasure. On the contrary, it is a deep and heavy responsibility. No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"

Give me the difference between this and San Francisco.

Edited November 12, 2010 by pqr

[Jean in Newcastle]

You are continuing....the boy IS an innocent. The school has now backed down and even though they NEVER (unlike you) claimed that he may be a racist they state that he may now bring the flag and that the school was wrong.

 

Why do you keep pushing the racist angle? It is not there.

 

I agree. I do not get this.:confused:

 

:patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot:

[Spy Car]

You are continuing....the boy IS an innocent. The school has now backed down and even though they NEVER (unlike you) claimed that he may be a racist they state that he may now bring the flag and that the school was wrong.

 

Why do you keep pushing the racist angle? It is not there.

 

Your game is getting tiresome. I never claimed the boy is a racist. He looks like a pretty sweet kid, actually.

 

That does not mean we have not had a history in this country (including recent incidents in schools) where racist groups have tried to incite hostilities on school campuses with flag waving incidents. This school evidently had some sort of problem involving Mexian flags. It is better to have the facts before one decides if a school acted properly, or not.

 

If the kid is innocent and just a sweet-hearted patriotic child then I'm thrilled. We could use more of them.

 

Bill

[pqr]

Your game is getting tiresome. I never claimed the boy is a racist. He looks like a pretty sweet kid, actually.

 

That does not mean we have not had a history in this country (including recent incidents in schools) where racist groups have tried to incite hostilities on school campuses with flag waving incidents. This school evidently had some sort of problem involving Mexian flags. It is better to have the facts before one decides if a school acted properly, or not.

 

If the kid is innocent and just a sweet-hearted patriotic child then I'm thrilled. We could use more of them.

 

Bill

 

 

My game??? Seems like several others read your words in the manner that I did..

 

Why the IF? The boy IS innocent. Just say it, the school did.

 

Climb down, you are wrong on this one.

 

Trying to get back to Happy Meals which is the topic of the thread.

[Spy Car]

My game??? Seems like several others read your words in the manner that I did..

 

Like that alters reality :lol:

 

Why the IF? The boy IS innocent. Just say it, the school did.

 

If that is the case, great! I've not seen where the full facts have come out, but if they have and the kid was just being a proud American boy I could not be happier.

 

Bill

[Barry Goldwater]

My game??? Seems like several others read your words in the manner that I did..

 

Why the IF?

 

Because otherwise it doesn't fit the 'template.'

 

Back to OP comment, did anyone notice that the Amazon fiasco resolved itself (more or less) without an act of government? Liberty works, every time it's tried.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Because otherwise it doesn't fit the 'template.'

 

Back to OP comment, did anyone notice that the Amazon fiasco resolved itself (more or less) without an act of government? Liberty works, every time it's tried.

 

:iagree:

[Tea Time]

Because otherwise it doesn't fit the 'template.'

 

Back to OP comment, did anyone notice that the Amazon fiasco resolved itself (more or less) without an act of government? Liberty works, every time it's tried.

 

:lol::lol::lol:

[Spy Car]

 

Back to OP comment, did anyone notice that the Amazon fiasco resolved itself (more or less) without an act of government? Liberty works, every time it's tried.

 

We haven't done too well solving the epidemic of childhood obesity, skyrocketing rates of type II diabetes, and early on-set heart disease :glare:

 

Given the freedom to act responsibly McDonalds has chosen to act otherwise. And without many repercussions from the American public I'm afraid to say. Rather than outrage at the crap they market to children we get threads about "favorite fast foods" like the health of this nations children (not to mention its adults) suffers.

 

I wish there was one-tenth the outrage expressed towards McDonalds that there was (deservedly) directed towards Amazon.

 

Bill

[Barry Goldwater]

We haven't done too well solving the epidemic of childhood obesity, skyrocketing rates of type II diabetes, and early on-set heart disease :glare:

 

Given the freedom to act responsibly McDonalds has chosen to act otherwise. And without many repercussions from the American public I'm afraid to say. Rather than outrage at the crap they market to children we get threads about "favorite fast foods" like the health of this nations children (not to mention its adults) suffers.

 

I wish there was one-tenth the outrage expressed towards McDonalds that there was (deservedly) directed towards Amazon.

 

Bill

 

Stress, and its step sister, Righteous Anger, are deadlier than Transfat. I'm sorry this seems to make you upset.

 

McDonald's job is to make money for its shareholders, within the law. (sadly that law is now more complicated and cumbersome in San Francisco, for which I mourn). Free people are obligated to make choices to buy, or not to buy, from them. Their buying habits will govern the products offered, via economic laws (Just like they did with AMAZON - there it is again! Liberty!).

 

Nutrition is a lot more complicated than Frankenstein-speak (Fat BAAAAAD!! Brown rice GOOOOOOOD!!!) And the people whose sole qualification is getting elected are the least equipped among us to navigate the subtleties of healthy eating for every individual and every dietary need.

 

And McDonalds is not to blame for fat kids...I have many theories, as a former fat kid and as one who has studied the phenomena extensively...but that's another thread I think.

[Lovedtodeath]

.This signature is deep and profound.

I love your signature.:D

[Lovedtodeath]

We haven't done too well solving the epidemic of childhood obesity, skyrocketing rates of type II diabetes, and early on-set heart disease :glare:

 

Given the freedom to act responsibly McDonalds has chosen to act otherwise. And without many repercussions from the American public I'm afraid to say. Rather than outrage at the crap they market to children we get threads about "favorite fast foods" like the health of this nations children (not to mention its adults) suffers.

:iagree:I am agreeing with Bill!:scared:

 

It isn't just McDonald's though... yes, it is a problem when the majority of cereals have more sugar than anything else... and GMO corn. It is a problem when people don't know what protein is. (My good friend who died from tumors hadn't a clue.) Someone should have taught her better.

[Spy Car]

Stress, and its step sister, Righteous Anger, are deadlier than Transfat. I'm sorry this seems to make you upset.

 

McDonald's job is to make money for its shareholders, within the law. (sadly that law is now more complicated and cumbersome in San Francisco, for which I mourn). Free people are obligated to make choices to buy, or not to buy, from them. Their buying habits will govern the products offered, via economic laws (Just like they did with AMAZON - there it is again! Liberty!).

 

Nutrition is a lot more complicated than Frankenstein-speak (Fat BAAAAAD!! Brown rice GOOOOOOOD!!!) And the people whose sole qualification is getting elected are the least equipped among us to navigate the subtleties of healthy eating for every individual and every dietary need.

 

And McDonalds is not to blame for fat kids...I have many theories, as a former fat kid and as one who has studied the phenomena extensively...but that's another thread I think.

 

For whatever complexities there may be when it comes to nutrition, I don't think any experts in the field of nutrition believe the salt, sodium and saturated fats and transfats makes a diet of Happy Meals a sound choice nutritionally. And more than that, that this type of diet can do (and does) a great deal of harm to this nations young people.

 

Sadly, McDonald's seems to share your belief that its sole job is to make money for it shareholders, even if the cost is to the health of children. This is the problem of those who don't ground their economic freedom with moral and ethical concerns. The tobacco industry acted the same way, and it took our elected representatives to stop them.

 

But that is why we have a government which was instituted to promote the general welfare. When people will harm children to make a profit, it is time for for the peoples representatives to act.

 

Bill

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

 

But that is why we have a government which was instituted to promote the general welfare. When people will harm children to make a profit, it is time for for the peoples representatives to act.

 

Bill

 

 

But McDonalds isn't harming children-it isn't cramming burgers, nuggets, fries and a soda into every passing child. The person who allows them to buy the happy meal is... and now we are back to laws that infringe on parenting. Or laws that unfairly restrict commerce. Or return to the "nanny state" where the government has decided what is good or bad for my child and acted to protect my child-thereby insinuating that I am incapable of such an action.

[Barry Goldwater]

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE

[pqr]

. When people will harm children to make a profit, it is time for for the peoples representatives to act.

 

 

 

So should we ban colored packaging for cereals?

Should we change the names of products? (Three Musketeers really attracts young boys...what a cool name)

Should we stop all sports endorsements of cereal and soda?

Should we get rid of the McDonalds Clown?

 

Just where will it end? When will you be happy (no trite answer about when kids are skinny but an answer about what level of interference will pass even your limit)?

 

When does the "It Takes a Village" crowd finally sit down and leave us to raise our children without their "all knowing" influence?

[Barry Goldwater]

But that is why we have a government which was instituted to promote the general welfare. When people will harm children to make a profit, it is time for for the peoples representatives to act.

 

Bill

 

The general welfare clause has been so grossly mis-used and abused, there is not enough bandwidth in the entire internet for me to cover it here.

 

Centralized government planning killed over 100 million people in the 20th century, excluding deaths caused by war with other countries. When the 100 millionth McDonald's customer dies as the DIRECT RESULT of a Big Mac, then I'll think about it. Till then, I'll argue for liberty being the solution to the human condition.

[Spy Car]

But McDonalds isn't harming children-it isn't cramming burgers, nuggets, fries and a soda into every passing child. The person who allows them to buy the happy meal is... and now we are back to laws that infringe on parenting. Or laws that unfairly restrict commerce. Or return to the "nanny state" where the government has decided what is good or bad for my child and acted to protect my child-thereby insinuating that I am incapable of such an action.

 

Would you, by the same logic, roll-back marketing restrictions imposed on cigarette companies who formerly targeted children?

 

Or make sales of cigarettes to minors legal and call it a parent's responsibility to make sure their children don't smoke?

 

Bill

[Barry Goldwater]

And I don't mean to be rude, but I'll have to check in later...P90X is on the itinerary tonight and I have to go do 180 pushups, etc., and it's ABRIPPER NIGHT too!! All aboard the pain train!

[pqr]

Would you, by the same logic, roll-back marketing restrictions imposed on cigarette companies who formerly targeted children?

 

 

 

Do you honestly believe that getting rid of Joe Camel stopped kids smoking? It was a feel good measure that allowed people a smug expression and the ability to say that they had "done their bit to help children."

[lovemyboys]

I know. :001_smile: I was oversimplifying to make a point. I think there's some serious cognitive dissonance going on if we've gotten to a place where we think we need to regulate food and toys to this level, while allowing books advocating pedophilia to be sold.

I'm not sure where the contradiction stems from. Is is that we believe the government should step in when it comes to what we put in our bodies, but we can put any vile, evil, harmful, destructive thing that we wish into our minds?

 

 

One, in small doses, is fine. The other is just plain evil.

 

For the record, I'm not a huge fan of fast food. I spent last night at one of my regularly scheduled nutrition co-op meetings. We get together and talk about making healthy food practical in day to day family life, and we order grass-fed beef, raw dairy, organic produce and such in quantity to save money. But you know what? I also take my kid to McDonald's every once in awhile. :svengo:

 

:hurray:

 

We limit some freedoms. We don't allow pornographic materials to be marketed to children, right? There are times when we have to act to protect the young. Amazon should get an earful for selling this book to anyone.

 

I just wish American public--parents of young children--were also outraged by the marketing foods as dangerous to heath as Happy Meals at children and made themselves heard.

 

Both things are bad.

 

Seriously?! That's just not the point. Marketing to children since they don't have the money doesn't matter.

 

But pornography?!! Marketing has nothing to do with it. If a market exists, the children are not the purchasers, they're the completely unwilling participants...the horribly abused and debased victims.

 

 

And don't even get me started on the comedy central jokes involving nambla. :angry:

[Spy Car]

 

Centralized government planning killed over 100 million people in the 20th century, excluding deaths caused by war with other countries. When the 100 millionth McDonald's customer dies as the DIRECT RESULT of a Big Mac, then I'll think about it. Till then, I'll argue for liberty being the solution to the human condition.

 

Are you equating this nations elected leaders with Nazis and Totalitarian Communists?

 

See, two can play that game (except maybe you are serious?)

 

If you don't think people are dying (and having the quality of their lives greatly impacted) from crap diets (of which McDonalds is only one part) then I think you are sadly mistaken.

 

Bill

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

Would you, by the same logic, roll-back marketing restrictions imposed on cigarette companies who formerly targeted children?

 

Or make sales of cigarettes to minors legal and call it a parent's responsibility to make sure their children don't smoke?

 

Bill

 

Personally I don't care about the marketing of tobacco with regards to kids. There are far worse ad campaigns that kids can view on a daily basis. The only exception that I will make about limiting those ads vs. the Happy Meal Toy ban is that at the time those ads were forbidden the sale of cigarettes (and other tobacco products) to minors was illegal.

 

Based on the number of teens I've seen with a cigarette in their mouth I would say that neither laws nor parents are very effective in preventing tobacco use. I do understand that as minors there may be some activities that our government limits until they are considered of age and therefore responsible and legally accountable for their actions. Driving, voting, smoking, drinking, access to certain medications (without parental involvement), and the like.

[Mejane]

Do you honestly believe that getting rid of Joe Camel stopped kids smoking?

 

No, legislation stopped kids smoking. Bad legislation! (smack)

[Spy Car]

Do you honestly believe that getting rid of Joe Camel stopped kids smoking?

 

I think the totality of a lot of different efforts has lead to improvements. What part Joe Camel played, I don't know. I do remember that there were studies that showed more young children knew Joe Camel than...was it Mickey Mouse? Something like that.

 

The cigarette companies certainly saw young children as future customers, their documents prove that. And for decades upon decades young people were sold cigarettes. It took our elected representatives to do something about it.

 

Bill

[pqr]

I think the totality of a lot of different efforts has lead to improvements. What part Joe Camel played, I don't know. I do remember that there were studies that showed more young children knew Joe Camel than...was it Mickey Mouse? Something like that.

 

 

So in other words a definite ???

 

For myself I did not smoke because of the influence of my parents and because of a realization as to the health risks. Joe Camel had no impact and I grew up in places where he was still used.

 

 

 

Anyway you seem to be dodging a question so I will ask again.

 

So should we ban colored packaging for cereals?

Should we change the names of products? (Three Musketeers really attracts young boys...what a cool name)

Should we stop all sports endorsements of cereal and soda?

Should we get rid of the McDonalds Clown?

 

Just where will it end? When will you be happy (no trite answer about when kids are skinny but an answer about what level of interference will pass even your limit)?

 

When does the "It Takes a Village" crowd finally sit down and leave us to raise our children without their "all knowing" influence?

[holdoll]

Do you honestly believe that getting rid of Joe Camel stopped kids smoking? It was a feel good measure that allowed people a smug expression and the ability to say that they had "done their bit to help children."

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

Our doctor told us last week that 2 out of every 10 teens smoke in our state, and the number is rising. 20%! I was surprised as we live in a state where nicotine and caffeine are really frowned upon. Joe Camel's been gone for 13 years now - since 1997.

[Spy Car]

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

Our doctor told us last week that 2 out of every 10 teens smoke in our state, and the number is rising. 20%! I was surprised as we live in a state where nicotine and caffeine are really frowned upon. Joe Camel's been gone for 13 years now - since 1997.

 

Teen smoking rates are around 23% now, but were closer to 37% in 1997. There is along way to go, but this is progress.

 

Bill

[Lovedtodeath]

If you don't think people are dying (and having the quality of their lives greatly impacted) from crap diets (of which McDonalds is only one part) then I think you are sadly mistaken.

:iagree:

[TXMary2]

The general welfare clause has been so grossly mis-used and abused, there is not enough bandwidth in the entire internet for me to cover it here.

 

Centralized government planning killed over 100 million people in the 20th century, excluding deaths caused by war with other countries. When the 100 millionth McDonald's customer dies as the DIRECT RESULT of a Big Mac, then I'll think about it. Till then, I'll argue for liberty being the solution to the human condition.

 

AMEN!

[Lovedtodeath]

Till then, I'll argue for liberty being the solution to the human condition.

I just had this conversation at the grocery store. I argue for God's Kingdom being the solution to the human condition. Matthew 24:14, Psalm 146:3, Matthew 6:10, Daniel 2:44.

[asta]

So should we ban colored packaging for cereals?

Should we change the names of products?

 

 

No... Who would do that? That would be misleading.

[CoastalGal]

Stress, and its step sister, Righteous Anger, are deadlier than Transfat. I'm sorry this seems to make you upset.

 

McDonald's job is to make money for its shareholders, within the law. (sadly that law is now more complicated and cumbersome in San Francisco, for which I mourn). Free people are obligated to make choices to buy, or not to buy, from them. Their buying habits will govern the products offered, via economic laws (Just like they did with AMAZON - there it is again! Liberty!).

 

Nutrition is a lot more complicated than Frankenstein-speak (Fat BAAAAAD!! Brown rice GOOOOOOOD!!!) And the people whose sole qualification is getting elected are the least equipped among us to navigate the subtleties of healthy eating for every individual and every dietary need.

 

And McDonalds is not to blame for fat kids...I have many theories, as a former fat kid and as one who has studied the phenomena extensively...but that's another thread I think.

 

:iagree: Preach it!!

 

Some on this board fail to realize that common sense can't be legislated.

[Barry Goldwater]

I just had this conversation at the grocery store. I argue for God's Kingdom being the solution to the human condition. Matthew 24:14, Psalm 146:3, Matthew 6:10, Daniel 2:44.

 

Of course, you and I would be in complete agreement, as would most of the Founding Fathers...but as I took this to be a 'secular' thread, I opted to leave that out for now, since for some in this discussion, it would be a show-stopper. But thank you for pointing it out.:) Matthew 24:35.

[Barry Goldwater]

Are you equating this nations elected leaders with Nazis and Totalitarian Communists? To do so at this point would trivialize the horrendous suffering brought about by people who think they know better than anyone else how you should live. You're making an intellectually dishonest statement.

 

 

 

Bilge.

 

I'm saying (again!) that free people generate an outcome better for all (not perfect, but better) than any centralized government planning can. The evidence is there for anyone to look at.

 

You don't want to look at the evidence, and that is your right.

[Spy Car]

Bilge.

 

I'm saying (again!) that free people generate an outcome better for all (not perfect, but better) than any centralized government planning can. The evidence is there for anyone to look at.

 

You don't want to look at the evidence, and that is your right.

 

You are suggesting any reasonable legislation passed by our elected representatives in accordance with the system of government laid out in our Constitution is no different than centralized planning in Totalitarian states.

 

Ain't so.

 

Bill

[Barry Goldwater]

You are suggesting any reasonable legislation passed by our elected representatives in accordance with the system of government laid out in our Constitution is no different than centralized planning in Totalitarian states.

 

Ain't so.

 

Bill

 

You don't understand the Constitution, or the general welfare clause. You don't understand what legislation is for, either.

 

I explained myself quite clearly above in my previous posts. I'm exhausted from repeating/restating myself, and correcting your mis-interpretation and twisting of my words.

[Tea Time]

You are suggesting any reasonable legislation passed by our elected representatives in accordance with the system of government laid out in our Constitution is no different than centralized planning in Totalitarian states.

 

Ain't so.

 

Bill

 

That would be perfect, it just is not what is happening anymore.

 

But you know that is what Barry is saying, don't you? Go back and look at the questions in his posts, Bill, and address the questions instead of playing this hide and seek word game.

 

I asked a lot of question in the other thread and this has been the response to them:

 

*chirp* * chirp*

 

Here is a line of thinking that maybe you can address, Bill. I want answers, because it is important. I cannot seem to get a response there, so maybe you will take it up, or maybe someone else because these threads are going in similar circles.

 

You don't have to address them all, but just something that is actually a point in this post not some digression to obfuscate the issues that matter.

 

Is it or is it not healthy for people to make decisions for themselves? Is it or is not possible that legislators and public officials would prefer to make extensive decisions for people? Is it or is it not true that limitations to advertising hurt small businesses just as much or even vastly more than corporations? Is it or is it not possible that very extended power to regulate people will eventually mean that parents will not be considered capable of making important choices for their children regarding health care, eating, clothing and EDUCATION?

 

Saying this particular legislation is not going that far is not good enough because no particular legislation goes that far, it is the cumulative effect that matters. We go down like frogs in a pot.

 

(Tea Time on the other thread) It is very healthy to be able to decide things for ourselves, don't you think? I don't like McDs and gave it up a LONG time ago. But I did that with TV, too. Are you going to like it if I decide that you have to give up TV too, because it is pretty BAD for you, too. Sooner or later this mentality will bite us in the backside when what we really think is okay is outlawed for our own good, of course. That idea is deeply flawed and needs to be set back on its heels.

 

Government power (these are the big guns, folks) should be used for its primary functions (which are not being accomplished very well right now) and not expanded exponentially in the vain hope of "making everyone perfectly safe."

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=223569&page=9

[BethInNH]

No... Who would do that? That would be misleading.

:lol:

[Lovedtodeath]

No... Who would do that? That would be misleading.

:hurray: They are trying to change the name of corn syrup to corn sugar now. :glare:

 

That would be perfect, it just is not what is happening anymore.

 

But you know that is what Barry is saying, don't you? Go back and look at the questions in his posts, Bill, and address the questions instead of playing this hide and seek word game.

 

I asked a lot of question in the other thread and this has been the response to them:

 

*chirp* * chirp*

 

Here is a line of thinking that maybe you can address, Bill. I want answers, because it is important. I cannot seem to get a response there, so maybe you will take it up, or maybe someone else because these threads are going in similar circles.

 

You don't have to address them all, but just something that is actually a point in this post not some digression to obfuscate the issues that matter.

 

Is it or is it not healthy for people to make decisions for themselves? Is it or is not possible that legislators and public officials would prefer to make extensive decisions for people? Is it or is it not true that limitations to advertising hurt small businesses just as much or even vastly more than corporations? Is it or is it not possible that very extended power to regulate people will eventually mean that parents will not be considered capable of making important choices for their children regarding health care, eating, clothing and EDUCATION?

 

Saying this particular legislation is not going that far is not good enough because no particular legislation goes that far, it is the cumulative effect that matters. We go down like frogs in a pot.

 

 

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=223569&page=9

Good thought provoking points Tea Time.