If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reason Magazine)   "No Labels" is not a rejection of everything we hate about the status quo. It's the incarnation of everything we hate about the status quo   (reason.com) divider line 107
    More: Stupid, status quo, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Jesse Walker, social order, Matt Welch, moral hazard, public square, George Will  
•       •       •

1798 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Dec 2010 at 2:37 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



107 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-12-20 02:40:45 PM
George Will: "If self-approval were butter, they could spread it across America, if it were bread."

Thanks for the analogy, grandpa, do you want to go roller skating later?
 
2010-12-20 02:42:40 PM
Is this supposed to be yet another failed incarnation of a liberal "grass-roots" movement?

OneNation - FAIL
Coffee Party - FAIL

NoLabels - FAIL

Keep on failin' on.
 
2010-12-20 02:47:57 PM
Bocanegra: Is this supposed to be yet another failed incarnation of a liberal "grass-roots" movement?

No, it's a cynical attempt to drum up support for more right-wing policy masquerading as centrist "solutions" by ignoring the structural factors which make American democracy dysfunctional.
 
2010-12-20 02:48:45 PM
Well, Bocanegra: Is this supposed to be yet another failed incarnation of a liberal "grass-roots" movement?

OneNation - FAIL
Coffee Party - FAIL

NoLabels - FAIL

Keep on failin' on.


Well, anything that's not ideologically pure to the right wing, naturally has to be construed as a "liberal movement". Even if its membership is bipartisan in nature.

/you're kind of proving the need for the center to start speaking out.
 
2010-12-20 02:50:11 PM
sprawl15: Thanks for the analogy, grandpa, do you want to go roller skating later?

Yeah, George Will lecturing about smug self-approval is like Britney Spears lecturing on proper child-rearing. Or Rosie O'Donnell lecturing on healthy eating. Or Bristol Palin lecturing on teen abstinence.
 
2010-12-20 02:53:07 PM
Bocanegra: Is this supposed to be yet another failed incarnation of a liberal "grass-roots" movement?

OneNation - FAIL
Coffee Party - FAIL

NoLabels - FAIL

Keep on failin' on.


Why don't you try giving the money to it that the Tea Party got from the Koch brothers and other Repubs?

farking troll
 
2010-12-20 02:58:53 PM
It's just a rebranding of the Democrats. It's a copycat league. People do what they see works. The Tea Party shiat made folks forget that these were the same assclowns who voted for Bush TWICE, shouted us down about there being WMDs, and supported every retarded Republican decision that was made until the country teetered on the verge of financial collapse. Now its the Democrats turn to change their brand name so that they can try to define themselves, instead of having the GOP and Republican talking heads define them.
 
2010-12-20 02:59:38 PM
bujin: you're kind of proving the need for the center to start speaking out

This isn't the "center", though. It's the worst of the maternalistic left and the paternalistic right uniting around a dreadful ideology of "everywhere and always, something must be done by the state".

Seriously, Mike Bloomberg and David Frum are supposed to represent the apolitical middle? That makes about as much sense as Ron Paul as the Socialist Party USA's presidential candidate.
 
2010-12-20 03:00:24 PM
Bocanegra: Is this supposed to be yet another failed incarnation of a liberal "grass-roots" movement?

OneNation - FAIL
Coffee Party - FAIL

NoLabels - FAIL

Keep on failin' on.


Not reading the article (about a group founded by conservative David Frum) - FAIL
 
2010-12-20 03:03:00 PM
Obnox: Bocanegra: Is this supposed to be yet another failed incarnation of a liberal "grass-roots" movement?

OneNation - FAIL
Coffee Party - FAIL

NoLabels - FAIL

Keep on failin' on.

Not reading the article (about a group founded by conservative David Frum) - FAIL


To be fair, mainstream republicans recently made a big to-do about drumming out Frum as a brainless RINO, a traitor to the party.
 
2010-12-20 03:03:35 PM
George Will is just Andy Rooney with glasses and a douchier attitude.

/Why do these kids today wear jeans all the time?!
//Old man yells at cloud
 
2010-12-20 03:05:01 PM
kingoomieiii: Obnox: Bocanegra: Is this supposed to be yet another failed incarnation of a liberal "grass-roots" movement?

OneNation - FAIL
Coffee Party - FAIL

NoLabels - FAIL

Keep on failin' on.

Not reading the article (about a group founded by conservative David Frum) - FAIL

To be fair, mainstream republicans recently made a big to-do about drumming out Frum as a brainless RINO, a traitor to the party.


Mainly because he's always been overtly hostile to the limited-gov't wing of the party. That made him the poster boy for the GOP circa 2003, when he was himself drumming out "unpatriotic" conservatives who dared oppose Bush's wars. Sounds like he's getting a well-deserved taste of his own medicine.
 
2010-12-20 03:08:49 PM
kingoomieiii: Obnox: Bocanegra: Is this supposed to be yet another failed incarnation of a liberal "grass-roots" movement?

OneNation - FAIL
Coffee Party - FAIL

NoLabels - FAIL

Keep on failin' on.

Not reading the article (about a group founded by conservative David Frum) - FAIL

To be fair, mainstream republicans recently made a big to-do about drumming out Frum as a brainless RINO, a traitor to the party.


Yeah, that's pretty much my take on all these so-called leftie versions of the Tea party. I think it's actually a coordinated effort to try to create a leftie version so as to make the Tea Party look more balanced and normal.... a "bu...bu...but Democrats!", if you will.

Women know this trick. If you're a 6, find a couple of 3s to hang out with. You don't have to be the prettiest chick ever....you just have to be the prettiest one in the room.
 
2010-12-20 03:11:46 PM
They just need to make it honest and call it "No Principles."
 
2010-12-20 03:20:33 PM
Shocking, that bothsidesarebadsovoterepublican.com has a bunch of articles celebrating the tea party but they attack this. And then the "libertarians" wonder why we think they are full of shiat.
 
2010-12-20 03:29:08 PM
Just to be clear, is ANY attempt to do anything except the status quo going to be decried as trickery and uselessness?
 
2010-12-20 03:30:57 PM
Anything that angers Frank Rich and Rush Limbaugh sounds good to me.
 
2010-12-20 03:44:24 PM
kingoomieiii: Obnox


To be fair, mainstream republicans recently made a big to-do about drumming out Frum as a brainless RINO, a traitor to the party.


Everyone that's not a hard right extremist is considered a RINO (see: Frum, Snowe, Collins, Powell)
 
2010-12-20 03:46:08 PM
Headso: Shocking, that bothsidesarebadsovoterepublican.com has a bunch of articles celebrating the tea party but they attack this. And then the "libertarians" wonder why we think they are full of shiat.

Which is why they publish stuff like this, right?

...

A clear-eyed look at conservatism as a whole reveals a political movement with no realistic potential for advancing individual freedom. The contemporary right is so deeply under the sway of its most illiberal impulses that they now define what it means to be a conservative.

What are those impulses?

First and foremost, a raving, anti-intellectual populism, as expressed by (among many, many others) Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. Next, a brutish nationalism, as expressed in anti-immigrant xenophobia (most recently on display in Arizona) and it's-always-1938-somewhere jingoism. And, less obvious now but always lurking in the background, a dogmatic religiosity, as expressed in homophobia, creationism, and extremism on beginning- and end-of-life issues. The combined result is a right-wing identity politics that feeds on the red meat of us versus them, "Real America" versus the liberal-dominated coasts, faith and gut instinct versus pointy-headed elitism.

This noxious stew of reaction and ressentiment is the antithesis of libertarianism


....

Here's my first impression of the tea party movement: It's a rabidly right-wing phenomenon with a shaky grasp of history, a strain of intolerance and xenophobia, a paranoia about Barack Obama, and an unhealthy reverence for Fox News. Any movement that doesn't firmly exclude Birchers, birthers, and Islamaphobes is not a movement for me.

...

Reason's 2008 pre-election poll of its writers, which revealed more Obama voters than either Barr or McCain voters.


In short, your criticism is inaccurate, ignorant, and implausible for a publication that is, if anything, representative of the left-wing of American libertarianism.
 
2010-12-20 03:47:02 PM
DROxINxTHExWIND: It's just a rebranding of the Democrats. It's a copycat league. People do what they see works. The Tea Party shiat made folks forget that these were the same assclowns who voted for Bush TWICE, shouted us down about there being WMDs, and supported every retarded Republican decision that was made until the country teetered on the verge of financial collapse. Now its the Democrats turn to change their brand name so that they can try to define themselves, instead of having the GOP and Republican talking heads define them.

I think the whole point is that it's made up of conservatives and liberals who actually feel that the other side are not the enemy and traitors to the country. What folks here are calling a "democratic rebranding" is what is actually called "having an interest in actual governance". Something the current right has no interest in.
 
2010-12-20 03:48:52 PM
bujin: I think the whole point is that it's made up of conservatives and liberals who actually feel that the other side are not the enemy and traitors to the country. What folks here are calling a "democratic rebranding" is what is actually called "having an interest in actual governance". Something the current right has no interest in.

The only commonality between Mike Bloomberg and David Frum is that neither sees any sphere of human activity as immune from being "governed" by the likes of them.
 
2010-12-20 03:50:54 PM
CSB time - I just read the Will piece at lunch. I got this part and almost spit salad across the restaurant:

Whatever their defects, America's political parties are marvelously sensitive market mechanisms, measuring every tremor of the electorate's moods.

/csb
//Caesar salad bro
 
2010-12-20 03:52:14 PM
Churchill2004: bujin: I think the whole point is that it's made up of conservatives and liberals who actually feel that the other side are not the enemy and traitors to the country. What folks here are calling a "democratic rebranding" is what is actually called "having an interest in actual governance". Something the current right has no interest in.

The only commonality between Mike Bloomberg and David Frum is that neither sees any sphere of human activity as immune from being "governed" by the likes of them.


So, what they have in common is that they are both to the right of the irrational hard right / tea party extremists, who see anyone not ideologically pure as the enemy?

That was pretty much my point, thanks.
 
2010-12-20 03:57:47 PM
bujin: So, what they have in common is that they are both to the right of the irrational hard right / tea party extremists, who see anyone not ideologically pure as the enemy?

That was pretty much my point, thanks.


This response makes zero sense and I'm struggling to figure out what you thought the connection between it and my post was.

Their posturing aside, the likes of Frum and Bloomberg preaching ideological tolerance and middle-of-the-road pragmatism is about like Pope Urban II lecturing us on religious pluralism and tolerance.

These guys are not about an open, honest political discourse. Just like the partisans they're ostensibly opposed to, they're about nothing more than drawing the limits of acceptable mainstream opinion as a circle with them at the center.
 
2010-12-20 04:00:09 PM
Churchill2004: In short, your criticism is inaccurate, ignorant, and implausible for a publication that is, if anything, representative of the left-wing of American libertarianism.

bullshiat, I searched for tea party before I posted that comment, there were many more articles celebrating or romanticizing them than not.
 
2010-12-20 04:05:30 PM
Headso: Churchill2004: In short, your criticism is inaccurate, ignorant, and implausible for a publication that is, if anything, representative of the left-wing of American libertarianism.

bullshiat, I searched for tea party before I posted that comment, there were many more articles celebrating or romanticizing them than not.


Inasmuch as "they're marginally better than the Bush/Cheney/Rove GOP" constitutes "romanticizing", I suppose you could make that claim. I guess anything short of uncompromising, unremitting hostility makes them Republican shills, right?

And I'd love you to point me to where Reason showed a pattern of encouraging people to vote Republican- like I noted, their own writers broke more heavily for Obama.

Criticize Reason and libertarianism if you want, but it's dishonest to try to discount them as nothing more than typical Republicans.
 
2010-12-20 04:08:43 PM
Churchill2004: And I'd love you to point me to where Reason showed a pattern of encouraging people to vote Republican- like I noted, their own writers broke more heavily for Obama.

Well, he is a pretty good republican.
 
2010-12-20 04:13:45 PM
It is 100% made up of Progressives who realize that most Americans dont support Progressiveness. So they changed the name. No one is fooled.
 
2010-12-20 04:16:48 PM
So I get this straight, we're branding ex-republicans who are no longer 'conservative' enough for main stream and a few disgruntled DLC'ers as a uber-left new party to battle with the now defunct Tea Party?

Man, are we screwed.
 
2010-12-20 04:18:54 PM
bigsteve3OOO: It is 100% made up of Progressives who realize that most Americans dont support Progressiveness. So they changed the name. No one is fooled.

So now the definition of "progressives" is totally reduced to "anyone who isn't approved party-line Republican"?
 
2010-12-20 04:19:33 PM
bigsteve3OOO: It is 100% made up of Progressives who realize that most Americans dont support Progressiveness. So they changed the name. No one is fooled.

David Frum, Mike Castle, Bob Inglis, Tom Davis, Charlie Christ and Mike Bloomberg are progressives now?

/I think you're making the point that anyone who's not a right wing extremist is the enemy
//don't let facts deter you from your ideology purity tests
///you know who else believed in purity tests?
 
2010-12-20 04:20:52 PM
bujin: bigsteve3OOO: It is 100% made up of Progressives who realize that most Americans dont support Progressiveness. So they changed the name. No one is fooled.

David Frum, Mike Castle, Bob Inglis, Tom Davis, Charlie Christ and Mike Bloomberg are progressives now?

/I think you're making the point that anyone who's not a right wing extremist is the enemy
//don't let facts deter you from your ideology purity tests
///you know who else believed in purity tests?


Harry Reid?
 
2010-12-20 04:20:54 PM
LasersHurt: bigsteve3OOO: It is 100% made up of Progressives who realize that most Americans dont support Progressiveness. So they changed the name. No one is fooled.

So now the definition of "progressives" is totally reduced to "anyone who isn't approved party-line Republican"?


Pretty much.... anyone who doesn't ascribe to the Tea Party's pick-and-choose view of the Constitution is a commie.
 
2010-12-20 04:24:07 PM


/I think you're making the point that anyone who's not a right wing extremist is the enemy
//don't let facts deter you from your ideology purity tests
///you know who else believed in purity tests?

Harry Reid?


Of course, there's no evidence that Reid, or the Democratic Party in general, is purging their party as the right is doing. But don't let facts influence you.... you're proving the point yet again that anyone not with you is the enemy.

dublinopinion.com
 
2010-12-20 04:24:12 PM
bujin: LasersHurt: bigsteve3OOO: It is 100% made up of Progressives who realize that most Americans dont support Progressiveness. So they changed the name. No one is fooled.

So now the definition of "progressives" is totally reduced to "anyone who isn't approved party-line Republican"?

Pretty much.... anyone who doesn't ascribe to the Tea Party's pick-and-choose view of the Constitution is a commie.


Actually I personally view anyone who writes a law that restricts freedom an enemy of the State. When they repealed DADT it was a win as it increased freedom. When they tell children what to eat it is a loss as it restricts freedom.
 
2010-12-20 04:25:00 PM
bujin: Well, Bocanegra: Is this supposed to be yet another failed incarnation of a liberal "grass-roots" movement?

OneNation - FAIL
Coffee Party - FAIL

NoLabels - FAIL

Keep on failin' on.

Well, anything that's not ideologically pure to the right wing, naturally has to be construed as a "liberal movement". Even if its membership is bipartisan in nature.

/you're kind of proving the need for the center to start speaking out.


^

The right keeps pulling to the right and pretends anyone to the left of them is a treasonous commie. Then the left moves to the right and calls it compromise.
 
2010-12-20 04:29:27 PM
bigsteve3OOO: bujin: LasersHurt: bigsteve3OOO: It is 100% made up of Progressives who realize that most Americans dont support Progressiveness. So they changed the name. No one is fooled.

So now the definition of "progressives" is totally reduced to "anyone who isn't approved party-line Republican"?

Pretty much.... anyone who doesn't ascribe to the Tea Party's pick-and-choose view of the Constitution is a commie.

Actually I personally view anyone who writes a law that restricts freedom an enemy of the State. When they repealed DADT it was a win as it increased freedom. When they tell children what to eat it is a loss as it restricts freedom.


If someone does that, you let me know.
 
2010-12-20 04:32:59 PM
LasersHurt: bigsteve3OOO: bujin: LasersHurt: bigsteve3OOO: It is 100% made up of Progressives who realize that most Americans dont support Progressiveness. So they changed the name. No one is fooled.

So now the definition of "progressives" is totally reduced to "anyone who isn't approved party-line Republican"?

Pretty much.... anyone who doesn't ascribe to the Tea Party's pick-and-choose view of the Constitution is a commie.

Actually I personally view anyone who writes a law that restricts freedom an enemy of the State. When they repealed DADT it was a win as it increased freedom. When they tell children what to eat it is a loss as it restricts freedom.

If someone does that, you let me know.


Um Michelle Obama is. TRANNY
 
2010-12-20 04:35:46 PM
bigsteve3OOO: LasersHurt: bigsteve3OOO: bujin: LasersHurt: bigsteve3OOO: It is 100% made up of Progressives who realize that most Americans dont support Progressiveness. So they changed the name. No one is fooled.

So now the definition of "progressives" is totally reduced to "anyone who isn't approved party-line Republican"?

Pretty much.... anyone who doesn't ascribe to the Tea Party's pick-and-choose view of the Constitution is a commie.

Actually I personally view anyone who writes a law that restricts freedom an enemy of the State. When they repealed DADT it was a win as it increased freedom. When they tell children what to eat it is a loss as it restricts freedom.

If someone does that, you let me know.

Um Michelle Obama is. TRANNY


Ah, yes, supporting healthier menus is controlling children. They had to much choice before with ONLY THE ITEMS THE SCHOOLS OFFERED FOR PURCHASE. Now how will they ever know freedom if they can only get THE TIMES THE SCHOOLS OFFER FOR PURCHASE.

/just the same as a restaurant changing their menu and you decrying it as a crime. Just go buy what you want elsewhere, then.
 
2010-12-20 04:36:52 PM
LasersHurt: bigsteve3OOO: LasersHurt: bigsteve3OOO: bujin: LasersHurt: bigsteve3OOO: It is 100% made up of Progressives who realize that most Americans dont support Progressiveness. So they changed the name. No one is fooled.

So now the definition of "progressives" is totally reduced to "anyone who isn't approved party-line Republican"?

Pretty much.... anyone who doesn't ascribe to the Tea Party's pick-and-choose view of the Constitution is a commie.

Actually I personally view anyone who writes a law that restricts freedom an enemy of the State. When they repealed DADT it was a win as it increased freedom. When they tell children what to eat it is a loss as it restricts freedom.

If someone does that, you let me know.

Um Michelle Obama is. TRANNY

Ah, yes, supporting healthier menus is controlling children. They had to much choice before with ONLY THE ITEMS THE SCHOOLS OFFERED FOR PURCHASE. Now how will they ever know freedom if they can only get THE TIMES THE SCHOOLS OFFER FOR PURCHASE.

/just the same as a restaurant changing their menu and you decrying it as a crime. Just go buy what you want elsewhere, then.


* so, not "to"
* ITEMS, not TIMES

/doi
 
2010-12-20 04:37:05 PM
bigsteve3OOO: LasersHurt: bigsteve3OOO: bujin: LasersHurt: bigsteve3OOO: It is 100% made up of Progressives who realize that most Americans dont support Progressiveness. So they changed the name. No one is fooled.

So now the definition of "progressives" is totally reduced to "anyone who isn't approved party-line Republican"?

Pretty much.... anyone who doesn't ascribe to the Tea Party's pick-and-choose view of the Constitution is a commie.

Actually I personally view anyone who writes a law that restricts freedom an enemy of the State. When they repealed DADT it was a win as it increased freedom. When they tell children what to eat it is a loss as it restricts freedom.

If someone does that, you let me know.

Um Michelle Obama is. TRANNY



Where in that article does Michelle Obama tell people they have to eat a certain food?
 
2010-12-20 04:39:26 PM
LasersHurt: bigsteve3OOO: LasersHurt: bigsteve3OOO: bujin: LasersHurt: bigsteve3OOO: It is 100% made up of Progressives who realize that most Americans dont support Progressiveness. So they changed the name. No one is fooled.

So now the definition of "progressives" is totally reduced to "anyone who isn't approved party-line Republican"?

Pretty much.... anyone who doesn't ascribe to the Tea Party's pick-and-choose view of the Constitution is a commie.

Actually I personally view anyone who writes a law that restricts freedom an enemy of the State. When they repealed DADT it was a win as it increased freedom. When they tell children what to eat it is a loss as it restricts freedom.

If someone does that, you let me know.

Um Michelle Obama is. TRANNY

Ah, yes, supporting healthier menus is controlling children. They had to much choice before with ONLY THE ITEMS THE SCHOOLS OFFERED FOR PURCHASE. Now how will they ever know freedom if they can only get THE TIMES THE SCHOOLS OFFER FOR PURCHASE.

/just the same as a restaurant changing their menu and you decrying it as a crime. Just go buy what you want elsewhere, then.


ok dont like that one, how about this progressive one TYRANNY
 
2010-12-20 04:39:49 PM
bigsteve3OOO: bujin: LasersHurt: bigsteve3OOO:
Actually I personally view anyone who writes a law that restricts freedom an enemy of the State. When they repealed DADT it was a win as it increased freedom. When they tell children what to eat it is a loss as it restricts freedom.


Elected officials that write laws that you personally disagree with are enemies?

Here's where I just have to write you off as another FoxNews brainwashed sheep, when a law about having food standards in school is twisted into "telling children what to eat".

/I don't know who that government is to tell me I can't have mercury in my tuna fish - enemies of the state, that's who!
//laws against murder also "restrict my freedoms" - more enemies!
 
2010-12-20 04:40:06 PM
Honestly, could we at least wait six months to see what they do rather than trying to run up and declare them bogus for one reason or another?

Stop tripping over yourselves to be the first to denounce them. At least wait until they actually DO something first.
 
2010-12-20 04:41:00 PM
bigsteve3OOO: Um Michelle Obama is. TRANNY

The bill is a hodgepodge of a)increasing nutrition standards for already Federally-funded programs and b)attaching further strings to Federal education funds. It's more objectionable because of how it further burrows the Congress into running our schools than it is because of some mythical dystopian food police.

I'm kind of surprised they didn't reach out to Mike Huckabee to hop on board this bandwagon. Policing the consumption habits and BMIs of school children was one of his big kicks when he was Governor. Removing all high-sugar foods and drinks from the vending machines was quite a headache for this hypoglycemic former student.
 
2010-12-20 04:42:45 PM
bigsteve3OOO: LasersHurt: bigsteve3OOO: LasersHurt: bigsteve3OOO: bujin: LasersHurt: bigsteve3OOO: It is 100% made up of Progressives who realize that most Americans dont support Progressiveness. So they changed the name. No one is fooled.

So now the definition of "progressives" is totally reduced to "anyone who isn't approved party-line Republican"?

Pretty much.... anyone who doesn't ascribe to the Tea Party's pick-and-choose view of the Constitution is a commie.

Actually I personally view anyone who writes a law that restricts freedom an enemy of the State. When they repealed DADT it was a win as it increased freedom. When they tell children what to eat it is a loss as it restricts freedom.

If someone does that, you let me know.

Um Michelle Obama is. TRANNY

Ah, yes, supporting healthier menus is controlling children. They had to much choice before with ONLY THE ITEMS THE SCHOOLS OFFERED FOR PURCHASE. Now how will they ever know freedom if they can only get THE TIMES THE SCHOOLS OFFER FOR PURCHASE.

/just the same as a restaurant changing their menu and you decrying it as a crime. Just go buy what you want elsewhere, then.

ok dont like that one, how about this progressive one TYRANNY


Truly San Francisco is the very spearhead of the secret progressive agenda. We start there, and soon, we've forbidden ALL children from eating processed fat! Ha! Ha!

/you'd think a states-rightsey individual such as yourself would be all about letting them decide their own business.
 
2010-12-20 04:46:16 PM
Look folks the problem with Progressives and America is simple.
Progressives believe that with good Governance the citizens will live better lives. Sounds good and it is with the best of intentions. The problem is........... Every time the make a law that helps people (helmet law, seatbelt law, heath care, how much you toilet can flush, what to eat, what to drink, scans at airports, how your checking account is to be managed, etc.) It comes at the cost of freedom. At some point it is Tyranny. The nobleness of the tyranny is no longer an issue.
 
2010-12-20 04:47:46 PM
Churchill2004: bigsteve3OOO: Um Michelle Obama is. TRANNY

The bill is a hodgepodge of a)increasing nutrition standards for already Federally-funded programs and b)attaching further strings to Federal education funds. It's more objectionable because of how it further burrows the Congress into running our schools than it is because of some mythical dystopian food police.

I'm kind of surprised they didn't reach out to Mike Huckabee to hop on board this bandwagon. Policing the consumption habits and BMIs of school children was one of his big kicks when he was Governor. Removing all high-sugar foods and drinks from the vending machines was quite a headache for this hypoglycemic former student.


Churchill2004: bigsteve3OOO:
It's more objectionable because of how it further burrows the Congress into running our schools than it is because of some mythical dystopian food police.


How is Congress "running our schools" inherently worse than each state legislature "running our schools". Because state control of schools, with 50 different sets of standards, really isn't a successful model. Nor, quite frankly, has local control been all that hot.

One can argue that a coherent education strategy, like a coherent strategy for health care, commerce or defense, is an issue of national importance. And is likely a better system than each town's deciding whether teaching algebra is important to the country.
 
2010-12-20 04:48:02 PM
bigsteve3OOO: ok dont like that one, how about this progressive one TYRANNY

Again: where in that article does it say anyone is being forced to eat a certain food?
 
2010-12-20 04:49:19 PM
bigsteve3OOO: Look folks the problem with Progressives and America is simple.
Progressives believe that with good Governance the citizens will live better lives. Sounds good and it is with the best of intentions. The problem is........... Every time the make a law that helps people (helmet law, seatbelt law, heath care, how much you toilet can flush, what to eat, what to drink, scans at airports, how your checking account is to be managed, etc.) It comes at the cost of freedom. At some point it is Tyranny. The nobleness of the tyranny is no longer an issue.


So why have an FDA telling us whether we should have poisons in our food, or if our medicines are actually effective?
 
Displayed 50 of 107 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report