When will it end? What part of our lives will the federal government NOT control?
The president signed the 4.5 BILLION dollar school lunch bill or whatever it's called which includes regulating what can be sold at school fundraisers and bakes sales!!! So if you're raising money for the chess club with a bake sale you have to make sure you don't run afoul of the feds!
How many people will we have to put on the federal payroll to watch the bake sales? When does it end?
Maybe it ends with the internet................. NOPE the feds have decided that they should be in charge of regulating the internet as well. Apparently it will run smoother if thousands of bureaucrats get to decide who gets what and when and how and why.
That should work. It always has in the past with everything else the feds have done!
17 comments:
When did conservatives come out against net neutrality. I recall a coalition of liberal and conservative bloggers a few years ago in favor of it. Net neutrality is what we have now. Everyone has equal access to the internet. Some companies want to give some people faster access and some people slower, based on money. Net neutrality is better for small nonprofit blogs like ours.
I love how the FCC is saying they are doing this to "preserve the openness of the internet"
Yet won't release the content of the proposed bill until after it passes.
Everything is conservative/liberal republican/democrat. Its almost as if you don't know how to think for yourself and your positions on whether there is an r or d after it.
Apparently you didn't understand my comment. I was pointing out that both conservatives and liberals were in favor of net neutrality, open and equal access to the internet, as we have now, and then in the last year or two the teaparty crowd and the wingnuts seem to have come out against it.
I assure you I do think for myself. I am very open-minded, even to the extent of looking at "both sides" on things that don't really have two sides, like Holocaust revisionism and the creation/evolution controversy.
if it's what we have now....then why do we need any regulation?
and if it's what we have now... then why won't they tell us what the new rules are?
and if it's what we have now, then why do we need new rules?
We need to ensure that the internet remains free. Some companies want to give lightning-fast internet access to to corporations that pay for it, their pages will load fast, and the rest of us will have to slog along at slow speed. Right now once you pay for internet access through your provider everyone has equal and free access.
I understand your comment completely and I am a stupider person for reading it. You bring nothing to the discussion.
Rhino makes a post about govt overreach and being the hyper-partisan hack that you are, attack the strawmen of wingnuts tea parties the holocaust and creationism. Just an absolute waste of breath.
I don't have a problem with private companies charging more for a better product. I'd rather pay 50 for a steak at Lugers or spend a night at a W hotel than a Super 8. What I do have a problem is is the govt telling 5 year olds what kind of cookies they can sell and what information I can view on the net. It seems Matt Drudge is on the TSA watch list for opposing the screening process, who's to say his site doesn't get put on the no fly list on the net for the same.
I do have a problem with my blog loading glacially slow and TSAs website loading fast. The next step might be that I can't have a blog unless I pay for the privelege. I think the internet "airwaves" as it were should be free and open to everyone equally, regardless of financial status or political views. Beyond that I will join you in opposing any "regualation" of the internet.
so you have a problem with providing a healthy school lunch program for low income and poor children?
and you'd rather a kid buy coke and a chocolate bar and potato chips for a snack than a banana and a juice drink?
are you aware of the massive costs to individual families and society in general of childhood and adult obesity?
are you able to do the analytical work that would reveal that with regard to children's health an ounce of prevention is worth a pound or many pounds of cure.
and finally, how heartless are you really, when you would deprive poor children healthy lunches (and distract from the issue with stupid talk about bake sales) that would make their school days more productive.
seriously. both of you claim to come from very modest backgrounds. i don't know if you ever got free lunches or subsidized lunches. but seriously, none of your friends did?
invest in the health of our children. hey, even george bush was for that.
Bravo Anita. You make a very compelling argument, only problem is, that it has nothing to with the point of the post.
I mean you almost convinced me when you questioned Rhino's analytical mind, because quite frankly he isnt that smart.
And when you called him heartless for wanting to starve the children, well, my eyes started tearing up. For fucks sake, what kind of nazi doesnt want to feed the children. After Africa, and the polar bears....children are def in my top five.
If Im being a dick, its intentional.
You make an emotional argument that has nothing to do with anything.
Its absurb (and typically liberal) to assume because we oppose federal overreach we want kids to starve. You miss the point and its a silly silly argument.
Neither Rhino or I are from modest backrounds, we both grew up dirt ass poor. And when I say poor, Im not talking by todays standards waiting in line at Best Buy at 4am in the morning for flat screens. Im talking bread sandwiches and cereal with water.
I cant speak for Rhino, but my family didnt accept govt acceptance of any kind, because back then there was a shame to being poor which imo is lacking these days. Why try and get rich, if being poor is ok?
But that has nothing to do with anything. Im sure I could sit on Oprahs couch and spin a few yarns or yawns about how tough it was.
However, once again it has nothing. I deal with reality, not emotions.
If you want to make the case that children need to eat healthier, Im with you, but why stop with telling them what they can or cant eat? Why not have a federal mandate dictating the amount of hours children play video games. Or how muich tv they should watch. While were at, make it mandatory that every child participate in an after school sport, and is unable to graduate without getting at least one varsity letter.
Rarely has the federal govt been the solution, and I suspect this will be no different. In fact, Id go so far to say that like the war on poverty created more poor people, this will create more tubbies.
...and Cambell Apt sounds like a great idea. Im close and the more Prohibition Punch you drink the more charming I get. Gimme a buzz.
you don't have a problem with the tubbies, well, think again. it's these "tubbies" (among others) who are the ones driving your health insurance rates through the roof. it makes good financial sense to take the mcdonald's and the soda machines out of the schools, to provide healthy lunches to children. by spending $4.5 billion today we might be able to prevent a while generation of children and young adults from driving even our PRIVATE medical insurances off the rails due to the epidemic of obesity and related illness (heart disease, diabetes, cancers, what have you). you guys are investment guys, i'm surprised you don't see the equation here.
I think you just had an argument with yourself, either that or you had an auto response lined up and didnt read and/or comprehend my comment.
Where did I say I didnt have a problem with tubbies?
Oh yeah I didnt.
I want to know where you want to stop? Ban video games too? Cartoons? Mandatory athletic involvement? Where does it end?
I ate like crap as a child and was a jock and to this day is still healthy as an ox.
Liberals always need a bogeyman, whether it be Big Pharma, Big Oil, and now Big Tubby Kids.
You blame the fatties, because they are the last bastion of political incorrectness allowed and its ok to mock them, but the state of the health care system is not their fault, libs are just looking for an excuse to further nannify the state.
I smoke, I drink, have had sex with a charliesheenish number of escorts, and yes could be construed as tubby bastard myself.
Am I blight on society?
was that a rhetorical question?
Asking you to meet me for coctails?
I really have to pay attention to my own posts.
Anita if the REAL argument is cost of health care then why aren't you arguing for tort reform? Why aren't you arguing for portability? Why don't you argue that the free market should be allowed to be free. For example if you eat like crap your insurance company should be allowed to charge you more for your health insurance. Or if you smoke or drink too much or bang escorts your insurance company should be allowed to charge you more for your premiums. (sorry donkey) or if you live a very healthy lifestyle and you work out 5 or 6 days a week and you don't think you need an insurance policy that covers abortion/obesity/ or transgender surgery you should be able to get just that level of insurance. Or if you want to risk it and you have the resources and you just want health insurance that covers you for over 50k in hospital expenses that should be an option too.
I work out almost every day, I eat healthy, I don't smoke, drink very little, dont' do drugs of any kind, etc. I don't need all of the coverage i'm required to pay for and it's the GOVERNMENT that has decided I have to pay for it.
Enough with the bullshit arguments. Parents are responsible for what the kids eat.
So Donkey smokes, drinks and bangs escorts and Rhino doesn't? I knew I liked Donkey more, now I know why.
No offense taken Rhino. While you will probably die in a horrific triathalon accident, I will be balls deep in strippers and eight balls going out like Elivs.
Long live the King!
Post a Comment