Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/2 ... d%3D350073" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Notch another one for the "Progressive" mindset: Evil chocolate smuggler caught and punished.

And, yes, this sort of thing is an outgrowth of the do-gooder, we know what's good for you, we will manage the human population as though it is a herd of cattle, "Progressive" mindset.

Didn't know progressives were anti chocolate.

kalm wrote:Didn't know progressives were anti chocolate.

This is how it works:

Progressives say everybody should be taken care of by government. Government is, among other things, going to make sure you get health care. Then they say, "You know, obesity is epidemic among our children. And when children are obese that means its going to cost the society more for health care. Therefore we have an interest in seeing to it that people aren't obese and we're going to regulate, directly and/or indirectly, candy consumption."

Yes, essentially, the "Progressive" mindset and approach inevitably leads to "anti chocolate" rules. When government is responsible for taking care of you government has justification for regulating your personal behavior. It has a justification for protecting you from yourself.

JohnStOnge wrote:

kalm wrote:Didn't know progressives were anti chocolate.

This is how it works:

Progressives say everybody should be taken care of by government. Government is, among other things, going to make sure you get health care. Then they say, "You know, obesity is epidemic among our children. And when children are obese that means its going to cost the society more for health care. Therefore we have an interest in seeing to it that people aren't obese and we're going to regulate, directly and/or indirectly, candy consumption."

Yes, essentially, the "Progressive" mindset and approach inevitably leads to "anti chocolate" rules. When government is responsible for taking care of you government has justification for regulating your personal behavior. It has a justification for protecting you from yourself.

So that's ^ what you got from reading that article..?
Because what I got was this: A private Organization has a set of rules / Each member agrees to the posted rules and signs them

Somebody broke the rules and got booted... and the article points out the unusual nature of the rule

End of story

JohnStOnge wrote:

kalm wrote:Didn't know progressives were anti chocolate.

This is how it works:

Progressives say everybody should be taken care of by government. Government is, among other things, going to make sure you get health care. Then they say, "You know, obesity is epidemic among our children. And when children are obese that means its going to cost the society more for health care. Therefore we have an interest in seeing to it that people aren't obese and we're going to regulate, directly and/or indirectly, candy consumption."

Yes, essentially, the "Progressive" mindset and approach inevitably leads to "anti chocolate" rules. When government is responsible for taking care of you government has justification for regulating your personal behavior. It has a justification for protecting you from yourself.

I knew where you were trying to go with this, but...

I'd guess Teddy Roosevelt might have been on your side with this one, Mayor Bloomberg might be against you, George W. Bush favored funding to "nanny" like religious charities, and many conservatives support farm subsidies - another form of government deciding that wheat and corn are what we really need.

If you click on the link in the article (linking to another article), it says that she was misbehaving on the beach the prior day and was reprimanded about it. Looks like she had her warning...

Chizzang wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
This is how it works:

Progressives say everybody should be taken care of by government. Government is, among other things, going to make sure you get health care. Then they say, "You know, obesity is epidemic among our children. And when children are obese that means its going to cost the society more for health care. Therefore we have an interest in seeing to it that people aren't obese and we're going to regulate, directly and/or indirectly, candy consumption."

Yes, essentially, the "Progressive" mindset and approach inevitably leads to "anti chocolate" rules. When government is responsible for taking care of you government has justification for regulating your personal behavior. It has a justification for protecting you from yourself.

So that's ^ what you got from reading that article..?
Because what I got was this: A private Organization has a set of rules / Each member agrees to the posted rules and signs them

Somebody broke the rules and got booted... and the article points out the unusual nature of the rule

End of story

Did you miss how they found out the rule was broken...or does that not help your argument, so you ignored it???

Is this real? This can't be. Sent home for having a "feast" of one chocolate bar? Against the rules or not, that is ridiculous. I hope the mother got a prorated refund.

Col Hogan wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
So that's ^ what you got from reading that article..?
Because what I got was this: A private Organization has a set of rules / Each member agrees to the posted rules and signs them

Somebody broke the rules and got booted... and the article points out the unusual nature of the rule

End of story

Did you miss how they found out the rule was broken...or does that not help your argument, so you ignored it???

The part where the kids were making noise past 10:00 pm and acting like little f*ck-tards and ended up getting their room searched... Yeah I read that part

I still fail to see the point:
a) Sign rules sheet
b) Break Rules on signed rules sheet

where am I missing the catch..?

So lets review: Eating chocolate is the last straw in British Culture.

Chizzang wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
Did you miss how they found out the rule was broken...or does that not help your argument, so you ignored it???

The part where the kids were making noise past 10:00 pm and acting like little f*ck-tards and ended up getting their room searched... Yeah I read that part

I still fail to see the point:
a) Sign rules sheet
b) Break Rules on signed rules sheet

where am I missing the catch..?

" Bromet Primary School authorities found out that she had eaten the sweets after reading a sealed letter she had intended to send to her mother"

They opened a sealed letter...guess the school officials got their training from the NSA...the end justifies the means...

∞∞∞ wrote:If you click on the link in the article (linking to another article), it says that she was misbehaving on the beach the prior day and was reprimanded about it. Looks like she had her warning...

What a thug

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 2

Col Hogan wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
The part where the kids were making noise past 10:00 pm and acting like little f*ck-tards and ended up getting their room searched... Yeah I read that part

I still fail to see the point:
a) Sign rules sheet
b) Break Rules on signed rules sheet

where am I missing the catch..?

" Bromet Primary School authorities found out that she had eaten the sweets after reading a sealed letter she had intended to send to her mother"

They opened a sealed letter...guess the school officials got their training from the NSA...the end justifies the means...

The summer camp is safe from candy terrorists now isn't it?

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 2

Going to have to agree with Cleets on this at least a little. You sign on the line, you abide by the rules.

That said, the rule may sound absurd to some, but anyone who has been around a field trip with 10 year olds soured up on sugar can appreciate where it came from. Nasty little beasts- they should be locked away in a dungeon somewhere between the ages of 8 and 16. Screw their right to eat chocolate. They also don't have full free speech rights as juvenile students, either.


Sent from the center of the universe.