Where to to start Peter, where to start... The title of Clinton's best seller isn't saying that parents have no right to raise their own children but rather that the community a child is raised in is also and important factor in a child's development. I know the Right wing has tried to characterize her words as "Socialism" or collectivism but that is purely political hyperbole. If the community doesn't provide good schools, safe parks and playgrounds, clean drinking water, and basic medial care for kids in their area, are you suggesting that the parents provide these necessary tools to raising healthy happy kids? Of course not and that is all Clinton was ever really saying. As far as collectives or Socialism goes, we in this country are far, far, far closer to an oligarchy by ALL measures than we will ever be to any kind of Socialist paradise. I simply can't worry about something we aren't even moving in the direction of when we are easily moving towards a banana republic far, far, more quickly. As a very involved parent myself, I see some parents letting schools raise their kids. Sometimes they don't have the luxury to sit around all day and collecting coins because they have issues of work, single parenthood, homelessness, hunger, and a multitude of other issues you and I do not grapple with on a daily basis. To simply call them "damn lazy parents" might mask your white privileged existence for you anyway, but blames and judges other parents at the same time. Judging others for their situation while knowing exactly nothing about their lives isn't unusual for Right wingers. Its fairly typical. My guess is that you've never once in your life stepped outside of your comfortable community with your safe streets and good schools and tried to understand people unlike yourself. You speak with the tone of someone that has remained fairly sheltered in your own community or only briefly left the fold and returned quickly. I can't judge you for your lack of understand and compassion for others. I don't know you well enough to do that. I can only guess at your motivations just as you can only guess at the motivations of parent that you perceive as damn lazy.
You don't know me. I realize you're just being a troll, but I do understand why others here think so poorly of you. Unlike you, I've experienced true poverty. Everyone in my family, parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters, cousins, everyone... works damn hard for what we have. The same opportunities that are available to me are available to everyone. When I finished school, I moved to a city hundreds of miles away from my home town with a very small amount of money I had saved up doing manual labor jobs, and worked my ass off to be able to get to a point where I could provide a safe home to have kids. There isn't a single person in this country that could not do what I did if they wanted to. It didn't take a village, it just took hard work.
An excellent, eloquent, and must needed Beetch Slap. From the management. Love it. I crawled out of Detroit and made my own as well, Peter. Kudos
But here comes the government telling you how to raise your family!! The Government Is Cracking Down on School Bake Sales States are trying to circumvent federal nutrition standards that would limit sugary foods at school fundraisers. July 25, 2014 Barely a month after federal regulations for school cafeterias kicked in, states are already pushing back. Specifically, they're fighting nutrition standards that would considerably alter one of the most sacred rituals of the American public school system: bake sales. Twelve states have established their own policies to circumvent regulations in the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 that apply to "competitive snacks," or any foods and beverages sold to students on school grounds that are not part of the Agriculture Department's school meal programs, according to the National Association of State Boards of Education. Competitive snacks appear in vending machines, school stores, and food and beverages, including items sold at bake sales. Georgia is the latest state to announce an exemption to the federal regulations, which became effective July 1 for thousands of public schools across the country. Its rule would allow 30 food-related fundraising days per school year that wouldn't meet the new healthy nutritional standards, which call for more healthy options and less junk food that could contribute to the nation's child-obesity problem. The pushback is not about students' taste buds, but their wallets. Food fundraisers are a crucial source of revenue for schools, state education officials say. "Tough economic times have translated into fewer resources and these fundraisers allow our schools to raise a considerable amount of money for very worthwhile education programs," the Georgia Department of Education wrote in a recent press release. "While we are concerned about the obesity epidemic, limiting food-and-beverage fundraisers at schools and school-related events is not the solution to solving it." http://www.nationaljournal.com/dome...s-cracking-down-on-school-bake-sales-20140725
Oh, but they already have; "In advance of the law, some schools had already banned students from a near-sacred activity: setting up tables to sell boxes of Girl Scout cookies during the day. There are also those that have replaced food-centric fundraisers with calorie-free events such as wrapping-paper sales, pie-throwing events and bowl-a-thons. Others have prohibited homemade fare in favor of processed items where the nutritional information is calculated and displayed." http://online.wsj.com/articles/schools-plan-to-lighten-up-on-bake-sales-1406923280
Jindal? Impressive? You mean there's another Jindal out there? I only know about the one in Louisiana.
Has anyone done a questionnaire? www.selectsmart.com/president/ The link above asks questions and matches you to a possible presidential candidate, like E-Harmony for politics. Sorry Hillary, you came in #19 out of 20 just ahead of Joe Biden. I'm too embarrassed to list my #1 choice at 70% compatibility. Can I remain single and just choose "none of the above".
Hillary and Joe came out 17 and 18 on my results. My highest was 81%. I will read about the first five listed on my 'test' results. Ha ha! Interesting.
I had a look at that poll, and it didn't really ask questions I thought were important like "Should the USA continue to spend trillions of dollars invading foreign countries like Iraq and Afghanistan to spread democracy" to which I would emphatically say NO! If we had that trillion dollars back that we pissed away conquering Iraq, we wouldn't have to worry as much about issues like the solvency of social security. And, what about other important issues, like locking away all the Wall Street criminals who tanked our economy and stole hundreds of billions of dollars from the country? How about resolving the "Too Big to Fail" problem, which has gotten only worse since 2008? Can't blame the immigrants, the homosexuals, or the abortion doctors for that shit.
I agree. Some of the questions only provides 2 bad choices that straddle the polar edges of the issue. "Too Big to Fail" is easy, it's called the Sherman Antitrust Act. Too Big To Fail is Too Big To Exist.
I think that the problem that underlies our problems is that the current system is totally compromised, corrupted and owned and essentially immune to input from the people. Meaningful change is not even a possibility. This is nothing new of course and when you factor in how divided we are then really any political discussion is academic.
Why is it that I feel like I'm sitting in a French cafe circa 1800 waiting for the masses to rise up. Of course I hate Hillary, and that Cheney guy too. This is fixing to go totally Monty Python.
You and now fifty-one percent of likely voters. She may win the primary (who else do the Democrats have except a full-blown socialist/communist?), but she won't win the election. Too many people now know that she's a liar and a cheat who thinks she's above the law.
