Walking School Bus

[Saniflush]

So engineer society around the exceptions?

This causes a slippery slope. You've just punished the rule for the exception. Not saying the poor kid should have to deal with it. It can just be dealt with other than to cut off the nose to spite the face.

I blame George Washington Carver.

[AUChizad]

Chad, you say you independently think yet you reference others' opinions on the Gorewebbz to form yours. Usually I do agree with the Cato group but it doesn't mean I have to. Forming an independent opinion is just that. It's yours without regard to what a think tank says.

I am an independent thinker. I don't need Cato or Reason, or the Republican party, or the Democratic party, or Fox News or MSNBC or anyone else to spoonfeed me my opinion.

I'm just saying, if I'm being accused of not being purely libertarian enough (which, by the way, I don't care), because I'm not OUTRAGED that the first lady of the United States decided that her cause would be to try to get kids to eat better and exercise more, that is the opinion of a crazy person, and NOT any libertarian politician, think tank, or editorialist that I have ever heard.

[GH2001]

I am an independent thinker. I don't need Cato or Reason, or the Republican party, or the Democratic party, or Fox News or MSNBC or anyone else to spoonfeed me my opinion.

I'm just saying, if I'm being accused of not being purely libertarian enough (which, by the way, I don't care), because I'm not OUTRAGED that the first lady of the United States decided that her cause would be to try to get kids to eat better and exercise more, that is the opinion of a crazy person, and NOT any libertarian politician, think tank, or editorialist that I have ever heard.

Def agree on first part. If I did that I (and I think Aut1 too) wouldn't have agreed with you and Wes, and disagreed with garman and tarheel - on legalizing pot. Foxnews and the mainstream GOP would fry us over that stance. The main social issue I don't buckle on in regards to the right is abortion. I will never be in favor of it and it's a personal thing, not religious.

Even if I do agree with fox news on an issue, I certainly will not use them as backup. Not their opinion anyway. Maybe as a reference for a simple new or fact story. Jon Stossel is one of their better people to me. Worth listening to.

[War Eagle!!!]

So engineer society around the exceptions?

This causes a slippery slope. You've just punished the rule for the exception. Not saying the poor kid should have to deal with it. It can just be dealt with other than to cut off the nose to spite the face.

All I'm saying is be fucking courteous.....

God damn.....

What, since you have all the god damn answers, would you have the school or classroom do? Separating them from eating lunch doesn't work because I just told you if she smells it on the breath of a child hours after eating, she could die. But by god...let's not make a god damn rule to save a fucking child because my little sally wants her PB&J...

By my calculation, little Sally can have a fucking PB&J for 16 meals out of 21 weekly meals if she wants to....

Some of you fuckers will argue senseless shit just to fucking argue....

[AUTiger1]

I am an independent thinker. I don't need Cato or Reason, or the Republican party, or the Democratic party, or Fox News or MSNBC or anyone else to spoonfeed me my opinion.

I'm just saying, if I'm being accused of not being purely libertarian enough (which, by the way, I don't care), because I'm not OUTRAGED that the first lady of the United States decided that her cause would be to try to get kids to eat better and exercise more, that is the opinion of a crazy person, and NOT any libertarian politician, think tank, or editorialist that I have ever heard.

I know you are pretty much a full blow Libertarian, that was a little sarcasm on my part.   I am not outraged that the first lady took up this cause.  I am not outraged by any cause that any fist lady takes up. All are worthy causes.  However, I am pissed off that we have spent federal dollars on it.  Period.  That is my only issue with this.  The federal government has no right to spend my tax dollars on this kind of thing, amongst many others, to tell us how and what we should do when it comes to our personal lives. 

I know you think I am bitching b/c it's Obama's wife, but I am not.  I bitched about Laura and her National Anthem Project and lets not pretend like No Child Left Behind was all W's idea that he got Boehner, Miller, Gregg and Kennedy to push through congress.  There was a lot of her influence behind it.  I don't like it one bit that one little cent of my hard earned tax money goes to this when we have a $14 trillion debt.   Now, if we had a $14 trillion surplus, then I might could be persuaded to spend a little on something like this, but I doubt it.  I just don't see where this falls under the realm of the federal government.  As stated, this isn't that big of a deal compared to everything else, but it's not something that I am willing to look past either.  We need to move on to the big fish, fry them first and then come back to the small amounts of money that are being spent. 

[AUTiger1]

Def agree on first part. If I did that I (and I think Aut1 too) wouldn't have agreed with you and Wes, and disagreed with garman and tarheel - on legalizing pot. Foxnews and the mainstream GOP would fry us over that stance. The main social issue I don't buckle on in regards to the right is abortion. I will never be in favor of it and it's a personal thing, not religious.

Even if I do agree with fox news on an issue, I certainly will not use them as backup. Not their opinion anyway. Maybe as a reference for a simple new or fact story. Jon Stossel is one of their better people to me. Worth listening to.

Yup, I am all for legalization of pot.  Hell, I don't see an issue with making them all legal.  Regulate it and tax it like we do alcohol and sell it a the local liquor stores/head shops.  If you get in your car high and kill someone, minimum 30 years for vehicular manslaughter, no questions asked.  Between this and passing a Fair/National Sales tax with a VAT added on to anything bought outside of the US, we could have a surplus in no time and my kids wouldn't have to be stuck with taking a bite out of the shit sandwich we have now.

[AUChizad]

Yup, I am all for legalization of pot.  Hell, I don't see an issue with making them all legal.  Regulate it and tax it like we do alcohol and sell it a the local liquor stores/head shops.  If you get in your car high and kill someone, minimum 30 years for vehicular manslaughter, no questions asked.  Between this and passing a Fair/National Sales tax with a VAT added on to anything bought outside of the US, we could have a surplus in no time and my kids wouldn't have to be stuck with taking a bite out of the shit sandwich we have now.

See, this is an example of me not being an "extreme" libertarian.

I'm open to the idea of legalizing other drugs after pot. But am far from sold. The science is out on pot that it is far less harmful than alcohol and many other unbanned substances. That's why it's clearly the subject of this debate, and not, say heroine. If it could be proved that people could use heroine responsibly, I'd be all for legalization of that as well, but they can't prove that because it's not true. People die on the reg from heroine ODs. It's best to leave that out of the hands of society, and I can see that because I'm reasonable. Perfect example of not letting your ideology, even libertarianism, overrule your reason.

[GH2001]

All I'm saying is be fucking courteous.....

God damn.....

What, since you have all the god damn answers, would you have the school or classroom do? Separating them from eating lunch doesn't work because I just told you if she smells it on the breath of a child hours after eating, she could die. But by god...let's not make a god damn rule to save a fucking child because my little sally wants her PB&J...

By my calculation, little Sally can have a fucking PB&J for 16 meals out of 21 weekly meals if she wants to....

Some of you fuckers will argue senseless shit just to fucking argue....

You command an emotion driven bus of an argument.

What kind of person purposely goes up to and/or makes contact with something they are deathly allergic to?

Btw, allergic peanut reactions based off smell is a total myth. But one used by parents to get peanut products banned from their kids classrooms as Kaos eluded to. Death from the smell of peanut butter is total horseshit.

http://www.allergyhome.org/can-the-smell-of-peanut-butter-cause-an-allergic-reaction/

Even it were scientifically possible, someone THAT sickly and highly allergic to things wouldn't be in a normal classroom setting anyway. You're talking boy in the bubble shit at that point.

Anyway, not the big point. Sometimes you can't see the forest for the trees because of your high strung emotional argument. It's a lot of PC politics in this shit and it's politics many don't like. God forbid someone have an opinion and dare say this is a microcosm of what's wrong with the entire friggin country.

[GH2001]

See, this is an example of me not being an "extreme" libertarian.

I'm open to the idea of legalizing other drugs after pot. But am far from sold. The science is out on pot that it is far less harmless than alcohol and many other unbanned substances. That's why it's clearly the subject of this debate, and not, say heroine. If it could be proved that people could use heroine responsibly, I'd be all for legalization of that as well, but they can't prove that because it's not true. People die on the reg from heroine ODs. It's best to leave that out of the hands of society, and I can see that because I'm reasonable. Perfect example of not letting your ideology, even libertarianism, overrule your reason.

Kind of with you on the hard stuff. Not sure there is any safe way to practice the use of heroin or meth. Pot can be recreational and harmless. Which is why it would have limits and rules just like alcohol and being under the influence.

[AUTiger1]

See, this is an example of me not being an "extreme" libertarian.

I'm open to the idea of legalizing other drugs after pot. But am far from sold. The science is out on pot that it is far less harmless than alcohol and many other unbanned substances. That's why it's clearly the subject of this debate, and not, say heroine. If it could be proved that people could use heroine responsibly, I'd be all for legalization of that as well, but they can't prove that because it's not true. People die on the reg from heroine ODs. It's best to leave that out of the hands of society, and I can see that because I'm reasonable. Perfect example of not letting your ideology, even libertarianism, overrule your reason.

Kind of with you on the hard stuff. Not sure there is any safe way to practice the use of heroin or meth. Pot can be recreational and harmless. Which is why it would have limits and rules just like alcohol and being under the influence.

I guess legalization isn't the right word to use. Decriminalization should be the word to use there. I can see your reasoning too.

I can also see this reasoning:  http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/lp-rld.htm
http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/libertarianism.html#B6
http://www.policymic.com/articles/1017/libertarianism-at-core-of-drug-legalization
http://www.businessinsider.com/portugal-drug-policy-decriminalization-works-2012-7

We should take the model that Portugal has used, tweak and build on it to make it better.  The results of what they are doing seems to indicate that it's working.


EDIT:  In Portugals case I don't like the fact that once again federal funding is used to help get addicts clean, but then again, I think this is a states right issue and the states should determine said policies.  There is where it's needs tweaking, but I think you can come up with a universal policy that all the states could use.

[Saniflush]

Btw, allergic peanut reactions based off smell is a total myth. But one used by parents to get peanut products banned from their kids classrooms as Kaos eluded to. Death from the smell of peanut butter is total horseshit.

Thank you for saving me the typing.

[Snaggletiger]

If the bitch got the Jiff breath, she bettah brush them choppers.

[War Eagle!!!]

You command an emotion driven bus of an argument.

What kind of person purposely goes up to and/or makes contact with something they are deathly allergic to?

Btw, allergic peanut reactions based off smell is a total myth. But one used by parents to get peanut products banned from their kids classrooms as Kaos eluded to. Death from the smell of peanut butter is total horseshit.

http://www.allergyhome.org/can-the-smell-of-peanut-butter-cause-an-allergic-reaction/

Even it were scientifically possible, someone THAT sickly and highly allergic to things wouldn't be in a normal classroom setting anyway. You're talking boy in the bubble shit at that point.

Anyway, not the big point. Sometimes you can't see the forest for the trees because of your high strung emotional argument. It's a lot of PC politics in this shit and it's politics many don't like. God forbid someone have an opinion and dare say this is a microcosm of what's wrong with the entire friggin country.

So maybe I am wrong about the breath thing. That is just what they have told me. She has the worst case scenario of this. Period.

However, my point still remains the same. And you make the point for me. "What kind of person goes up and purposely makes contact with something they are allergic too?" Answer. No one. But they are kids. And kids are messy and don't know if they are doing something on purpose or not. Which is why it would be common courtesy to just not have peanut butter in the classroom.

I am not calling for an outright ban on peanut butter. I am not driving an emotionally charged bus. I am simply saying, that little sally not having a PB&J for lunch...at school...is not the fucking worse thing in the world...and like the walking bus, is not a microcosm of what this country is coming to...

[Saniflush]

So maybe I am wrong about the breath thing. That is just what they have told me. She has the worst case scenario of this. Period.

However, my point still remains the same. And you make the point for me. "What kind of person goes up and purposely makes contact with something they are allergic too?" Answer. No one. But they are kids. And kids are messy and don't know if they are doing something on purpose or not. Which is why it would be common courtesy to just not have peanut butter in the classroom.

I am not calling for an outright ban on peanut butter. I am not driving an emotionally charged bus. I am simply saying, that little sally not having a PB&J for lunch...at school...is not the fucking worse thing in the world...and like the walking bus, is not a microcosm of what this country is coming to...

Sure but if you are not going to attempt the small things what makes you think anyone can do more with the large ones.  You said yourself that it's a microcosm of what is happening to the country.  So while I applaud everyone being aware of the large problems confronting our society, do you not think that the day to day person has to fight the smaller battles that they can actually affect, thus setting the stage for the larger ones to be fought?

To use the words of the hippies, "think globally, act locally".

[Snaggletiger]

Not

[Saniflush]

Not

We don't worry about folks who think Icehouse is keen.

[AUJarhead]

My daughter has a really bad peanut allergy.  School didn't want her to carry her epipen in her backback, or carry with her at lunch.  We went into principal's office and told him that if she ingests peanuts, it could kill her, and that the minutes it would take to get the epipen from the school nurse were precious.  He backed off, allows her to carry it with her at all times.

Her allergy is so bad that if I eat peanuts, and I give her a kiss on her cheek, you can see my lip prints on her cheek.  Have we totally changed our diet?  Well, I don't eat PB&J sandwiches any more.  Do I get mad if some kid eats it next to her?  No.  But I tell my daughter to understand that she really has to watch what she eats.  If my niece eats a PB&J and comes over to play, I make her wash her hands.  I can't control what other kids do, I can only control what my kid is exposed to.

That being said, I hate all you fuckers that make peanut cookies and have your kids bring them into class to give out to your kids classmates.  Heartless fucks.

[Snaggletiger]

My kid loves peanut brittle. 

[Kaos]

All I'm saying is be fudgeing courteous.....

God damn.....

What, since you have all the god damn answers, would you have the school or classroom do? Separating them from eating lunch doesn't work because I just told you if she smells it on the breath of a child hours after eating, she could die. But by god...let's not make a god damn rule to save a fudgeing child because my little sally wants her PB&J...

By my calculation, little Sally can have a fudgeing PB&J for 16 meals out of 21 weekly meals if she wants to....

Some of you fudgeers will argue senseless shoot just to fudgeing argue....

Everybody in the freaking world ate PB&J when I was growing up.  I never saw one person fall over from sniffing somebody's peanut fart or sticking their nose in their peanut mouth. 

If you search long enough you'll find somebody allergic to EVERYTHING.  Can't have any fish at school, Connie is allergic to shrimp.  Can't have milk, Biff has lactose problems.  Pizza? Cheese allergy, tomato allergy, gluten allergy, soy allergy, mushroom allergy, meat allergy.  Kids can have water and that's all.  Wait, some dipwad got water intoxication. Got to ban that. 

Got to be limits.   If one kid has that problem, isolate that one kid.  And tell her not to go sticking her nose in somebody else's mouth.

[Kaos]

See, this is an example of me not being an "extreme" libertarian.

I'm open to the idea of legalizing other drugs after pot. But am far from sold. The science is out on pot that it is far less harmful than alcohol and many other unbanned substances. That's why it's clearly the subject of this debate, and not, say heroine. If it could be proved that people could use heroine responsibly, I'd be all for legalization of that as well, but they can't prove that because it's not true. People die on the reg from heroine ODs. It's best to leave that out of the hands of society, and I can see that because I'm reasonable. Perfect example of not letting your ideology, even libertarianism, overrule your reason.

Is it truly possible to use this responsibly?