Talk-Polywell.org

I think it was Ben Franklin who said: "Those who give up a little liberty for security will soon have no Liberty and no Security." The Same people who would deny us harmless toys will allow young Islamic males free to travel on our airplanes in spite of all the evidence that that might not be the best idea and punish for daring to mention that:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/26 ... mark-steyn

Jccarlton wrote:I think it was Ben Franklin who said: "Those who give up a little liberty for security will soon have no Liberty and no Security." The Same people who would deny us harmless toys will allow young Islamic males free to travel on our airplanes in spite of all the evidence that that might not be the best idea and punish for daring to mention that:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/26 ... mark-steyn

No, yeah, I agree. F'ing fascist Bush getting these things banned! Just look at this opinion.

http://consumerist.com/2006/04/kinder-e ... th-it.html

Nevermind that the rules actually went into effect in 1938! It is all fascist Bush's fault!

Seriously, I agree it is pretty silly and a bit ridiculous.

Seriously, I think you could have left off the comments about young Islamic men flying in airplanes. Not everything relates to them and I think your original quote applies in this case too.

seedload wrote:

Jccarlton wrote:I think it was Ben Franklin who said: "Those who give up a little liberty for security will soon have no Liberty and no Security." The Same people who would deny us harmless toys will allow young Islamic males free to travel on our airplanes in spite of all the evidence that that might not be the best idea and punish for daring to mention that:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/26 ... mark-steyn

No, yeah, I agree. F'ing fascist Bush getting these things banned! Just look at this opinion.

http://consumerist.com/2006/04/kinder-e ... th-it.html

Nevermind that the rules actually went into effect in 1938! It is all fascist Bush's fault!

Seriously, I agree it is pretty silly and a bit ridiculous.

Seriously, I think you could have left off the comments about young Islamic men flying in airplanes. Not everything relates to them and I think your original quote applies in this case too.

Every possible means of sneaking a weapon on board a plane will be attempted by young islamic men, TSA says so, they'll even use 95 year old white grandmas and 6 year old girls... "Big Sis" Napolitano says so...

I actually aggree with Jccarlton for a change! Wow, what happened there?
Maybe it is because what he is saying this time actually makes sense and this sort of nanny state does not? Maybe because I was one of hundreds of millions of children in Europe that grew up with Kinder eggs and still lives to tell the tale?
Maybe it is because I think that some decisions should be left to the parents?
Also, it clearly says on the eggs here: Choking Hazard, not for children under 3 years of age.
At the age of 3 I was playing with the small legos. It never crossed my mind that I should eat one of them. My sister did eat a small part, but she was maybe two and did it to anger me
Anyway, the part left her body "naturally".
So yes I agree with Jccarlton: Nanny- State = Bad!
This is why I am equally annoyed by the whole airport security theater that we have nowadays.

IntLibber wrote:

Seriously, I think you could have left off the comments about young Islamic men flying in airplanes. Not everything relates to them and I think your original quote applies in this case too.

Every possible means of sneaking a weapon on board a plane will be attempted by young islamic men, TSA says so, they'll even use 95 year old white grandmas and 6 year old girls... "Big Sis" Napolitano says so...

The eggs are not allowed to be brought in based on 1938 law that was enforced, in this case, starting in the 70's. It is choking hazard related.

Still failing to see how any of this is related to terrorism. Sorry.

Skipjack wrote:I actually aggree with Jccarlton for a change! Wow, what happened there?
Maybe it is because what he is saying this time actually makes sense and this sort of nanny state does not? Maybe because I was one of hundreds of millions of children in Europe that grew up with Kinder eggs and still lives to tell the tale?
Maybe it is because I think that some decisions should be left to the parents?
Also, it clearly says on the eggs here: Choking Hazard, not for children under 3 years of age.
At the age of 3 I was playing with the small legos. It never crossed my mind that I should eat one of them. My sister did eat a small part, but she was maybe two and did it to anger me
Anyway, the part left her body "naturally".
So yes I agree with Jccarlton: Nanny- State = Bad!
This is why I am equally annoyed by the whole airport security theater that we have nowadays.

I would have to say that everything he says makes sense, and you ought to agree with all of it. You just happened to have developed some discernment on this particular issue.

The rest of his issues are all correct as well.

Diogenes wrote:

Skipjack wrote:I actually aggree with Jccarlton for a change! Wow, what happened there?
Maybe it is because what he is saying this time actually makes sense and this sort of nanny state does not? Maybe because I was one of hundreds of millions of children in Europe that grew up with Kinder eggs and still lives to tell the tale?
Maybe it is because I think that some decisions should be left to the parents?
Also, it clearly says on the eggs here: Choking Hazard, not for children under 3 years of age.
At the age of 3 I was playing with the small legos. It never crossed my mind that I should eat one of them. My sister did eat a small part, but she was maybe two and did it to anger me
Anyway, the part left her body "naturally".
So yes I agree with Jccarlton: Nanny- State = Bad!
This is why I am equally annoyed by the whole airport security theater that we have nowadays.

I would have to say that everything he says makes sense, and you ought to agree with all of it. You just happened to have developed some discernment on this particular issue.

The rest of his issues are all correct as well.

Not sure if I would go that far, but clearly claiming "Nanny-state = Bad!" in light of past pro-socialist opinions is pretty odd. It ain't all about the eggs.

seedload wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

Skipjack wrote:I actually aggree with Jccarlton for a change! Wow, what happened there?
Maybe it is because what he is saying this time actually makes sense and this sort of nanny state does not? Maybe because I was one of hundreds of millions of children in Europe that grew up with Kinder eggs and still lives to tell the tale?
Maybe it is because I think that some decisions should be left to the parents?
Also, it clearly says on the eggs here: Choking Hazard, not for children under 3 years of age.
At the age of 3 I was playing with the small legos. It never crossed my mind that I should eat one of them. My sister did eat a small part, but she was maybe two and did it to anger me
Anyway, the part left her body "naturally".
So yes I agree with Jccarlton: Nanny- State = Bad!
This is why I am equally annoyed by the whole airport security theater that we have nowadays.

I would have to say that everything he says makes sense, and you ought to agree with all of it. You just happened to have developed some discernment on this particular issue.

The rest of his issues are all correct as well.

Not sure if I would go that far, but clearly claiming "Nanny-state = Bad!" in light of past pro-socialist opinions is pretty odd. It ain't all about the eggs.

To be honest, I said it as more of a joke than anything else. I have yet to see an issue about which I disagreed with Jccarlton, but I suppose it's possible. In that case, I would suggest that going my way is likely to be the more correct course of action.