More than 400 comments so far. (26 of them are NYT Picks.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/16/op...unch.html?_r=0

First paragraphs:

By BETTINA ELIAS SIEGEL JAN. 15, 2016

Houston -- There's something about comparing America's school food to the superior meals in other countries' schools that we seem to enjoy, in a masochistic sort of way.

The latest example is Michael Moore's new documentary, "Where to Invade Next," which opens nationwide next month. Mr. Moore visits a village in Normandy and finds schoolchildren eating scallops, lamb skewers and a cheese course. He tells us, astonishingly, that the chef "spends less per lunch than we do in our schools in the United States," and ends the segment by showing French students and adults photos of the food served in a Boston high school. As they pore over the pictures in puzzlement and horror, we read subtitled comments like "Seriously, what is that?" and "Frankly, that's not food."

That scene drew a lot of laughs, but as someone who has written about school food for almost six years, it made me want to scream in frustration. One might easily conclude from this segment that our students could have these same delicious meals, cooked from scratch, if only our school districts weren't cheap, mismanaged or somehow captive to the processed food industry. But the problem with America's school food has little to do with the schools themselves.

Let's start with money. The federal government provides a little over $3 per student per lunch, and school districts receive a smaller contribution from their state. But districts generally require their food departments to pay their own overhead, including electricity, accounting and trash collection. Most are left with a dollar and change for food -- and no matter what Mr. Moore says, no one is buying scallops and lamb on that meager budget.

Contrast this with France, where meal prices are tied to family income and wealthy parents can pay around $7 per meal. Give that sum to an American school food services director and you may want to have tissues handy as he's likely to break down in incredulous tears.

Then there's labor and infrastructure...

(snip)



Lenona.

wrote:
> Contrast this with France, where meal prices are tied to family income and wealthy parents can pay around $7 per meal. Give that sum to an American school food services director and you may want to have tissues handy as he's likely to break down in incredulous tears.
>
> Then there's labor and infrastructure...
>
> (snip)
>
>
>
> Lenona.


How many of US do you plan to LOOT to do that?

Clue - kids don't need to eat sea sccallops and lobster for lunch!

My GOD!

> wrote in message
...
More than 400 comments so far. (26 of them are NYT Picks.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/16/op...unch.html?_r=0

First paragraphs:

By BETTINA ELIAS SIEGEL JAN. 15, 2016

Houston -- There's something about comparing America's school food to the
superior meals in other countries' schools that we seem to enjoy, in a
masochistic sort of way.

The latest example is Michael Moore's new documentary, "Where to Invade
Next," which opens nationwide next month. Mr. Moore visits a village in
Normandy and finds schoolchildren eating scallops, lamb skewers and a cheese
course. He tells us, astonishingly, that the chef "spends less per lunch
than we do in our schools in the United States," and ends the segment by
showing French students and adults photos of the food served in a Boston
high school. As they pore over the pictures in puzzlement and horror, we
read subtitled comments like "Seriously, what is that?" and "Frankly, that's
not food."

That scene drew a lot of laughs, but as someone who has written about school
food for almost six years, it made me want to scream in frustration. One
might easily conclude from this segment that our students could have these
same delicious meals, cooked from scratch, if only our school districts
weren't cheap, mismanaged or somehow captive to the processed food industry.
But the problem with America's school food has little to do with the schools
themselves.

Let's start with money. The federal government provides a little over $3 per
student per lunch, and school districts receive a smaller contribution from
their state. But districts generally require their food departments to pay
their own overhead, including electricity, accounting and trash collection.
Most are left with a dollar and change for food -- and no matter what Mr.
Moore says, no one is buying scallops and lamb on that meager budget.

Contrast this with France, where meal prices are tied to family income and
wealthy parents can pay around $7 per meal. Give that sum to an American
school food services director and you may want to have tissues handy as he's
likely to break down in incredulous tears.

Then there's labor and infrastructure...

-----------------

If you gave US schools $7 per meal, they would put the money to increased
payroll and benefits. The food wouldn't improve one bit.

taxed and spent wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
> More than 400 comments so far. (26 of them are NYT Picks.)
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/16/op...unch.html?_r=0
>
> First paragraphs:
>
> By BETTINA ELIAS SIEGEL JAN. 15, 2016
>
> Houston -- There's something about comparing America's school food to the
> superior meals in other countries' schools that we seem to enjoy, in a
> masochistic sort of way.
>
> The latest example is Michael Moore's new documentary, "Where to Invade
> Next," which opens nationwide next month. Mr. Moore visits a village in
> Normandy and finds schoolchildren eating scallops, lamb skewers and a cheese
> course. He tells us, astonishingly, that the chef "spends less per lunch
> than we do in our schools in the United States," and ends the segment by
> showing French students and adults photos of the food served in a Boston
> high school. As they pore over the pictures in puzzlement and horror, we
> read subtitled comments like "Seriously, what is that?" and "Frankly, that's
> not food."
>
> That scene drew a lot of laughs, but as someone who has written about school
> food for almost six years, it made me want to scream in frustration. One
> might easily conclude from this segment that our students could have these
> same delicious meals, cooked from scratch, if only our school districts
> weren't cheap, mismanaged or somehow captive to the processed food industry.
> But the problem with America's school food has little to do with the schools
> themselves.
>
> Let's start with money. The federal government provides a little over $3 per
> student per lunch, and school districts receive a smaller contribution from
> their state. But districts generally require their food departments to pay
> their own overhead, including electricity, accounting and trash collection.
> Most are left with a dollar and change for food -- and no matter what Mr.
> Moore says, no one is buying scallops and lamb on that meager budget.
>
> Contrast this with France, where meal prices are tied to family income and
> wealthy parents can pay around $7 per meal. Give that sum to an American
> school food services director and you may want to have tissues handy as he's
> likely to break down in incredulous tears.
>
> Then there's labor and infrastructure...
>
> -----------------
>
> If you gave US schools $7 per meal, they would put the money to increased
> payroll and benefits. The food wouldn't improve one bit.
>
>

Ayup.

> wrote in message
...
More than 400 comments so far. (26 of them are NYT Picks.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/16/op...unch.html?_r=0

First paragraphs:

By BETTINA ELIAS SIEGEL JAN. 15, 2016

Houston -- There's something about comparing America's school food to the
superior meals in other countries' schools that we seem to enjoy, in a
masochistic sort of way.

The latest example is Michael Moore's new documentary, "Where to Invade
Next," which opens nationwide next month. Mr. Moore visits a village in
Normandy and finds schoolchildren eating scallops, lamb skewers and a cheese
course. He tells us, astonishingly, that the chef "spends less per lunch
than we do in our schools in the United States," and ends the segment by
showing French students and adults photos of the food served in a Boston
high school. As they pore over the pictures in puzzlement and horror, we
read subtitled comments like "Seriously, what is that?" and "Frankly, that's
not food."

That scene drew a lot of laughs, but as someone who has written about school
food for almost six years, it made me want to scream in frustration. One
might easily conclude from this segment that our students could have these
same delicious meals, cooked from scratch, if only our school districts
weren't cheap, mismanaged or somehow captive to the processed food industry.
But the problem with America's school food has little to do with the schools
themselves.

Let's start with money. The federal government provides a little over $3 per
student per lunch, and school districts receive a smaller contribution from
their state. But districts generally require their food departments to pay
their own overhead, including electricity, accounting and trash collection.
Most are left with a dollar and change for food -- and no matter what Mr.
Moore says, no one is buying scallops and lamb on that meager budget.

Contrast this with France, where meal prices are tied to family income and
wealthy parents can pay around $7 per meal. Give that sum to an American
school food services director and you may want to have tissues handy as he's
likely to break down in incredulous tears.

Then there's labor and infrastructure...

(snip)



Lenona.

---

This is a very big country. Just because some things are served in one
school district, doesn't mean all of them are that way. The one that gets
me is circulating on FB where it shows cups of raw fruits and vegetables and
demands to know why our school kids can't be served that. Well they can!
And they are. At least here. My daughter rarely ever bought a full lunch
since we moved here, but she did buy the fruits and vegetables and sometimes
the popcorn.

"cibola de oro" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>> Contrast this with France, where meal prices are tied to family income
>> and wealthy parents can pay around $7 per meal. Give that sum to an
>> American school food services director and you may want to have tissues
>> handy as he's likely to break down in incredulous tears.
>>
>> Then there's labor and infrastructure...
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>>
>>
>> Lenona.
>
>
> How many of US do you plan to LOOT to do that?
>
> Clue - kids don't need to eat sea sccallops and lobster for lunch!
>
> My GOD!

I'm a big proponent of the beans and rice diet, with some other veggies and
fruits on the side.

Julie Bove wrote:
>
> "cibola de oro" > wrote in message
> ...
>> wrote:
>>> Contrast this with France, where meal prices are tied to family
>>> income and wealthy parents can pay around $7 per meal. Give that sum
>>> to an American school food services director and you may want to have
>>> tissues handy as he's likely to break down in incredulous tears.
>>>
>>> Then there's labor and infrastructure...
>>>
>>> (snip)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Lenona.
>>
>>
>> How many of US do you plan to LOOT to do that?
>>
>> Clue - kids don't need to eat sea sccallops and lobster for lunch!
>>
>> My GOD!
>
> I'm a big proponent of the beans and rice diet, with some other veggies
> and fruits on the side.

I have no qualms with that!

wrote:
> By BETTINA ELIAS SIEGEL JAN. 15, 2016
>
> Houston -- There's something about comparing America's school food to the superior meals in other countries' schools that we seem to enjoy, in a masochistic sort of way.

yes, there is something about comparing the children in AMERICA to those
children who live in socialist countries, where they will never grow up
to enjoy shooting a gun, and will be forced to do exactly what their
governments tell them to do from cradle to grave

whereas here in AMERICA children can do what they please, which often
means they can for example go across the street from their high schools
and enjoy the freedom to choose from among the nutritious fast food
offerings, from McDonald's to KFC to Panda Express, and pay less than
seven dollars because the free market makes it possible

tert in seattle wrote:
> wrote:
>> By BETTINA ELIAS SIEGEL JAN. 15, 2016
>>
>> Houston -- There's something about comparing America's school food to the superior meals in other countries' schools that we seem to enjoy, in a masochistic sort of way.
>
> yes, there is something about comparing the children in AMERICA to those
> children who live in socialist countries, where they will never grow up
> to enjoy shooting a gun, and will be forced to do exactly what their
> governments tell them to do from cradle to grave

Mostly true, yes.

> whereas here in AMERICA children can do what they please, which often
> means they can for example go across the street from their high schools
> and enjoy the freedom to choose from among the nutritious fast food
> offerings, from McDonald's to KFC to Panda Express, and pay less than
> seven dollars because the free market makes it possible

It's all about choice and liberty, snarker.

On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 19:50:36 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle
> wrote:

>yes, there is something about comparing the children in AMERICA to those
>children who live in socialist countries, where they will never grow up
>to enjoy shooting a gun, and will be forced to do exactly what their
>governments tell them to do from cradle to grave

That is NOT AT ALL how socialism works, and YOU are a freakin dumbass.

plonk

On 18/1/2016 07:28 The New Other Guy wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 19:50:36 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle
> > wrote:
>
>>yes, there is something about comparing the children in AMERICA to those
>>children who live in socialist countries, where they will never grow up
>>to enjoy shooting a gun, and will be forced to do exactly what their
>>governments tell them to do from cradle to grave
>
> That is NOT AT ALL how socialism works, and YOU are a freakin dumbass.
>
> plonk

The problem with socialism is that every attempt to implement it, has
led to dictatorship.

--
Bruce

"tert in seattle" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>> By BETTINA ELIAS SIEGEL JAN. 15, 2016
>>
>> Houston -- There's something about comparing America's school food to the
>> superior meals in other countries' schools that we seem to enjoy, in a
>> masochistic sort of way.
>
> yes, there is something about comparing the children in AMERICA to those
> children who live in socialist countries, where they will never grow up
> to enjoy shooting a gun, and will be forced to do exactly what their
> governments tell them to do from cradle to grave
>
> whereas here in AMERICA children can do what they please, which often
> means they can for example go across the street from their high schools
> and enjoy the freedom to choose from among the nutritious fast food
> offerings, from McDonald's to KFC to Panda Express, and pay less than
> seven dollars because the free market makes it possible

That's not always the case and there is often not food near the school.
They also have a limited lunch period. It's not even an hour.

On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 20:38:03 -0000 (UTC), Bruce >
wrote:

>On 18/1/2016 07:28 The New Other Guy wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 19:50:36 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>yes, there is something about comparing the children in AMERICA to those
>>>children who live in socialist countries, where they will never grow up
>>>to enjoy shooting a gun, and will be forced to do exactly what their
>>>governments tell them to do from cradle to grave
>>
>> That is NOT AT ALL how socialism works, and YOU are a freakin dumbass.
>>
>> plonk
>
>The problem with socialism is that every attempt to implement it, has
>led to dictatorship.

Any political ideology/system eventually leads to some form of
tyranny, due to the inherent laziness and gullibility of the people
living under it... we only pay lip service to 'eternal vigilance' and
can't be bothered to actively participate when and where necessary.

The New Other Guy wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 19:50:36 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle
> > wrote:
>
>> yes, there is something about comparing the children in AMERICA to those
>> children who live in socialist countries, where they will never grow up
>> to enjoy shooting a gun, and will be forced to do exactly what their
>> governments tell them to do from cradle to grave
>
> That is NOT AT ALL how socialism works, and YOU are a freakin dumbass.
>
> plonk
>
>
>
>
>
>
Marxist tantrums as=re the very bestest!

:-)

Bruce wrote:
> On 18/1/2016 07:28 The New Other Guy wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 19:50:36 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> yes, there is something about comparing the children in AMERICA to those
>>> children who live in socialist countries, where they will never grow up
>>> to enjoy shooting a gun, and will be forced to do exactly what their
>>> governments tell them to do from cradle to grave
>>
>> That is NOT AT ALL how socialism works, and YOU are a freakin dumbass.
>>
>> plonk
>
> The problem with socialism is that every attempt to implement it, has
> led to dictatorship.
>
+.5

"almost every attempt"...

On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 6:14:58 PM UTC-6, cibola de oro wrote:
> Julie Bove wrote:
> >
> > "cibola de oro" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> wrote:
> >>> Contrast this with France, where meal prices are tied to family
> >>> income and wealthy parents can pay around $7 per meal. Give that sum
> >>> to an American school food services director and you may want to have
> >>> tissues handy as he's likely to break down in incredulous tears.
> >>>
> >>> Then there's labor and infrastructure...
> >>>
> >>> (snip)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Lenona.
> >>
> >>
> >> How many of US do you plan to LOOT to do that?
> >>
> >> Clue - kids don't need to eat sea sccallops and lobster for lunch!
> >>
> >> My GOD!
> >
> > I'm a big proponent of the beans and rice diet, with some other veggies
> > and fruits on the side.
>
> I have no qualms with that!

If you saw how disgustingly fat she let her daughter get, you wouldn't want
Julie Bove making food decisions for any children.

--Bryan

MisterDiddyWahDiddy wrote:
> On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 6:14:58 PM UTC-6, cibola de oro wrote:
>> Julie Bove wrote:
>>>
>>> "cibola de oro" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Contrast this with France, where meal prices are tied to family
>>>>> income and wealthy parents can pay around $7 per meal. Give that sum
>>>>> to an American school food services director and you may want to have
>>>>> tissues handy as he's likely to break down in incredulous tears.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then there's labor and infrastructure...
>>>>>
>>>>> (snip)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Lenona.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How many of US do you plan to LOOT to do that?
>>>>
>>>> Clue - kids don't need to eat sea sccallops and lobster for lunch!
>>>>
>>>> My GOD!
>>>
>>> I'm a big proponent of the beans and rice diet, with some other veggies
>>> and fruits on the side.
>>
>> I have no qualms with that!
>
> If you saw how disgustingly fat she let her daughter get, you wouldn't want
> Julie Bove making food decisions for any children.
>
> --Bryan
>
If you spent any time with a mirror you would never leave your home.

On 17/01/2016 1:38 PM, Bruce wrote:
> On 18/1/2016 07:28 The New Other Guy wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 19:50:36 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> yes, there is something about comparing the children in AMERICA to those
>>> children who live in socialist countries, where they will never grow up
>>> to enjoy shooting a gun, and will be forced to do exactly what their
>>> governments tell them to do from cradle to grave
>>
>> That is NOT AT ALL how socialism works, and YOU are a freakin dumbass.
>>
>> plonk
>
> The problem with socialism is that every attempt to implement it, has
> led to dictatorship.
>
Pinochet was not a socialist!


--
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag
and carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis.

graham wrote:
> On 17/01/2016 1:38 PM, Bruce wrote:
>> On 18/1/2016 07:28 The New Other Guy wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 19:50:36 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> yes, there is something about comparing the children in AMERICA to
>>>> those
>>>> children who live in socialist countries, where they will never grow up
>>>> to enjoy shooting a gun, and will be forced to do exactly what their
>>>> governments tell them to do from cradle to grave
>>>
>>> That is NOT AT ALL how socialism works, and YOU are a freakin dumbass.
>>>
>>> plonk
>>
>> The problem with socialism is that every attempt to implement it, has
>> led to dictatorship.
>>
> Pinochet was not a socialist!
>
>
Trudeau is.

On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 2:40:50 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
> On 18/1/2016 07:28 The New Other Guy wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 19:50:36 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>yes, there is something about comparing the children in AMERICA to those
> >>children who live in socialist countries, where they will never grow up
> >>to enjoy shooting a gun, and will be forced to do exactly what their
> >>governments tell them to do from cradle to grave
> >
> > That is NOT AT ALL how socialism works, and YOU are a freakin dumbass.
> >
> > plonk
>
> The problem with socialism is that every attempt to implement it, has
> led to dictatorship.
>
The problem with extreme socialism is that it puts government in charge of
things that are better left in private hands. Balance is the key. Some
things are better when operated by the state, like children's education,
roads, libraries, police and fire, the military and public lands. Some
things are surely better off being privately owned, like factories,
retailers, the media (obviously, though non and not for profits also play
a role), construction, mining, agriculture, etc.

The working class needs to be class conscious, but that doesn't mean being
against capitalism. In the pre-tractor days, a farmer could be far more
productive if he had a mule. Well, mules are notorious for kicking when
you turn your back on them. So, the working class gets kicked by the mule
(the capitalist). If the worker is foolish, he either kills the mule
(communism) or repeatedly lets himself be kicked (working class Republican
voter), but if he is wise, he supports a highly unionized workforce that can
bargain collectively with the owners, and a government that tempers the
excesses of capitalism, and through progressive taxation, prevents an obscene
concentration of wealth by those at the very top of the economy.

2 weeks from now, I'll be in Iowa.
>
> --
> Bruce

--Bryan

On 18/1/2016 10:44 graham wrote:

> On 17/01/2016 1:38 PM, Bruce wrote:
>> On 18/1/2016 07:28 The New Other Guy wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 19:50:36 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> yes, there is something about comparing the children in AMERICA to those
>>>> children who live in socialist countries, where they will never grow up
>>>> to enjoy shooting a gun, and will be forced to do exactly what their
>>>> governments tell them to do from cradle to grave
>>>
>>> That is NOT AT ALL how socialism works, and YOU are a freakin dumbass.
>>>
>>> plonk
>>
>> The problem with socialism is that every attempt to implement it, has
>> led to dictatorship.
>>
> Pinochet was not a socialist!

I didn't say that all dictators are socialists

--
Bruce

On 18/1/2016 10:52 MisterDiddyWahDiddy wrote:

> On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 2:40:50 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> The problem with socialism is that every attempt to implement it, has
>> led to dictatorship.
>>
> The problem with extreme socialism is that it puts government in charge of
> things that are better left in private hands. Balance is the key. Some
> things are better when operated by the state, like children's education,
> roads, libraries, police and fire, the military and public lands. Some
> things are surely better off being privately owned, like factories,
> retailers, the media (obviously, though non and not for profits also play
> a role), construction, mining, agriculture, etc.
>
> The working class needs to be class conscious, but that doesn't mean being
> against capitalism. In the pre-tractor days, a farmer could be far more
> productive if he had a mule. Well, mules are notorious for kicking when
> you turn your back on them. So, the working class gets kicked by the mule
> (the capitalist). If the worker is foolish, he either kills the mule
> (communism) or repeatedly lets himself be kicked (working class Republican
> voter), but if he is wise, he supports a highly unionized workforce that can
> bargain collectively with the owners, and a government that tempers the
> excesses of capitalism, and through progressive taxation, prevents an obscene
> concentration of wealth by those at the very top of the economy.

I agree. Bridled capitalism is the way to go. Bridled to such a degree
that excesses like Walmart aren't possible.

--
Bruce

On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 5:22:10 PM UTC-6, cibola de oro wrote:
> MisterDiddyWahDiddy wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 6:14:58 PM UTC-6, cibola de oro wrote:
> >> Julie Bove wrote:
> >>>
> >>> "cibola de oro" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> Contrast this with France, where meal prices are tied to family
> >>>>> income and wealthy parents can pay around $7 per meal. Give that sum
> >>>>> to an American school food services director and you may want to have
> >>>>> tissues handy as he's likely to break down in incredulous tears.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Then there's labor and infrastructure...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (snip)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Lenona.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> How many of US do you plan to LOOT to do that?
> >>>>
> >>>> Clue - kids don't need to eat sea sccallops and lobster for lunch!
> >>>>
> >>>> My GOD!
> >>>
> >>> I'm a big proponent of the beans and rice diet, with some other veggies
> >>> and fruits on the side.
> >>
> >> I have no qualms with that!
> >
> > If you saw how disgustingly fat she let her daughter get, you wouldn't want
> > Julie Bove making food decisions for any children.
> >
> > --Bryan
> >
> If you spent any time with a mirror you would never leave your home.

Do you even comprehend how Julie ****ed up her only child's life? Oh,
that's right, you are hot for obese women. That muffin top makes your
little peepee stand at attention.

--Bryan

MisterDiddyWahDiddy wrote:
> On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 2:40:50 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>> On 18/1/2016 07:28 The New Other Guy wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 19:50:36 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> yes, there is something about comparing the children in AMERICA to those
>>>> children who live in socialist countries, where they will never grow up
>>>> to enjoy shooting a gun, and will be forced to do exactly what their
>>>> governments tell them to do from cradle to grave
>>>
>>> That is NOT AT ALL how socialism works, and YOU are a freakin dumbass.
>>>
>>> plonk
>>
>> The problem with socialism is that every attempt to implement it, has
>> led to dictatorship.
>>
> The problem with extreme socialism is that it puts government in charge of
> things that are better left in private hands.

Ya think???

> Balance is the key.

No, capitalism is.

> Some
> things are better when operated by the state, like children's education,

Nope.


> roads,

Some.

> libraries,

Unnecessary with the internet.

> police and fire,

50%.

There are credible private sector fire service providers.

> the military

Yes.

> and public lands.

Yes.

> Some
> things are surely better off being privately owned, like factories,
> retailers, the media (obviously, though non and not for profits also play
> a role), construction, mining, agriculture, etc.

Ayup.

> The working class needs to be class conscious, but that doesn't mean being
> against capitalism. In the pre-tractor days, a farmer could be far more
> productive if he had a mule. Well, mules are notorious for kicking when
> you turn your back on them. So, the working class gets kicked by the mule
> (the capitalist).

You're a ****ing MORON!

WTF kind of failed analogy is that?!?!?!

Go take some more drugs, janitor-boy.

Bruce wrote:
> On 18/1/2016 10:52 MisterDiddyWahDiddy wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 2:40:50 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> The problem with socialism is that every attempt to implement it, has
>>> led to dictatorship.
>>>
>> The problem with extreme socialism is that it puts government in charge of
>> things that are better left in private hands. Balance is the key. Some
>> things are better when operated by the state, like children's education,
>> roads, libraries, police and fire, the military and public lands. Some
>> things are surely better off being privately owned, like factories,
>> retailers, the media (obviously, though non and not for profits also play
>> a role), construction, mining, agriculture, etc.
>>
>> The working class needs to be class conscious, but that doesn't mean being
>> against capitalism. In the pre-tractor days, a farmer could be far more
>> productive if he had a mule. Well, mules are notorious for kicking when
>> you turn your back on them. So, the working class gets kicked by the mule
>> (the capitalist). If the worker is foolish, he either kills the mule
>> (communism) or repeatedly lets himself be kicked (working class Republican
>> voter), but if he is wise, he supports a highly unionized workforce that can
>> bargain collectively with the owners, and a government that tempers the
>> excesses of capitalism, and through progressive taxation, prevents an obscene
>> concentration of wealth by those at the very top of the economy.
>
> I agree. Bridled capitalism is the way to go. Bridled to such a degree
> that excesses like Walmart aren't possible.
>
You know less than nothing, you Auztarded troll.

Drop ****ing dead, you asshole!

Julie Bove wrote:
>
> "tert in seattle" > wrote in message
> ...
>> wrote:
>>> By BETTINA ELIAS SIEGEL JAN. 15, 2016
>>>
>>> Houston -- There's something about comparing America's school food to the
>>> superior meals in other countries' schools that we seem to enjoy, in a
>>> masochistic sort of way.
>>
>> yes, there is something about comparing the children in AMERICA to those
>> children who live in socialist countries, where they will never grow up
>> to enjoy shooting a gun, and will be forced to do exactly what their
>> governments tell them to do from cradle to grave
>>
>> whereas here in AMERICA children can do what they please, which often
>> means they can for example go across the street from their high schools
>> and enjoy the freedom to choose from among the nutritious fast food
>> offerings, from McDonald's to KFC to Panda Express, and pay less than
>> seven dollars because the free market makes it possible
>
> That's not always the case and there is often not food near the school.
> They also have a limited lunch period. It's not even an hour.

what do you expect in socialist/liberal Seattle?

and besides I'm not even sure public schools are constitutional

On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 16:44:11 -0700, graham > wrote:

>On 17/01/2016 1:38 PM, Bruce wrote:
>> On 18/1/2016 07:28 The New Other Guy wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 19:50:36 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> yes, there is something about comparing the children in AMERICA to those
>>>> children who live in socialist countries, where they will never grow up
>>>> to enjoy shooting a gun, and will be forced to do exactly what their
>>>> governments tell them to do from cradle to grave
>>>
>>> That is NOT AT ALL how socialism works, and YOU are a freakin dumbass.
>>>
>>> plonk
>>
>> The problem with socialism is that every attempt to implement it, has
>> led to dictatorship.
>>
>Pinochet was not a socialist!

Definitely not a socialist. More an opportunist.

Je�us wrote:
> Definitely not a socialist.
YOU are an Auztarded CRIMINAL.

You should be executed post haste.