E-Mail 'NYT op/ed writer: Quit yer b*tchin', and embrace the nanny state!' To A Friend

Email a copy of 'NYT op/ed writer: Quit yer b*tchin', and embrace the nanny state!' to a friend

Loading ...

14 Responses to "NYT op/ed writer: Quit yer b*tchin’, and embrace the nanny state!"

Xavier says:

March 25, 2013 at 10:13 pm

Get a lib one-on-one and play dumb. Ask what they think the soda ban and the gun bills will accomplish. Sooner or later they’ll admit that these laws won’t accomplish anything by themselves – but they’re a good first step. Smile and ask what the second step is.
ST says:

March 26, 2013 at 12:04 am

Exactly, Xavier!
Drew the Infidel says:

March 26, 2013 at 5:37 am

This piece is nothing more than juvenile palaver describing human nature, a typical leftist trying to pass herself off as some sort of intellectual stalwart while merely pointing out the obvious.
Mari says:

March 26, 2013 at 7:20 am

If these liberals are so concerned about food choices why don’t they regulate the foods that may be purchased with food stamps. Limiting the choices to healthy foods for food stamp users, as they are using taxpayer dollars to feed themselves, would make more sense.
William Teach says:

March 26, 2013 at 8:19 am

I’m betting that the minute the Nanny State was extended to herself, Ms. Conley would throw a snit fit and demand that the government extricate itself from her ovaries, er, life.

This is Liberalism in a nutshell: they love the thought of Big Government in theory, and as long as any restrictions, burdens, taxes, regulations, etc, apply to Someone Else/Everyone Else. The minute they apply to themselves, well, they Do Not Like Them.
JNN says:

March 26, 2013 at 8:47 am

These people need to be humiliated on a daily basis. It may not work on them, but it will work on some of the sheepeople. Why? Because they want to be part of the “cool” crowd. Make them suffer and that will prevent this from happening.
TexasDoc says:

March 26, 2013 at 9:18 am

“Let us do the thinking for you” is the same phrase as “for your own good”

The same phrase has been used to justify everything from simple bans to outright murder by every leftist totalitarian regime in history, from Bolshevism to Hugo Chavez’ brand of socialist terror.

Guess we know where Professorette Conly stands on freedom of choice and the right of individuals to determine their own destinies.
Carlos says:

March 26, 2013 at 10:26 am

“It’s because such a ban suggests that sometimes we need to be stopped from doing foolish stuff, and this has become, in contemporary American politics, highly controversial…”

OK, so let’s legislate against doing foolish stuff. Let’s begin by banning from office anyone who assumes they are smart enough to know how to run anyone else’ life because, at the end of the day, there are in anyone’s life multiple instances of stupid behavior.

Then, let’s extend that to educators, especially secondary and college-level, whose propensity toward teaching governmental interference in all aspects of life cannot be exceeded.

At least, if I were to take this numbskull’s advice, that’s where I would start.
Xavier says:

March 26, 2013 at 10:29 am

If a lack of personal control justifies a soda ban, shouldn’t politicians be prohibited from spending money?
Polly says:

March 26, 2013 at 11:23 am

“And that’s why, as irritating as it may initially feel, the soda regulation is a good idea. It’s hard to give up the idea of ourselves as completely rational.”….-Sarah Conly

Yes, Sarah, and you stand as irrefutable proof of that.
Sefton says:

March 26, 2013 at 12:13 pm

To follow up on Carlos’ point, the hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds.
“…we need to be stopped from doing foolish stuff” is a relative statement from the context of progressivism – who decides what is “foolish” for one person or group? Who is deemed “rational” enough to make the decisions for everyone else? The only thing progressive about them is that they continually progress into foolishness.

The whole of leftist ideology has no foundation. Much like their supposed “living, evolving document” of the Constitution, they have through history proven to have “their house built on sand” to quote Jesus.
They scream into a nonsensical, illogical vaccuum.
Lorica says:

March 26, 2013 at 1:45 pm

I agree Sefton. I consider skydiving, sex outside of marriage, motocross racing, mix martial arts, flying, playing with matches….. etc..etc… all foolish things. We should ban them all. I am certain we can come up with quite the list of “Foolish Stuff” that should be banned. LOL – Lorica
Drew the Infidel says:

March 26, 2013 at 1:49 pm

To follow up on TexasDoc’s point, “in the interest of public safety” and “for the children” are also hallmarks of every do-gooder.
Carlos says:

March 26, 2013 at 3:23 pm

And it wasn’t all that long ago that one of the favorite phrases from the movies was from the “Star Trek” series when Spock said something along the line of “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

Call me a heartless jerk (don’t worry, I’ve been called much worse) but for the world I can’t figure out why that decision should be left to someone else, and ultimately, through his own reasoning Spock made his own decision (no matter how he justified it).

Comments are closed.