Kids Flee the Lunch Line

Rick wrote:

archer wrote: . It seems to me that the school kids have the conservatives number......If the kids can make the liberals look bad the GOP will give them what they want.

And one more point about your delusional quote... you really need to stop thinking all conservatives think alike, we don't. There will be conservatives out there who believe as you do about what kind of food is offered at school, we all have different opinions about all kinds of things... I know this because I have many conservative friends who disagree with me about many subjects. You look silly when you make these silly generalizations that you can't possibly believe (do you?).

My opinions are MINE, they are not part of a conservative playbook.

Rick, get back to me on this when you locate your sense of humor, I can't believe you saw that as a serious statement.

FredHayek wrote: Per the BBC, no more bangers for English kids. Muslims have managed to take pork off the menu of British school kids.
They are now only allowed to eat Halal meat, animals slaughtered according to religious laws.

Think the US will come to that? Or will the vegetarians ban meat before that to save the enviroment instead?

I don't know...but it will give you something to lay awake nights worrying about. :OhNo:

:letsfight: Like the Koch brothers keep you awake at night obsessing? Following your Dem talking points. "elections bought" Will that be the DNC excuse when they lose the Senate?

With the difference being that the Koch Bros are real, and rest of your delusional worries are not.

Speaking of delusional worries.....

Wingnuts are gullible! How GOP’s bubble of ignorance keeps leading to humiliation
Why does the right keep falling for false stories about poverty and social programs?
Hint: An ideological fixation

Looking back on the events of last week, I’m struck by how lucky Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., was to be awarded the uncoveted early-Thursday speaking slot at CPAC last week.

Because though kicking things off at a three-day event like CPAC means speaking to smaller audiences and fewer cameras, it also means that there are three days of intensifying stagecraft ahead of you to distract attention from whatever errors you might make.

And Paul Ryan made a doozy of an error. It attracted plenty of coverage anyhow, but probably would’ve attracted more if it hadn’t happened before all the jousting began. In case you missed it, Ryan recounted a story he heard secondhand about a poor child who felt bad about being on a subsidized school lunch program, while other kids brought their lunches to school in brown bags, to serve the argument that parents who can’t afford to bag their children’s lunches for them don’t care about their kids as much as better-off parents do.

The view he expressed is strange enough. Being an impoverished parent isn’t actually coterminous with being a “poor” parent, in the normative sense of the word. And even though children on school lunch programs are surely stigmatized by their peers in some communities, the solution is to combat the stigma, not to moot it by just letting those kids go hungry.

But as you’ve probably heard by now, the story he told never happened. He recapitulated the erroneous testimony of a fellow social spending scold without vetting her story, which she had taken from some pro-social spending literature and tortured beyond recognition.

For someone like Ryan who often treats politics as a contest of character, that’s a pretty epic blunder. He’s since apologized for not checking his facts, which undoes some of the damage. But that mainly just changes the frame of the story. In addition to making an incredibly questionable moral argument, he also exposed the depths of his most politically problematic ideological fixation. Either he doesn’t care about truth, or his faith in the ubiquity of poverty traps and dependency and so on is so strong that he sees no reason to doubt any corroborative anecdotes, no matter how apocryphal.
.
.
.
If you’re sure your ideas are correct and confident your solutions are the right ones you’ve already erected a significant barrier to self-examination. And when admitting error carries enormous financial, personal and ideological risk, it feels easier not to check. You’re shocked when your candidate loses, because none of your friends voted for the other guy. And you just pass along stories they tell you about the soul-crushing nature of welfare, or the horrors of the Affordable Care Act, without bothering to apply a smell test. color=#FF0000][b]Sounds like the Sarah Palin School of fact-checking, doesn't it?[/b][/color

Combine that instinct with a well-heeled, amoral campaign apparatus and you get a bunch of Americans for Prosperity ads that wither under scrutiny.

They can't win if they don't cheat... And since they make it up as they go, and facts are irrelevant, that's why Wingnuts are gullible! And how the GOP’s bubble of ignorance keeps leading to humiliation. "We don' need no steekin' facts...."

archer wrote: It's nobody's business but my own what I eat, or if I smoke, or if I choose to wear a seat belt. .

Wow, spoken like a Libertarian with Tea Party leanings! I agree with ya again.

Making it up as they go? Sounds more like Obamacare!

FredHayek wrote: Making it up as they go? Sounds more like Obamacare!

No, it sounds exactly like what it is...the liars at Americans For Prosperity, and the GoTP/TeaBaggers in general.

LadyJazzer wrote:

FredHayek wrote: Making it up as they go? Sounds more like Obamacare!

No, it sounds exactly like what it is...the liars at Americans For Prosperity, and the GoTP/TeaBaggers in general.

It's a known and provable fact that Democrats care more for the poor and needy. If you need proof, see Detroit.

OmniScience wrote:

archer wrote: It's nobody's business but my own what I eat, or if I smoke, or if I choose to wear a seat belt. .

Wow, spoken like a Libertarian with Tea Party leanings! I agree with ya again.

Contrary to popular opinion around here, I do think for myself, and I will disagree with Democrats and Republicans when I think they are wrong, and will support them when I think they are right. It just so happens that I find the republicans/conservatives to be on the wrong side of many issues I care about, and some issues I find important enough to preclude me ever voting for them. What I find unfortunate is the general feeling between the 2 parties that to accept ideas from the opposite party, even ideas you approve of, is somehow disloyal and you have to fear being targeted by your own party for removal from office