• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republicans block child nutrition bill

Boo Radley said:
Not that I think you're accurate by any means, but agian I ask, why punish the children?
Click to expand...


lol, see my comment above. how on earth did I see that coming?
 
OscarB63 said:
lol, see my comment above. how on earth did I see that coming?
Click to expand...

It's a fair question, and as I asked it earlier, you should have seen it coming. Nothing special about that. But, I'd like an answer if you have one.
 
Boo Radley said:
It's a fair question, and as I asked it earlier, you should have seen it coming. Nothing special about that. But, I'd like an answer if you have one.
Click to expand...

I've answered it before. you just don't like the answer or you missed/ignored it.

better to "punish" their children now, than to punish their, mine, your, and our grandchildren tomorrow. that's why.

mamby pamby, bleeding heart, hand wringing is not going to solve the problem. hard problems sometimes require hard solutions. and if it requires that some people suffer now so that all people don't suffer later, so be it.
 
I have 3 cats. several months ago another stray wandered up and starting hanging around my barn. after about a month, the wife says, why not take it to the vet, get it checked out and give him his shots, since he is going to hang around.

vet's tests showed it had, through no fault of its own, FIV and feline leukemia. I had to "punish" that cat (put him down) in order to keep from having to punish my other 3 cats later when he infected them.

As Mr. Spock so eloquently stated, "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few or the one"
 
OscarB63 said:
I've answered it before. you just don't like the answer or you missed/ignored it.

better to "punish" their children now, than to punish their, mine, your, and our grandchildren tomorrow. that's why.

mamby pamby, bleeding heart, hand wringing is not going to solve the problem. hard problems sometimes require hard solutions. and if it requires that some people suffer now so that all people don't suffer later, so be it.
Click to expand...

Well, I never saw that, but no, it isn't better, and yours are not being punished when we help them. It's just silly to say they are. And we, people, have always handled hard time better when they come together than when they divide. You have alot wrong my friend. Sadly.
 
OscarB63 said:
I have 3 cats. several months ago another stray wandered up and starting hanging around my barn. after about a month, the wife says, why not take it to the vet, get it checked out and give him his shots, since he is going to hang around.

vet's tests showed it had, through no fault of its own, FIV and feline leukemia. I had to "punish" that cat (put him down) in order to keep from having to punish my other 3 cats later when he infected them.

As Mr. Spock so eloquently stated, "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few or the one"
Click to expand...

Very different situation. Not a proper comparison at all.
 
Boo Radley said:
Very different situation. Not a proper comparison at all.
Click to expand...

sez you. same situation.

better we punish his kids now, than let them grow up to produce another generation of "poor" kids for my kids to have to support.
 
OscarB63 said:
sez you. same situation.

better we punish his kids now, than let them grow up to produce another generation of "poor" kids for my kids to have to support.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. One the cat was ill, and ther eis a humane way to deal with that.. Second, the illness can be transmitted. Neither things is true about helping children. Very different situations.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, it's not. One the cat was ill, and ther eis a humane way to deal with that.. Second, the illness can be transmitted. Neither things is true about helping children. Very different situations.
Click to expand...

poverty and lack of ambition/motivation is an illness that is spread from generation to generation. you are doing no one any favors by perpetuating the system.
 
OscarB63 said:
poverty and lack of ambition/motivation is an illness that is spread from generation to generation. you are doing no one any favors by perpetuating the system.
Click to expand...

No, you can't catch laziness. Sorry, that's just a stupid proposition. It is also factually inaccurate to suggest all poor are lazy or lack motivation. And feeding children a warm meal once or twice a day doesn't perpetuate anything but needed aid, and maybe some kindness.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, you can't catch laziness. Sorry, that's just a stupid proposition. It is also factually inaccurate to suggest all poor are lazy or lack motivation. And feeding children a warm meal once or twice a day doesn't perpetuate anything but needed aid, and maybe some kindness.
Click to expand...

you can't catch laziness? really? come out of your bubble much?
 
OscarB63 said:
please try to post something, anything that is in anyway relevent.
Click to expand...

i did. when you posted this unfounded tripe:
... but far too many people cry unable, when they are really just unwilling.
Click to expand...

which caused me to ask you to point out which of us has been posting, advocating the provision of assistance to those who are unwilling to care for themselves. you indicate there are many. point them out
 
Boo Radley said:
Not that I think you're accurate by any means, but agian I ask, why punish the children?
Click to expand...

This bill isn't about feeding kids. It's about the multiple pet payoffs woven within it.

But when you bring up the "children", it becomes an impentrable force field.
 
OscarB63 said:
If someone is content to be a HS dropout and live in a trailer park or housing project. Why should I give a rat's ass about them?
Click to expand...
would these be those hungry students in school, the one the topic is about?
or are you simply - emphasis on the 'simply' - blathering about something no one else is discussing [rhetorical question - of course you are]

They made the choice not to complete HS, or go to college, or attend a training school, or join the military.
Click to expand...
you cannot possibly be speaking about the hungry students in school - the one this thread is discussing
is your reading comprehension at issue or is it that you want to infect yet another thread with your nonsensical diatribe [another rhetorical question - of course you do]

why, why, why, why should I pay for their poor choices?
Click to expand...
did those hungry students in school, the ones this bill would feed, did those students make a choice to be hungry? [again, rhetorical question - of course they didn't]

If you are so physically incapacitated that you can't work, you have no business pumping out kids that you can't feed
Click to expand...
tell us why that is the kids' fault? why do you want to further inflict the kids with crappy parents by insisting they remain hungry and unfed? not a rhetorical question ... my surmise is because you haven't an ounce of empathy ... but why don't you tell us why you take such a dickish position against hungry kids who were born into poverty

If you are so mentally deficient that you can't get a job, you have no business pumping out kids that you can't feed
Click to expand...
again, we are not addressing feeding the piss poor parents ... we are talking about feeding their hungry kids. why are you so opposed to feeding hungry children?
 
justabubba said:
and yet the republicans are willing to hold up the tax bill, negatively impacting the rest of the nation to make sure they protect the present tax break enjoyed by those 432 billionaire$
causes one to question who the congress actually serves
Click to expand...

My understanding is that it serves "the people". That includes everyone equally, including the rich and poor, and so on. There is no distinction beetween various groups.

why would someone with a professed legal education surmise that because i would expect the uber rich to be taxed progressively that such an opinion is based on either hate or envy
it simply makes common sense. only someone without out any would be unable to realize that those who have benefited the most from our nation's resources should be expected to pay the most to maintain the nation's greatness
Click to expand...

Why should you expect that? They can if they chose, as some do, or they can pay the same percentage of their income as everyone else, which still works out to a lot of money without being discriminatory.

because at that point of income, their fundamental needs are adequately provided for, leaving room for them to incur additional taxes - paid only above the $250,000 threshold - without significant detriment to their circumstances
Click to expand...

It is not up to you, or anyone else, to decide what other's peoples "needs" are. That's up to the individual, not to a committee.

for the same reason i advocate tax relief for the person earning minimum wage, whose income does not begin to cover essential needs
Click to expand...

They already have tax relief.
if someone possesses enough assets to realize $200,000+ in dividends annually, why would i be worried about their ability to care for themselves financially? answer that, counsel
Click to expand...

Because they earned their money, it is their money, and they are entitled to keep what they earned. They should not have to pay a larger proportion of theor income than others. You want to be rich, than get an education and work hard. Don't waste your youth and then later complain about "the rich".

one need not be a democrat or a socialist to recognize that hungry CHILDREN need to be fed. and by the government, if necessary, when their parents and the community's social assistance network is unable and/or unwilling to meet their fundamental needs
Click to expand...

Certainly children need to be fed but what alternatives have been looked at? Any? Or do you sincerely believe more government programs will eliminate poverty, such as The Great Society intended?
but tell us why you think a great nation should allow its CHILDREN to go hungry ... explain that to us, squire
Click to expand...

Which children are hungry? Who are their parents? What have their friends and neighbors done. Are there any volunteer organizations?

Answer these and you might get a better idea than just more government programs. The bureaucracy and the labor unions will like that, but not the long suffering tax payer.
 
Grant said:
Which children are hungry? Who are their parents? What have their friends and neighbors done. Are there any volunteer organizations?

Answer these and you might get a better idea than just more government programs. The bureaucracy and the labor unions will like that, but not the long suffering tax payer.
Click to expand...

yeah, we all suffer so much by paying our taxes.
 
Erod said:
America's poor have babies more often than they change underwear. Having kids with multiple partners out of wedlock is like a badge of honor.
Click to expand...

no one is saying that is not a problem
what is your answer for it?
let's solve that problem

in the meantime, let's also solve the very real problem that their are hungry children in school who are not getting proper nourishment. why are you so opposed to feeding hungry students born into poverty?
 
OscarB63 said:
bleat, bleat, bleat......but why should we punish the children for having retarded parents???...wah, wah, wah (accompanied, of course, by the obligatory, and ceremonial, wringing of the hands)
Click to expand...

then give us the answer
why do you want to punish the victims, the children born into poverty, too often to sorry, irresponsible parents
 
justabubba said:
again, we are not addressing feeding the piss poor parents ... we are talking about feeding their hungry kids. why are you so opposed to feeding hungry children?
Click to expand...

because if you give free food to them because their parents are worthless, they grow up to be worthless parents who have even more kids that then must be fed because it's not their fault they have worthless parents.

it's a vicious cycle and continuing to pump "free" money/food into will do nothing to break it.

but that is really what this is all about. democrats wanting to increase the number of people dependent on govt...the people who tend to always vote democrat.
 
justabubba said:
then give us the answer
why do you want to punish the victims, the children born into poverty, too often to sorry, irresponsible parents
Click to expand...

I have, several times. do try to keep up
 
OscarB63 said:
I've answered it before. you just don't like the answer or you missed/ignored it.

better to "punish" their children now, than to punish their, mine, your, and our grandchildren tomorrow. that's why.

mamby pamby, bleeding heart, hand wringing is not going to solve the problem. hard problems sometimes require hard solutions. and if it requires that some people suffer now so that all people don't suffer later, so be it.
Click to expand...

please let me confirm i understand your "solution"
you propose to withhold food and nourishment from hungry children born into poverty as the way to prevent irresponsible people from having more children than they can care for

please tell me you can now see how irresponsible that approach is
[yes, i am dubious that you are able]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom