Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 31, 2024 23:43:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2018 14:12:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mom26 on Feb 18, 2018 14:28:11 GMT
What am amazing teacher. TFS, @scrubologist. The part that really stood out to me:
|
|
|
Post by lisacharlotte on Feb 18, 2018 14:56:11 GMT
The Virginia Tech gunman carried two pistols. A Glock 19 and a Walther P22. All guns are much more accurate at close range. An AR-15 at close range is going to be less nimble due to the size and length not to mention the difficulties in concealment. An AR-15 is not more deadly or accurate than any other long gun. An AR-15 doesn't have any special features that make it more deadly than other rifles. It shoots one bullet per trigger pull just as a hunting rifle or handgun.
|
|
|
Post by mom on Feb 18, 2018 15:05:42 GMT
I saw this article today and wanted to share it with those who feel all Republicans want more guns and violence. -------------------------- Following Wednesday’s shooting massacre at a Florida high school, a top Republican political donor has taken a stand for gun control ― by tightening his purse strings. Businessman Al Hoffman Jr. told the New York Times that he “will not write another check” for candidates and political groups that don’t support a ban on assault weapons. The Florida-based former ambassador to Portugal has donated millions to GOP candidates and political groups over the years, reported the paper. www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/al-hoffman-jr-assault-weapon-ban-gop-donor_us_5a890fe8e4b05c2bcacbbd85
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 18, 2018 15:07:00 GMT
I saw this article today and wanted to share it with those who feel all Republicans want more guns and violence. -------------------------- Following Wednesday’s shooting massacre at a Florida high school, a top Republican political donor has taken a stand for gun control ― by tightening his purse strings. Businessman Al Hoffman Jr. told the New York Times that he “will not write another check” for candidates and political groups that don’t support a ban on assault weapons. The Florida-based former ambassador to Portugal has donated millions to GOP candidates and political groups over the years, reported the paper. www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/al-hoffman-jr-assault-weapon-ban-gop-donor_us_5a890fe8e4b05c2bcacbbd85In my cynicism, I rather imagine the NRA will step up to make up any lost donations from what this man might have contributed. Good for him for voting with his wallet, though.
|
|
|
Post by mom on Feb 18, 2018 15:12:42 GMT
I saw this article today and wanted to share it with those who feel all Republicans want more guns and violence. -------------------------- Following Wednesday’s shooting massacre at a Florida high school, a top Republican political donor has taken a stand for gun control ― by tightening his purse strings. Businessman Al Hoffman Jr. told the New York Times that he “will not write another check” for candidates and political groups that don’t support a ban on assault weapons. The Florida-based former ambassador to Portugal has donated millions to GOP candidates and political groups over the years, reported the paper. www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/al-hoffman-jr-assault-weapon-ban-gop-donor_us_5a890fe8e4b05c2bcacbbd85In my cynicism, I rather imagine the NRA will step up to make up any lost donations from what this man might have contributed. Good for him for voting with his wallet, though. Yes, the NRA will probably do that. But this guy is doing the right thing. For everyone who is saying no one on the right is doing anything....yes. Yes they are. Will that be enough for some? No. But this guy is choosing to step up and do whats right. He could choose to just sit back and stay silent. Is it going to be enough? Probably not. But its something and it deserves to be acknowledged. SaveSave
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 31, 2024 23:43:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2018 15:19:30 GMT
I'm finding it funny that so many are against Trump's plan that the government picks out some of the food people on assistance eat but never said a word when "someone" picked out what lunches kids ate at school (for ALL kids--not just the free lunch program). In between my years as a 911 dispatcher and my current job, I worked for a year and a half at my local high school as a lunch lady. It was during the time that chocolate milk was removed as a choice under the Obama-era nutritional guidelines because it was deemed unhealthy. Whether or not someone thinks the Michelle Obama school lunch initiatives were good, they were unarguably the government dictating what foods were healthy and available. And it was highly politicized at the time with more liberal-leaning people in support of it "Yay, stop making our kids fat and sick!" and more conservative-leaning people raising the cry of, "Get off our plates!" There have been many threads over the years here in which Peas have argued about what types of foods should be allowed to be purchased by SNAP recipients. Should they be able to buy "luxury" items like birthday cake and soda? Or should they be limited to healthier staples? Soda, by the way, is the #1 purchase of SNAP recipients www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/food-stamps-diet_us_582f4bd7e4b058ce7aaadea0www.nytimes.com/2017/01/13/well/eat/food-stamp-snap-soda.html Also of note, SNAP recipients are exempt from the additional sugary beverage taxes many cities have enacted because food purchased with SNAP money cannot be taxed. Cities, like the big one closest to me (Seattle) say the tax is, in part, to raise money to subsidize purchases of healthy foods by low-income families. www.cagw.org/thewastewatcher/seattle-soda-tax-not-doing-too-wellThen we get to the Harvest Box proposal, one of the primary complaints about which is distribution logistics. The USDA, which controls SNAP, already has a distribution network through the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (for seniors) that works pretty well, not perfectly, not for everyone for whom it's available, but it provides a blueprint for the expansion of the Harvest Box idea. boston.cbslocal.com/2018/02/16/food-boxes-stamps-harvest-box-usda/I've probably created a TLDR scenario here, so I'll leave it for now.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 31, 2024 23:43:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2018 15:28:10 GMT
I'm finding it funny that so many are against Trump's plan that the government picks out some of the food people on assistance eat but never said a word when "someone" picked out what lunches kids ate at school (for ALL kids--not just the free lunch program). In between my years as a 911 dispatcher and my current job, I worked for a year and a half at my local high school as a lunch lady. It was during the time that chocolate milk was removed as a choice under the Obama-era nutritional guidelines because it was deemed unhealthy. Whether or not someone thinks the Michelle Obama school lunch initiatives were good, they were unarguably the government dictating what foods were healthy and available. And it was highly politicized at the time with more liberal-leaning people in support of it "Yay, stop making our kids fat and sick!" and more conservative-leaning people raising the cry of, "Get off our plates!" There have been many threads over the years here in which Peas have argued about what types of foods should be allowed to be purchased by SNAP recipients. Should they be able to buy "luxury" items like birthday cake and soda? Or should they be limited to healthier staples? Soda, by the way, is the #1 purchase of SNAP recipients www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/food-stamps-diet_us_582f4bd7e4b058ce7aaadea0www.nytimes.com/2017/01/13/well/eat/food-stamp-snap-soda.html Also of note, SNAP recipients are exempt from the additional sugary beverage taxes many cities have enacted because food purchased with SNAP money cannot be taxed. Cities, like the big one closest to me (Seattle) say the tax is, in part, to raise money to subsidize purchases of healthy foods by low-income families. www.cagw.org/thewastewatcher/seattle-soda-tax-not-doing-too-wellThen we get to the Harvest Box proposal, one of the primary complaints about which is distribution logistics. The USDA, which controls SNAP, already has a distribution network through the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (for seniors) that works pretty well, not perfectly, not for everyone for whom it's available, but it provides a blueprint for the expansion of the Harvest Box idea. boston.cbslocal.com/2018/02/16/food-boxes-stamps-harvest-box-usda/I've probably created a TLDR scenario here, so I'll leave it for now. I have a lot of teacher friends that said at the schools they teach at, a LOT of what was given at lunch time (in the Obama era) was thrown in the trashcan. Much more than before the program started. I saw in our local news that our local schools have abandoned the program in our schools for this school year.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 18, 2018 15:56:34 GMT
In between my years as a 911 dispatcher and my current job, I worked for a year and a half at my local high school as a lunch lady. It was during the time that chocolate milk was removed as a choice under the Obama-era nutritional guidelines because it was deemed unhealthy. Whether or not someone thinks the Michelle Obama school lunch initiatives were good, they were unarguably the government dictating what foods were healthy and available. And it was highly politicized at the time with more liberal-leaning people in support of it "Yay, stop making our kids fat and sick!" and more conservative-leaning people raising the cry of, "Get off our plates!" There have been many threads over the years here in which Peas have argued about what types of foods should be allowed to be purchased by SNAP recipients. Should they be able to buy "luxury" items like birthday cake and soda? Or should they be limited to healthier staples? Soda, by the way, is the #1 purchase of SNAP recipients www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/food-stamps-diet_us_582f4bd7e4b058ce7aaadea0www.nytimes.com/2017/01/13/well/eat/food-stamp-snap-soda.html Also of note, SNAP recipients are exempt from the additional sugary beverage taxes many cities have enacted because food purchased with SNAP money cannot be taxed. Cities, like the big one closest to me (Seattle) say the tax is, in part, to raise money to subsidize purchases of healthy foods by low-income families. www.cagw.org/thewastewatcher/seattle-soda-tax-not-doing-too-wellThen we get to the Harvest Box proposal, one of the primary complaints about which is distribution logistics. The USDA, which controls SNAP, already has a distribution network through the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (for seniors) that works pretty well, not perfectly, not for everyone for whom it's available, but it provides a blueprint for the expansion of the Harvest Box idea. boston.cbslocal.com/2018/02/16/food-boxes-stamps-harvest-box-usda/I've probably created a TLDR scenario here, so I'll leave it for now. I have a lot of teacher friends that said at the schools they teach at, a LOT of what was given at lunch time (in the Obama era) was thrown in the trashcan. Much more than before the program started. I saw in our local news that our local schools have abandoned the program in our schools for this school year. It's really one of those things where the schools can't win. For budgetary purposes, school lunch choices are limited. And they are frequently eaten by kids who suffer from food insecurity at home, or who often eat dinner from convenience store. If you offer healthy foods, it's nanny-statism; if you offer junk, it's just another example of the ways the public schools fail to help bring kids out of poverty, obesity and the various ills of the day.
|
|
|
Post by gar on Feb 18, 2018 16:07:05 GMT
For everyone who is saying no one on the right is doing anything....yes. Yes they are. Will that be enough for some? No. But this guy is choosing to step up and do whats right Yes, he is -and lets hope that becomes they are as others follow his lead because obviously one man's stand isn't enough. Good for him. I hope he's the first of many.
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on Feb 18, 2018 17:03:56 GMT
I'm finding it funny that so many are against Trump's plan that the government picks out some of the food people on assistance eat but never said a word when "someone" picked out what lunches kids ate at school (for ALL kids--not just the free lunch program). An honest question. Do you have kids or grandkids that eat school lunches? Because I do. My kid eats hot lunch at her public school (full pay) just about every day, and personally I’m really glad that action was taken by the previous administration to improve the nutritional quality of the school lunches my kid eats. She has plenty of opportunities to eat stuff that is loaded with excess salt, sugar, fat and carbs and her school lunch doesn’t need to contribute to that. It’s enough of a challenge to limit those kinds of things at home when we can personally monitor what she’s eating. When I was in high school in the 80’s, the choices were mostly hamburgers or cheeseburgers, hot dogs, greasy fries, breaded chicken nuggets. My kid has usually 2-3 entreé choices daily including things like vegetarian chili, grilled chicken wrap sandwiches, fish, chicken wild rice soup or turkey ranch wraps. I’m actually a little surprised by some of the things she has eaten (and liked) at school that I never would have imagined she would like, and as a result we’ve incorporated similar menu items at home too because we know she’ll eat it. If someone is dictating what my kid eats, I’m not going to be concerned if it’s a selection of healthy choices. I don’t see offering healthier options as being a bad thing. As far as waste goes which another pea mentioned, there will ALWAYS be some waste especially when you’re talking about kids who are eating without a whole lot of adult supervision. FWIW, our district collects the waste food products from all of the schools and it gets recycled by sending/selling it to a pig farm. While I would much rather my kid actually eat all of the healthy food on her lunch tray every day, at least the food the kids don’t eat isn’t totally going to waste in a landfill. Even when you pack a healthy (or not) lunch for your kid, there is no guarantee that they’re going to actually eat it. When my brother was young, he had a pretty nice gig going on in his grade school cafeteria by trading my mom’s homemade cookies for the Twinkies and Ding Dongs other kids would bring. Or he would outright sell them and use the money to buy candy at the drugstore on the way home from school. My mom was kind of appalled when she learned about that decades later!
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on Feb 18, 2018 17:05:23 GMT
In my cynicism, I rather imagine the NRA will step up to make up any lost donations from what this man might have contributed. Good for him for voting with his wallet, though. Yes, the NRA will probably do that. But this guy is doing the right thing. For everyone who is saying no one on the right is doing anything....yes. Yes they are. Will that be enough for some? No. But this guy is choosing to step up and do whats right. He could choose to just sit back and stay silent. Is it going to be enough? Probably not. But its something and it deserves to be acknowledged. SaveSaveCynic here too, but my first thought was "good for him!" It does deserve to be acknowledged, and an article about it was also posted in one or two of the other political threads yesterday, probably by @revirdsuba because she's so great at keeping us updated Personally, I haven't encountered anyone saying "no one" is doing the right thing and no, one instance isn't near enough for me. Hopefully this will lead to a lot people with to pull enough financial backing for people to sit up and take notice! eta: imho if the words "no one" are being used I imagine it's not meant literally and just said out of frustration because the numbers aren't enough to have an impact.
|
|
|
Post by Skellinton on Feb 18, 2018 17:13:18 GMT
I'm finding it funny that so many are against Trump's plan that the government picks out some of the food people on assistance eat but never said a word when "someone" picked out what lunches kids ate at school (for ALL kids--not just the free lunch program). I am not sure what you mean, but at our school each child has a choice of 5 different main courses each day (at least one vegetarian, one turkey/chicken, one beef, one dairy free) and about 7 side items they can choose from. I assure you at our school even the pickiest kids find something to eat. Also, our schools big change to meet Obama’s healthy lunches were things like serving whole grain buns instead of white bread, using whole grain crust on pizza, using reduced fat cheese, adding a cup of granola with the yogurt option, serving whole apples instead of applesauce cups that had added sugar, serving milk instead of juice for lunch, etc. In other words a whole bunch of stuff the kids don’t even notice but is making them a little healthier. Also, I guarantee you that kids that bring their own lunches throw away at least as much, if not more then the kids who buy lunch at my school.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 31, 2024 23:43:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2018 17:21:19 GMT
I'm finding it funny that so many are against Trump's plan that the government picks out some of the food people on assistance eat but never said a word when "someone" picked out what lunches kids ate at school (for ALL kids--not just the free lunch program). I am not sure what you mean, but at our school each child has a choice of 5 different main courses each day (at least one vegetarian, one turkey/chicken, one beef, one dairy free) and about 7 side items they can choose from. I assure you at our school even the pickiest kids find something to eat. I'm know she'll be able to speak for herself, but I'm pretty sure what she's talking about is not whether or not schoolchildren get nutritious food(s). She's talking about people negatively criticizing the Harvest Box idea, saying that the contents aren't healthy or who in the hell does the government think it is to tell us what foods are healthy and which of them we get to have?! School lunches are funded by federal monies (taxes) and handled under the auspices of the USDA -- the same agency that oversees SNAP. Some of us are just drawing the parallels and pointing out the inconsistencies in wanting the government to provide healthy foods in one instance but being offended by it in another.
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on Feb 18, 2018 17:45:17 GMT
I am not sure what you mean, but at our school each child has a choice of 5 different main courses each day (at least one vegetarian, one turkey/chicken, one beef, one dairy free) and about 7 side items they can choose from. I assure you at our school even the pickiest kids find something to eat. I'm know she'll be able to speak for herself, but I'm pretty sure what she's talking about is not whether or not schoolchildren get nutritious food(s). She's talking about people negatively criticizing the Harvest Box idea, saying that the contents aren't healthy or who in the hell does the government think it is to tell us what foods are healthy and which of them we get to have?! School lunches are funded by federal monies (taxes) and handled under the auspices of the USDA -- the same agency that oversees SNAP. Some of us are just drawing the parallels and pointing out the inconsistencies in wanting the government to provide healthy foods in one instance but being offended by it in another. But see, for many people the non-perishable food items mentioned for the SNAP boxes AREN’T as healthy a choice as the fresh food they could (or may need to) choose for themselves at the grocery store for all the reasons mentioned. I applauded the Obama administration when they acted to *improve* the quality of the school lunches that many kids eat so they would contain more fresh ingredients and less of the things that are generally considered unhealthy (salt, added sugars, fat and carbs). By offering the kids fresher options in the public schools, they have effectively removed a lot of the ingredients that the SNAP box items would naturally contain such as salt, preservatives, sugar and carbs that you tend to find in canned food and dried pasta.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 31, 2024 23:43:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2018 18:20:53 GMT
I'm know she'll be able to speak for herself, but I'm pretty sure what she's talking about is not whether or not schoolchildren get nutritious food(s). She's talking about people negatively criticizing the Harvest Box idea, saying that the contents aren't healthy or who in the hell does the government think it is to tell us what foods are healthy and which of them we get to have?! School lunches are funded by federal monies (taxes) and handled under the auspices of the USDA -- the same agency that oversees SNAP. Some of us are just drawing the parallels and pointing out the inconsistencies in wanting the government to provide healthy foods in one instance but being offended by it in another. But see, for many people the non-perishable food items mentioned for the SNAP boxes AREN’T as healthy a choice as the fresh food they could (or may need to) choose for themselves at the grocery store for all the reasons mentioned. I applauded the Obama administration when they acted to *improve* the quality of the school lunches that many kids eat so they would contain more fresh ingredients and less of the things that are generally considered unhealthy (salt, added sugars, fat and carbs). By offering the kids fresher options in the public schools, they have effectively removed a lot of the ingredients that the SNAP box items would naturally contain such as salt, preservatives, sugar and carbs that you tend to find in canned food and dried pasta. The Harvest Boxes wouldn't replace 100% of the SNAP benefits for anyone. Recipients would still have money on their cards to purchase fresh produce, dairy, meat, etc. We would also differ on what we consider healthy, not just you and I, but everyone. I also think the key word regarding the Obama-era school lunches is offered. Having worked in a school cafeteria during that time, I can tell you that, yes, we had a beautiful salad bar available every day that contained enough variety to be a wonderfully nutritious and complete meal. But we also still had the crap pizza and tater tots, and because the kids had the choice, you know what most of them picked. Now, we could remove the "unhealthy" choices for kids and SNAP recipients alike, but any time I've ever seen that suggested, particularly regarding SNAP, the outcry is thunderous -- how dare anyone deign to tell poor people what they can and can't eat? It's insulting! It's disgusting! Let them eat cake, literally.
|
|
twinsmomfla99
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,099
Jun 26, 2014 13:42:47 GMT
|
Post by twinsmomfla99 on Feb 18, 2018 18:41:40 GMT
I’m not a conservative, but I am all for some outside-the-box thinking (see what I did there? 😀) for feeding those who need it.
Some of the staples that would be included in the box are terribly expensive for those who live in the food deserts. Just try buying those items in a convenience store or small grocery that does not have the bulk purchasing power. They also tend to be heavy and difficult to carry on public transportation if you try to go out of the neighborhood to a larger grocery store. So sending those items directly to those who need it would possibly save money, especially if they can get better prices for buying in bulk.
As long as these boxes do not replace all the SNAP benefits, they could actually leave more money available to those families to purchase fresh foods at farmers markets or local vendors.
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on Feb 18, 2018 18:58:05 GMT
But see, for many people the non-perishable food items mentioned for the SNAP boxes AREN’T as healthy a choice as the fresh food they could (or may need to) choose for themselves at the grocery store for all the reasons mentioned. I applauded the Obama administration when they acted to *improve* the quality of the school lunches that many kids eat so they would contain more fresh ingredients and less of the things that are generally considered unhealthy (salt, added sugars, fat and carbs). By offering the kids fresher options in the public schools, they have effectively removed a lot of the ingredients that the SNAP box items would naturally contain such as salt, preservatives, sugar and carbs that you tend to find in canned food and dried pasta. The Harvest Boxes wouldn't replace 100% of the SNAP benefits for anyone. Recipients would still have money on their cards to purchase fresh produce, dairy, meat, etc. We would also differ on what we consider healthy, not just you and I, but everyone. I also think the key word regarding the Obama-era school lunches is offered. Having worked in a school cafeteria during that time, I can tell you that, yes, we had a beautiful salad bar available every day that contained enough variety to be a wonderfully nutritious and complete meal. But we also still had the crap pizza and tater tots, and because the kids had the choice, you know what most of them picked. Now, we could remove the "unhealthy" choices for kids and SNAP recipients alike, but any time I've ever seen that suggested, particularly regarding SNAP, the outcry is thunderous -- how dare anyone deign to tell poor people what they can and can't eat? It's insulting! It's disgusting! Let them eat cake, literally. I get that it wouldn’t totally replace all of the benefits. But it would cut by half the FRESH food that people COULD buy if they don’t want to eat canned or boxed packaged food. And I also get it that kids will choose the crap food when given the choice, which is why it was important to increase the nutritional value of those foods offered to make them healthier. When pizza is on the menu at my kid’s school it has whole wheat pita bread crust, low fat cheese and pepperoni, etc. Chicken nuggets are baked and not fried to lower the fat content and they also have whole wheat breading. Wraps are offered as a lower carb alternative to regular sandwiches. Overall much healthier choices than the typical fast food that was offered at the high school I attended. When kids get used to having healthier options, some do end up making better choices when they have those options. I know my kid does.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 31, 2024 23:43:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2018 19:00:55 GMT
The Virginia Tech gunman carried two pistols. A Glock 19 and a Walther P22. All guns are much more accurate at close range. An AR-15 at close range is going to be less nimble due to the size and length not to mention the difficulties in concealment. An AR-15 is not more deadly or accurate than any other long gun. An AR-15 doesn't have any special features that make it more deadly than other rifles. It shoots one bullet per trigger pull just as a hunting rifle or handgun.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 31, 2024 23:43:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2018 19:08:47 GMT
I read the various comments and I do have a question.
Say you walk up to your favorite grocery store with list in hand. You are met at the door by a clerk who hands you a box of groceries and motions for you to step aside for the next person walking up to the door who will also receive a box of groceries. And so on.
Are you ok with this? If not, why is it ok to do that to folks who need help especially when there already is a process in place?
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 18, 2018 19:12:39 GMT
"Instead, according to NPR, the packages would consist of "shelf-stable milk, ready to eat cereals, pasta, peanut butter, beans and canned fruit and vegetables and meat, poultry or fish." Anything canned has preservatives and many times excess salt. I make oatmeal. No pasta or beans, medical. I do eat peanut butter but not that which needs to be stirred. The other issue that is being continually ignored is the purchase, processing and distribution of said boxes. The food will come from extensive operations with onsite packaging facilities. The food will not come from local farmers. Local farmers will lose, local businesses, supermarkets will lose revenues and jobs will be lost, some filled with the projected recipients. Recipients might also lose their jobs at Walmart, Target and other stores that accent food stamps. There is a lot to think about. Local economic is very important for all of us! Trump’s Food Stamp Idea Is Like Blue Apron Had a Socialist HangoverClearly not in the service of any free-market ideal. It is hardly pro-market to displace the private sector and build a parallel, state-run distribution system, no matter how many times you name-check Blue Apron. This is the sort of thing you find in countries still recovering from socialist hangovers. India’s government, for example, buys more than 30 percent of the country’s grain output at above-market prices and then sells it to consumers at below-market prices through ration shops. Emulating that approach by delivering the food in a box is hardly an innovation. Against this backdrop, it is remarkable that the present-day incarnation of food stamps, delivered via EBT, gives recipients so much flexibility to buy the food they want instead of the food the farm industry wishes to dispose of.This, of course, is what Harvest Boxes would change. One week after President Trump took office, a consortium of 10 of the largest agricultural lobby groups wrote to him, lamenting that their subsidies had been “relentlessly attacked by previous administrations,” and urging him to “prioritize the use of American-grown in-kind commodity contributions” in fighting hunger.If the Harvest Box is any indication, their pleas have found a receptive ear. www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/15/trump-food-stamps-harvest-box-blue-apron-snap-217004
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 31, 2024 23:43:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2018 19:21:03 GMT
In my cynicism, I rather imagine the NRA will step up to make up any lost donations from what this man might have contributed. Good for him for voting with his wallet, though. Yes, the NRA will probably do that. But this guy is doing the right thing. For everyone who is saying no one on the right is doing anything....yes. Yes they are. Will that be enough for some? No. But this guy is choosing to step up and do whats right. He could choose to just sit back and stay silent. Is it going to be enough? Probably not. But its something and it deserves to be acknowledged. SaveSaveThe problem many have with an "assault weapon" ban is that it's dishonest and useless. Assault weapon doesn't mean anything. They want to ban a gun because it LOOKS like a machine gun and because that's what's recently most often used in these massacres. One of these is "acceptable" and one "needs to be banned". The problem is, they're both the same gun. People are calling for a ban on one because it's what is most often used. So you ban it and it's no longer available and these deranged people start using another non-banned gun because it's more readily available. OMG what do we do now?!! Following the logic of the gun ban think, now we must ban THAT gun. Lather rinse and repeat until everything is banned. Hopefully now you can understand the resistance to "an assault weapons" ban.
|
|
|
Post by delilahtwo on Feb 18, 2018 19:37:05 GMT
Yes, the NRA will probably do that. But this guy is doing the right thing. For everyone who is saying no one on the right is doing anything....yes. Yes they are. Will that be enough for some? No. But this guy is choosing to step up and do whats right. He could choose to just sit back and stay silent. Is it going to be enough? Probably not. But its something and it deserves to be acknowledged. SaveSaveThe problem many have with an "assault weapon" ban is that it's dishonest and useless. Assault weapon doesn't mean anything. They want to ban a gun because it LOOKS like a machine gun and because that's what's recently most often used in these massacres. One of these is "acceptable" and one "needs to be banned". The problem is, they're both the same gun. People are calling for a ban on one because it's what is most often used. So you ban it and it's no longer available and these deranged people start using another non-banned gun because it's more readily available. OMG what do we do now?!! Following the logic of the gun ban think, now we must ban THAT gun. Lather rinse and repeat until everything is banned. Hopefully now you can understand the resistance to "an assault weapons" ban. I understand. I understand that in your love for guns, you don't love human lives. Here's my thoughts. Make anyone who wants to buy a gun have a license. Make them have to insure each and every gun they own. Make gun shows illegal as guns are bought there with no checks. You can only buy guns in a licensed gun shop. Would be better for gun shop owners as well.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 18, 2018 19:43:04 GMT
I understand. I understand that in your love for guns, you don't love human lives. Here's my thoughts. Make anyone who wants to buy a gun have a license. Make them have to insure each and every gun they own. Make gun shows illegal as guns are bought there with no checks. You can only buy guns in a licensed gun shop. Would be better for gun shop owners as well. Yes, registered like I have to register my car. Training and license to use it. Insurance too! Most people agree with background checks and a waiting period.
|
|
|
Post by delilahtwo on Feb 18, 2018 19:45:49 GMT
Exactly revirdsuba. Then, if you aren't careful with your gun and it gets stolen or something, you would get in trouble for storing your gun improperly. I think that a lot of the guns involved in crimes were originally bought legally and then were diverted or stolen or something. Also, insurance companies would probably end up charging more for insurance if you own more guns, if you don't have a gun safe, etc. It would make people more choosy and more careful.
|
|
|
Post by betty on Feb 18, 2018 20:26:08 GMT
I understand. I understand that in your love for guns, you don't love human lives. Here's my thoughts. Make anyone who wants to buy a gun have a license. Make them have to insure each and every gun they own. Make gun shows illegal as guns are bought there with no checks. You can only buy guns in a licensed gun shop. Would be better for gun shop owners as well. Yes, registered like I have to register my car. Training and license to use it. Insurance too! Most people agree with background checks and a waiting period. And then the very people who needed to protect themselves the most (poor and living in high crime areas or very rural areas) will be priced out of gun ownership. Sucks to be poor and need to protect yourself or your family. The problem with the car comparison is that people may own and drive as many cars as they want on their own private property without a license or insurance. One may also build from scratch a vehicle and drive it on their own private property without government involvement.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 31, 2024 23:43:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2018 20:32:43 GMT
I'm finding it funny that so many are against Trump's plan that the government picks out some of the food people on assistance eat but never said a word when "someone" picked out what lunches kids ate at school (for ALL kids--not just the free lunch program). An honest question. Do you have kids or grandkids that eat school lunches? Actually, I don't! They all attend private schools (grandchildren) and I believe they all take their lunches from home. (Lunches aren't available at their schools.) So, their mom's decide what they eat.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 31, 2024 23:43:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2018 20:35:23 GMT
I'm know she'll be able to speak for herself, but I'm pretty sure what she's talking about is not whether or not schoolchildren get nutritious food(s). She's talking about people negatively criticizing the Harvest Box idea, saying that the contents aren't healthy or who in the hell does the government think it is to tell us what foods are healthy and which of them we get to have?! School lunches are funded by federal monies (taxes) and handled under the auspices of the USDA -- the same agency that oversees SNAP. Some of us are just drawing the parallels and pointing out the inconsistencies in wanting the government to provide healthy foods in one instance but being offended by it in another. You are right, this is what I was saying. Sorry, I wasn't home this am to answer in a timely manner.
|
|
|
Post by delilahtwo on Feb 18, 2018 20:38:53 GMT
Yes, registered like I have to register my car. Training and license to use it. Insurance too! Most people agree with background checks and a waiting period. And then the very people who needed to protect themselves the most (poor and living in high crime areas or very rural areas) will be priced out of gun ownership. Sucks to be poor and need to protect yourself or your family. The problem with the car comparison is that people may own and drive as many cars as they want on their own private property without a license or insurance. One may also build from scratch a vehicle and drive it on their own private property without government involvement. except that you actually don't need to protect yourself or your family with a gun. Stats in other countries prove that.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 31, 2024 23:43:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2018 20:39:50 GMT
I think you added the bolded part. I didn't read that in her post. That is how threads go downhill fast.
|
|