The Progressive Movement - A political history lesson

[Woodruff]

Oh, I'm figuring that those poorer income families, those kids won't be boycotting the lunches, no matter how small or whatever.

It's that an authority figure, talking to the kids boycotting is saying in effect- Your actions are putting into jeopardy these other kids who depend on these free lunches, "Your action could cause us to lose the ability to provide these lunches to them. You don't want some of your classmates to go hungry do you?"
And that, my friend, is a type of coercion.

Essentially you're bullshitting. I've read your post three times and oddly enough it makes less sense each time.

Really?

[Phatscotty]

Then you can't say those kids are starving.
So lets ignore that.

Why can't you bring your own food to your high school?

These kids did precisely that, and good for them. The school was not providing them with an adequate service, so they boycotted that service and found an alternative.

So what's the problem? I'm asking this in a completely serious manner. I see no problem here.

That kids chose to stand against the nanny-state control is a good thing. The fact that the federal government thinks they need to dictate the number of calories kids get to eat from school lunches is the problem. It's absolute control by the government that simply harms people.

It's not a problem, in my opinion. Childhood obesity is a very serious problem in this nation. You want less taxes and less government spending...well, a healthy populace is one way to help that.

Another hit piece without any skepticism. Where are the experts? It's just kids and their mom talking.

Since when do the "experts" get to decide my personal freedoms?

It's funny how often you're in favor of the government dictating personal freedoms that you like, and how often you're not in favor of the government dictating personal freedoms you don't like.

Examples?

To name two off the top of my head, "gay marriage" and "legalization of drugs".

To me, it's not about being for or against. It's about "in practice", the people choose at the state level. That is democracy. That is Liberty

[Woodruff]

To me, it's not about being for or against. It's about "in practice", the people choose at the state level. That is democracy. That is Liberty

Did that actually make sense to you when you typed it? Because that is NOT liberty, nor is it necessarily democracy. Your definitions seem to become more fucked up every time you try to post one.

[Phatscotty]