Conquer Club

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:I was talking about taxes because that was the only way that all student families were paying for their student's lunches, so it seemed to me that must be what you were referring to.

Perhaps you're not acquainted with the school lunch system. A significant population of students pay nothing for school lunches. Yet those students who pay nothing for school lunches must be treated the same as those who are paying for their school lunches (or those among another significant population who pay a reduced amount for their school lunches).

If students are getting free or reduced lunches, then what they're eligible for is all they can get. But if a student needs more food that goes beyond the calorie limits, they should have the freedom to buy that food.

Students cannot be treated differently based on economic circumstances. I know those of you who support the rich people (against your own interests) don't understand that logic, but it is pretty basic.

BS. ALL people can be treated differently based on what they can buy. If I can't afford a meal at a 5-star restaurant, I don't have the right to demand they serve me anyway simply because my economic circumstances are less. The government does not have the authority to limit what legal products a person may buy. Even if that person is a student.

The government absolutely does. You may not like it, but it does. The fact of the matter is that students cannot be treated differently based on economic circumstances.

Night Strike wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Night Strike wrote:And today Progressivism is turning the government into our masters by forcing half the population to work for the government while the other half depends on handouts from the government.

I'm guessing you're making this a US politics thread again. Which half are you in?

The half that pays taxes. And when I wasn't paying taxes, it was while I was still a full time student.

See...the third half I mentioned.

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:I was talking about taxes because that was the only way that all student families were paying for their student's lunches, so it seemed to me that must be what you were referring to.

Perhaps you're not acquainted with the school lunch system. A significant population of students pay nothing for school lunches. Yet those students who pay nothing for school lunches must be treated the same as those who are paying for their school lunches (or those among another significant population who pay a reduced amount for their school lunches).

If students are getting free or reduced lunches, then what they're eligible for is all they can get. But if a student needs more food that goes beyond the calorie limits, they should have the freedom to buy that food.

Students cannot be treated differently based on economic circumstances. I know those of you who support the rich people (against your own interests) don't understand that logic, but it is pretty basic.

BS. ALL people can be treated differently based on what they can buy. If I can't afford a meal at a 5-star restaurant, I don't have the right to demand they serve me anyway simply because my economic circumstances are less. The government does not have the authority to limit what legal products a person may buy. Even if that person is a student.

The government absolutely does. You may not like it, but it does. The fact of the matter is that students cannot be treated differently based on economic circumstances.

And that is the whole reason the government is absolutely wrong with these mandates. If people have the ability to pay for more of the provided food, then they should be allowed to do so.

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:I was talking about taxes because that was the only way that all student families were paying for their student's lunches, so it seemed to me that must be what you were referring to.

Perhaps you're not acquainted with the school lunch system. A significant population of students pay nothing for school lunches. Yet those students who pay nothing for school lunches must be treated the same as those who are paying for their school lunches (or those among another significant population who pay a reduced amount for their school lunches).

If students are getting free or reduced lunches, then what they're eligible for is all they can get. But if a student needs more food that goes beyond the calorie limits, they should have the freedom to buy that food.

Students cannot be treated differently based on economic circumstances. I know those of you who support the rich people (against your own interests) don't understand that logic, but it is pretty basic.

BS. ALL people can be treated differently based on what they can buy. If I can't afford a meal at a 5-star restaurant, I don't have the right to demand they serve me anyway simply because my economic circumstances are less. The government does not have the authority to limit what legal products a person may buy. Even if that person is a student.

The government absolutely does. You may not like it, but it does. The fact of the matter is that students cannot be treated differently based on economic circumstances.

And that is the whole reason the government is absolutely wrong with these mandates. If people have the ability to pay for more of the provided food, then they should be allowed to do so.

And that is the whole reason your logic is wrong. If people have the ability to pay for more of the provided food, then they CAN BRING THEIR OWN DAMN FOOD TO SCHOOL. It's called a sack lunch.

"If people have the ability to pay for more of the provided food, then they should be allowed to do so." And the f*ck with everyone else.

Woodruff wrote:And that is the whole reason your logic is wrong. If people have the ability to pay for more of the provided food, then they CAN BRING THEIR OWN DAMN FOOD TO SCHOOL. It's called a sack lunch.

"If people have the ability to pay for more of the provided food, then they should be allowed to do so." And the f*ck with everyone else.

So why should the other people, especially those who already pay full price for their food, be forced to adhere to the same standards of those who don't? If you depend on the government, you can't complain when they don't allow you to do something.

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:And that is the whole reason your logic is wrong. If people have the ability to pay for more of the provided food, then they CAN BRING THEIR OWN DAMN FOOD TO SCHOOL. It's called a sack lunch.

"If people have the ability to pay for more of the provided food, then they should be allowed to do so." And the f*ck with everyone else.

So why should the other people, especially those who already pay full price for their food, be forced to adhere to the same standards of those who don't? If you depend on the government, you can't complain when they don't allow you to do something.

You just precisely answered your own question - thank you.

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:And that is the whole reason your logic is wrong. If people have the ability to pay for more of the provided food, then they CAN BRING THEIR OWN DAMN FOOD TO SCHOOL. It's called a sack lunch.

"If people have the ability to pay for more of the provided food, then they should be allowed to do so." And the f*ck with everyone else.

So why should the other people, especially those who already pay full price for their food, be forced to adhere to the same standards of those who don't? If you depend on the government, you can't complain when they don't allow you to do something.

You just precisely answered your own question - thank you.

And the government doesn't have the authority to deny that service to the kids who want to pay to eat more.

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:And that is the whole reason your logic is wrong. If people have the ability to pay for more of the provided food, then they CAN BRING THEIR OWN DAMN FOOD TO SCHOOL. It's called a sack lunch.

"If people have the ability to pay for more of the provided food, then they should be allowed to do so." And the f*ck with everyone else.

So why should the other people, especially those who already pay full price for their food, be forced to adhere to the same standards of those who don't? If you depend on the government, you can't complain when they don't allow you to do something.

You just precisely answered your own question - thank you.

And the government doesn't have the authority to deny that service to the kids who want to pay to eat more.

It obviously DOES have the authority. It has been upheld in court that rights in schools are not treated in the same manner as they are outside of school. You can argue that it shouldn't be that way (and in many circumstances, I would agree with you, yet I don't think you'd make that argument in most cases), but as things stand, the government does have that authority.

Your argument, taken to the absurd extreme, is basically "if they have the money, they should be able to take all the food". Now of course I know you're not advocating that, but it highlights your belief that more money should ALWAYS equal better treatment, rather than equality sometimes taking precedence.

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:The government was already controlling what children eat. There's a simple logic gap there.

You mean a Liberty gap, surely...

When you start actually caring about liberty, perhaps you'll get us to listen to your points about the subject.

Well, when you start realizing what you just responded to is caring about Liberty (choice what you eat compared to government control of what you eat), then you will realize there is no need for your post, and it already is time to start listening.

We can wait for you

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:The government was already controlling what children eat. There's a simple logic gap there.

You mean a Liberty gap, surely...

When you start actually caring about liberty, perhaps you'll get us to listen to your points about the subject.

Well, when you start realizing what you just responded to is caring about Liberty (choice what you eat compared to government control of what you eat), then you will realize there is no need for your post, and it already is time to start listening.
We can wait for you

You'll be waiting a long time when you're implementing the policies you support that not only restrict liberty, but punish it.

This thread is gotten absurd.
If Liberals came out in favor chocolate cookies, Conservatives would try to outlaw Oreos. That's what this is.

No....this is where those who stand for Freedom and Liberty take a stand against hoarding barbarians and redistribution obsessed progressives that want the demi-god of government to be all powerful and control how every person lives their life

THIS IS WHERE WE FIGHT!

Phatscotty wrote:No....this is where those who stand for Freedom and Liberty take a stand against hoarding barbarians and redistribution obsessed progressives that want the demi-god of government to be all powerful and control how every person lives their life

For instance, requiring drug testing in order to receive welfare money. But that's, of course, different...right? Perhaps you can explain how that has nothing at all to do with "wanting the demi-god of government to be all-powerful and control how every person lives their life"?

You're such a hypocrite.

Woodruff wrote:For instance, requiring drug testing in order to receive welfare money. But that's, of course, different...right?

Actually it seems perfectly logical to me. Oh that's right, you haven't met logic ... logic, this is Woodruff ... Woodruff, this is logic.

Assume that the purpose of "Welfare" is to help a person who is down on his or her resources to a position where they can take care of themselves.

(As opposed to the progressive notion of "we've got this sucker for life if we make him/her dependent on us!")

Then it is a vested interest of the part of the person giving the money to ensure that the person is in a good condition and is serious about self improvement.

People who are still actively involved in taking drugs are not serious about self inprovement.

Moreover since illegal drug dealers aren't big into the nonprofit charity thing, this implies that the person is wasting resources that could be used towards self improvement towards supporting the crime sydacate through illegal drugs.

We instruct you, brothers, in the name of [our] Lord Jesus Christ, to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us. For you know how one must imitate us. For we did not act in a disorderly way among you, nor did we eat food received free from anyone. On the contrary, in toil and drudgery, night and day we worked, so as not to burden any of you. Not that we do not have the right. Rather, we wanted to present ourselves as a model for you, so that you might imitate us. In fact, when we were with you, we instructed you that if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat. We hear that some are conducting themselves among you in a disorderly way, by not keeping busy but minding the business of others. Such people we instruct and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to work quietly and to eat their own food.

tzor wrote:

Woodruff wrote:For instance, requiring drug testing in order to receive welfare money. But that's, of course, different...right?

Actually it seems perfectly logical to me. Oh that's right, you haven't met logic ... logic, this is Woodruff ... Woodruff, this is logic.

Assume that the purpose of "Welfare" is to help a person who is down on his or her resources to a position where they can take care of themselves.

None of this is relevant to the topic of "FREEDOM!" and "LIBERTY!". Funny how you chopped all of that out of your quoting...dishonest much?

Logic, indeed.

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:No....this is where those who stand for Freedom and Liberty take a stand against hoarding barbarians and redistribution obsessed progressives that want the demi-god of government to be all powerful and control how every person lives their life

For instance, requiring drug testing in order to receive welfare money. But that's, of course, different...right? Perhaps you can explain how that has nothing at all to do with "wanting the demi-god of government to be all-powerful and control how every person lives their life"?

You're such a hypocrite.

I guess he was saying that "fair is fair"

I own a small construction company and I was required to submit a drug test before we could be awarded a contract for a state/fed funded project... why is not reasonable, to expect that the same qualifications be met, from the people that we hand our money too??

Just curious

lynch5762 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:No....this is where those who stand for Freedom and Liberty take a stand against hoarding barbarians and redistribution obsessed progressives that want the demi-god of government to be all powerful and control how every person lives their life

For instance, requiring drug testing in order to receive welfare money. But that's, of course, different...right? Perhaps you can explain how that has nothing at all to do with "wanting the demi-god of government to be all-powerful and control how every person lives their life"?

You're such a hypocrite.

I guess he was saying that "fair is fair"

I own a small construction company and I was required to submit a drug test before we could be awarded a contract for a state/fed funded project... why is not reasonable, to expect that the same qualifications be met, from the people that we hand our money too??

Just curious

fair is fair

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:No....this is where those who stand for Freedom and Liberty take a stand against hoarding barbarians and redistribution obsessed progressives that want the demi-god of government to be all powerful and control how every person lives their life


THIS IS WHERE WE FIGHT!

For instance, requiring drug testing in order to receive welfare money. But that's, of course, different...right? Perhaps you can explain how that has nothing at all to do with "wanting the demi-god of government to be all-powerful and control how every person lives their life"?

You're such a hypocrite.

No, not for instance.

You still don't understand? After all this time?

Woodruff, listen very carefully. It's not about requiring drug testing. It's about the states right to choose how to handle their own issues...for citizens to make and live under their own laws.... I.E. LIBERTY

lynch5762 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:No....this is where those who stand for Freedom and Liberty take a stand against hoarding barbarians and redistribution obsessed progressives that want the demi-god of government to be all powerful and control how every person lives their life

For instance, requiring drug testing in order to receive welfare money. But that's, of course, different...right? Perhaps you can explain how that has nothing at all to do with "wanting the demi-god of government to be all-powerful and control how every person lives their life"?

You're such a hypocrite.

I guess he was saying that "fair is fair"

I own a small construction company and I was required to submit a drug test before we could be awarded a contract for a state/fed funded project... why is not reasonable, to expect that the same qualifications be met, from the people that we hand our money too??

Just curious

This is all a reasonable statement, but it is irrelevant to the point, which is "No....this is where those who stand for Freedom and Liberty take a stand against hoarding barbarians and redistribution obsessed progressives that want the demi-god of government to be all powerful and control how every person lives their life".

In that context, your reasonable statement is a non-sequitor. FREEDOM AND LIBERTY (unless Phatscotty doesn't like it)!!!!!

Phatscotty wrote:

lynch5762 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:No....this is where those who stand for Freedom and Liberty take a stand against hoarding barbarians and redistribution obsessed progressives that want the demi-god of government to be all powerful and control how every person lives their life

For instance, requiring drug testing in order to receive welfare money. But that's, of course, different...right? Perhaps you can explain how that has nothing at all to do with "wanting the demi-god of government to be all-powerful and control how every person lives their life"?

You're such a hypocrite.

I guess he was saying that "fair is fair"

I own a small construction company and I was required to submit a drug test before we could be awarded a contract for a state/fed funded project... why is not reasonable, to expect that the same qualifications be met, from the people that we hand our money too??

Just curious

fair is fair

So because YOU DON'T LIKE IT, "Freedom and Liberty" are irrelevant. But when it's something that you approve of, then "Freedom and Liberty" are important. Like I said...you're such a hypocrite.

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:No....this is where those who stand for Freedom and Liberty take a stand against hoarding barbarians and redistribution obsessed progressives that want the demi-god of government to be all powerful and control how every person lives their life


THIS IS WHERE WE FIGHT!

For instance, requiring drug testing in order to receive welfare money. But that's, of course, different...right? Perhaps you can explain how that has nothing at all to do with "wanting the demi-god of government to be all-powerful and control how every person lives their life"?

You're such a hypocrite.

No, not for instance.
You still don't understand? After all this time?
Woodruff, listen very carefully. It's not about requiring drug testing. It's about the states right to choose how to handle their own issues...for citizens to make and live under their own laws.... I.E. LIBERTY

If you're going to talk about FREEDOM! and LIBERTY!, why limit it to the state level? I understand that it's a Constitutional thing, but if you are actually and seriously interested in those two things, the reality is that the local level makes far more sense than the state level does. If you really believe in these two concepts, why are you not arguing for a Constitutional Amendment to make that happen?

FREEDOM! and LIBERTY! are INDIVIDUAL CONCEPTS, not state-wide concepts, you goon.

Yeah. It seems like some people's versions of "Freedom and Liberty" mean the ability for a mob to decide who gets what 'rights.'

Allen West nails it...

Its hard for 90% of the country who was raised in a progressive/liberal school and society to break free from the matrix. Shit a heroin addict know nothing more than the drug like a kid doesnt know a pound of candy isn't good for you. Welcome to the progressive movement you've already taken the pill.

warmonger1981 wrote:Its hard for 90% of the country who was raised in a progressive/liberal school and society to break free from the matrix. Shit a heroin addict know nothing more than the drug like a kid doesnt know a pound of candy isn't good for you. Welcome to the progressive movement you've already taken the pill.

You do realize that I could just switch the word "progressive" with the word "conservative" and you'd have an equally valid argument, right?

Sorry frigidus but your wrong. If a conservative speaks out their a hate Monger or racist. Liberals and democrats say everyone is equal just as long as you agree with them if I don't agree I'm an uneducated knuckle dragging mouth breather. Progressives believe in science as their religion since it is "Logical" before you know it eugenics is implemented and your unfit for reproduction. Georgia guide stones are a perfect example of such logic.