The Progressive Movement - A political history lesson

[thegreekdog]

Facts mean things. You're talking about how facts are applied, and that's different. They supported my post quite well.

This is a huge part of the reason why Southern States actually get more money back from the Federal Government than they pay in. The South itself is a welfare state. If Conservative programs are so awesome at creating wealth and equality, then you have to ask yourself why the whole Conservative region is one big fail block.

It's because all the free-loading liberals go down there to get all that loot. That's what the facts support.

Sounds like someone who has never spent much time in the south.

The facts that Juan provided support my post quite well.

[Juan_Bottom]

[Juan_Bottom]

Democrat, not that it matters. Just cool that he did it.

[Phatscotty]

Just because many liberals favour social programs does not necessarily mean they are out for a free ride. The majority of them work and know that their taxes would help pay for those social programs. They are simply in favour of a more equal tax rate FOR ALL and they support many social programs. You guys keep stating that all liberal people want a free ride. Most liberals realize that if the US did not start wars, the poor and the hungry would be non-existent in America.

Of course that is true, well the first part anyways. If only a majority of them could also understand better that first we need to make the money before we can spend the money. And I have a serious problem with their definition of an "equal tax rate".

To me, an "equal tax rate" means everyone is treated equally...IE, the exact same rate. It's 100% fair and 100% equal.

No special groups or special penalties or special benefits ........no discrimination.

Only equality

[PLAYER57832]

Just because many liberals favour social programs does not necessarily mean they are out for a free ride. The majority of them work and know that their taxes would help pay for those social programs. They are simply in favour of a more equal tax rate FOR ALL and they support many social programs. You guys keep stating that all liberal people want a free ride. Most liberals realize that if the US did not start wars, the poor and the hungry would be non-existent in America.

Of course that is true, well the first part anyways. If only a majority of them could also understand better that first we need to make the money before we can spend the money. And I have a serious problem with their definition of an "equal tax rate".

To me, an "equal tax rate" means everyone is treated equally...IE, the exact same rate. It's 100% fair and 100% equal.

No special groups or special penalties or special benefits ........no discrimination.

Only equality

As soon as all INCOME is equal. Except, that would truly be disasterous. Equal taxation is disasterous for related reasons.

[thegreekdog]

Juan just keeps posting stuff that supports my post! Thanks Juan!

[PLAYER57832]

Juan just keeps posting stuff that supports my post! Thanks Juan!

Sort of the way statistic "prove" that beds are the most dangerous places to be.. yeah.

[Juan_Bottom]

I only posted that picture to see if he would say what he said.

thegreekdog has fallen pretty far.

[thegreekdog]

I only posted that picture to see if he would say what he said.

thegreekdog has fallen pretty far.

It is always more productive to lower myself to those I debate with. If you won't acknowledge that the data you keep posting does not support your point, then I will continue to make similarly ridiculous points with the data you post. For the fourth time, if 100% of the people in South Carolina voted and 100% of those voters voted Republican, your data would support your point. Until you provide that data, the data does not support your point.

If you continue to not understand that, then... well... poor people are moving to southern states... and that's my final answer.

[Juan_Bottom]

Truthfully I'm not debating with you. Pretty much all of the time I ignore you. The one time I didn't, in that discussion over Dem's and Repub's platforms, all your facts were out-of-date and then you quite and blamed it on me for not being in touch with 6 month old expired policies or whatever. I suspect that the real reasons you quit were that you don't know how to admit when you don't know what you're talking about to someone that you don't like, and that the discussion was huge. For me, I already knew it all and just had to get some links to double check my stats and stuff, but for someone who doesn't know a lot about politics it's hard to keep up to season to season. So why you talking at me if in the end you'll always quit the "debate" anyway? I just think you can't ignore me back. Why waste my time and yours?

[thegreekdog]

Truthfully I'm not debating with you. Pretty much all of the time I ignore you. The one time I didn't, in that discussion over Dem's and Repub's platforms, all your facts were out-of-date and then you quite and blamed it on me for not being in touch with 6 month old expired policies or whatever. I suspect that the real reasons you quit were that you don't know how to admit when you don't know what you're talking about to someone that you don't like, and that the discussion was huge. For me, I already knew it all and just had to get some links to double check my stats and stuff, but for someone who doesn't know a lot about politics it's hard to keep up to season to season. So why you talking at me if in the end you'll always quit the "debate" anyway? I just think you can't ignore me back. Why waste my time and yours?

Yeah, "debate" wasn't the right word since you're providing virtually nothing in the realm of substance or critical analysis. And hey, I like you fine. You seem like a pretty funny guy. And it's cool that you've taken up pimpdave's mantle and have less of a tongue-in-cheek attitude, what with your awesome charts, graphs and colorful pictures. But yeah, I can't ignore you. I get some enjoyment out of using this forum to post stuff that seems important. These last few posts right here are a good example. So it's not really a waste of time for me. If you feel like I'm wasting your time, by all means ignore my posts. I won't be offended.

[BigBallinStalin]

Come join the Cool Kids Club, TGD. It's where everyone is a winner when JB has explicitly chosen to ignore them.

[Woodruff]

Juan just keeps posting stuff that supports my post! Thanks Juan!

Sort of the way statistic "prove" that beds are the most dangerous places to be.. yeah.

I clearly need to start living more dangerously. Naps, ahoy!

[PLAYER57832]

Juan just keeps posting stuff that supports my post! Thanks Juan!

Sort of the way statistic "prove" that beds are the most dangerous places to be.. yeah.

I clearly need to start living more dangerously. Naps, ahoy!

[Night Strike]

PARSIPPANY, NJ (PIX11)—

Hungry Jersey Kids Boycott Obama's New School Lunch Rules Saying, "We're Hungry!"

Two Parsippany Hills High School students organized a brown bag protest over new federal school lunch rules giving them less food for more money.

"It used to be $2.25, now it's almost $4.00," lamented Ron Rothschild.

Chris Shargay, a freshman at Parsippany Hills High says his family has opted to bring lunch after the price hike, "It's just so much cheaper to get cold cuts on Sunday night and bring them for the week."

Senior Troy Fyfe agreed. "I'm just gonna bring brown paper bag lunches. It's too much."

Students proudly presented empty lunch boxes as school let out, all part of the protest by some 1,200 kids over the new "Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act," signed by President Obama , which mandates smaller portion sizes with a bigger price tag attached to help drive down obesity.

Brandon Faris, a senior said their point was simple. "We want the price of the lunch to go down if the portion is going to go down."

Faris and Nick Caccavale, the organizers behind the brown bag it protest aren't alone. A parody video on YouTube "We are Hungry", with nearly 700,000 hits, shows how kids say they're now calorie deprived and not getting enough food to fuel their demanding days.

But a minority of students decried the move, saying it only hurts those who depend upon serving kids to make a living.

"I don't think these lunch ladies should lose their jobs. One of them came up to us and said we might lose our jobs if this continues," pointe Dannica Burchartz, a senior who was one of only a handful of students to buy her lunch today.

But the PTSA president quickly pointed out the rules are set by the Federal Government, and failure to follow them could mean students who get federally funded lunch might lose their subsidy.

Mom Sandy Giercyzk explained how the district here has its hands tied when it comes to the way they feed the students, "We are federally mandated on the size of the portion and what we can charge. Parsippany is actually under the amount of what we are allowed to charge and we are required every year to raise our price by federal mandate."

And what about the food service company that supplies Parsippany Hills and some 80 other schools with their lunch fixings? Are they making a fatter profit by complying be federal rules to help slim down the nation's school kids? Not at all.

"The school district is actually seeing a drop in participation in response to the smaller portions. And they are meant to be self-sustaining, in that whatever money is left over after paying for the food goes back into funding other programs within the school district," explained Mark Vidovich, the President of the Pomptonian Food Service Group.

All the leftover food was donated to a local charity.

http://www.wpix.com/news/wpix-high-school-students-strike-over-expensive-smaller-lunches-20120928,0,5590826.story