Wow how clueless could she be?

9.5 million dollar program that deals with 3.7 million meals. Mostly run in conjuction with church programs and this is a bad thing?

Hunger is a motivator? Of kids? Well I supose it could give the Missouri chamber of commerce a new slogan.

"Missouri : You want sweatshop labor without having to offshore come to Missouri!"

John 21:15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

i agree with her in the sense that more churches SHOULD be feeding hungry people - charity belongs to the people (taxpayers) in this manner - i'd rather give a church in our area a couple of hundred dollars a month to feed children than give it to a government that WILL feed them junk - junk for the belly AND mind.

hunger IS a motivator, but not this way - working outside the better part of the day gardening, digging, raking, washing your vehicle, weedeating, cutting and dragging limbs and the like WILL make you hungry, but it is nice to know you have a fridge and pantry full of healthy foods to look forward to.

now i will plug a very good food ministry:

Typical, mista kurtz missed the meaning of his bible quote.

#2 | Posted by Mista Kurtz

THE WORD! this had nothing to do with food.

Let the widows and orphans glean in the fields after the harvast. That is the compassion of the Bible. Handing out food only teaches dependancy.

What kind of person would rather see kids go hungry than support a government program? Anyone who knows anything about children's issues knows that some parents are not feeding them adequately, whether due to neglect or a lack of money. Her belief that all parents would deny themselves before letting their children go hungry isn't borne out by reality. There are kids who go home to meth addicts and other horrible situations. For some of them, the only good meal they get is their lunch at school.

Undernourishment is one of the biggest factors to poor education. A kid who isn't eating enough falls behind in school.

Why is it OK to collectively support hungry children through a church but it's wrong to collectively support them through a government?

Wow how clueless could she be?

Well she is a member of the "I got mine go fuck yourself" crowd.

What kind of person would rather see kids go hungry than support a government program?

This kind of asshole...

Handing out food only teaches dependancy.

It is much better to have children starve than use "his" tax dollars to feed them.

Why is it OK to collectively support hungry children through a church but it's wrong to collectively support them through a government?

Because it is clear they don't give money to the church and therefore won't lose any of their money.

For them it just sounds so rational while hiding behide their money tree.

Government handouts have created nothing but ghettos of dependancy, destruction of the black family structure and voters for the democrat party.

rcade - have you seen or eaten school lunches? nothing but a pile of mystery meat and starch - a full belly is not necessarily the sign of a healthy-minded child.

government intervention into MOST areas of our lives creates nothing but heartache and complacency.

An oldie, but a goodie!

Republican: Poor people should consider Hunger a Motivator, Yea that will get these Fucking Assholes reelected. This is why I hate REPUBLICANS, for as a youngster I experienced being Hunger Monthly, FUCK YOU Rep. Davis, I wish I could say that to your miserable FACE.....

Our food bank receives donations, but a lot of it is junk. Stores dump their packaged pastries, and stuff that didn't sell. Yet in this enlightened community there's really no effort to encourage gardens as a means of self sufficiency.

There's an added irony in that the "hood" is built over black loam and you can grow anything in that.

Food stamps are as much a subsidy for farm products as they are for hungry kids...who are naturally susceptible to anything advertised on Sponge Bob. Packaged food costs more, but who knows how to cook?

Besides, it's free.

#16 | Posted by OzarkAggie at

I put out a garden every year, it's mostly just to do it, it really doesn't lower my grocery bill much if any at all. Do you realize how much you would have to put in the ground to feed a family for any length of time?

Government handouts have created nothing but ghettos of dependancy ...

Letting kids go undernourished increases the cycle of poverty. A good education is the best hope for kids to rise up out of poverty and better themselves.

If you genuinely care about reducing "ghettos of dependency," you should want to spend these dollars feeding kids today to keep them off the welfare rolls tomorrow.

... a full belly is not necessarily the sign of a healthy-minded child.

As opposed to an empty belly? School lunches ain't great -- here in Florida the schools buy food from favored agribusiness concerns and get a lot more meat and dairy than they should -- but it's still better than what they're getting at home.

Do you realize how much you would have to put in the ground to feed a family for any length of time?

There's also the time required. Anyone whose time is valuable is losing money by growing their own food in a backyard garden, not saving it. (Not that it isn't beneficial in other ways.)

She thinks that government shouldn't involve itself in feeding children. She thinks that charities and the churches should do it instead. It's why she's a Republican and being a Republican she chooses to ignore the obvious fact that the government subsidizes charities and churches by giving them tax breaks.

Like most Republicans she doesn't like to pay the fair share it requires to provide her with the American lifestyle she so enjoys. So although, in her own life, she wants to eat her cake and have it too she thinks that no cake should be available to the children who were careless enough to have been born into families that she doesn't know or want to know unless it is cake she approves of.

This will then motivate their parents to subscribe to her superior ideas of how children should be raised. A bit like that other Republican idea of invading Iraq to bring democracy to the Middle East when you think about it.

#17 | Posted by NoGov4Me

we canned 25 cases of food last year - have a couple of cases leftover - we'll be doing 40 cases this year - just finished a case and a half in the last two weeks.

our family was large and both my parents worked, but there were times when we had to take "charity" due to unforseen circumstances until we could get on our feet again.

there are lifers and into fourth and fifth generation welfare cases out there - what are they learning from getting handouts? not a damned thing.

Anyone whose time is valuable is losing money by growing their own food in a backyard garden...

That's what kids are for. Start 'em when their too little to fight back. Make 'em think it's fun. Don't let 'em read Tom Sawyer [and that racist trash Huckleberry Finn] until you have a crop of younger ones for the older ones to exploit.

Naturally the libbies think of Lord of the Flies.

I'm thinking more like the Walton's.

we canned 25 cases of food last year -

#21 | Posted by nanc at

Everyone clap for nanc.

I bet you planted in on a little bit bigger piece of ground than "the hood" that
"is built over black loam" that you can grow ANYTHING in has to offer.

I'm sure that fact wouldn't deter you or anyone else who chimes in to make it sound like ANYONE can do it though. I'd almost bet that you could grow enough tood to feed the fucking army in a flower box hanging outside of your window, , , , on a message board at least.

there are lifers and into fourth and fifth generation welfare cases out there - what are they learning from getting handouts? not a damned thing.

I have to turn left on this issue. I could not cut funding for programs that feed hungry children. I agree in principle about the cycle of poverty but if this woman actually got what she apparently wants (I doubt she would have the guts to actually do it) then there would be so many negative consequences. I couldn't live with them.

Quit you're whining you liberal pussies!

Look what hunger did for me.

Bloatedly Yours,

RUUUUUSSHHH!!

Government handouts have created nothing but ghettos of dependancy, destruction of the black family structure and voters for the democrat party.

#11 | Posted by fwthom at 2009-06-22 09:03 AM |

Because we all know there is no such thing as a white, republican voting family down on their luck.

You're a fucking idiot, Fat Waistline Thommy.

What kind of person would rather see kids go hungry than support a government program?
#7 | Posted by rcade

Wait a minute RCade. Before you stupidly say that Republicans hate children because they won't insure them (But children are not 27 years old LOL!!!)

This is the bullshit that makes you Libs to never see the point! "Government Programs" have always failed. Look at Social Security. The program was set up to protect those who loose their livelihood, homes, etc;

Now? Everyone link Social Security to their retirement... Failure.

You guys should run with this, seriously.

GOP slogan for 2010:

Survival farming, hunting/gathering, WOW!

I can hear Michael Steele on Meet the Press:

Growing enough food to feed a family of 4 for a year in 5 or 6 flower pots on the sidewalk in front of an apartment building is so simple even a Democrat could do it!

Because we all know there is no such thing as a white, republican voting family down on their luck.

You're a fucking idiot, Fat Waistline Thommy.

take it easy..he said "and" voters for the democratic party.

But you are right though about white poverty.

Travel to Eastern Kentucky/West Virginia and you will see town after town with poverty and virtually of it is white folks, many of whom are republican I'm sure.

Government handouts have created nothing but ghettos of dependancy ...

Letting kids go undernourished increases the cycle of poverty. A good education is the best hope for kids to rise up out of poverty and better themselves.

#18 | Posted by rcade

WRONG! Drugs has everything to do with it.

Why would you create a "Free Food" government program to fix the symptom when you could fix the problem?

"Government Programs" have always failed.

RCade, please back order an "Idiot" flag.

WRONG! Drugs has everything to do with it.

well, drugs, apathy, school dropouts, teenage pregnancy, STDs, illiteracy all contribute to this.

Mostly having children out of wedlock.

"Government Programs" have always failed. Look at Social Security.

Social Security is one of the most popular programs the government has ever offered. When Bush tried to mess with it back when he was still reasonably popular, he was steamrolled.

Drugs has everything to do with it. Why would you create a "Free Food" government program to fix the symptom when you could fix the problem?

And how would you propose to do that? Feeding undernourished kids is cheap, and saves money in the long run. Dealing with the drug problem through increased police efforts and incarceration is much more expensive.

Opposing a kids' lunch program is a great example of penny-wise, pound-foolish thinking. These kids did nothing wrong. They shouldn't be denied a good meal because their parents suck.

who gives a fuck what she looks like. she's doing something that EVERY taxpayer should be in favor of...i'm tired of paying for the 'poor people' out there. the more we give them the more they expect. it has gotten to the point now whe are giving free breakfast as well as lunch...i wonder when the parents are going to start joining them

.....if the choice is between feeding our own hungry children ....

.....and keeping the most expensive military in the world ...so that we can kill brown and yellow people with impunity......

.....our choice is =

Opposing a kids' lunch program is a great example of penny-wise, pound-foolish thinking. These kids did nothing wrong. They shouldn't be denied a good meal because their parents suck.

#34 | Posted by rcade at

You stop being reasonable right now! Everyone knows that if you give their parents 2 flower pots and a few seeds they will be living the good life in 3 months when they get their first few ripe tomatos.

What to do untill then though. . . . GUM! As a child I heard that if I swallowed my gum it would stay in my stomach for 6 YEARS!!! 6 years > 3 months, it will more than tide them over. Give them an 8 pack of Juicy Fruit along with the plants and the pots and they will be set for life!

Republican: Poor people should consider Hunger a Motivator, Yea that will get these Fucking Assholes reelected. This is why I hate REPUBLICANS, for as a youngster I experienced being Hunger Monthly, FUCK YOU Rep. Davis, I wish I could say that to your miserable FACE.....

That's funny, because experiencing hunger as a child motivated me to get a job and help around the house with bills.

Mom was never one to ask for a handout, even when she could have been justified in asking for it.

Opposing a kids' lunch program is a great example of penny-wise, pound-foolish thinking. These kids did nothing wrong. They shouldn't be denied a good meal because their parents suck.

Except you're still missing the point. You're advocating feeding kids garbage. Fillers. Empty calories that will only make them fat and diabetic. Which will then lead to them needing state run health care later in life.

I'm not saying stop funding projects like this, though. I'm saying start feeding them real, whole foods from organically grown produce. Stop stocking the cafeterias with snack machines and soda pop.

Or. Keep doing what you're doing and make more fat people.

i'm tired of paying for the 'poor people' out there.

Then educate their kids and make sure they get enough food. Otherwise, you have even more poor people in the future.

Hunger keeps your brain from functioning. In children, it keeps your brain from developing. The top thing we could do is free breakfast in school.

No child in Sweden goes a day without an all they can eat meal. It does not include coke, or dorritos. Everyone in school has the same meal, which is free, like their local public transportation pass. One less thing for a busy parent to worry about. Its all done for a lot less than a dangerous fast food meal. Very efficient socialism.

Then educate their kids and make sure they get enough food. Otherwise, you have even more poor people in the future.

oh, we are stuck with that either way.

Feeding the poor is the compasionate thing to do and we will continue to do it (regardless of the rants of this rep)

But it isn't going to do anything to stop poverty from growing. Feeding the poor doesn't do anyting to address the causes of poverty.

Feeding the poor doesn't do anyting to address the causes of poverty.

Be careful when you confront a "compassionate liberal" with the War on Poverty. Next thing you know, they'll be blaming Republicans for standing in the way of progress, despite evidence that their War has addressed nothing that actually causes poverty.

Much like the health care system in the United States. Treat symptoms. Never address the cause. That keeps them coming back for more.

Feeding the poor doesn't do anyting to address the causes of poverty.

It does when they are young, because it prevents undernourishment from affecting their ability to learn.

Education is the best road out of poverty in this country. Back when Jeb Bush was governor of Florida, he proposed the idea of guaranteeing the top 10 percent in every public high school a spot in one of the state's universities. If that was enacted, and the smartest kids in even the worst schools in the state could be assured a chance in college, I think it would have lifted thousands of kids out of poverty in this state.

I don't say much nice about Jeb, but that idea has merit.

Treat symptoms. Never address the cause.

Feeding kids is addressing the cause.

If you oppose the government feeding poor children, why do you support churches doing it? Shouldn't we starve the little bastards?

It does when they are young, because it prevents undernourishment from affecting their ability to learn.

common sense tells us that if you are starving or even undernourished then you will struggle in school........I understand that.

But if we provided a 5-star meal to every child in this country every day, poverty would still continue it's direction.

If you oppose the government feeding poor children, why do you support churches doing it? Shouldn't we starve the little bastards?

From my post above: "I'm not saying stop funding projects like this, though. I'm saying start feeding them real, whole foods from organically grown produce. Stop stocking the cafeterias with snack machines and soda pop."

I could give a damn who does it, but keep your self-righteous bullshit to yourself. Hunger is not a cause of poverty. Poverty causes hunger, and yet the sensitive, compassionate liberal types never, ever address what causes poverty.

Poverty causes hunger, and yet the sensitive, compassionate liberal types never, ever address what causes poverty.

they can't. It's too big of a wedge issue.

what would they have if they can't blame someone else for poverty and ignore the the people in poverty.

without a villian then you have no crisis.

Treat symptoms. Never address the cause.

Feeding kids is addressing the cause.

If you oppose the government feeding poor children, why do you support churches doing it?

#45 | Posted by rcade

Thank you.

I was just about talk about Churches doing what they've been doing for centuries. It's works.

Shouldn't we starve the little bastards?

I sense your desparation.

You know in your heart that a government program is the wrong answer when there is a huge support group alreay.

what would they have if they can't blame someone else for poverty and ignore the the people in poverty.

without a villian then you have no crisis.

Once again, it keeps a steady supply of people almost completely reliant on government assistance to live their day-to-day lives.

Treat symptoms. Never address the cause.

Feeding kids is addressing the cause.

Not at all...hungry kids is a symptom of a bad economy. As Jesus (or was it Arrested Development) says: give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, but teach him to fish and he will eat forever.

"Keep your damn fish offa my lawn!"- the GNOP

they can't. It's too big of a wedge issue.

If you have the solution to poverty, feel free to speak up. I'm just looking at the more narrow problem of undernourishment among poor kids.

Not at all...hungry kids is a symptom of a bad economy.

Do you honestly believe that if the economy was strong, there still wouldn't be lousy parents who aren't feeding their kids? Talk to a teacher sometime about what they learn about the home life of some of their students. It's a tragedy.

free breakfast in school.

I could agree with that, as well as lunch and 8 hour school days.

var. POSTED BY NOGOV4ME

The "hood" is mostly single family homes on at least a 1/4 acre...and Columbia is decidedly liberal with half the adult population degreed. Mizzou is a land grant college and going north there's little more than farms. Yet, like I said there's no push in the direction of teaching gardening or other forms of self sufficiency because the libbies enjoy that superior feeling when they pat the heads of the less fortunate and naturally establish a bureaucracy so the poor can take a number and by extension get treated like one.

Intensive plots yield a considerable amount of produce in a small space. The real inhibitor is the amount of rental property, and turn over in tenancy. That's shame because I remember as a kid eating fresh produce and there's really nothing healthier.

Of course we could end agricultural price supports and food would be less expensive, but that would also include ending food stamps, wouldn't it?

I was just about talk about Churches doing what they've been doing for centuries. It's works.

The program this Missouri Republican opposes is mostly being handled by churches. They give kids something to do during the summer days, and the state pays around $9 million a year to provide the food.

I'm not desperate at all. I just think that it demonstrates a real bankruptcy in the anti-government ideology practiced by some people that they'd deny kids food. Of all the places to draw the line ...

If you have the solution to poverty, feel free to speak up.

there is no solution. any solution would be way too harsh (even for a mean conservative like myself...LOL) for our elected leaders to actually consider it.

poverty will always be a bill we have to pay just like all the other bills that we pay.

Do you honestly believe that if the economy was strong, there still wouldn't be lousy parents who aren't feeding their kids?

you are actually dead on with that one. there is no economy that wouldn't still have poverty. We will always have poverty and you will see it in the same places we have poverty now. Poverty will always be caused by the same things that cause it now.(short of armageddon)

- If they slither out of their trash pits though and head our way, we'll take care of the problem once and for all.

The tougher they are on the Internets, the bigger pussy they are in real life.

Real Life Pussy Thom.

Libs can keep feeding those stupid non working fucks with our tax dollars,

this would represent a position quite harsher than my own.

Do you honestly believe that if the economy was strong, there still wouldn't be lousy parents who aren't feeding their kids?

I defer you to Jesus Christ Superstar and the very same debate between Judas and Jesus:

JUDAS

Woman your fine ointment, brand new and expensive
Should have been saved for the poor.
Why has it been wasted? We could have raised maybe
Three hundred silver pieces or more.
People who are hungry, people who are starving
They matter more than your feet and hair!

JESUS

Surely you're not saying we have the resources
To save the poor from their lot?
There will be poor always, pathetically struggling.
Look at the good things you've got.

I don't expect the government to fix poverty or to provide cradle-to-grave welfare for poor people. I do expect it to help poor children, because they're in that circumstance through no fault of their own and deserve a chance to get out.

LOL, Kanrei. I listened to that album 1,000 times when I was a kid. "So you are the Christ, you're the great Jesus Christ! Prove to me that you're no fool -- walk across my swimming pool. If you do that for me, then I'll let you go free. Come on, king of the JUICE!"

"The tougher they are on the Internets, the bigger pussy they are in real life. "

The cheaper the punk, the gaudier the patter. ...

It's no longer the GOP. It's now the POD-The Party of Dickens.

-king of the JUICE!"

Must be a Florida thing.

Anita Bryant Syndrome.

Rcade,
I still do listen to it (Original London Cast with Deep Purple's singer as Jesus). I find it to be amazing both lyrically and musically. A desert island album for sure for me.

I'd like to see her live that philosophy, if you know what I mean. Kick this one out of office, Missouri.

Devoid of emotion, her statement is correct...hunger motivates unlike anything else. This is yet another case of a politician too stupid to realize there are general truth that do not need to be stated because 1) we all already know it and 2) pointing them out makes you appear callous and cold.

"I don't expect the government to fix poverty or to provide cradle-to-grave welfare for poor people. I do expect it to help poor children, because they're in that circumstance through no fault of their own and deserve a chance to get out."

It's a real dilemma. The government funds are paid to the adults for the childrens' benefit but all too often end up with drug dealers, bartenders etc. How do we put an end to the vicious circle?

How do we put an end to the vicious circle?

We could try tangible assistance instead of financial. For example- giving food instead of food stamps. Paying rent directly to landlords instead of welfare and hope it gets spent where it is intended.

Come to the "Show-Me-State" and find out just how out of touch with reality many Missourians are. I live in the hometown of Rush. Rush and his brother David are celebrities here, and more than most buy into the fountain of shit they spew.

Must be a Florida thing. Anita Bryant Syndrome.

:-). The way he says it always sounded more like "JUICE!" than "JEWS!"

"King Herod's Song":

I don't expect the government to fix poverty or to provide cradle-to-grave welfare for poor people. I do expect it to help poor children, because they're in that circumstance through no fault of their own and deserve a chance to get out.

But that's exactly what you're supporting. You're raising a group to rely on a handout from someone (government, church, whatever) instead of demanding that poverty be attacked directly.

Where are the politicians who fight for a factory in Harlem? Detroit? South Central?

Fact is that when white-bread crackers' jobs are threatened, democrat and republican representatives can't flex their muscle fast enough. Meanwhile, move a factory out of a town, such as the one I live in, not a fucking finger is lifted.

"For example- giving food instead of food stamps."

I personally know of cases where the food was SOLD for beer money. Not just food, but in one case, a brand new refrigerator to store it in as well. It was sold for less than half its value the same day it was delivered. Food, clothes, toys and other things are sold for cash. It's more common than you think. It's gonna take someone a lot smarter than me to solve it without taking the children away completely.

"Paying rent directly to landlords instead of welfare and hope it gets spent where it is intended."

That is done already.

I'm not desperate at all. I just think that it demonstrates a real bankruptcy in the anti-government ideology practiced by some people that they'd deny kids food. Of all the places to draw the line ...

#55 | Posted by rcade

WOW!!!!

RCade, The government is taking over the responsibility of community churches taking care of the unfortunate!!!

How can you say "real bankruptcy"? The government is taking over! THIS IS BAD and it will leave millions in need. (Remember Katrina?)

People ignore the reality in order to gain power.

Everyone who lives in NOLA knows that a direct hit from a hurricane will flood the city!!! It happened before. RCade, there were 30000 people left standing on their roofs because they were conditioned into believing that the government was going to help them. These are the people who have been fed by the government for generations.

You are desperately missing the point. Government taking over the responsibilities of the local community is creating more of the problem!! Once you create a program to fix the symptom, the "program" grows because it needs a reason to exist.

Fix the problem, not the symptom.

This is an example of the utter hypocrisy and name-calling of the Left. You ignore the truth and hope that the ignorant masses do the same. RCade, you are just parroting the stupidity of the Left.

Please, please, please point to the person who said "starve the children".

RCade, "bankruptcy"? LOL!!!!!

When you acuse the Right of being "bankrupt" when the truth is explained to you,

That's called being desparate.

RCade, there were 30000 people left standing on their roofs because they were conditioned into believing that the government was going to help them.

Every time a hurricane hits Florida, there are thousands of people expecting the government to help them. And the government does. It even provides insurance for rich people who build too close to the coast, so they can rebuild their houses if they become damaged. How many poor children could be fed if the government stopped insuring rich oceanfront homes?

The problem in New Orleans was not that people expected the government to help. It was that government did a shitty job helping them.

This is an example of the utter hypocrisy and name-calling of the Left.

Name-calling? What are you talking about? I haven't called you or anybody else a name in this discussion.

Food, clothes, toys and other things are sold for cash. It's more common than you think. It's gonna take someone a lot smarter than me to solve it without taking the children away completely.
#74 | Posted by jestgettinalong

Some time back, here in Denver, they tried providing homes for the homeless. They gave them a place to live and it was theirs until they got back on their feet. I thought it was a great idea. I was young then, and Liberal minded, because a simple thought of helping someone when their down on their luck to get back up again, was a good thing and absolutely had to be followed.

Well, the short story is that after a few months, the housing units were unlivable because everything in it had been removed and sold. Even the copper pipe and wiring IN THE WALLS, was torn out and sold.

The idea that "the church" is socially responsible for a countrys poverty stricken people is ludicrous and non-biblical.

Charity, mostly among the brethren, btw, is biblical, but taking the responsibility for their actions in regards to poverty away from government and placing it on churches is merely providing excuses, even enablement, for poor governance.

What is funny as hell to me is these poor excuses for Christians who promote Social Darwinism as political creed.

Every time a hurricane hits Florida, there are thousands of people expecting the government to help them. And the government does. It even provides insurance for rich people who build too close to the coast, so they can rebuild their houses if they become damaged. How many poor children could be fed if the government stopped insuring rich oceanfront homes?

#76 | Posted by rcade

Nice deflection, but I agree with you. Would you like to leave this subject and talk about that now?

You're the one who brought Katrina and hurricanes into this, Eddie. If you want to go back to talking about how you're winning the debate because schoolkids should go hungry unless the churches want to feed them, be my guest.

Here is the "cold hearted reality statement of the day": children will die from hunger. We have overpopulated the planet to the point where resources do not meet need. We cannot save every species on the planet and expect everything to have a decent quality of life. Things must die to make room for the new. If we are going to keep living longer and longer then we must have less children. Two people with more than two children puts extra strain on the planet. Save what you can, but to think or even hope to save them all is folly.

Why does Peace Corps go overseas when they're needed here?

The problem in New Orleans was not that people expected the government to help. It was that government did a shitty job helping them.

#76 | Posted by rcade

Uhhh. Wrong!

Again, 30000 people were left standing on their roofs because they did not leave the city. They thought that the very government that kept them in poverty for 70+ years was going to help them with anything. Everyone knows that when a hurricane hits the city, it will flood.

Research it before just parroting the Huff Post!

I have researched it, I lived in Louisiana for 30 years and I understand the corrupt government and the mentality of keeping the Poor poor. I understand it; it was a religion in Louisiana to keep the spirit of Huey Long alive. Jindal is changing that attitude and is popular for it.

The government did a shitty job? Of course they did! How do you evacuate 30000 people with helicopters? Holy Crap, do you even think it through?

Oh, RCADE,

Why did you post that Youtube link? I have that song stuck in my head now and I work with religious people so I really cannot sing it aloud. You suck =P

You're the one who brought Katrina and hurricanes into this, Eddie. If you want to go back to talking about how you're winning the debate because schoolkids should go hungry unless the churches want to feed them, be my guest.

#80 | Posted by rcade

Where did I say I was winning?

You said it...

Here is the "cold hearted reality statement of the day": children will die from hunger.

#81 | Posted by kanrei

That's the sad reality. If we continue to feed in lieu of educating, then there will be a time when the government can't handle it, i.e., Katrina and 30000 people standing on their roofs.

OK, I see that RCADE and KANREI have gone off and started quoting Jesus Christ Superstar. Awesome. I love the original, the one with Ian Gillan as Jesus. I listened to the album constantly as a kid, and about two years ago bought a digitally remastered CD, and the sound quality is better than I ever remember as a kid.

And of course, the great "King of the Juice" line from Herod - that's the way I always heard it too...

On point, you don't talk about motivating kids with hunger. Parents are one thing, kids are another. Even if some of her points are valid, Davis has to be oblivious not to realize how heartless she sounds.

Where did I say I was winning?

When you started making weird comments like "I sense your desparation."

Here is the "cold hearted reality statement of the day": children will die from hunger. We have overpopulated the planet to the point where resources do not meet need.

The United States is not overpopulated. We have more than enough land and resources to feed our existing population.

"People should be able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.... even if they don't have boots." - The GNOP

We have some grade A sleazebags on this blog.

Where did I say I was winning?

When you started making weird comments like "I sense your desparation."

Oh. no problem.

The United States is not overpopulated. We have more than enough land and resources to feed our existing population.

#88 | Posted by rcade

Ok, That's it. Don't start something else.

RCADE I emailed you twice asking you to reactivate Jackass so I could get my old name back. Did you get my emails?

We have some grade A sleazebags on this blog.

#90 | Posted by rastaninja

Actually, not until just now.

"People should be able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.... even if they don't have boots." - The GNOP

#89 | Posted by Corky

Because they sold their boots to buy Meth?

I'm serious. The Left continue to ignore the facts and continue to throw crap through the Huff Post like monkies in a cage.

#2 | Posted by Mista Kurtz

THE WORD! this had nothing to do with food.

#5 | Posted by nanc

This is why organized religion is the best con in history. Whenever the sacred fairy tale says anything that the faithful disagree with, then it's just a metaphor.

Even if some of her points are valid, Davis has to be oblivious not to realize how heartless she sounds.

#87 | Posted by cbob

Some do it to get attention, but the Left twists and spins and uses it the wrong way. This is an example of how the Left prays on the ignorance of the masses, who are fat, dumb, and happy, by the way. How ironic?

You know in your heart that a government program is the wrong answer when there is a huge support group already.

Posted by Eddie

Biggest cop out that you slimeballs always use. Just say the church will handle it. Most people who have done research realize most church donations go towards a church maintenance fund. For the churches to take over charities tithing would be required. Many parishioners can't afford to do so. I simply would never give a nickle to a church.

Because they never had any boots.

Address #78, Edie.

Biggest cop out that you slimeballs always use. Just say the church will handle it. Most people who have done research realize most church donations go towards a church maintenance fund. For the churches to take over charities tithing would be required. Many parishioners can't afford to do so. I simply would never give a nickle to a church.

#98 | Posted by rastaninja

Rasta,

You are young and ignorant and will soon learn that "letting the government" handle it is a HUGE cop out!

BTW, letting the church handle is saying that an organized group of locals are helping local people in their community.

Because they never had any boots.

Address #78, Edie.

#99 | Posted by Corky

Really? Who?

Somehow, I don't believe you and I think you're making it up.

Desparate?

Address #78, Edie.

Eddie I don't think the church would be able to handle it. I think children would go hungrier than they do now. You would be happy since your tax dollars would be safe. You deserve a life of misery because you are one evil greedy man.

Biggest cop out that you slimeballs always use.
#98 | Posted by rastaninja

The pure arrogance born out of ignorance from the youthful Left is comical.

Rasta, you are criticizing something that has worked for centuries! Why, now is it not working?

Eddie I don't think the church would be able to handle it. I think children would go hungrier than they do now. You would be happy since your tax dollars would be safe.

#103 | Posted by rastaninja

Stop! you are embarrasing yourself.

I should be using my tax dollars to feed and educate the unfortuate.

You deserve a life of misery because you are one evil greedy man.

Wow!!! Have you even been paying attention? You are so fucking stupid as to assume that before even reading my posts!

I'm greedy because I will not give my house to people who refuse to work and take care of their families?

What a little dumbass! LOL!!!

Rasta, You are High School! You don't have a job and you don't pay taxes. You have NEVER lifted a finger to help ANYONE because you can't even take care of yourself!

I HAVE! I DO! AND I WILL IN THE FUTURE!!!!

That's what a community is for!

When you take away the responsibility of people like me helping the local unfortunates, then eventually the unfortunates will die from starvation.

You've been schooled, Rasta.

Charity, mostly among the brethren, btw, is biblical, but taking the responsibility for their actions in regards to poverty away from government and placing it on churches is merely providing excuses, even enablement, for poor governance.

What is funny as hell to me is these poor excuses for Christians who promote Social Darwinism as political creed.

#78 | Posted by Corky

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!

Corky, you moron.

Taxing and spending != Charity

Actually, what is funny as hell is ignorant, young Libs thinking they are going to change the world by shifting the responsibility of the churchs to the government. It's been tried before and it failed. Ever try Government Coffee?

Well, I thought you weren't lucid enough to make a serious comment on what was said, and you have proven me correct.

You have also proven that you are a Social Darwinist with no concept of the place of charity in Christianity.

(hint: it is not to replace government responsiblity for their policy)

But, I am afraid you are beyond needing mere clues.

Eddie - If you're helping "the unfortunates," then good for you. Churches have indeed helped many people. And I will concede that certain government programs have in the past enabled poverty as much as they have helped. Concentrating poor people in public housing and providing more welfare to moms who don't have a man in the house led to unintended consequences.

But many of those problems have been lessened in recent years, including through the work requirements and other reforms signed into law by Clinton in the 1990s. I happen to think a centralized safety net provided by government is required to protect the most vulnerable among us, specifically children, from starvation, neglect and abuse. Government is accountable to the taxpayers, whereas churches are only as accountable as they want to be.

"If you are not a liberal when you are young you don't have a heart but if you're still a liberal when you are older you don't have a brain."

I remember that quote and I remember being so offended by it in my 20's. I am approaching 40 now and am slowly seeing the logic behind it. Same thing with "hire a teenage while they still know EVERYTHING."

Eddie you know where you can put your church right Eddie? You are a lying hypocrite. It's all about the tax dollars with these rethugs. Thom wants to take more fishing trips that's why he needs his tax dollars.

John 21:15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
#2 | Posted by Mista Kurtz at 2009-06-22 08:25 AM

I would argue that this is a poignant example of how the religious mistake their view as the commonly held one.

Cynthia Davis apparently does not go to church, or ever inquire regarding what goes on inside of one. In the neediest of places religious institutions have always provided sanctuary and comfort, when they aren't used for propagandizing against other religions. We need to increase the funding to these useful organizations and oust stupid asshats like Davis. I'm not too uncertain an amount of racism is also at play. Her site was all too trite about the entire affair, it's unbelievably crass. "Tip #3: McDonalds will feed you on your breaks for free." I'm uncertain how mistakes like that pass logic censors. She's dangerously detached, to say the least.

"In that spirit, she offers some helpful hints:
"Families may economize by choosing not to waste hard earned dollars on potato chips, ice cream or Twinkies."
"Laid-off parents could adapt by preparing more home cooked meals rather than going out to eat."
"Tip: If you work for McDonald's, they will feed you for free during your break.""

Are these real?

Does she not know the difference between someone who is going through a hard time (kid has laid off parents) and someone who is impoverished (starving kid with unemployable, useless parents)?

How out of touch could you possibly be?

Yeah, these kids are hungry all the time because mom and dad keep going out to eat, forgetting that the money they just blew was supposed to feed the family for the week.

And some of you are defending this moron. Sheesh.

While I can see where, in a figurative sense, the statement that hunger is a good motivator can be argued, and while I am not a big fan of government programs for government sake, I'll pay more taxes any day to make sure kids get healthcare and food.

Now arguing that kids should be eating at home, well there is some sense to that, but if they aren't getting fed at home, I'm not sure where that leaves us.

Around here, there are so many places to get food assistance if you need it, anyone who goes hungry, well, it's just their fault unless they honestly don't know where any of these places are.

Since the economic decline, however, many places have become short on food.

Eddie you know where you can put your church right Eddie? You are a lying hypocrite. It's all about the tax dollars with these rethugs. Thom wants to take more fishing trips that's why he needs his tax dollars.

#111 | Posted by jackass

Yep. Jackass fits your retorts much better.

#111 | Posted by jackass

You're just an angry little man, Rasta, ur, Jackass. But, you have no cause. There are 150 million Americans who think you're an idiot; a Rebel without a clue.

And some of you are defending this moron. Sheesh.

#113 | Posted by Sully

Whatever Sully.

If you haven't been paying attention, then Sheesh!

LOL

You will never understand that government created the poverty in the first place. Sheesh!

I'll pay more taxes any day to make sure kids get healthcare and food.

#114 | Posted by LEgregius

If you that ignorant about the law, then you deserve to pay more taxes.

The State already provides for health care and food for kids!

Why are Libs clamoring for more?

You can't make a circle rounder. Its already round.

I think all potential politicians should be forced to live the different realities of their constituents before being eligible for office. Might make them seem like less of the out-of-touch fools they all are...it could be the "actual work" part of their careers as politicians.

Why are Libs clamoring for more?

#118 | Posted by Eddie

OH! That's right. Kids are 27-years-old.

Eddie says "whatever" and "LOL," but Sully, I thought your point was well made.

And suggesting that "government created the poverty in the first place" is a cruel and phony exaggeration. Not everyone who's poor was made poor by government policy - but, you knew that.

Some households are so dysfunctional - sometimes because of disability, abuse, personal crisis, whatever - that simply telling them to "get to work" is pointless. Meanwhile, their kids are hungry - through no fault of their own. Government has a responsibility to see that they aren't ignored. Kids need motivation, sure, but they also need to eat, without some moralist questioning why.

And some of you are defending this moron. Sheesh.

#113 | Posted by Sully

Sully, read the original Newsletter.

There are probably 150 million Americans who feel the way she feels. Traditional, Conservative. Why, because you believe in the old ways, you know the ways that have worked for centuries make you a moron? Perhaps, you're a moron for not reading it and the posts on this thread and then forming an opinion?

#119 | Posted by panchovilla

What is this lady's constituency?

Kids need motivation, sure, but they also need to eat, without some moralist questioning why.

that would be supressing an opinion. some folks are giong to disagree with programs like this and they should have their say.

And suggesting that "government created the poverty in the first place" is a cruel and phony exaggeration. Not everyone who's poor was made poor by government policy - but, you knew that.
#121 | Posted by cbob

Not everyone, but most.

30 years ago, you would never see anyone take money from the government. It was a sign of failure. Now, it's easy to get assistance, as it should be for they people who need it. But it should be temporary and it's not.

Government entitlements are an enabler. It makes you poor. You have to be poor to get it.

You've never seen this, have you, CBob?

The unbelievable desparation in the thread is reflected across the Internet.

#125 - I have seen it, yes. I said that. Sometimes people are just sponges. I've seen it in my own family, and I used to work for the state agency in charge of welfare. So yeah, I know.

But your generalizations, and this Davis lady's generalizations, are unfair. Most people don't want to be poor and are trying hard to move up. They don't need motivation.

"Sully, read the original Newsletter.

There are probably 150 million Americans who feel the way she feels. Traditional, Conservative. Why, because you believe in the old ways, you know the ways that have worked for centuries make you a moron? Perhaps, you're a moron for not reading it and the posts on this thread and then forming an opinion?"

I was mostly referring to her "suggestions" to prevent child hunger.... She seems to really not know that they are children who live in poverty. Rather, she seems to believe that their parents are just spending too much money at the Cheesecake Factory or on Twinkies........ Not knowing what poverty is makes someone pretty ignorant any way you cut it.... That really wasn't a political point I was making but a criticism of this individual.

And the "old way" wasn't to let kids starve either. People gave more to charity on a personal and community level a few generations ago. In the "old days" if parents were too useless to care for a kid, someone would take that kid in rather than watch the kid starve or freeze or live on streets, etc.... There were street kids but they were considered an embrassment to the community. (because what kind of community would allow this to happen?)

99% of the people who claim to be "old fashioned" don't do shit for strangers on any kind of level. You may be an exception but don't tell me there are 150 million Americans who would feed someone else's kids because that simply isn't true.

Gone With The Wind- Tara

John 21:15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

#2 | Posted by Mista Kurtz at 2009-06-22 08:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

Ding! We have a winner; today's most irrelvant post off topic.

How many people believe Jesus was telling Peter to

1. Start a catering business?
2. Open a soup kitchen for the poor?
3. Provide spiritual nourishment to Christs' followers?

Hint: the first two don't count.

Why limit it to kids? We should all go! Free food in Missouri!

How sick a depraved do you have to be to begrudge a child a meal?

You people turn my stomach.

99% of the people who claim to be "old fashioned" don't do shit for strangers on any kind of level. You may be an exception but don't tell me there are 150 million Americans who would feed someone else's kids because that simply isn't true.

#128 | Posted by sully

Really? Is that a product of 30+ years of government entitlements?

I agree with you that less people today are less willing to help strangers, but that's hardly because of greed--it's probably more a question of security.

When I was growing up, my dad would help strangers all the time. He grew up on the streets of NOLA and learned a great deal there. He always knew when there was someone truly in need and we would sometimes take them in and give them a place to sleep, but he would always give them food or money or gas to get them on their way.

But, this entitlement society has created a class of "poor" people that is very unique.

My sister, who is more Liberal than me... Ok, everyone is more Lberal than me, but she is not Conservative from a political point of view anyway. She's unique! She will help stangers in need.

Anyway, She and I have had this discussion going on for a few years. How do you help people in immediate need? Stranded, hungry, etc. I maintain that I give them money and be done with it, because if you start talking to them about their problem it turns into a lecture. She says that she would rather take them to a store and buy them food. Well, she's acted on it. I would just give someone 20 bucks for gas and another 20 bucks to eat unch depending on how many are in the family. She would see a family in a parking lot with a sign saying something like "Standed. Need for and gas". She could never pass them up without going up to them ans grabbing the mom by the hand and taking her to the closest grocery store. Now 10 years ago, they would get a basket and buy formula for the baby and cold cuts and other stuff to make sandwiches for a couple of days of travel. Then meet the dad at gas station and fill their tank with gas. She never gave money.

10-15 years ago, she would come across people truly in need. But, lately, this has changed. There is a new class of "unfortunates". She was telling me about a month ago she was coming out of a grocery store and a woman with a 4-year-old girl stopped her and told her that she was trying to get back to East Coast (They were in Kansas) and needed gas and food. Well, in her tradition, she said, let me help you. She told her I will let you get a basket and fill it with everything you need for the trip. The first thing that went into the basket was liquor and cigarettes! Then TV dinners and other microwavable stuff that's not good for you. That meeting did turn into a lecture.

How sick a depraved do you have to be to begrudge a child a meal?

You people turn my stomach.

#132 | Posted by Salaryman

And your ignorance turns mine.

Pisses me off to the point where I want to slap you on the back of the head and say something like. READ AND THINK BEFORE COMMENTING!

You idiots cast your votes in much the same way.

Kids are not 27-years-old, doofus.

"Thou shalt not feed hungry children with public money for such is an abomination in my sight! If feedest thou them suchly, I shalt smite thee and them and thy country! It is better that hungry children die than that thee offend me thusly!"

--Jesus?

"Why have meals at home with your loved ones if you can go to the government soup kitchen and get one for free?"

somebody her crack pipe away from her. or impeach her and let her keep it.

have we sunk that low? are we really that stupid?

are we doomed or is the soup THAT GOOD? what, cheddar and potato with a lobster bisque? bouilliabasse?

if my mom took our (her) homemade vegetable beef over there i WILL have to go get it, soon as i get gas money or bus fare.

Besides feeding these kids we need to teach them about how good life is in the white man's world of suburbia. When they see how we live out here they will be motivated to break that "cycle of poverty."

If you oppose the government feeding poor children, why do you support churches doing it? Shouldn't we starve the little bastards?

#45 | Posted by rcade

I think you have just given me an idea as to why my children are not motivated enough! I am feeding them too way too much...guess I need to starve the little bastards! That will lite a fire under their asses.

Thanks!

Jackass

RCADE I emailed you twice asking you to reactivate Jackass so I could get my old name back. Did you get my emails?

#93 | Posted by jackass at 2009-06-22 01:03 PM

I see you want to go back to your old name and not be called "Rastaninja" (Rasta) anymore? I remember when you were "Jackass" on DR but it was awhile ago and I wasn't on DR all that much at the time you and Rex and the others left DR for awhile so I've been more used to calling you "Rasta" now that you're back.

But if you prefer to be called "Jackass" (or "JackA" ) I'll go back to using your old name.

btw -- is that "jackass" with a capital "J"? lol

btw -- is that "jackass" with a capital "J"? lol

Actually you only capitalize the last three letters: A-S-S.

She has a point. The starving French were motivated enough to start chopping heads. The starving Russians were motivated enough to have a revolution on horseback in a Russian winter. Hard to get happy after that.

I, for one, will be grateful when all these Ayn Randian dipshits, like Cynthia Davis, decide to go fuck off to fantasy island.

Are there no prisons?
Are there no workhouses?

~The Right.

Hunger can be a positive motivator?

Sure, but only if you think that crime and misery and positive things.

At least Marie Antoinette thought the poor should eat cake.

Be Well.

so can a Baseball bat upside your head,
Mr. Missouri republican...

"Really? Is that a product of 30+ years of government entitlements?"

Its definitely a factor. And I'm not a big fan of most of our welfare programs. But I've also never met anyone who fed themself as a child. I don't see how the govt feeding a kid makes him any more lazy or unappreciative of work than he would be if his parents were feeding him. The kid who has to walk or take a bus to a food distribution center probably did more for his meal than the typical kid.

"I agree with you that less people today are less willing to help strangers, but that's hardly because of greed--it's probably more a question of security."

I very often see people refuse to help someone else in a situation where they could easily do so without being endangered. I don't think it is greed. Alot of people simply don't give a crap and can't be bothered......

If you claim to be a Christian and are not in favor of feeding the Sheep I have to wonder about you.

Why is is that the ones who scream "I'm a Christian" & "family values" the loudest are also the ones who say let kids go hungry.

Seems to go against everything the bible says abuot your fellow man.

Typical self-righteous douche-nozzles clinging to their bible only when it suits their hatred.

Besides feeding these kids we need to teach them about how good life is in the white man's world of suburbia. When they see how we live out here they will be motivated to break that "cycle of poverty."

#136 | Posted by fwthom at 2009-06-22 06:50 PM | Reply | Flag: Delusional.

ok, ok , she's a real douchebag for saying these remarks. On the other hand, why the fuck are we paying to keep school lunch programs during the summer?

we have school lunches. I have to tell you, there ain't a one of those kids on that program who wouldn't have 3 squares a day plus even if that program was not around.

also, the school can't even peep about whether the financial application is bogus or not, and i know some of those kids with folks who make good money, but are gaming the system.

so, while she's an idiot, and yes, it's a good thing to feed the kiddies - my hunch is that this program is bloated and rife with fraud to begin with. non-profits do a better job.

Why is it OK to collectively support hungry children through a church but it's wrong to collectively support them through a government?

#7 | Posted by rcade at 2009-06-22 08:42 AM

Most times when it's passed out by the government it takes a master degree social worker at 50 to 60 k to over see a bachelors social worker at 30 to 40 k to over see a bachelor nutritionist at 30 k to over see 20 minimum wage workers.

Churches do the same with mostly charitable labor.

Big difference.

Charity for hire (government) isn't really charity. Don't you think?

The top thing we could do is free breakfast in school.

#40 | Posted by Maezeppa

Why stop there? Why not twin beds, showers, soaps, shampoo, toothpaste and some big screens?

No child in Sweden goes a day without an all they can eat meal. It does not include coke, or dorritos. Everyone in school has the same meal, which is free, like their local public transportation pass. One less thing for a busy parent to worry about. Its all done for a lot less than a dangerous fast food meal. Very efficient socialism.

#41 | Posted by nutcase at 2009-06-22 11:00 AM

Buh bye. The ship is sailing, don't miss your seat. Sounds like a regular paradise for lazy parents.

Oh, that's right. They abort the undesireables.

Do you think you'd have made the cut over there?

Not at all...hungry kids is a symptom of a bad economy. As Jesus (or was it Arrested Development) says: give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, but teach him to fish and he will eat forever.

#51 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-06-22 11:28 AM

I don't think it was Jesus that said that, but don't let that stop you from stuffing words in his mouth.