Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

About That Global Warming...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • She is correct OMD, but the truth doesn't matter. How can you convince people who have been taught this nonsense from birth that their way of thinking and doing business has screwed them? You can't! Especially when you have another group of people telling them how brilliant they are, and that because they drive a car, they are running out of water. It would be laughable if it wasn't so damn sad!

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • Originally posted by Imawhosure View Post
      And Peter, let me say this also-------------> do not think of your country so much in this instance, but rather contemplate the United States.

      The biggest supporters of MMGW that are rich in this country are the Hollyweird elites. They fall all over themselves telling the rest of us all about it, while they attend their parties in limos, or fly all over the world in private jets. Doesn't that sound more like the old saying, "don't do as I do, do as I say?" And they also say, "Drain my pool? You are kidding me! Why I am (insert Hollyweird elites name here)" And how believable should these people words be as they take advantage of the wealth of America, while trying to put everyone in a crackerbox auto?

      Also, they are some of the largest supporters of illegal immigration; in other words, turning a blind eye to the illegality. In 1982 or 3, California had 23 million inhabitants. Today, California has almost 39 million, and can't supply herself with water. Now we know that population grows, but considering California has one of the largest exodus rates of citizens in these United States to other areas, you have to wonder if you are logical, if liberal policies have created this bed, and now they complain about it.

      While I am almost positive you and many others will never agree---------------> liberalism and its policies have created Californias problems. Her excess population, her outlandish taxes, her lack of water, nobody pays taxes.....or fewer by % than most any other state, illegal aliens are everywhere taking benefits, job creating businesses can not thrive, and what do they pin the problem on? GLOBAL WARMING; excuse me, CLIMATE CHANGE. Poppycock. It is because they have done, exactly what it is you should not do, and now they need an excuse. And you know what? To many people who are idealogues are buying it, instead of understanding the underlying problems that have caused what was once considered the "golden state," to become a mini Detroit.

      Do not think for an instant that I am blaming all of this on illegal aliens. No Peter, I blame our politicians, and those that buy politicians who want cheap labor 1st. 2nd is the American voter, who doesn't understand that if you do not control your borders, by the law of supply and demand which both our countries work under, if you allow more workers than jobs, you have created an underclass, period!!!!!!! And they need BENEFITS to survive.

      Let me state this, then all you libs can flame me--------------------> take out 75% of illegal aliens, and the REAL unemployment rate/participation rate, drops below 4%. The USA could then come close to balancing her budget, and that is without even taking out the excess 33% that is wasted! Make no mistake, some prices would rise, but your taxes would not!

      Let's be more specific about liberalism. It is MODERN liberalism that has had much to do with problems in Ca. Being an old time liberal, in most areas, I do not recognize modern liberalism as liberalism. They do not support the working americans, which was a key point in the old time liberalism. Instead, they support all of the odd minority groups, the queers, the transgenders, the atheists who go after religion, and of course any Hispanic who comes into this nation illegally, driving down wages and displacing American workers. This is liberalism as I know it. It's just utter stupidity.

      Yet both the modern liberal, the modern conservative, and the neo conservatives, ALL support illegal immigration, and do not really want to stop it nor to address the illegals already here. Of course the modern liberal wants to give them amnesty, just like Reagan wanted to do,and pulled off.

      Who is benefitted by illegal immigration? Of course the elites benefit, for they don't like paying a dime more for lawn or maid service than they have to. You do not get rich by spending more instead of less. In most cases you get rich by paying as little as you can, while keeping as much of the income pie as you can. That is just the fact of the matter. And so business wants illegal labor, for they save money on labor, which means more for themselves from the income pie created by workers, people actually doing the work that brings in income.

      We all know, or should be aware that the GOP has been the party of banksters and business interests. So that explains why they have continued to allow illegal immigration. Many of these congressional republicans are ivy league educated, so they know full well that if you wanted to actually end it, you simply beef up the laws on business employing illegals, and add some mandatory jail time there, which would end illegal immigration practically over night. Yet they would never do this, and would not touch it with a ten foot pole, for they know it would work. Their business constituents of course do not want such laws.

      Then the democrats. They see illegal immigrants as eventually becoming citizens, who can vote, and they will not control it due to this, plus their business constituents who give them big money to win elections. And some of these democrats actually want to get rid of the European majority in our population. They want to turn America brown, for ideological beliefs. I personally know a couple of these sorts, both college profs, who are loony tunes liberal, well, modern liberals.

      Ca has always had cyclical droughts. In order to even get the needed water for a big population the west has had to divert water, build dams to create lakes and so on. So when they get another cyclical drought, they of course have problems. If environment concerns has kept them from diverting other water sources, well, they will not be able to solve future problems with water, unless it becomes economically feasible to turn sea water into potable water.

      If we were back in the mindset of the liberal 30s and 40s, those liberals would have done something to address the problem, by major construction projects, water infrastructure for the west, especially the food basket areas and cities. Yet we have no major infrastructure projects these days, as we would rather spend money on waging war in the middle east than taking care of this nation which needs an updated, new, and improved infrastructure. We are literally rotting and falling apart in many areas. Money needs to be diverted to this, taken away from a bloated war department, where money is not being spent on humans, but on the industrial complex.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • I'm not bothered by immigration but not because of any economic or political reason but simply because every immigrant I've ever worked with have been really hard working and lovely people.

        yes, it's a rubbish reason I freely admit.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
          I'm not bothered by immigration but not because of any economic or political reason but simply because every immigrant I've ever worked with have been really hard working and lovely people.

          yes, it's a rubbish reason I freely admit.
          Well, you would probably not find anyone on this forum that was bothered by immigration. But that is legal immigration, as operated under rules of law. The trouble we have with immigration is the illegal kind, where the nation for whatever reason refuses to control it, when the People want it controlled, and the law says it must be controlled. So its the lawlessness involved, in a nation where our rulers do not follow the law, but seek to just ignore it. And they choose to ignore it because some elites want a supply of illegal, but cheap labor, in order to max out their own income. Americans want their rulers to represent their best interests while operating under the rule of law that is imposed upon the average guy, but not imposed when a group doesn't want it imposed upon them. And therein is the problem.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • [QUOTE=OldmanDan;n509657]
            Originally posted by radcentr View Post


            Another opinion on that drought.



            Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...#ixzz3X5rgMDSs
            A series of new reservoirs, from what? The Colorado River? The Sierra Nevada range? The Colorado doesn't even make it to the sea anymore. The Sierra already supplies about half of southern CA through a series of reservoirs and supply lines. When the drought ends -if it doesn't become the norm- we can see if that would continue to support a growing population. I don't think it will, and CA will see a permanent decline in population to a point that can be supported by current water supply. Here's the messy history of reservoirs and water supply in so. CA, from the conservative publication, The Economist:
            First, the constant pursuit of additional supplies of water has never been strictly about satisfying a demand from communities that were supposedly running dry. It has always been more about creating demand for real estate in places where water was scarce or non-existent. As always, the inequity is that the huge infrastructure projects needed are paid for by existing customers, while future customers reap the benefits. ...The second fallacy lies in the way water is priced.
            ...Because water is priced too low in So.CA.
            http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2010/06/techview_californias_drought



            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

              Well, you would probably not find anyone on this forum that was bothered by immigration. But that is legal immigration, as operated under rules of law. The trouble we have with immigration is the illegal kind, where the nation for whatever reason refuses to control it, when the People want it controlled, and the law says it must be controlled. So its the lawlessness involved, in a nation where our rulers do not follow the law, but seek to just ignore it. And they choose to ignore it because some elites want a supply of illegal, but cheap labor, in order to max out their own income. Americans want their rulers to represent their best interests while operating under the rule of law that is imposed upon the average guy, but not imposed when a group doesn't want it imposed upon them. And therein is the problem.
              Good one Blue, and I agree 100% with you on this. I do not care which party it is, if they are not enforcing laws, then they need to be tar and feathered, and run out of town on a rail.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • Ok, we may have problems with climate change, but it isn't because of a warming, which would be a blessing, not the doom as offered up by the hysterical. We are in a cooling phrase, due to natural solar cycles, and we will see a repeat of the starvation that happened with the last cooling. We almost had massive crop failures in 2013, and some scientists are predicting crop failures and mass hysteria, and the politicians will not be able to do a thing.

                Historic Global Temperature Drop Predicted
                Thursday, November 20, 2014 Press Release 4-2014
                3:00 PM

                The Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC) announces today an important set of climate change predictions dealing with the coming cold climate epoch that will dominate global temperatures for the next thirty years.
                According to analysis of the most reliable solar activity trends and climate models based on the Relational Cycle Theory (RC Theory), the SSRC concludes the following:
                1. The Earth is about to begin a steep drop in global temperatures off its present global temperature plateau. This plateau has been caused by the absence of growth in global temperatures for 18 years, the start of global cooling in the atmosphere and the oceans, and the end of a short period of moderate solar heating from an unusually active secondary peak in solar cycle #24.
                2. Average global atmospheric and oceanic temperatures will drop significantly beginning between 2015 and 2016 and will continue with only temporary reversals until they stabilize during a long cold temperature base lasting most of the 2030's and 2040's. The bottom of the next global cold climate caused by a "solar hibernation" (a pronounced reduction in warming energy coming from the Sun) is expected to be reached by the year 2031.
                3. The predicted temperature decline will continue for the next fifteen years and will likely be the steepest ever recorded in human history, discounting past short-duration volcanic events.
                4. Global average temperatures during the 2030's will reach a level of at least 1.5° C lower than the peak temperature year of the past 100 years established in 1998. The temperatures during the 2030's will correspond roughly to that observed from 1793 to 1830, shortly after the founding of the United States of America. This average lower global temperature of 1.5° C on average, translates to declines in temperatures that will be devastating for crop growing regions in the mid latitudes of the planet

                http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html


                Now a cooling is something we should be concerned about. For you cannot tax people for carbon, and fix this one.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                  First, the local taxpayers pay for the consequence of parents abusing their childrens' diet. No one is going to know if Junior eats an extra bag of greasy chips once a week. But everyone in his district will pay the price if Mom &amp; Dad are letting him eat crap and wash it down with a soda for Breakfast, Lunch and Dinner. You'll pay for those clowns in your neighborhood unless your local emergency room has a private billionaire picking up the tab for unpaid bills.

                  That's one angle. The other one is life insurance policies on kids. If one can induce Junior's fatal heart attack before age 18, that's a $5,000 payoff with almost no risk. Sure Mom and Dad have to be psychotic to pull this one off, but we don't need to encourage them. Worse when the kid is from a poor family on food stamps; the gov't. would be funding the conspiracy.

                  Last angle: If the feds are subsidizing school lunches, they have an obligation to fund healthier menus. Like other facets of education, the state agencies can reject the rules of the nanny state, but they won't get the money that's attached to those strings.

                  Gov't. is prohibited from getting into everyone's kitchen -it isn't practical or possible even in communist regimes. But to ignore the diet of it's people even when it has gone badly wrong would be suicidal.
                  I'm sorry but that is the most ridiculous thing I've heard.

                  The local tax payer will also have to flip the bill for the freedom of those who spoke pot. Pot smokers encompass many people that are just as iresponsilbe with that drug as people who eat and feed their children differently. Many who use that drug and drive, putting lives in danger, and loose ambition, not to contribute to society, and it is a gateway for some to bigger more dangerous drugs. But people believe that it is a necessary price to pay for one to have their freedom. Acceptable for one to have their right at the cost of the taxpayer when pot is involved? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you believe that the gov't is responsible for the health and safety for public, oh and the cost to the public, you would surely agree that pot should be outlawed. And Alcohol for that matter. Where are the billionaires funding the emergency room, picking up the tab for drug users?

                  And without food control, I have not heard of any people feeding their children greasy unhealthy food to their children for an insurance pay out. That one is the most ridiculous.

                  Last: The feds subsidise nothing. The money used to subsidize belongs to the tax payer. If people from that state reject the rules of the nanny state, contribute money to the fed. gov't, the feds. have no right to redistribute their tax dollars to people of other states, because they are the one's living their lives as the few in gov't believes is best. It is not for gov't to decide how the people of states choose to live their lives.

                  Here you appear to be so against people in gov't being corrupted and doing things for the purpose of gaining money above the freedom of society, yet you endorse states doing things they don't want to do because they are forced to comply or their money will be given to those who do comply.

                  I personally wanted our schools to serve healthier lunches, but it is for the people of that state to put pressure on their local officials to serve better food without the nanny threatening manipulation through cash. And when cash is withheld, is it not the taxpayers children that suffer? not only do their kids get unhealthy food, but money is taken from whatever they do have. Who is being punished here? And if you don't like the food served, you can send a healthy lunch with your child. As we did.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • Originally posted by msc View Post
                    I'm sorry but that is the most ridiculous thing I've heard.

                    The local tax payer will also have to flip the bill for the freedom of those who spoke pot. Pot smokers encompass many people that are just as iresponsilbe with that drug as people who eat and feed their children differently. Many who use that drug and drive, putting lives in danger, and loose ambition, not to contribute to society, and it is a gateway for some to bigger more dangerous drugs. But people believe that it is a necessary price to pay for one to have their freedom. Acceptable for one to have their right at the cost of the taxpayer when pot is involved? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you believe that the gov't is responsible for the health and safety for public, oh and the cost to the public, you would surely agree that pot should be outlawed. And Alcohol for that matter. Where are the billionaires funding the emergency room, picking up the tab for drug users?

                    And without food control, I have not heard of any people feeding their children greasy unhealthy food to their children for an insurance pay out. That one is the most ridiculous.

                    Last: The feds subsidise nothing. The money used to subsidize belongs to the tax payer. If people from that state reject the rules of the nanny state, contribute money to the fed. gov't, the feds. have no right to redistribute their tax dollars to people of other states, because they are the one's living their lives as the few in gov't believes is best. It is not for gov't to decide how the people of states choose to live their lives.

                    Here you appear to be so against people in gov't being corrupted and doing things for the purpose of gaining money above the freedom of society, yet you endorse states doing things they don't want to do because they are forced to comply or their money will be given to those who do comply.

                    I personally wanted our schools to serve healthier lunches, but it is for the people of that state to put pressure on their local officials to serve better food without the nanny threatening manipulation through cash. And when cash is withheld, is it not the taxpayers children that suffer? not only do their kids get unhealthy food, but money is taken from whatever they do have. Who is being punished here? And if you don't like the food served, you can send a healthy lunch with your child. As we did.
                    Well, if you want schools to serve healthy lunches, as they did when I went to public school, and since no one was doing it, the feds had to step in. NOW, why was no one, or hardly anyone demanding to get rid of the junk food served for lunch? The answer is, parents just did not give a shit, that's why. So, we either allow the junk food diets to continue, or the only power than can, steps in and encourages it tying funding to healthy lunches. This would never have been done if healthy foods were served in the first place, and back in the 50s and 60s they were served. Why the change? Money sir, money. Money will buy you anything, even junk food lunches. You basically see the same thing happening in fast food. The average crew for a McDs is 50 percent of what it was in the 70s when I ran one. And the cooks in a public school lunch room has shrunk even more than 50 percent, for you can heat em up, instead of cooking nutricious foods, and be able to pay the administration more, from money saved on firing cooks, and go to heat em up junk foods. Think sir, think!

                    So the only way we would get more healthy lunches was by the feds stepping in. But the kids don't want healthy foods, and are probably not used to eating it. So boy do they complain, and the republicans listen to the kids and back them up. lol Yeah, so responsible, and this is what partisanship creates....idiots.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

                      Well, if you want schools to serve healthy lunches, as they did when I went to public school, and since no one was doing it, the feds had to step in. NOW, why was no one, or hardly anyone demanding to get rid of the junk food served for lunch? The answer is, parents just did not give a shit, that's why. So, we either allow the junk food diets to continue, or the only power than can, steps in and encourages it tying funding to healthy lunches. This would never have been done if healthy foods were served in the first place, and back in the 50s and 60s they were served. Why the change? Money sir, money. Money will buy you anything, even junk food lunches. You basically see the same thing happening in fast food. The average crew for a McDs is 50 percent of what it was in the 70s when I ran one. And the cooks in a public school lunch room has shrunk even more than 50 percent, for you can heat em up, instead of cooking nutricious foods, and be able to pay the administration more, from money saved on firing cooks, and go to heat em up junk foods. Think sir, think!

                      So the only way we would get more healthy lunches was by the feds stepping in. But the kids don't want healthy foods, and are probably not used to eating it. So boy do they complain, and the republicans listen to the kids and back them up. lol Yeah, so responsible, and this is what partisanship creates....idiots.
                      Sorry, still disagree. Fed. Gov't. has no business stepping in. And their involvement is not working anyway, it only has given them more power to control more money.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • Your argument against federal funding of school lunches is at best confused, msc. Either you don't want the fed level involved with any state's school meal program, or you don't want them putting strings on the programs they fund.

                        If you are arguing for the federals to get out of school meals altogether (money and requirements), that is logical. It's unhealthy because some states are obviously willing to shovel garbage for their school lunches, but at least there is some logical consistency to the "No Funding, Period" argument. ...At least everyone is unaffected equally as far as the federal angle.

                        However, if you are claiming the gummint should help every state with school meals, but not attach any strings, that is an argument that is confused both coming and going. Here's why:
                        NO viable entity providing funding for a project, does so with "no strings attached". No business, no gov't., not even a charity, if it wants to survive. I provide quality widgets, you pay the contractedl price. Strings attached, going both ways. I provide funding for new road construction, you maintain them. You provide soup to the homeless, they stay calm and relatively sober while enjoying the meal. Strings attached, going both ways, in every case. It's called "quid pro quo", and has been a part of all business transactions in the public and private sector for hundreds of years.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                          Your argument against federal funding of school lunches is at best confused, msc. Either you don't want the fed level involved with any state's school meal program, or you don't want them putting strings on the programs they fund.

                          If you are arguing for the federals to get out of school meals altogether (money and requirements), that is logical. It's unhealthy because some states are obviously willing to shovel garbage for their school lunches, but at least there is some logical consistency to the "No Funding, Period" argument. ...At least everyone is unaffected equally as far as the federal angle.

                          However, if you are claiming the gummint should help every state with school meals, but not attach any strings, that is an argument that is confused both coming and going. Here's why:
                          NO viable entity providing funding for a project, does so with "no strings attached". No business, no gov't., not even a charity, if it wants to survive. I provide quality widgets, you pay the contractedl price. Strings attached, going both ways. I provide funding for new road construction, you maintain them. You provide soup to the homeless, they stay calm and relatively sober while enjoying the meal. Strings attached, going both ways, in every case. It's called "quid pro quo", and has been a part of all business transactions in the public and private sector for hundreds of years.
                          You didn't need to write the second paragraph. The first is what I meant. I was quite unhappy with much of the junk served in children's schools, and I am an advocate for healthier lunch being served, but I believe it must be at the state and local levels. It must be addressed by the citizens with the gov't's within. I would join such a campaign. The Federal Gov't is charged with a different job. A Federal law removing junk from all schools may endorse my desire for our children, but I would vote against it, because the Feds. have no business making such a law. As I would not allow my town council to tell me how my children should eat within my home.

                          Additionally, the national food plan does not encompass the needs of the diverse students. No french fries or chips serve. I with it. My kid couldn't get a slice of cheese on the chicken sandwich, well that's a no go. But this is irrelevant anyway as my first comment is what matters.

                          And though your second paragraph does not pertain to what I was saying, I do want to point out that the federal, Wall Street bank bail out, had no strings attached.

                          LOL, Isn't this the Global Warming thread?

                          Last edited by msc; 04-21-2015, 04:34 AM.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                            Your argument against federal funding of school lunches is at best confused, msc. Either you don't want the fed level involved with any state's school meal program, or you don't want them putting strings on the programs they fund.

                            If you are arguing for the federals to get out of school meals altogether (money and requirements), that is logical. It's unhealthy because some states are obviously willing to shovel garbage for their school lunches, but at least there is some logical consistency to the "No Funding, Period" argument. ...At least everyone is unaffected equally as far as the federal angle.

                            However, if you are claiming the gummint should help every state with school meals, but not attach any strings, that is an argument that is confused both coming and going. Here's why:
                            NO viable entity providing funding for a project, does so with "no strings attached". No business, no gov't., not even a charity, if it wants to survive. I provide quality widgets, you pay the contractedl price. Strings attached, going both ways. I provide funding for new road construction, you maintain them. You provide soup to the homeless, they stay calm and relatively sober while enjoying the meal. Strings attached, going both ways, in every case. It's called "quid pro quo", and has been a part of all business transactions in the public and private sector for hundreds of years.
                            The problem with the Federal Government dictating what lunches will consist of is the fact that they don't pay for what they require. They take our tax money then dole it back to the schools with strings attached and those strings do not cover their own costs. Schools are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Either stop taking Federal money and serve what the parents are willing to pay for or take Federal Money and raise local taxes to cover the costs of what the Federal Government requires in exchange for that money. Right now our taxes are paying for lunches and breakfasts for a lot of people. The same people who are getting money for food stamps. The Federal Government should not be involved in the day to day programs of schools. Period.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • Originally posted by msc View Post
                              You didn't need to write the second paragraph. The first is what I meant. I was quite unhappy with much of the junk served in children's schools, and I am an advocate for healthier lunch being served, but I believe it must be at the state and local levels. It must be addressed by the citizens with the gov't's within. I would join such a campaign. The Federal Gov't is charged with a different job. A Federal law removing junk from all schools may endorse my desire for our children, but I would vote against it, because the Feds. have no business making such a law. As I would not allow my town council to tell me how my children should eat within my home.

                              Additionally, the national food plan does not encompass the needs of the diverse students. No french fries or chips serve. I with it. My kid couldn't get a slice of cheese on the chicken sandwich, well that's a no go. But this is irrelevant anyway as my first comment is what matters.

                              And though your second paragraph does not pertain to what I was saying, I do want to point out that the federal, Wall Street bank bail out, had no strings attached.

                              LOL, Isn't this the Global Warming thread?
                              At least it is a consistent argument -no federal involvement at all in school lunches. I'd disagree with OMD's reasoning, that healthy food is necessarily more expensive. It is a mystery how well local school boards alone would do at providing decent food -critical for a good education.

                              You're right, this should be about global warming. I suppose the theme -federal gov't. "screwing up everything it touches"- was one argument against GW claims, explains why school lunch programs came up.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                                At least it is a consistent argument -no federal involvement at all in school lunches. I'd disagree with OMD's reasoning, that healthy food is necessarily more expensive. It is a mystery how well local school boards alone would do at providing decent food -critical for a good education.

                                You're right, this should be about global warming. I suppose the theme -federal gov't. "screwing up everything it touches"- was one argument against GW claims, explains why school lunch programs came up.
                                Well since we are already off topic, did we not see, what local schools chose to serve the kids who in that stage of life need nutrition instead of just calories?

                                I think this is in part due to the expense of nutrition, and where my father in law ran all of the county schools here from a small office with one helper, in our courthouse, the current administration here over the county schools is a huge complex that covers several acres for god's sake. SO our schools in Ms. are top heavy with administrative costs, and they have enough people in that huge complex to run a small factory. They would rather spend money on the administration, than on food for the kids that is nutricious. This is the same all over the south, not sure about other areas of this nation.

                                Even the parents here where I live were not demanding nutrition for growing kids in school. For if they did, they might have changed it at the local level instead of causing the feds to interject. But this happens not only in this area, but others. Children are very important, and we must not lose sight of that. But obviously we did when it comes to food fed to them at school. I hate it when local irresponsibility brings in the feds. But sometimes that is all that is left to do. SO, I support this change in menu, for the sake of the kids. To hell with politics on this issue. Kids trump it.

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X