|
Fiction posted:I think TDD is just angry that Obama will never have a catastrophic foreign policy fuckup that will temper the Democrats' election chances for decades to come. That was the Syrian red-line, Fiction.
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:52 |
|
|
http://www.azfamily.com/story/30816...ic&sf17590415=1quote:POCATELLO, ID (KPVI/CNN) - A school lunch lady says she is out of a job for giving a free meal to a child. Merry Christmas! Don't forget, nothing good ever happens in the world!
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:http://www.azfamily.com/story/30816...ic&sf17590415=1 Red states red states lovely loving red states, red states red states all are run by wanks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
Look if employees pay the dollar and change to feed a hungry child how will that child benefit from hunger motivsting her to better success. http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/06/21/46862/cynthia-davis-hunger/ My child doesn't need that kind of help though. It's a sacrifice we're willing to make.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
Radish posted:Look if employees pay the dollar and change to feed a hungry child how will that child benefit from hunger motivsting her to better success. Have you forgotten the christmas spirit?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
"Close enough," Newt Gingrich said to himself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:http://www.azfamily.com/story/30816...ic&sf17590415=1 Giving away food that you then offer to pay for is theft  Please let there somehow be some way for her attorney to sue the school district into the ground  EDIT: Never fear though, looks like some red states follow the drat rules, thank you very much
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
Radish posted:Look if employees pay the dollar and change to feed a hungry child how will that child benefit from hunger motivsting her to better success. Some schools have the solution to this in that they make those welfare princesses perform cafeteria labor to receive their free lunches.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
Antti posted:I read Crooked by Austin Grossman a few weeks ago (it's actually not that great and I would not recommend it) and both Crooked and Secret Honor have this obsession with the idea that Nixon's actions were justified by some higher purpose that has been kept hidden from the people for their own good. It's interesting but also disturbing that this seems to be so fascinating to people, that he wasn't actually a crook, but taking one for the team. I guess it's a way to cope with the fact that a US President got caught being corrupt. Oh no, I wasn't taking it seriously. It is just a tremendous one man performance and I thought it was obviously just making up a fun little story
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
You can't offer to pay for something after you give it away. That's still theft. If she was working at any restaurant, gave away a meal, and then offered to pay for it after she was caught, she would still be fired.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
greatn posted:You can't offer to pay for something after you give it away. That's still theft. If she was working at any restaurant, gave away a meal, and then offered to pay for it after she was caught, she would still be fired. Sometimes, you should give away food to malnourished children, greatn. Not all folk will click to give a dollar at their whole foods checkout.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
greatn posted:You can't offer to pay for something after you give it away. That's still theft. If she was working at any restaurant, gave away a meal, and then offered to pay for it after she was caught, she would still be fired. So many dirty thieves out there giving away food these days. Hopefully they'll all be caught red handed, and their offers to pay for their crimes brutally rebuffed. EDIT: Also, as indicated by the link I posted, if anything the cafeteria worker should be awarded for preventing a PR nightmare for the school district.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
Combed Thunderclap posted:So many dirty thieves out there giving away food these days. Hopefully they'll all be caught red handed, and their offers to pay for their crimes brutally rebuffed. Sometimes we even label these dirty thieves with incorporations as food depositories! The horrors of all horrors
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
I'm just saying she has absolutely no legal recourse. She broke the rules and was terminated. Her boss is an rear end in a top hat but it doesn't matter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
In voice of John Taffer you're a thief taking money from your employer you're a dirty thief and a failure!!! Say it! Admit it that you're a thief and a failure!!' *eyes bulge*
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:http://www.azfamily.com/story/30816...ic&sf17590415=1 Too bad she wasn't in a union.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
My wife has that same problem at her school. They have gotten strict about throwing food away when she used to be able to give the meals away to kids. This is at a school for mostly black and Hispanic kids that are extremely poor. Americain2015.txt
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:My wife has that same problem at her school. They have gotten strict about throwing food away when she used to be able to give the meals away to kids. This is at a school for mostly black and Hispanic kids that are extremely poor. Aren't they eligible for free/reduced lunch?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
The meals they give out now are very small, and a lot of times the kids were taking them home for dinner
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:My wife has that same problem at her school. They have gotten strict about throwing food away when she used to be able to give the meals away to kids. This is at a school for mostly black and Hispanic kids that are extremely poor. It's part of the Michelle Obama initiative to improve school lunches and decrease waste. One of the metrics schools are graded upon now is how much food they waste. Unfortunately, like most Obama initiatives other than ACA, the unintended consequences oft outweigh the original intent when it comes to practical implementation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:The meals they give out now are very small, and a lot of times the kids were taking them home for dinner  /e- Some homeless kids didn't get it either as I guess it required > 0 parent interaction to get the waiver. This was in 09 so hopefully it's gotten better but I know it hasn't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Americain2015.txt Speaking of that Vox.com posted:Poor pregnancy outcomes can happen for any number of reasons. If the courts equate poor choices during pregnancy with child abuse, then poverty and bad nutrition can become criminal acts. Realistically speaking, nobody's going to throw a wealthy white woman in jail for eating sushi during her pregnancy if she happens to have a miscarriage afterward. They could try, of course. But NAPW found that black women and economically disadvantaged women are more likely to be arrested and charged for pregnancy-related issues. Prosecutors are more likely to succeed if the woman they're charging is marginalized and has fewer resources to fight back, or if she has done something stigmatized like using drugs or attempting self-harm. http://www.vox.com/2015/12/23/10656860/coat-hanger-abortion-pregnancy-murder Coat hanger abortions are making a come back. Who could have possibly ever in a million years have predicted such a bizarre outcome. Just shocking really. Never could have seen it coming. Oh well I guess as long as those dirty sex havers are slutting it up with their slut ways we'll have to put in more bullshit restrictions. It's totally OK though, white women with money, you can still have your moral abortions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Boon posted:I think your former point is valid, but removes the underlying premise of an ultimately ambiguous and ill-defined war. Whether we admit it or not, we are in a war right now in all but name. If Congress was doing it's job we'd be able to better address your first point, but it's not and we're currently acting on political and (probably) realistic necessity on a AUMF that is not intended to apply here. I'm not sure I agree that congressional involvement would improve the secrecy part rather than simply rubber stamping it, although it might. Nor do I have a solution to the lack of confrontation. Since I wrote that post I've been trying to refine my thinking on my objections to the drone program, since it might actually be legal. It boils down to the fact that the al-Awlaki strike is being legally justified based on precedent set by men to whom the modern drone program could credibly be described as "wishing away your enemies in secret, and having that wish granted." If The Iron Rose's argument holds water, then it is certainly time to revisit the question about how the military acts towards American citizens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Jia Tolentini has a fantastic essay up at Jezebel this morning about navigating the waters of the online outrage machine as the editor of a feminist website. Well worth the read. (Edited to fix bad typo, phone-posting) GalacticAcid fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Dec 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
greatn posted:You can't offer to pay for something after you give it away. That's still theft. If she was working at any restaurant, gave away a meal, and then offered to pay for it after she was caught, she would still be fired. gently caress that and gently caress you, giving food that is going to be thrown out to the hungry is not theft.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
Mulva posted:gently caress that and gently caress you, giving food that is going to be thrown out to the hungry is not theft. Anyone else remember when grocery stores were discussing poisoning loaves of bread and other food that they throw out in order to avoid homeless from digging through their trash?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Unfortunately, like most Obama initiatives other than ACA, the unintended consequences oft outweigh the original intent when it comes to practical implementation. And that's only because the "painful" parts of the ACA keep being delayed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
I've heard of some stores throwing other trash in with the old food to ruin it
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:No, because the world is made of piss. Also you need snow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
For one, gently caress Pocatello. It's a hellish pit out near the desert full of Mormons. She was warned about giving out food earlier, too. Plus the kid could have gotten a free pb&j for just that sort of situation. School's in the right to enforce their lovely policy. In Idaho, if a school is poor enough they can qualify for 100% free lunches but alas Pocatello isn't. Personally, I'd take a 0.00429% income tax above 50k/yr increase to feed every kid in Idaho for free but I'm a liberal pansy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:Anyone else remember when grocery stores were discussing poisoning loaves of bread and other food that they throw out in order to avoid homeless from digging through their trash? Steinbeck is always relevant: quote:The works of the roots of the vines, of the trees, must be destroyed to keep up the price, and this is the saddest, bitterest thing of all. Carloads of oranges dumped on the ground. The people came for miles to take the fruit, but this could not be. How would they buy oranges at twenty cents a dozen if they could drive out and pick them up? And men with hoses squirt kerosene on the oranges, and they are angry at the crime, angry at the people who have come to take the fruit. A million people hungry, needing the fruit—and kerosene spayed over the golden mountains.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:http://www.azfamily.com/story/30816...ic&sf17590415=1 Idaho's school system is an absolute disaster for any number of reasons. Tom Luna's tenure as superintendent is one of the most nakedly corrupt things I've ever seen in politics. [There are more corrupt things, but never quite so.. blatant]
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
Mulva posted:gently caress that and gently caress you, giving food that is going to be thrown out to the hungry is not theft. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:For one, gently caress Pocatello. It's a hellish pit out near the desert full of Mormons. Part of what makes being a poor kid in school is the perceptions of your peers. When I volunteered to put together students' weekly lunches they included an innocuous looking lunchbox so other students wouldn't know their lunches were being provided by charity. Taking the kid out of the lunch line and being handed a second class lunch would've been a lovely thing to do. edit: Further what kind of school would scoop the lunch off the kids tray when they were already at the register? Pretty sure putting back in circulation would likely violate a health code, so unless you are advocating for tossing food into the trash to spite poor people you may as well give it to the kid and move on. Gin and Juche fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Dec 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:His Tolentini has a fantastic essay up at Jezebel this morning about navigating the waters of the online outrage machine as the editor of a feminist website. Thanks for sharing. The part about defining yourself by outrage sums up a lot of the liberal pseudo-activist sphere, myself included at times. It would have been nice to have some sort of editorial decisions at the end, but I suppose that if it were that easy to tackle the inherent tensions of internet feminism someone would have done it already.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:School's in the right to enforce their lovely policy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
T. Bombastus posted:This sentence doesn't make any sense. School's in the right to enforce their lovely policy. The school is in the right to enforce their lovely policy The school is correct to enforce the school's lovely policy
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
T. Bombastus posted:This sentence doesn't make any sense. Sure it does, it's just a completely lazy interpretation of law. "Sure it seems overboard to expel the student for keeping a pocket knife/midol in their car but zero tolerance." 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:52 |
|
|
Malmesbury Monster posted:Thanks for sharing. The part about defining yourself by outrage sums up a lot of the liberal pseudo-activist sphere, myself included at times. It would have been nice to have some sort of editorial decisions at the end, but I suppose that if it were that easy to tackle the inherent tensions of internet feminism someone would have done it already. agreed. it doesnt help anyone and it ends up pushing many/alot of people away. you can't outrage as core part of your ideals and then use for every situation. its not going mean poo poo after a while and people are going to see you as a thin skinned prude/rear end in a top hat. but when something actually hosed up and offensive and you cry outrage, no one is going to believe you. it doesnt help that most of these people want to pretend to be "cultural critics" so they poison the criticism well too. they misconstrue criticism for offence. its why i have started to give up on internet/college left/feminism. hopefully people can turn it around. Dapper_Swindler fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Dec 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 18:46
|
|
