Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 20 of 20
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    South Wales, UK
    Posts
    11,895
    Thanks (Given)
    20722
    Thanks (Received)
    8222
    Likes (Given)
    2213
    Likes (Received)
    1128
    Piss Off (Given)
    5
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19319416

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kathianne View Post
    No school, many closed for the year. But, the schools are still preparing breakfast and lunches for the kids. Yes. Bus drivers are being paid in many districts to deliver the meals. As I said, many are also feeding on the weekend, which is not the norm.
    Ah, I see.

    No .. here, schools are closed, as in, zero activity within their walls. Feeding kids becomes the responsibility of the parents.

    There was talk in our media, unsubstantiated as yet, that studies of cross-infection in the very young suggested that it might be so low as to allow a rethink about schools remaining closed. Though it's understood that children aren't totally immune, they are thought to be so resistant, generally, that reopening schools might involve too small a risk for it to matter.

    Official advice about mask wearing remains the same .. and seen as antisocial, because every mask worn is one more that our health workers could be using, instead.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...calls-rethink/

    The UK Government has reiterated that people do not need to wear face masks in public, refusing to change their guidance despite both the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the White House considering the move.

    Prof Jonathan Van-Tam, England’s deputy chief medical officer, said that while the practice was “wired into” some Southeast Asian countries there was no evidence it helped stop the spread of Covid-19.

    “There is no evidence that general wearing of face masks by the public who are well affects the spread of the disease in our society. What matters is social distancing,” Prof Van-Tam said at a Downing Street press conference on Friday.
    Last edited by Drummond; 04-10-2020 at 10:05 PM.
    It's That Bloody Foreigner Again !!!

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    47,506
    Thanks (Given)
    23722
    Thanks (Received)
    17276
    Likes (Given)
    9555
    Likes (Received)
    6007
    Piss Off (Given)
    85
    Piss Off (Received)
    10
    Mentioned
    204 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475521

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    Ah, I see.

    No .. here, schools are closed, as in, zero activity within their walls. Feeding kids becomes the responsibility of the parents.

    There was talk in our media, unsubstantiated as yet, that studies of cross-infection in the very young suggested that it might be so low as to allow a rethink about schools remaining closed. Though it's understood that children aren't totally immune, they are thought to be so resistant, generally, that reopening schools might involve too small a risk for it to matter.

    Official advice about mask wearing remains the same .. and seen as antisocial, because every mask worn is one more that our health workers could be using, instead.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...calls-rethink/

    Here the left can get many domestic socialist plans to fruition by, 'It's for the children!' Thus you'll often hear that phrase in context that may be confusing.

    In this case, the feed the children was meant for poor kids, then some sort of means testing was used that let middle class kids in; those on food stamps automatically qualified-thus parents paid by state for food based on family size, but schools feed the kids 2 meals during school. Now it seems, 2 meals during week and 2 meals on weekends in some places. Can't trust the parents. More than that, IF a school is deemed Title 1, then the entire student body gets free breakfasts and lunches.


    "The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill


  3. Thanks Drummond thanked this post
  4. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    9,641
    Thanks (Given)
    357
    Thanks (Received)
    2155
    Likes (Given)
    38
    Likes (Received)
    233
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    3
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1559077

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    Ah, I see.

    No .. here, schools are closed, as in, zero activity within their walls. Feeding kids becomes the responsibility of the parents.

    There was talk in our media, unsubstantiated as yet, that studies of cross-infection in the very young suggested that it might be so low as to allow a rethink about schools remaining closed. Though it's understood that children aren't totally immune, they are thought to be so resistant, generally, that reopening schools might involve too small a risk for it to matter.

    Official advice about mask wearing remains the same .. and seen as antisocial, because every mask worn is one more that our health workers could be using, instead.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...calls-rethink/
    Here in Texas, they are doing drive through sack breakfasts and sack lunches. And regarding Brasil, the latest news is a BRL 600 per month "cesta basica" (welfare payment). Bolsonaro still wants to keep things voluntary. I don't know if schools in Brasil are nominally open, but there is no expectation of attendance. The families decide for themselves not to show up.
    Last edited by tailfins; 04-11-2020 at 10:07 AM.
    Experienced Social Distancer ... waaaay before COVID.

  5. Thanks Drummond thanked this post
  6. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    South Wales, UK
    Posts
    11,895
    Thanks (Given)
    20722
    Thanks (Received)
    8222
    Likes (Given)
    2213
    Likes (Received)
    1128
    Piss Off (Given)
    5
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19319416

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kathianne View Post
    Here the left can get many domestic socialist plans to fruition by, 'It's for the children!' Thus you'll often hear that phrase in context that may be confusing.

    In this case, the feed the children was meant for poor kids, then some sort of means testing was used that let middle class kids in; those on food stamps automatically qualified-thus parents paid by state for food based on family size, but schools feed the kids 2 meals during school. Now it seems, 2 meals during week and 2 meals on weekends in some places. Can't trust the parents. More than that, IF a school is deemed Title 1, then the entire student body gets free breakfasts and lunches.
    So, basically, a form of Leftie judgmentality is in play ? Low-level hate ploy ?

    Typical of the Left. The Left loves to fight, when and where it can, a form of class war, applied as a blame-game ploy. Concessions not made ? Then, the whole thing is ramped up.

    Here in the UK, our Left were a little more direct about it. Margaret Thatcher, in her pre-PM role in Government at that time, decided to review spending in schools. Her policy review led to milk being withdrawn .. and the Left went into overdrive in their hate campaign against her. 'Margaret Thatcher, Milk Snatcher' was a cry that haunted her throughout her career.

    The Left made sure of it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margar...0%E2%80%931974

    During her first months in office she attracted public attention as a consequence of the government's attempts to cut spending. She gave priority to academic needs in schools, while administering public expenditure cuts on the state education system, resulting in the abolition of free milk for schoolchildren aged seven to eleven. She held that few children would suffer if schools were charged for milk, but agreed to provide younger children with ⅓ pint daily for nutritional purposes. She also argued that she was simply carrying on with what the Labour government had started since they had stopped giving free milk to secondary schools. Milk would still be provided to those children that required it on medical grounds and schools could still sell milk. The aftermath of the milk row hardened her determination, she told the editor-proprietor Harold Creighton of The Spectator: "Don't underestimate me, I saw how they broke Keith [Joseph], but they won't break me."

    Cabinet papers later revealed that she opposed the policy but had been forced into it by the Treasury.
    The Left never conceded anything of Mrs Thatcher's own view on the matter. They preferred to see to it that their hate campaign persisted.

    It was one they never relented on, for a moment, ever.
    It's That Bloody Foreigner Again !!!

  7. Thanks Kathianne thanked this post
  8. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    47,506
    Thanks (Given)
    23722
    Thanks (Received)
    17276
    Likes (Given)
    9555
    Likes (Received)
    6007
    Piss Off (Given)
    85
    Piss Off (Received)
    10
    Mentioned
    204 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475521

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    So, basically, a form of Leftie judgmentality is in play ? Low-level hate ploy ?

    Typical of the Left. The Left loves to fight, when and where it can, a form of class war, applied as a blame-game ploy. Concessions not made ? Then, the whole thing is ramped up.

    Here in the UK, our Left were a little more direct about it. Margaret Thatcher, in her pre-PM role in Government at that time, decided to review spending in schools. Her policy review led to milk being withdrawn .. and the Left went into overdrive in their hate campaign against her. 'Margaret Thatcher, Milk Snatcher' was a cry that haunted her throughout her career.

    The Left made sure of it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margar...0%E2%80%931974



    The Left never conceded anything of Mrs Thatcher's own view on the matter. They preferred to see to it that their hate campaign persisted.

    It was one they never relented on, for a moment, ever.
    Here's the bottom line, there's no reason for anyone in this country to starve. Question is though, 'how much is enough?'

    When pregnant, mid-low income women and children under 2 qualify for WIC, which covers most produce, fruit, dairy, bread/cereal and formula.

    If lower income, SNAP kicks in. Based on the number of people in the home, can be much higher than non-SNAP families spend on food. The more people, the less incentive to budget.

    Any family that collects off of WIC or SNAP automatically qualifies for lunch program at school. These include breakfast and lunch, including snacks for between. Yet, SNAP includes the children in the amount received. It's insane.


    "The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill


  9. Thanks Drummond thanked this post

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums