In response to:

Free Pizza is Not a Constitutional Right

Ms Kelly Wrote: Sep 19, 2013 12:40 AM
I am a conservative and have been one my entire life. I’m 64 so that has been awhile. I don’t want anyone accusing me of being a liberal for what I am about to say. I am sick of the self-righteous hubris of people who complain when food stamp recipients don’t eat enough “healthy” food to suit them. Many of the things this author argues don’t have anything to do with pizza, and the arguments could be made without concerning himself with what others are eating. Does this author really care about the nutritional needs of poor people? I don’t think so. This sort of gripping is nothing but resentment over paying taxes that are too high. If you think the government shouldn’t provide food assistance, then fight the policy, but stop trying to make it look like something else. Masking resentment as concern for nutrition is not fooling anyone. It makes conservatives look no different from the liberal elites who are always telling other people what to do. Michele Obama is the one who wants to be food tsar. Conservatives should NOT be copying her. The number one thing people need from food is not nutrition as most people assume. It is calories. That’s right. The thing most of us fight to consume less of is the thing that fuels our bodies, provides energy and prevents starvation. There is nothing wrong with junk food when it provides calories, and all junk food provides some nutrition. Even poor people, though they may have an occasional pizza, do not consume junk food exclusively, so the junk food is filling a need by providing essential calories. There are SO MANY more important things with which conservatives should be concerning themselves. If you want to make a case for eliminating food assistance programs, fine. Do it. But leave the food choice issue out of it. This is petty and when we focus on such issues we LOOK petty.
Scott853 Wrote: Sep 19, 2013 2:09 PM
The point of the griping is that WE CAN'T CHANGE the government food policies. Even when Republicans are elected national office, some sort of disease takes over and makes them into liberals (like GW Bush). So you are wrong, it is a waste of time to fight the government's food stamp policies, because the politicians know they can buy votes with food stamps, among other welfare goodies.
Ms Kelly Wrote: Sep 19, 2013 7:36 PM
Then criticize the politicians for their crookedness. Don't attack the poor for eating pizza.
Snarkasterous1 Wrote: Sep 20, 2013 11:19 AM
AH, the libbie "attack the poor" fantasy.

Not one thing you've written supports your self-description as a conservative.

You, I surmise, are simply prevaricating regarding your political beliefs.
Ms Kelly Wrote: Sep 25, 2013 1:59 AM
I have been a part of this site for 12 years. Ask the people here whether or not I am conservative.
jriggs958 Wrote: Sep 19, 2013 9:25 AM
I agree with you, this was a petty article. I'm conservative, and disabled from things that happened to me in the military in the 1970's. I can't afford the healthy foods I like such as fresh fruits and vegetables, but I can't afford pizza much either. Brown congratulations you can afford good food and junk food, but get over yourself and stop acting like a liberal and telling those of us not so fortunate how to eat. Do you know how many people I had to kill so close I could smell them die so that jackasses like you could tell people all busted up from the action like me how to eat.
Verbivore Wrote: Sep 19, 2013 12:20 PM
You guys are right on! We are a nation obsessed with "nutrition." The author sounds more like he is whining, "I have to eat healthy food. How come they get to eat junk food?"

I'm a little frightened at how conservatives have jumped on this food stamp band wagon. I read once of a woman who refused to give a hamburger to a homeless man because it was "Bad" for him. Which begs the questions...is starving a better option?
Scott853 Wrote: Sep 19, 2013 2:13 PM
No, but forcing the homeless man to at least try to earn the hamburger himself does more good for him than giving him free food so he isn't forced to fend for himself. Read the "The Samaritan's Dilemma and the Welfare State," by E.C. Pasour (1991) to see what I mean--by giving the homeless man the burger, you may be doing him more harm than good, even if it makes YOU feel better for a moment. You've helped to create an eternal dependent, and that's not good for him or the community.
Verbivore Wrote: Sep 19, 2013 3:12 PM
of course. The welfare program is a liberal dream. Without it, we would have a much more productive society. But for now, it's here. Liberals created a dependent society. Now they complain they are not dependent in the right sort of way.
Ms Kelly Wrote: Sep 19, 2013 7:35 PM
That's my point exactly. I can see the point of people who want better administration of the program or even getting rid of it, but as long as it's here and it is legal, the people making use of it should be able to eat anything it covers. It is no more of a burden to me if they eat pizza or if they eat broiled Salmon and Broccoli.
Snarkasterous1 Wrote: Sep 20, 2013 11:17 AM
Actually, the author is not whining - and he and I could care less what type of food people buy WITH THEIR OWN MONEY.

If, on the other hand, what I've EARNED is being taken from me to give to others for food, then I have a right to limit what, precisely, they can purchase with MY MONEY.

This, for mindless libbies, is why the system (nominally, at least) precludes the purchase of food in restaurants using SNAP funds. That's real food, right?

Thanks, too, for your typically absurd libbie made up canard about the hamburger and the starving man. It's irrelevant, and almost certainly fictional, but it DOES serve to point out how bereft of actual critical thought is your stance.