CDZ Food Shortages

[HenryBHough]

What this board needs is a Bible.

A BIG Bible.

About eight feet tall, two feet thick and four feet wide.

Hollowed out so our liberals could hide in it physically as well as figuratively.

Government provided, of course even tho that might seem contradictory.

 

[Marvin Zinn]

A member of USMB posted his opinion about coming food shortages earlier today. I want to respond here because people are civil on CDZ. I don't remember where his post is, but those who responded were incredibly hateful, with nothing pertinent to say.
Food shortages aren't coming - they are here. Anyone who thinks they are not, is deluded. Perhaps the food i . . . . . .
Those businesses who depend on donations of money or food to help out the poor are going to close down as those with money no longer have enough for charity. Those who have part-time work and have a family will need to learn about the food bank. Government generates problems where there aren't any. Poor people have as much right to eat as wealthy people.

I am sorry for your difficulty, and yes there are many more, some not even identified, but also other lying to get the money.

I had three years living with one dollar per meal, not including what I raised in the garden. Yes, I could have paid more, but then I would also be further in debt, which I try to avoid. Better now with social security that pays 30% more than the job I had then, but inflation is three times more than the government tells me.

marvin

 

[Esmeralda]

A member of USMB posted his opinion about coming food shortages earlier today. I want to respond here because people are civil on CDZ. I don't remember where his post is, but those who responded were incredibly hateful, with nothing pertinent to say.
Food shortages aren't coming - they are here. Anyone who thinks they are not, is deluded. Perhaps the food is available, but those who have no way of buying or growing it, are going hungry. This isn't news to those who do not have enough to eat.
It is obscene for children to starve. There is enough food on this planet to feed everyone all they want. The problem is getting to it. We send protein powder to a third world country by the airplane load, and the local war lords keep it because they want those who are starving to die.
Then there are government controls. I can only speak about my personal experience here. I don't know how the governments of other countries control the food. I was allowed food stamps while my disability case was in limbo. I received $13.00 a month. The allotment can be carried over from one month to the next. I would wait, if I could, until I had 3 months worth, and then I would purchase meat.
We have a food bank here. I do not go there even though I am qualified now, just for the food bank, not food stamps. I live alone, and received way too much food from the food bank because they think of families. You leave there with a grocery cart full of food. It will never be the same thing twice. They share what is contributed. If they got a load of apples, you get a 10# bag. There might be milk, sometimes meat - hot dogs, maybe frozen chicken. It will not generally be brand name items, and sometimes the expiration date was 2 days before you brought it home. People come on a first come first served basis.
There are shelters and soup kitchens around town, mostly run by the churches. Restaurants are good about donating excess foods to theses places.
Those businesses who depend on donations of money or food to help out the poor are going to close down as those with money no longer have enough for charity. Those who have part-time work and have a family will need to learn about the food bank. Government generates problems where there aren't any. Poor people have as much right to eat as wealthy people.

If you are disabled and can't work. there area various ways of getting financial assistance. My sister has MS. She has had it for over 40 years; her case is severe and she has not been able to work for at least 30 years. She receives financial benefits for disabled people from the government.

She could go to food banks. My experience of that is when one goes to a food bank, you are given a certain amount of food depending on how many people are in your family. I've never heard of a situation where they forced too much food on a single person. Anyway, if you have too many apples, for example, make apple sauce and freeze it. If a meat product is near its sell by date, freeze it also. I have a hard time understanding how someone can complain about getting free food, or anything free. Food banks are a really good deal for people with limited incomes. It may not be the best food, but it's better than no food.

America has more food and fat people than any other country on earth, and possibly the cheapest food in the world as well. Assistance in getting food,housing and shelter is available to everyone in the country.

The real problem appears to be that some people are limited in their ability to access what they need; these people have trouble finding out what is available and how to get it for themselves when they need it. Government and charity organizations need to make a more effective effort to make sure all those in need are assisted.

 

[Judicial review]

What is the point of this thread?

That it is probably the most relevant thread in years on this board. Why do you think oldschool is trying to destroy it? Common sense.

 

[auditor0007]

The famine that is coming is predicted in the bible. The world shall know hunger - even America - and those who belong to the LORD shall know the power and provision of God. It's coming. Trust in Jesus and ask Him to be your provider in the days ahead.

Or we could just systemically reduce the world population until we no longer have food shortages.

 

[Esmeralda]

The famine that is coming is predicted in the bible. The world shall know hunger - even America - and those who belong to the LORD shall know the power and provision of God. It's coming. Trust in Jesus and ask Him to be your provider in the days ahead.

Or we could just systemically reduce the world population until we no longer have food shortages.

Zero population growth would be a very good thing, not enforced but systematically managed through education. The Earth is over populated, has doubled in population in the past 40 years or so. We need to stop population growth.

 

[dblack]

"Systematically managed through education"... heh.

 

[Esmeralda]

"Systematically managed through education"... heh.

You smirk because you don't understand what I'm saying. An educated person would know. The more highly educated a people are, the lower their population growth. The most highly educated countries have near zero population growth. Education = zero or near zero population growth. Educated people know this w/o it having to be explained to them.

 

[dblack]

"Systematically managed through education"... heh.

You smirk because you don't understand what I'm saying. An educated person would know. The more highly education a people are, the lower their population growth. The most highly educated countries have near zero population growth. Education = zero or near zero population growth. Educated people know this w/o it having to be explained to them.

No, I smirk because you seem to find a meaningful distinction between "enforced" and "systematically managed through education".

 

[Esmeralda]

"Systematically managed through education"... heh.

You smirk because you don't understand what I'm saying. An educated person would know. The more highly education a people are, the lower their population growth. The most highly educated countries have near zero population growth. Education = zero or near zero population growth. Educated people know this w/o it having to be explained to them.

No, I smirk because you seem to find a meaningful distinction between "enforced" and "systematically managed through education".

No. You are trying to make a point when you have no point. I am not at all talking about something that is enforced. I lived in Austria. They have a very highly educated populace. They have near zero population growth. It is not enforced in any way at all whatever. It is this way in countries with a high education level among its population. People realize that managing a family of four (two kids) results in a much better life for their children and themselves. It's really a DUH. You don't want to get it or can't.

 

[dblack]

"Systematically managed through education"... heh.

You smirk because you don't understand what I'm saying. An educated person would know. The more highly education a people are, the lower their population growth. The most highly educated countries have near zero population growth. Education = zero or near zero population growth. Educated people know this w/o it having to be explained to them.

No, I smirk because you seem to find a meaningful distinction between "enforced" and "systematically managed through education".

No. You are trying to make a point when you have no point. I am not at all talking about something that is enforced. I lived in Austria. They have a very highly educated populace. They have near zero population growth. It is not enforced in any way at all whatever. It is this way in countries with a high education level among its population. People realize that managing a family of four (two kids) results in a much better life for their children and themselves. It's really a DUH. You don't want to get it or can't.

Look at who is education whom, and at whose expense, and you might begin to see where the force comes in. Then again, you might not.

 

[Esmeralda]

"Systematically managed through education"... heh.

You smirk because you don't understand what I'm saying. An educated person would know. The more highly education a people are, the lower their population growth. The most highly educated countries have near zero population growth. Education = zero or near zero population growth. Educated people know this w/o it having to be explained to them.

No, I smirk because you seem to find a meaningful distinction between "enforced" and "systematically managed through education".

No. You are trying to make a point when you have no point. I am not at all talking about something that is enforced. I lived in Austria. They have a very highly educated populace. They have near zero population growth. It is not enforced in any way at all whatever. It is this way in countries with a high education level among its population. People realize that managing a family of four (two kids) results in a much better life for their children and themselves. It's really a DUH. You don't want to get it or can't.

Look at who is education whom, and at whose expense, and you might begin to see where the force comes in. Then again, you might not.

Are you trying to say who is educating whom? You are not making sense. Who educates the people in highly educated countries? It is often the fact that the government pays for college and university in such countries. So it is through taxation. This is something conservatives in America are against: free higher education. But I have seen how it improves the lot of everyone in the country; you end up with a well educated populace, with near zero population growth, with a sane, safe, liveable country. How awful. The cost to the individual taxpayer is a benefit to themselves and everyone in the country.

 

[dblack]

"Systematically managed through education"... heh.

You smirk because you don't understand what I'm saying. An educated person would know. The more highly education a people are, the lower their population growth. The most highly educated countries have near zero population growth. Education = zero or near zero population growth. Educated people know this w/o it having to be explained to them.

No, I smirk because you seem to find a meaningful distinction between "enforced" and "systematically managed through education".

No. You are trying to make a point when you have no point. I am not at all talking about something that is enforced. I lived in Austria. They have a very highly educated populace. They have near zero population growth. It is not enforced in any way at all whatever. It is this way in countries with a high education level among its population. People realize that managing a family of four (two kids) results in a much better life for their children and themselves. It's really a DUH. You don't want to get it or can't.

Look at who is education whom, and at whose expense, and you might begin to see where the force comes in. Then again, you might not.

Are you trying to say something about grammar? Because you don't appear to understand when to use who or whom at all. You're being pathetic and laughable.

I'm making a point more important than grammar. People tend to see government "educating" people as something fundamentally different than laws that mandate behavior. Just like they see tax "incentives" as somehow innocuous. But they all boil down to coercive manipulation of society. Sometimes, that's necessary. But let's not kid ourselves about what's going on.

 

[Esmeralda]

You smirk because you don't understand what I'm saying. An educated person would know. The more highly education a people are, the lower their population growth. The most highly educated countries have near zero population growth. Education = zero or near zero population growth. Educated people know this w/o it having to be explained to them.

No, I smirk because you seem to find a meaningful distinction between "enforced" and "systematically managed through education".

No. You are trying to make a point when you have no point. I am not at all talking about something that is enforced. I lived in Austria. They have a very highly educated populace. They have near zero population growth. It is not enforced in any way at all whatever. It is this way in countries with a high education level among its population. People realize that managing a family of four (two kids) results in a much better life for their children and themselves. It's really a DUH. You don't want to get it or can't.

Look at who is education whom, and at whose expense, and you might begin to see where the force comes in. Then again, you might not.

Are you trying to say something about grammar? Because you don't appear to understand when to use who or whom at all. You're being pathetic and laughable.

I'm making a point more important than grammar. People tend to see government "educating" people as something fundamentally different than laws that mandate behavior. Just like they see tax "incentives" as somehow innocuous. But they all boil down to coercive manipulation of society. Sometimes, that's necessary. But let's not kid ourselves about what's going on.

Coercive manipulation of society? Sure, being an educated, productive member of society is being manipulated. The more highly educated people are, the better they are able to think critically and not be manipulated by anyone.

 

[dblack]

No, I smirk because you seem to find a meaningful distinction between "enforced" and "systematically managed through education".

No. You are trying to make a point when you have no point. I am not at all talking about something that is enforced. I lived in Austria. They have a very highly educated populace. They have near zero population growth. It is not enforced in any way at all whatever. It is this way in countries with a high education level among its population. People realize that managing a family of four (two kids) results in a much better life for their children and themselves. It's really a DUH. You don't want to get it or can't.

Look at who is education whom, and at whose expense, and you might begin to see where the force comes in. Then again, you might not.

Are you trying to say something about grammar? Because you don't appear to understand when to use who or whom at all. You're being pathetic and laughable.

I'm making a point more important than grammar. People tend to see government "educating" people as something fundamentally different than laws that mandate behavior. Just like they see tax "incentives" as somehow innocuous. But they all boil down to coercive manipulation of society. Sometimes, that's necessary. But let's not kid ourselves about what's going on.

Coercive manipulation of society? Sure, being an educated, productive member of society is being manipulated. The more highly educated people are, the better they are able to think critically and not be manipulated by anyone.

That's what I thought. You've already been "educated". Good luck with your grammar expertise.

 

[Esmeralda]

No. You are trying to make a point when you have no point. I am not at all talking about something that is enforced. I lived in Austria. They have a very highly educated populace. They have near zero population growth. It is not enforced in any way at all whatever. It is this way in countries with a high education level among its population. People realize that managing a family of four (two kids) results in a much better life for their children and themselves. It's really a DUH. You don't want to get it or can't.

Look at who is education whom, and at whose expense, and you might begin to see where the force comes in. Then again, you might not.

Are you trying to say something about grammar? Because you don't appear to understand when to use who or whom at all. You're being pathetic and laughable.

I'm making a point more important than grammar. People tend to see government "educating" people as something fundamentally different than laws that mandate behavior. Just like they see tax "incentives" as somehow innocuous. But they all boil down to coercive manipulation of society. Sometimes, that's necessary. But let's not kid ourselves about what's going on.

Coercive manipulation of society? Sure, being an educated, productive member of society is being manipulated. The more highly educated people are, the better they are able to think critically and not be manipulated by anyone.

That's what I thought. You've already been "educated". Good luck with your grammar expertise.

lol An anti-intellectual, anti-education person who believes education is some kind of brain washing. That's really, really silly. Quite foolish.

 

[hauke]

the OP is saying a lot of truth

basicly

he does not see the main problem

people starve

so the price for food goes up

food is a comodetiy

raising its price will make money

for some people

who don t care if other people starve

most of this people live in the western world

they make money by killing people

and theres no law forbidding it