re: Gill Straight-Up Asks Dem Witness If People On Food Stamps 'Need Coca-Cola To Survive'

This is a typical rebuttal.

Go to bed.

quote:

---

Their Director of SNAP policy is somehow unaware that they take money from general mills, kelloggs and walmart?

---

Truff. Most fowlkes don't realize that med schools and nutrition 'science' is almost funded by big pharma and big food.

Look at the Ag subsidies that our goobermint doles out by the OT $$$

These health 'associations' get mega $$$ just to put their labels on the food boxes.

I have an even different opinion: any direct payments to anyone by the federal government for welfare/entitlement is blatantly unconstitutional and should be eliminated immediately.

quote:

---

any direct payments to anyone by the federal government for welfare/entitlement is blatantly unconstitutional

---

What provisions of the Constitution does it violate?

10th Amendment*, for starters
















*90% of what the federal government does is blatantly unconstitutional despite what 9 political appointees on the bench have said for the last 120 years

Glad he lives in our area and i hope he continues on the right path for Americans. Its interesting how quick he has ascended. Burgess was worthless for years and most didn't even know him.

On the Snap subject, outside of water, what do snap recipients drink that is cheaper ? Get rid of soda and they buy what? Just curious to hear opinions

I would rather see them start with cutting out steak and lobster purchases.


I guess it’s a 2 part problem, the actual menu of choices and health.

quote:

---

10th Amendment*, for starters

---

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

That does not prohibit the federal government from giving money to people.

It absolutely does. Unless the power to do so is expressly given to it, the federal government is not allowed to do it*.









* That's the way it's supposed to work. We know that hasn't been the case in over a century. The commerce clause has been abused well past the point of ridiculousness.

quote:

---

quote:
It’s great except none of these people ever get in trouble. Nothing happens


This.

---

Your reply to the guy saying No one ever gets into trouble.

My original replay was it was NOT a criminal act on anyone's part, it was a hearing on nutrition. There is no one that will gwt into trouble over conflicts of sugary products.
The video has ZERO to do with anyone or a situation where people individually would get into trouble. The OP and discussions were nothing to do with wrongdoing by anyone

Good Lord. Go to bed guy.

quote:

---

Go to bed guy.

---

You’re the one with the hard on for me, sport.

And I was agreeing with him that nothing ever really happens with these hearings. I don’t even think he was insinuating that this lady should “go to jail” (your words). I took his “get in trouble” comment as a general sentiment that nothing ever happens or comes from these hearings or these interactions with committee members and the witnesses (especially considering he literally says “nothing happens”). It’s all a dog and pony show for the members to try to make people look stupid and amounts to nothing (or very little) and no consequence (jail, reprimands, mean stares, whatever) seems to come to anybody on the receiving end of these questionings.

That was how I took his point and that was the entirety of my point. But thanks for taking us down this separate line of nothing, I guess. At least you got to try to sound really cool for a couple of posts. I guess now I can go to bed though, dad.