The "Progressive" Playbook on Display

"Once again, none of them really argue against Prager but really just personally attack him. Such is the level of discourse in America in 2013."

Yeah, it's a sad about the level of discourse.
However, what's worse is that they are winning, politically.
Maybe there is a lesson there, eh?

Don't you see? It's because her position is so obviously correct, she doesn't need to defend it with reasoned debate. Only a fool would dare question the wisdom of a progressive policy, so Prager deserves all the mockery she can muster.

If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger. In other words, Schoenkopf is forced to concede, and throws a fit.

That's surrender, not discourse.

Heck the left has done this for years on blogs.Remember all the climate change lefties? They never have facts to back them up. Never discuss points. Only emotional rants castigating anyone who disagrees with there Marxist pabulum.
If all else fails it becomes just trashing individuals with false accusations.
I bet there's not a Conservative on here that hasn't been charter assassinated by frustrated Liberals.

Reminds me of a moment from Gregory Peck's speech in OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY, when he says of Larry "the Liquidator" Garfield's plan to take over and dissolve Peck's company: "Oh, if he said he knew how to run this company *better* than us, well then, that would be something worth talking about; but he's not saying that."

I feel kind of the same way: "Oh, if Ms. Schoenkopf could show us statistics that proved the kids who were coming to school hungry really were coming from families who just couldn't afford to feed them, well then, that would be something worth talking about; but she's not saying that. She's saying 'these kids aren't getting breakfast, so we have to give it to them', period, paragraph; with not a second's thought about who pays for it, or whether money is being wasted on it, or whether it's right to make one group of taxpayers pay for the irresponsibility of another, even when the welfare of children is on the line."

Prager says: "...any home that cannot provide its child with breakfast demands a visit from child protective services. Any parent who cannot give a child breakfast is not too poor; he or she is too incapable of being, or too irresponsible to be, a competent parent."

How is this not true?

Well duh, of course they default to character assassination. Its all they've got. Leftism is a moral hazard and a mental failure, the facts are NEVER on their side.

Besides, if you deviate from the straight and narrow Lefty path, that's an automatic admission of guilt in their eyes. They're more dogmatic than a Medieval priest.

That's why I slag and then delete all Lefties off my blog whenever they arise. One comment to identify the retard for posterity, then remove all else. They don't add anything useful to the conversation, they just fling poo.

And as a good farmer knows, a little bit of poo goes a looooong way.

my 17 yr old boy wants 2nd breakfast at school. he scarfs froot loops at home (malk only nourishment).

teach nourishment in school, don't just give 'em food.

wot wood jesus do?

" That's why I slag and then delete all Lefties off my blog whenever they arise..."

You're right. But sad to say, a high number of people who would brand themselves as Conservative don't have any better ammo than the name-callers on the left.

Two instances come to mind from my years teaching in public schools. In the first case, we were given lunches quietly on the side to give to any students who were without lunches. There was no publicity, either to the public (anonymous donor, and good for him) or within the school. All was normal, until one day a grade 2 student had no lunch. The teacher took the student aside and quietly gave him a bag lunch, which had been delivered to the staff room fridge for just such an occasion. The next day, there was a lineup of 15 kids at the staffroom door, demanding, "Where's my lunch?" Until that day, they had all brought their own. Another school I was in started a breakfast program, with some publicity, with pretty much the same results; students who had previously eaten breakfast at home were now told by their parents to go to school to be fed. As an educational institution, what bit of education did we pass on? "If you shirk your responsibility, the system will take care of you." Or even "Only a fool would look after things when you can get them for free elsewhere." That said, it is not an easy call to make when you are there with a student who is genuinely hungry through the fault of the parent. I agree that a visit from Social Services is probably in order if it happens more than once (I have been hungry a few times in life, too, and it did not kill me). How to genuinely help without creating dependency is a tough call, and one that most lefties are unable to look into. It necessitates an admission that human nature is not all goodness, sweetness, unicorns, and pixie dust. Cons are more willing to accept our dual nature, even though it has humbling implications when we look in the mirror.

Well, that is just obviously true. Let us put some more children in foster care, because that system is totally ready and capable of handling an extra 300,000 kids.

In other words, there's not enough good homes for all the litters of pups whelped by unfit mothers and no politically acceptable way of having their dams spayed at taxpayer expense before they burden the world with any more---which, of course, would be the only measure that would stand more than a communist's chance of getting into heaven of fixing the problem, leaving taxpayers with the wits God gave a gnat with more money to spend on raising their own children.

I've been saying this for a long time, because it's the truth. Nice to have the liberals confirm it. The powers that be are not stupid, and know very well that Jezebel and Juanita can't be trusted with the care of a goldfish, never mind six children by six fathers. They just haven't figured out how to have them spayed and maintain the support of rich California liberals.

The rich liberals, of course, want Juanita and Jezebel around to do the housework their entitled, vain, lazy wives consider it sexist to be expected to do, and the very proposal grounds for divorce and the complete financial ruin of their husband to their profit. The wives' expectation, when marrying their rich liberal husbands, was to be permitted to spend their days:

spending every cent their men squeezed out of taxpayers and then some in designer clothing, shoe and furniture stores;

stupefying themselves with wine and whatever pills they can bewitch a compliant doctor to prescribe to them for any number of problems that a normal person would consider self-inflicted or utterly imaginary;

and, while Juanita was cleaning the toilet at the other end of the house, having Juanita's latest beau do the job their impotent or indifferent husbands won't do.

As long as the full cost of supporting Juanita's and Jezebel's pups in money and death and dismemberment of decent people is exacted only on the plain people of California (rich liberals, of course, generally see to it that they are excused from paying taxes or having to live in a non-gated community), solving the problem will not be a priority.

A district in my region has started sending supper food home with kids in grade school. They are now moving it up to the junior highs, and plane to send groceries home with high school kids over the weekend. None of these kids are starving for lack of calories. I'm just waiting for the district to get the bright idea to build dormitories for the underprivileged students.

Pretty fair assessment of the radical guard that has siezed power over the MSM, policy tanks and administration institutions. It is past a time of reasoning with them, or engaging in the narrative - they don't want to talk about their agenda, they refuse constructive criticism, and diversity of opinion or dissent to the official narratives they feel they own/control is strictly verboten. The talking stage is over. It's all about "shut up and accept our world view and do as we say or we will use any number of devious vindictive little administrative, regulatory and quasi legal devices to silence you or destroy your reputation.

People who speak truth to power these days are attacked. The Obama administration marks the epitome of leftist ideological hegemony and aggressive authoritarian cultural warfare - it also marks the high water mark of this uncivil regressive political meme. We are at the point where the wave of cultural revolt/destabilization/subverting started by the pseudo Marxist left in the 60s has hit the breakwater of constitutional moral authority to govern or dominate public policy. The wave is now in retreat before the awakening and mobilization of a couple of generations of Americans who will no longer submit to anti-American forced austerity, anti-constitutional leftism, its jack boot authoritarianism and its destructive/divisive policies which they can see are destroying the nation and their prosperity.

Lefty has gone about as far as he can. The tipping point is here and the pivot point of that is a building backlash to the shutting down debate on their failings and ideological fallacies. On a political level this will materialize as refusing to be intimidated when speaking truth to power and grass roots movements to remove abusive authoritarian leftists when they exercise overreach in their administrative capacities.

Don't argue with narrow optics dogmatists - sue, impeach, launch actions, mobilize support to do so. The dialogue with radicals is over. The push back has begun

Personally, I love the self-insulating comment section at wonkette...
"Hola wonkerados... Also, if you are a new commenter, your comment may never appear. This is probably because we hate you."

Ahhhhhh, feel the love ;)

I volunteer at a primary school kid's breakfast program. The school is located in the least desirable part of town. Despite that, very, very few kids really need this. Most of them are either dropped off as a babysitting service or for a place where well-fed kids can socialize in the winter months. No starving children have ever shown up in my many years of serving them.

'Sex education' serves exactly the same purpose: separating children from their parents. Children get hammered by educators with graphic details of all kinds of sex, details so graphic that kids won't discuss 'what they learned in school today' because they're embarrassed. But the 'education' works, children are taught that sex is another way to be defiant against their parents and a culture that controls them, that serves progressives quite well, it helps to render them juveniles for the long term.

Thus we see the results of a modern education that has completely abandoned the Trivium as courses of study and practice - name calling. Derisive snort.

I went to school hungry a lot as a kid. It may have had something to do with my single welfare mom spending her $$$ on booze and ciggies instead of meals for me. While there were no free meal programs at school, we could count on food hampers from the food bank a couple times per year. My mom loved those hampers as it meant she could stop buying food altogether and pour everything into voices.

Kids who aren't being fed don't need a good meal as much as they need a good home. Wish I knew of some way to get them into the arms of loving, caring parents.

That should have been 'vices', not 'voices'. Autocorrect, how do I hate thee? Let me count the ways.

Today ... I sat through the morning coffee break listening to a guy with no particular political identity rant about all the evils of the HARPER government.

Basically ... he spent 10 minutes repeating all the trash propagated by the likes of the CBC for the last 5 years (only stopped there because that was the fuzzy edge of his memory).

At the point where it was obvious he was going to use the entire break to regale us all with uninformed opinion and impotent anger, I decided to intervene.

I just asked him one question in regard to one of the more egregious assertions he'd made.... and that was when his head exploded.

... at least the next 5 minutes were entertaining.

The point is, that there are plenty of ignorant fools who only absorb the garbage and prepackaged opinions broadcast in our mainstream media .... and they are not getting any wiser. Just more belligerent and obnoxious.

It's not often you get to "Breitbart" the tools.

It's become a matter of integrity to rub their noses in it at every opportunity.

In the US, the Feds have intruded into Education (violating States rights) in a big way. The School lunch program is not up to the States anymore, Breakfasts? This is an excellent way for Democrats to lap up the votes of the irresponsible. Give the NDP or Liberals their Federal Daycare and it will open the door to eventually being no different in Canada.

Having US public education under the thumb of the most broke and dysfunctional leviathan on the planet also helps explain their miserable academic standings in the international arena.

Often, here in Canada, the schools insist on giving *all* children the breakfast, or the "magic cookie" or whatever other thing they've come up with so that kids aren't hungry in school. It seems that having only children who claim to need the handouts receive them would "stigmatize" them, so all children must accept the food.

Prager makes some very good points against the liberal pet project of school breakfasts. If any problem is to be resolved, one must go to the root of it. Has anyone done that? If children are going hungry because of abuse and/or neglect, how is a bowl of corn flakes going to fix that? Do parents become caring and attentive during supper time only? Is the economic situation to blame? Of course, these are problems that take ingenuity and time to fix. Why not institute an unsustainable program that will give liberals/leftists not only control but a pat on the back for their egos? Not to forget that manners, morals and values are learned in the home. How do children learn to prepare breakfast, serve it and engage in not only eating but in discussions around the table and so on? Do school programs teach that?

So I clicked on the link supplied by Wonkette claiming that children were going to schoool hungry. It's a factoid made up by a fraudulent "charity" set up by a wholesaler of groceries and designed to fiddle taxpayers out of millions of dollars. They make a show of "donating" expired food they can't sell to their "charity" instead of throwing it out, and write it off their tax bill.

Acts of true charity are not unknown. They're rarely read about, because the truly charitable use their own money and keep their gobs shut about it, as Jesus commanded. Corporate "charities" are designed to sell the firm's product, cheat the taxpayer or pay management's passage into heaven at the shareholders' expense---usually all three.

Makes sense to me. If the poor kids don't get breakfast at home that means Mommy can buy more drugs with the ole EBT Card.

My favorite comment:

"Yeah, the first five suggestions are all fast food. And don't include a beverage."

Indeed. Whatever will the children drink without increasing the price of a $1 breakfast too much. /facepalm