CrazyOkie

CrazyOkie t1_jebkpfv wrote

Yes, a very misleading case based on one idiot lawmaker flapping his gums. Which the media was happy to run with.

That in fact was a vote for a state program which would have supplemented the existing federal program, to cover kids in families that are between 130%-185% of federal poverty levels. Kids in families below 130% of the poverty level in North Dakota are still going to get a free lunch at school (and free breakfast as well), just like they do in every school (public or private) in the good old USA. Families that are below 200% also qualify for reduced price meals at school.

https://www.kfyrtv.com/2023/03/28/nd-legislature-votes-down-free-school-lunches/

https://www.fns.usda.gov/nslp

0

CrazyOkie t1_je6tdmu wrote

>we had a free lunch program

So you admit that your prior statement that we don't give lunches to kids who can't pay wasn't true? I understand the "I forgot my account number" but forgetting it one day isn't the same as not having a program for it.

And I'm sorry, but your logic makes no sense on the forewarned drill. There absolutely should be administrators & cops observing what the teachers and students are doing, to correct anything they do wrong, otherwise the drill is pointless. If that's what they did at your school, your school administrators weren't very bright.

1

CrazyOkie t1_je6nfnw wrote

Still doesn't answer my question of how that's an advantage to the shooter. By that logic, they could call in saying they saw a shooter and then go in guns blazing.

No idea what schools you went to but all the schools I went to and my daughter went to there absolutely were free lunches and breakfasts for those that couldn't pay. Heck, for my daughter's schools we were required to fill out the forms even if we knew we didn't qualify because the school gets federal money regardless.

2

CrazyOkie t1_je66ss6 wrote

Are there people who don't care? Possibly. I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about parents with kids who are in school - whatever age level. They care - a great deal. Doesn't mean they agree about the solution. For those affected by today's stunt, they're angry.

I'm fairly sure it will have the opposite effect if the intent is to make people want gun control.

When I was young, back in the late 1970s, the state of Oklahoma was considering the equal rights amendment for the U.S. constitution. They were one of the last statest to vote on it, and if Oklahoma passed it, it only needed one more state to be approved. Polling the state legislators, it seemed likely to pass. Oklahoma at that time was run by the Democratic party. The National Organization for Women (NOW) decided that wasn't good enough and unleashed a campaign, having people from around the country mail postcards to all of the Oklahoma state legislators urging them to vote for the amendment. The legislature's post office was flooded with these things. There was so much, it was crazy. I was a Senate page at the time and we were tasked with helping sort through the mail because the regular mail room crew couldn't handle it. We were asked to sort out what had come from Oklahoma residents and what was out of state (the postmark told us). All of it was from out of state, none of it was personally addressed or written - just the postcards. The legislators were so mad at the attempt to influence them from people who didn't live in Oklahoma, the amendment didn't pass. The people of Oklahoma overwhelmingly agreed with their legislators. And to this day, there is no equal rights amendment in the U.S. Constitution.

So yeah, stunts and games to try and influence public or lawmakers opinions can have the opposite effect of what was intended.

2