I'm sure you must have needed the emphasis. You shame nothing but yourself.
Her customers aren’t likely to buy kale, duck or lamb, she said, so such products “will just spoil on the shelves.”
No, their customers are more likely to buy DingDongs, doughnuts and drek.
The store owning lading was referring to "her customers". Not "food stamp" customers but "her customers".
I responded that "their customers" are indeed more likely to buy Dingdongs, etc. In the case of those on food stamps, the taxpayer is paying for that kind of cheap rubbish "food".
This was made clearer in the second post stating:
Mind you, they probably all eat dingdongs, doughnuts and drek by preference too
Even so, those local "convenience" stores provide staples even if those are in cans and the freezer - it would be a hardship for them to offer fresh veg in any meaningful quantity. No one would buy them anyway - because they don't want to - and as the capitalist pig store owners aver, "It would just all go bad"
It's true that I didn't read the OP article as carefully as I should have. I missed (first time) that the particular stores being named do in fact have fruit and vegetables. The objection is to the proposed new number of particular items that must be carried. An unwarranted government intrusion, in my view.
Had I read more carefully, I probably would have posted about the intrusion rather than a cheap shot.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
