• Michelle Obama endorses healthier school lunches
    403 replies, posted
I blame the school lunches for why I was fat when I was young. After I stopped eating them and brought my own lunch I lost so much weight.
[QUOTE=Glaber;26697279]Fine, here's an MSNBC article. [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40637301[/url] And a couple more from CNN [url]http://eatocracy.cnn.com/2010/12/13/president-obama-signs-healthy-hunger-free-kids-act-of-2010-into-law/?iref=allsearch[/url] [url]http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/13/child.nutrition/index.html?iref=allsearch[/url][/QUOTE] [quote] The bill is about "giving our kids the healthy futures they deserve," the president said during a bill signing ceremony at a Washington elementary school. "Right now across the country too many kids don't have access to school meals." Even when they do, he added, too often the meals aren't sufficiently nutritious. As a result, he said, one out of every three children in America is overweight or obese.[/quote] [quote]Among other things, the $4.5 billion measure provides more money to poor areas to subsidize free meals and requires schools to abide by health guidelines drafted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. To help offset the higher cost of including more fruits and vegetables, the bill increases the reimbursement rate for school lunches.[/quote] So schools are getting awarded for providing healthy meals, which in turn means healthier kids which means... [quote]Supporters say the law is needed to stem rising health care costs due to expanding American waistlines and to feed hungry children in tough economic times. Mrs. Obama cited a group of former generals and military officials who have said unhealthy school lunches are a national security threat because weight problems are now the leading medical reason that recruits are rejected.[/quote] More soldiers. There's something in this for you too, Glaber.
[QUOTE=Prismatex;26697062]She wants the free lunch (not all school lunches, just free lunches for those who already qualify for free lunches) program to also extend to breakfast and dinner. What's your opposition to that? It's optional, you illiterate moron. Nobody's forcing your kid to eat school lunches.[/QUOTE] Still waiting for a reply to this one, G.
[QUOTE=Glaber;26693674]BZZT So close. I am conservative, I believe in God, and I think that there is a place for science in our world, but it can't go unchecked.[/QUOTE] Science is the most rigorously checked field in all of academia That's what differentiates it from oh, let's say, religion
[QUOTE=Zeke129;26699479]Science is the most rigorously checked field in all of academia That's what differentiates it from oh, let's say, religion[/QUOTE] What does "go unchecked" even mean? Science is checked by itself, what else do you think it's pressuring it?
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;26699570]What does "go unchecked" even mean? Science is checked by itself, what else do you think it's pressuring it?[/QUOTE] When a conservative says science can't "go unchecked" they mean it can't take precedence over religion Well clocks for them
[QUOTE=Glaber;26697279]Fine, here's an MSNBC article. [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40637301[/url] And a couple more from CNN [url]http://eatocracy.cnn.com/2010/12/13/president-obama-signs-healthy-hunger-free-kids-act-of-2010-into-law/?iref=allsearch[/url] [url]http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/13/child.nutrition/index.html?iref=allsearch[/url][/QUOTE] Was posting something sane so hard?
school food is fucking terrible. Maybe this'll fix it
This is exactly why I'm glad I have my own lunch, and I don't eat the schools lunch.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pptUBPw-VQA[/media] Self-Explanatory.
[QUOTE=Prismatex;26699457]Still waiting for a reply to this one, G.[/QUOTE] My opposition is, how are we going to fund the new meals? Soup kitchens and Forgotten Harvest rely on donations. School food programs rely on Tax dollars. A tax payer will see a school meal program as government waste, but will see charities like Forgotten Harvest and the Ronald McDonald House Charities as helping the poor. We don't need Government doing the job of Charities! Especially when they over step their boundaries by exploiting loopholes. [QUOTE=Lambeth;26700007]Was posting something sane so hard?[/QUOTE] When your definitions don't match, and they don't always report on the same thing, yes.
[QUOTE=Glaber;26705725]We don't need Government doing the job of Charities! Especially when they over step their boundaries by exploiting loopholes.[/QUOTE] uh dude you realize that soup kitchens arose in response to poor people not getting enough food, right the government is much more efficient, dollar-for-dollar, than a soup kitchen for getting meals to kids.
[QUOTE=Glaber;26705725]A tax payer will see a school meal program as government waste, but will see charities like Forgotten Harvest and the Ronald McDonald House Charities as helping the poor. [/QUOTE] Is the government not allowed to help the poor?
[QUOTE=Glaber;26705725]A tax payer will see a school meal program as government waste, but will see charities like Forgotten Harvest and the Ronald McDonald House Charities as helping the poor.[/QUOTE] What kind of brainless moron would think this if both options are [I]doing the same fucking thing?[/I]
Bzzt Who is Glaber?
[QUOTE=Prismatex;26705742]uh dude you realize that soup kitchens arose in response to poor people not getting enough food, right the government is much more efficient, dollar-for-dollar, than a soup kitchen for getting meals to kids.[/QUOTE] Pardon me, but I just couldn't read that second line with a strait face. The government, more efficient? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHa. I wouldn't trust the government with fine china in the mail. Forgotten Harvest even does a better job in Detroit and already provides healthy foods at no tax expense. You want to fight hunger? Start up a local version of Forgotten Harvest. Have a link: [url]http://www.forgottenharvest.org/[/url] [QUOTE=Lambeth;26705847]Is the government not allowed to help the poor?[/QUOTE] Oh the people in government can, just not through legislation. Otherwise they risk creating more poor to help. [QUOTE=The Vman;26705877]What kind of brainless moron would think this if both options are [I]doing the same fucking thing?[/I][/QUOTE] Need I talk about perspective again? Not everyone operates under the same perspective. Though you see this a compassion, I see this as Democrats being generous with other people's money. Robbing Peter to Pay Paul as the saying goes.
[QUOTE=Glaber;26705965]Pardon me, but I just couldn't read that second line with a strait face. The government, more efficient? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHa.[/QUOTE] Well you do get fresh, clean water from the government. You wouldn't be so lucky if you lived in a third world country. [editline]14th December 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Glaber;26705965]Need I talk about perspective again? Not everyone operates under the same perspective. Though you see this a compassion, I see this a Democrats being generous with other people's money. Robbing Peter to Pay Paul as the saying goes.[/QUOTE] [i]Maybe I disagree with your perspective[/i] I would much rather my money go to the poor than the rich anywho.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;26706022]Well you do get fresh, clean water from the government. You wouldn't be so lucky if you lived in a third world country.[/QUOTE] Uhh I get well water and have a automatic pump in the basement. You're thinking of water in the City. [QUOTE=Lambeth;26706022][i]Maybe I disagree with your perspective[/i] I would much rather my money go to the poor than the rich anywho.[/QUOTE] Then why not donate to a charity of your choosing instead of having the government choose for you?
I thought you lived in detroit.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;26706081]I thought you lived in detroit.[/QUOTE] No, I'm just about an hour outside of Detroit.
[QUOTE=Glaber;26706074]Then why not donate to a charity of your choosing instead of having the government choose for you?[/QUOTE] I can do both. [editline]14th December 2010[/editline] Volunteering gives me more of a warm fuzzy though, I do it every Wednesday at the soup kitchen. [editline]14th December 2010[/editline] Which yeah doesn't serve just soup.
[QUOTE=Glaber;26696691]That's only a part of it. From the sounds of he quote, she doesn't even trust parents at home too. Why else expand the program to Breakfast and dinner? Of course this also sounds like she doesn't trust parents to pack kids a healthy lunch either. Someone else can answer.[/QUOTE] FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME GLABER, THIS TIME PAY ATTENTION. She has said nothing at all about doing this in homes or replacing it for anyone, it's SOLELY for kids who can't afford normal healthy food, and kids who just don't get to eat right. It's not a meal replacement, it's not mandatory, it's optional, and it's solely to help unfortunate kids. It will not foster dependency anymore so that anything at home would, there is no difference in the long run. No one here respects you for the simple fact that you ignore any argument, you ignore everything you simply don't agree with. When someone presents you something new, you just regurgitate old information, or overly biased shit, don't say you don't, your favorite sources are Rush and Fox. [editline]14th December 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Glaber;26705965]Pardon me, but I just couldn't read that second line with a strait face. The government, more efficient? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHa. I wouldn't trust the government with fine china in the mail. Forgotten Harvest even does a better job in Detroit and already provides healthy foods at no tax expense. You want to fight hunger? Start up a local version of Forgotten Harvest. Have a link: [url]http://www.forgottenharvest.org/[/url] Oh the people in government can, just not through legislation. Otherwise they risk creating more poor to help. Need I talk about perspective again? Not everyone operates under the same perspective. Though you see this a compassion, I see this as Democrats being generous with other people's money. Robbing Peter to Pay Paul as the saying goes.[/QUOTE] Glabber, the government as most people know it is not a totally incapable slow mess of bureaucratic bullshit, it's unfortunate you live in the states and think that corporations are somehow faster than them in anyway, but you're so naive... These arguments are worthless, you don't even try and learn from anything, just the same thing over and over again.
[QUOTE=Glaber;26705965]Pardon me, but I just couldn't read that second line with a strait face. The government, more efficient? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHa. [/QUOTE] The government can buy food in much greater bulk than a charity, getting better prices along the way.
[QUOTE=Prismatex;26706414]The government can buy food in much greater bulk than a charity, getting better prices along the way.[/QUOTE] Not to mention has better ability to distribute, has more power to transport, has more access to resources, yeah, they're soooo much more inefficient than soup kitchens. I doubt glabber has even been in one.
Don't you think it would be in the US's interest to have, or at least attempt to have a healthy youth base?
(what's a strait face by the way?)
[QUOTE=Glaber;26705965]The government, more efficient? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHa. I wouldn't trust the government with fine china in the mail.[/quote] Yes, private enterprise does it so much better. Look at UPS, they will deliver your fine china powder in a spherical box three weeks late but it's the free market so horray!
Glaber, we can even put together a post of all the relevant posts you've missed so you can make some sort of half assed rebuttal of yourself.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;26706444](what's a strait face by the way?)[/QUOTE] serious face. If you can't keep a straight face, something is probably making you laugh or in the least break a smirk.
I was poking fun at the fact he can't spell straight but okay.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.