RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

dcnovice -> RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches (12/15/2014 10:30:48 AM)

quote:

Which SNA? There is county, state and national-lol.

I didn't realize that. My friend works at the national office.



[image]local://upfiles/312801/6B6633AE9D93417B8BB4CC6CF36A63B5.jpg[/image]



DesideriScuri -> RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches (12/15/2014 6:11:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
If she thought the design and structure were the problem because it wasn't controlling enough, she might still be a liberal.

Interesting point. Do we want to think of adding coercion and enforcement to the equation as being reform? You're still doing things the same way, but with additional force being applied.

No, WE don't, but liberals probably do. Maybe parents will have to pay a "tax" if they don't buy enough school lunches each year.

Of course you do. You just have a different agenda.

I do? I want to add coercion? Please show that.

There's no legislation you support enforcing?
Weird position. But then -- that's you.

That's an interesting question, and, of course, there are laws I want upheld, but, that's not the topic here, is it?

Curious then why you didn't think so a few posts back, when you were discussing it, if it's not the topic.


The topic is the legislation determining what kind of foods kids will be served, not any other legislation. When I brought it in, it was as it pertains to the topic.



Musicmystery -> RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches (12/15/2014 7:39:04 PM)

Ah. So when you bring it up, it's relevant, but when others discuss it, it's not relevant.

Interesting view.



DesideriScuri -> RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches (12/16/2014 5:42:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Ah. So when you bring it up, it's relevant, but when others discuss it, it's not relevant.
Interesting view.


LMAO! It's being used as a discussion of the OP's topic. You're the one attempting to apply it off-topic.



Musicmystery -> RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches (12/16/2014 6:07:52 PM)

Ah. So a topic can only be discussed the way you see it.

Kinda makes discussion pointless.



JstAnotherSub -> RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches (12/17/2014 3:17:39 AM)

Yalls dick flappin contest is almost louder than the one that caused this mess in the first place. Be proud! You are almost as ballsy as the first lady!



Musicmystery -> RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches (12/17/2014 6:30:31 AM)

Well the first point I raised, who elected Michelle? never got addressed.

Point it, the first lady didn't pass this legislation. Those who did are the ones responsible.

This constant and silly mis-placed blame game is among the reasons there's such grid-lock.



JstAnotherSub -> RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches (12/17/2014 12:53:01 PM)

It absolutely was the first ladies influence that brought this to fruition. There is no doubt about that. I am not going to go back through emails and post links, because it has been something I have been dealing with for years, and I am just sick of it. So while I agree she was not elected, she is absolutely the person who took up this "cause" and would not stop til it was as she wanted it to be.



Musicmystery -> RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches (12/17/2014 12:56:11 PM)

Nonetheless, she simply doesn't have the power to pass legislation. Others who do have that power did that.

No matter your perception, however much she may favor it, that's the reality.



JstAnotherSub -> RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches (12/17/2014 2:32:18 PM)

Do you honestly believe that a first lady has no influence in political circles?



Musicmystery -> RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches (12/17/2014 3:17:21 PM)

Do you honestly not get the distinction I'm drawing?



JstAnotherSub -> RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches (12/17/2014 3:26:52 PM)

I honestly do not, perhaps because this is an issue I am too close to because of my profession, and I have followed every move she has made regarding this issue. I have written her, as have thousands of others. We have written the USDA, we have written folks whose names I cannot even recall.

I do understand that she is not an elected official, and cannot make laws. No one person, elected or not can make laws.

Other than that, I do not understand what yall were arguing about, and after going back and reading it, I don't think I ever will.

Doesn't make anyone bad or wrong. I was trying to discuss the actual problem, at least what the actual problem is in my world and mind, and yall were discussing something that, to me, has nothing to do with it.

It is very possible I am totally the dumbass here, and I am good with that. Aint the first time, won't be the last. I am good with that too.



GoddessManko -> RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches (12/17/2014 3:29:04 PM)

I do not understand the protest to proper nutrition for growing children with growing brain cells that need to be fed properly. Forgive my ignorance on the matter.



dcnovice -> RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches (12/17/2014 3:29:17 PM)

FR

Were the new policies the result of legislation or executive-branch changes to existing regulations?



Musicmystery -> RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches (12/17/2014 3:29:29 PM)

Your explanation reads more like you've no intention of trying to get it. Those who passed the law are off the hook in your mind, despite it being their action that made it law.

So I think we're done here.



JstAnotherSub -> RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches (12/17/2014 3:34:29 PM)

Damn dude. Your reply comes off like you are some kind of pompous asshole talking down to the dumb girl.

Could be we are both wrong. Or both right.

After that, you are right. I have mo intention of trying to get it. Like I said, I wrote her, USDA folks, politicians whose names I don't recall, blahblahblah.

I am just too fucking stupid to understand your superior intellect, so please don't waste any more of your precious time on lil ole me.

Bless yer heart.



JstAnotherSub -> RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches (12/17/2014 3:36:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko

I do not understand the protest to proper nutrition for growing children with growing brain cells that need to be fed properly. Forgive my ignorance on the matter.

It is not a protest about proper nutrition. If that is the only thing I have been able to convey in this thread, I do need to stay out of P&R cause I seriously do not have a clue.



DesideriScuri -> RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches (12/18/2014 8:50:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko
I do not understand the protest to proper nutrition for growing children with growing brain cells that need to be fed properly. Forgive my ignorance on the matter.


If government were to dictate, under penalty of law, that each individual in the US had to perform 30 minutes of qualified exercise every day, would that be okay, since exercise is good for people?



GoddessManko -> RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches (12/18/2014 8:53:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
If government were to dictate, under penalty of law, that each individual in the US had to perform 30 minutes of qualified exercise every day, would that be okay, since exercise is good for people?



That is a fair perspective but children have no idea what they are eating, be it good or bad. Do we guide them to healthier choices or simply let them eat "mystery meat" and "sugared drinks of no nutritional value" while demanding they perform academically and physically. During which time they are going through "growing pains". Don't we want them to have the best chance at performing their best in a reasonable context of their health being our priority? Not theirs?



DesideriScuri -> RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches (12/18/2014 9:17:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
If government were to dictate, under penalty of law, that each individual in the US had to perform 30 minutes of qualified exercise every day, would that be okay, since exercise is good for people?

That is a fair perspective but children have no idea what they are eating, be it good or bad. Do we guide them to healthier choices or simply let them eat "mystery meat" and "sugared drinks of no nutritional value" while demanding they perform academically and physically. During which time they are going through "growing pains". Don't we want them to have the best chance at performing their best in a reasonable context of their health being our priority? Not theirs?


I'm not in favor of kids eating unhealthy food. But, if kids aren't eating the healthy food, shouldn't they at least be eating something? There are also schools that ban kids from bringing bagged lunches. Isn't it a parent's responsibility to determine what a child eats?

At issue isn't healthy vs. unhealthy food choices; it's authoritarian control by government over choices that aren't theirs to make.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.152344E-02