Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches - 12/15/2014 10:30:48 AM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

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

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






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to JstAnotherSub)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches - 12/15/2014 6:11:43 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches - 12/15/2014 7:39:04 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		Ah. So when you bring it up, it's relevant, but when others discuss it, it's not relevant.

Interesting view.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches - 12/16/2014 5:42:23 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches - 12/16/2014 6:07:52 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		Ah. So a topic can only be discussed the way you see it.

Kinda makes discussion pointless.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches - 12/17/2014 3:17:39 AM   
JstAnotherSub


Posts: 6174
Status: offline 		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!

_____________________________

yep

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches - 12/17/2014 6:30:31 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to JstAnotherSub)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches - 12/17/2014 12:53:01 PM   
JstAnotherSub


Posts: 6174
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

yep

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches - 12/17/2014 12:56:11 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to JstAnotherSub)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches - 12/17/2014 2:32:18 PM   
JstAnotherSub


Posts: 6174
Status: offline 		Do you honestly believe that a first lady has no influence in political circles?

_____________________________

yep

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches - 12/17/2014 3:17:21 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		Do you honestly not get the distinction I'm drawing?

(in reply to JstAnotherSub)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches - 12/17/2014 3:26:52 PM   
JstAnotherSub


Posts: 6174
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

yep

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches - 12/17/2014 3:29:04 PM   
GoddessManko


Posts: 2257
Joined: 3/6/2013
From: Dante's Inferno
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

Happy consent is the name of the game. You are my perfect Mistress. - my collared.

http://submissivemale.blogspot.com/

The Bird of Hermes is my name, eating my wings to make me tame.

(in reply to JstAnotherSub)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches - 12/17/2014 3:29:17 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline 		FR

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

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches - 12/17/2014 3:29:29 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to JstAnotherSub)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches - 12/17/2014 3:34:29 PM   
JstAnotherSub


Posts: 6174
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

yep

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches - 12/17/2014 3:36:03 PM   
JstAnotherSub


Posts: 6174
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

yep

(in reply to GoddessManko)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches - 12/18/2014 8:50:51 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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?


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to GoddessManko)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches - 12/18/2014 8:53:53 AM   
GoddessManko


Posts: 2257
Joined: 3/6/2013
From: Dante's Inferno
Status: offline
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?

< Message edited by GoddessManko -- 12/18/2014 8:54:14 AM >

_____________________________

Happy consent is the name of the game. You are my perfect Mistress. - my collared.

http://submissivemale.blogspot.com/

The Bird of Hermes is my name, eating my wings to make me tame.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches - 12/18/2014 9:17:39 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to GoddessManko)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.156