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

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



Message


Sanity -> Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches (12/13/2014 9:06:08 AM)

quote:

Colorado school bribes kids to eat Michelle O lunches

LAKEWOOD, Colo – School officials in Jefferson County, Colorado felt like they had to do something to save the school’s lunch program after a significant drop in participation last year because of new federal regulations championed by First Lady Michelle Obama.

So, they’re bribing kids to buy lunch.

Devinny Elementary School first grader Anna Ketzer was one of three students who won a brand new bicycle, 9News.com reports.

“I was very excited to hear that,” she told the news station, adding that she gets her food from the cafeteria because “I don’t have to make my lunch.”

...

Several parents who commented on the 9News story were clearly not impressed with the raffle idea.

“This is amazing! Jeffco is teaching our kids how to gamble! Not just gamble, but to gamble to eat. Is the next field trip to Las Vegas so we can teach them how to live on the streets after they don’t win? ‘Hey, buy our food and you could win a bike!’ or ‘Hey, play our slots and you could win a car!’ What’s the difference?” J.J. Howe posted to Facebook.



The ruling class Democrat elites really believe that they need to control everything

Perhaps Michelle O has the best of intentions, but when everything is controlled from central command things tend to just go to hell




mnottertail -> RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches (12/13/2014 9:13:27 AM)

Yeah, we saw that with the nutsuckers several times, I mean, Iraq as an example.




TheHeretic -> RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches (12/13/2014 10:38:01 AM)

I don't see a need for the leap to the ludicrous, and given the number of legal lotteries to "fund schools," I hardly think a lunch ticket drawing is news in any way.

Encouraging schools to provide healthier lunches is a worthy goal. It's the sort of liberal idea that makes liberalism seem attractive. It gets ugly after the turn towards authoritarianism when the means used in pursuit of worthy goals don't go as planned. Let us know when you get some of that, Sanity.




Sanity -> RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches (12/13/2014 10:59:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

I don't see a need for the leap to the ludicrous, and given the number of legal lotteries to "fund schools," I hardly think a lunch ticket drawing is news in any way.

Encouraging schools to provide healthier lunches is a worthy goal. It's the sort of liberal idea that makes liberalism seem attractive. It gets ugly after the turn towards authoritarianism when the means used in pursuit of worthy goals don't go as planned. Let us know when you get some of that, Sanity.


If you were half as smart as you think you are you would understand that we simply disagree about that

In all practicality "liberalism" no longer exists among the Democrat party leadership

There is nothing liberal about the elites at the top. Its all about power, image, and control

A few of their blind stupid followers are really liberals, sure

But among the leadership, no. Doesnt exist.











TheHeretic -> RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches (12/13/2014 11:45:22 AM)

Yes, Sanity, we pretty much always disagree about how valid your leaps to the ludicrous are.

Have a nice day.




Sanity -> RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches (12/13/2014 12:21:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Yes, Sanity, we pretty much always disagree about how valid your leaps to the ludicrous are.

Have a nice day.


Youre just another drooler like mnot anymore

If MO cared about the children she would modify her lunch program toward the realistic rather than coldly observe as millions of school lunches go in the round file untouched





TheHeretic -> RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches (12/13/2014 12:55:27 PM)

If she saw a well intentioned program failing, and thought the problem might be in the design and structure of the program, she wouldn't be a liberal, now would she?

Dumbass.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches (12/13/2014 12:58:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
If she saw a well intentioned program failing, and thought the problem might be in the design and structure of the program, she wouldn't be a liberal, now would she?
Dumbass.


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




TheHeretic -> RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches (12/13/2014 1:25:50 PM)


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.





JstAnotherSub -> RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches (12/13/2014 2:32:35 PM)

It was probably part of a promotion, which has been required of us for years and years. Fruit and veggies month, School Breakfast Month, School Lunch Week, 3-a-day every day (for dairy), Farm to Table Month, Screen Free Week, I could go on and on, but my brain just doesn't give a fuck.

The new guidelines have hurt in some ways and helped in other ways. We are feeding many more fresh fruits and vegetables, but the whole grain requirements make it hard to find a product that kids will actually eat, and something that a kid will not put in their mouth and chew up then swallow has no nutritional value at all.

I wanna know how they got bicycles though! I have pencils and stickers, occasionally book bags or pedometers. My babies would love to win a bicycle. They eat breakfast and lunch with me every day, prizes or no prizes, and I am pretty fucking proud to be giving them (many of them anyhow) the only fresh food they get.





DaddySatyr -> RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches (12/13/2014 4:05:31 PM)


I think that getting children to eat healthier is a lofty and righteous goal.

I don't even have (much of) a problem with insisting that schools must offer healthy meals to children.

I have a problem with dragooning children and parents into making children eat food that (from many reports) tastes like dirt.

I had an issue with the school that made a child throw out the lunch they'd brought from home because it didn't meet Big (in this case) Sister's standards for what was "healthy".

If you're going to offer healthier food items and add an incentive for kids to make that choice, as long as it's not coming out of the budget meant to actually educate all the children, I'm okay with that, too.



Michael




Musicmystery -> RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches (12/13/2014 5:08:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

Colorado school bribes kids to eat Michelle O lunches

LAKEWOOD, Colo – School officials in Jefferson County, Colorado felt like they had to do something to save the school’s lunch program after a significant drop in participation last year because of new federal regulations championed by First Lady Michelle Obama.

So, they’re bribing kids to buy lunch.

Devinny Elementary School first grader Anna Ketzer was one of three students who won a brand new bicycle, 9News.com reports.

“I was very excited to hear that,” she told the news station, adding that she gets her food from the cafeteria because “I don’t have to make my lunch.”

...

Several parents who commented on the 9News story were clearly not impressed with the raffle idea.

“This is amazing! Jeffco is teaching our kids how to gamble! Not just gamble, but to gamble to eat. Is the next field trip to Las Vegas so we can teach them how to live on the streets after they don’t win? ‘Hey, buy our food and you could win a bike!’ or ‘Hey, play our slots and you could win a car!’ What’s the difference?” J.J. Howe posted to Facebook.



The ruling class Democrat elites really believe that they need to control everything

Perhaps Michelle O has the best of intentions, but when everything is controlled from central command things tend to just go to hell

"federal regulations championed by Michelle Obama"?

What federal branch is Michelle in? Geez. She can give speeches, but someone else passed the legislation.




eulero83 -> RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches (12/13/2014 5:24:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr



I have a problem with dragooning children and parents into making children eat food that (from many reports) tastes like dirt.




It can be because kids are addicted to artificial aromas and sauces, or because scools hired people that were only able to heat processed food and not actually cooking. Has anyone tried to investigate that?




slvemike4u -> RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches (12/13/2014 5:29:47 PM)

Slow news day ,Sanity ?




stef -> RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches (12/13/2014 7:42:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Slow news day ,Sanity ?

Slow Sanity day, otherwise known as any day that ends in "y".




DesideriScuri -> RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches (12/13/2014 8:24:22 PM)

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.




DaNewAgeViking -> RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches (12/14/2014 12:44:06 AM)

Okay, local school officials 'bribe' kids to eat decent meals and this is Obama's fault? For that matter, they're providing 'incentives' to consumers to buy a product - free market capitalism at it's finest! Tell me, Sanity, what are you going to do after Obama leaves office? Implode?
[sm=binky.gif]




joether -> RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches (12/14/2014 2:36:23 AM)

As I read the article in the OP, I'm left wondering why the most important questions are not being discussed here?

1 ) Little children understanding what a calorie is, to demand eating as they choose?

"Across the country, students are revolting against federal restrictions on calories, sodium, fat, sugar, whole grain, and other nutritional elements of school lunches by bringing their own food from home."

K-7th level kids fully understand what a calorie is defined? Those kids are pretty smart, but understanding nutrition is something taught in the later years of high school. "Fat" is not something these little kids associate with food, but 'Big David' who gets picked on by the other kids. Your going to tell me, these kids seriously understand all these concepts, enough to make independent, reasonable, educated, decisions on what to eat? That they understand good nutrition standards as they apply to the young human body?

If that was true, they would be eating from the school lunch program each day. Since they are not, what are the sources of this problem? Poor education on food? Parents that dont give a crap what their kid eats? Lack of money? Combination of these?

These are the sort of questions we should be asking ourselves. Rather than making cheap political attacks between Democrats and Republicans.

2 ) "After a 6 percent decline in lunch sales last year..."

This school department is going ballistic after a drop of 6% in the previous year? Get real....

There are numerous and honest reasons for the drop that has....NOTHING...to do remotely with politicals at the nation level. One would have to show evidence that the sole reason for the 6% drop in lunch sales, is solely the reason of Mrs. Obama's lunch program. Got any of that evidence conservatives/libertarians? No? Why is that? Because there are plenty of other rational reasons. Kids/parents made the lunches, they weren't hungry, lost their lunch on [the bus, way to school, in their locker, etc], didnt have money to buy lunch, got their money robbed by the school yard bully. As can be seen, there are plenty of reasons that could account for that decline.

Maybe the food wasn't tasty? That which looks yummy, usually gets eaten up quickly. So those 'hockey puck' cookies that are semi-stale are not likely to sell as well as freshly baked brownies. Do they eat the imitation cheese and cardboard pizza? Or the one that actually looks like the cook would have a few slices themselves?

The article, and those pushing the political agenda here, are not even remotely considering the reasonable possibilities.

3 ) "Recent reports show more than 1 million students no longer buy food from the cafeteria, and requirements that they take a fruit or vegetable, whether they want it or not, has created more than $1 billion in food waste since the regulations went into effect in 2012.

Which reports are these? I like the name of the report, author(s), and where it was published. Because that brings up credibility that the information being given does come from a legitimate perspective; rather than from somebody asshole! How much over a million? 1,000,013 and 1,000,130, are both over one million; yet neither would really matter against a number like a million, right? Shouldn't we talk about the exact number here? An perhaps find out why this number is, from the sources?

$1 billion in food waste? MY GOD! How much do grocery stores waste because they placed the price of fruits and vegetables a bit two high? We dont have a problem when they do it, right? Since our grocery bill we just rise up a bit more the following week! Back to public schools and food; where does this number come from? Again, without credible and documented research, how can we take this number seriously? How did this number get generated exactly? Maybe the actual number is $250 million, or $1.5 billion?

4) "The school lunch overhaul, which was implemented through the Healthy and Hunger Free Kids Act and forced on schools participating in the National School Lunch Program, has resulted in record lunch revenue losses in some schools, prompting hundreds to drop out of the program and forfeit their federal subsidies to serve students food they’ll actually eat."

Where is the citation here? Where does this information come from? Did the author of this document fail out of the 1st grade? Because when making a claim like this, one would have a citation of where this information originates from!

How about the origins of the 'Healthy and Hunger Free Kids Act'? Yes, signed into law by President Obama. But this bill was a re-authorization of the "Child Nutrition Act" of 1966 signed into law by President Johnson, which was put into law after years with the "National School Lunch Act" of 1945, signed by President Truman. Now how many of you have read all of these laws? Show of hands? That's right, none. Particularly of those attacking this issue and the first lady! Since if anyone read the HHFK act, they would know its not the first lady that sets the nutrition standards, bu the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). How about sitting down and reading the law; you might find its pretty decent law. Its not perfect, but better than the Republican version (which is nothing).

5 ) Parents have problems with this?

Really? Parents have problems that the school is trying to educated their children to eat and exercise better, than when they were in school? Isn't the whole point of going to school, to learn things? I'm being serious here guys/gals. Back when all of us were in K-5 grades, we had some of this information. But not all the information known today. In addition, our educators didnt have the knowledge on how to communicate it effectively to children so young. That they absorb much more in the way of knowledge and access to even more levels of knowledge, than any of us back 20-50 years ago. How many of us had hand held computers that could access information in a blink of an eye?

The legal issues of school lunches aside, isnt it the role of parents and educators to work together, to instill good eating habits in children? That if the parents decide to pack a lunch, it hopefully is healty and good to eat. Can of soda, day old fries from McDonalds, and a soon-to-be-bad turkey sandwhich....is not healthy.....by any reasonable standards. I would think the parents would want their kids eating properly. If that is true, should we really be petty on this issue further?




Lucylastic -> RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches (12/14/2014 4:32:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Slow news day ,Sanity ?

dont tempt him....




Lucylastic -> RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches (12/14/2014 4:34:27 AM)

yanno, its only been six years.....

[image]local://upfiles/228382/3134321A590543ACA3C8DB5DFBAC4B4A.jpg[/image]




Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.347656E-02