It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Progressive/Democrat goal: control your eating based on environmentalism

page: 6
16
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: grandmakdw



Progressives tend more than anyone else to hold the "we know what's best for you and you'll do it or we'll force you to do it" attitude than any other group around.


That's a myth propagated by FOX and friends, Rush and whoever else, plus by the screamers here on ATS.


Actually, the Progressives do that pretty good all by themselves.





posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: grandmakdw



Progressives tend more than anyone else to hold the "we know what's best for you and you'll do it or we'll force you to do it" attitude than any other group around.


That's a myth propagated by FOX and friends, Rush and whoever else, plus by the screamers here on ATS.


Actually, the Progressives do that pretty good all by themselves.

Indeed, we see it nearly every day.
How anyone can look at Bloomberg's soda ban attempt and have the audacity to blame others for promoting 'myths' is beyond me.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Iamthatbish

I'd like to know what schools people are sending their kids to. My kids have greats meals with fresh fruits, veggies, lean proteins and very little garbage. Some of the items on the menus are a bit questionable in my opinion, but they are given options at each meal.

This entire issue is a non-issue. People are only complaining about this because of politics and ignorance.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
a reply to: Iamthatbish

I'd like to know what schools people are sending their kids to. My kids have greats meals with fresh fruits, veggies, lean proteins and very little garbage. Some of the items on the menus are a bit questionable in my opinion, but they are given options at each meal.

This entire issue is a non-issue. People are only complaining about this because of politics and ignorance.



My kids attend a school that is a part of Shepherd Pratt



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer


I'm using YOUR words.

I quoted YOU.

Do you stand by what you wrote?


I stand by everything I write - especially my opinions

What was the question - again? :-)

Nice try beezzer - but no dice

An honest discussion - when you can be honest

Just as I promised
edit on 9/2/2014 by Spiramirabilis because: a case for using the lower case



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: sheepslayer247




Interesting. Could you be a bit more specific and highlight exactly what was done in Nazi Germany that you feel is comparable to MO's stance on the issue?


No I will not do as you have requested of me.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: TsukiLunar
a reply to: sheepslayer247




Interesting. Could you be a bit more specific and highlight exactly what was done in Nazi Germany that you feel is comparable to MO's stance on the issue?


No I will not do as you have requested of me.


Yeah! We're building a gay igloo!



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: TsukiLunar
a reply to: sheepslayer247




Interesting. Could you be a bit more specific and highlight exactly what was done in Nazi Germany that you feel is comparable to MO's stance on the issue?


No I will not do as you have requested of me.


I can't tell if you're being serious, or if your're being facetious. I hope you're just mocking the hardcore republican mindset...but I don't know.

And good luck with your gay igloo project with Beezzer! He's an amazing interior decorator.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 02:59 PM
link   
You know, with all due respect, it is posts and views like this that really bother me and come across as ignorant. First, I am a former science teacher, including teaching ecology and environmental science. Second, I now work in international sustainable development, including with sustainable agricultural systems and food security.

Consciousness, mindfulness, and so on do lead one to research and choose a diet that is less impactful on the environment. For example, I've reduced my meat consumption to once a day, as the current form of the meat industry is incredibly impactful on the environment.

And yes, nutritionists combined with environmental and agricultural scientists DO know more than the average person about not only what is healthy eating but also what is sustainable as far as future trajectories. It should not be legislated necessarily, but the facts and research are all there on all of these topics. There are conscious ways to eat and those that are not.


originally posted by: grandmakdw


…an agricultural economist at Oklahoma State University and author of “The Food Police: A Well-Fed Manifesto about the Politics of Your Plate,” after a new Obama administration appointment of a self-described “environmental nutritionist.”

Lusk said combining healthy eating with climate concerns is part of a “progressive ideology that ‘we know better than you,’ and a willingness to use the federal government to push utopian ideas.”

“It’s not totally ludicrous for the government to evaluate the environmental impacts of what you eat,”
Lusk said. “But to combine these two goes beyond science.

Here it’s asking you to weigh the value of the environment versus nutrition and what price you place on each. It’s not science, it’s values judgment.”

“The DGAC’s shift from diet and nutrition to environmental issues will increase food costs for all Americans at a time when consumers are already struggling with higher prices at the grocery store,”



Do you think Obama and/or the Democrats know what’s best for everyone to eat?

Think Michelle is right and everyone should eat like the lunches the children are tweeting and posting?

Do you trust Pelosi and Reid of Obamacare to write and pass legislation forcing everyone to eat or not eat certain foods and certain amounts or face a penalty?

If you think this is a good thing, tell us why.

This is not a ludacris posting, it is already happening in our schools and in the military and children are eating only 600-800 calories per day when they rely on school meals to feed them for the entire day.

www.theblaze.com...

Don’t worry Dems, this thread won’t last long. The source is one that normally gets zapped into never never land, even if the postings are true and pan out in other places.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic


Am I sensationalizing the starvation lunches that have been foisted upon school systems by M.O.? One that has resulted in poor children who this is their daily meal being on a starvation diet?

Just out of curiosity, any backup for these claims?

I mean, those who were following silently have already seen your wild assertions disassembled several times now?

So, uh ... what's your source? What are you referring to exactly?


Here are my sources: not so wild huh?



"Many children consume at least half of their meals at school, and for many children, food served at school may be the only food they regularly eat. With more than 32 million children participating in the National School Lunch Program and more than 12 million participating in the School Breakfast Program, good nutrition at school is more important than ever."
www.letsmove.gov...



"A fresh round of food stamp cuts at the state level are underway, on top of federal food stamp reductions that hit millions of Americans twice since November. In some states, policymakers have imposed additional cuts that jeopardize benefits for hundreds of thousands."
www.usatoday.com...


"Under the new rules, school meals will have calorie minimums and maximums per meal based on the child's age. For kindergarteners to fifth-graders, meals must contain 550 to 650 calories, and for 9th- to 12th-graders, meals must have 450 to 600 calories."
www.cnn.com...


the federal guidelines for daily calorie intake: School age girls: 1200-1800 calories
School age boys: 1400-2200 calories
www.webmd.com...


So if the child in poverty whose food stamps have been cut and this is their only meal gets a maximum of 650 calories out of the required 1200-2200 calories per day. Starvation. And no seconds are allowed.

My major point being: when progressives go all out in trying to legislate how people should live, what insurance they should buy, etc. There are often horrific unintended consequences. Consequences brought on directly by people who think they know best how everyone else should live.

AND my sources are seal of approval stamped by liberals and progressives!




edit on 3Tue, 02 Sep 2014 15:27:05 -0500pm90209pmk022 by grandmakdw because: addition

edit on 3Tue, 02 Sep 2014 15:52:49 -0500pm90209pmk022 by grandmakdw because: addition

edit on 3Tue, 02 Sep 2014 15:54:51 -0500pm90209pmk022 by grandmakdw because: x



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
You know, with all due respect, it is posts and views like this that really bother me and come across as ignorant. First, I am a former science teacher, including teaching ecology and environmental science. Second, I now work in international sustainable development, including with sustainable agricultural systems and food security.

Consciousness, mindfulness, and so on do lead one to research and choose a diet that is less impactful on the environment. For example, I've reduced my meat consumption to once a day, as the current form of the meat industry is incredibly impactful on the environment.

And yes, nutritionists combined with environmental and agricultural scientists DO know more than the average person about not only what is healthy eating but also what is sustainable as far as future trajectories. It should not be legislated necessarily, but the facts and research are all there on all of these topics. There are conscious ways to eat and those that are not.


originally posted by: grandmakdw


…an agricultural economist at Oklahoma State University and author of “The Food Police: A Well-Fed Manifesto about the Politics of Your Plate,” after a new Obama administration appointment of a self-described “environmental nutritionist.”

Lusk said combining healthy eating with climate concerns is part of a “progressive ideology that ‘we know better than you,’ and a willingness to use the federal government to push utopian ideas.”

“It’s not totally ludicrous for the government to evaluate the environmental impacts of what you eat,”
Lusk said. “But to combine these two goes beyond science.

Here it’s asking you to weigh the value of the environment versus nutrition and what price you place on each. It’s not science, it’s values judgment.”

“The DGAC’s shift from diet and nutrition to environmental issues will increase food costs for all Americans at a time when consumers are already struggling with higher prices at the grocery store,”



Do you think Obama and/or the Democrats know what’s best for everyone to eat?

Think Michelle is right and everyone should eat like the lunches the children are tweeting and posting?

Do you trust Pelosi and Reid of Obamacare to write and pass legislation forcing everyone to eat or not eat certain foods and certain amounts or face a penalty?

If you think this is a good thing, tell us why.

This is not a ludacris posting, it is already happening in our schools and in the military and children are eating only 600-800 calories per day when they rely on school meals to feed them for the entire day.

www.theblaze.com...

Don’t worry Dems, this thread won’t last long. The source is one that normally gets zapped into never never land, even if the postings are true and pan out in other places.


You know what?

Good for you. I'm glad you're so much smarter then everyone else that you feel you have the right to force the rest of us to do what you think is right, but the problem with that is that we live in a country where people are supposed to make their own choices in life.

That means you don't get to make decisions for me based on what you think is right, whether it is or isn't.

You know what? It would be a lot better for everyone if people stopped having children out of wedlock, too, but I don't see anyone claiming that I have the right to force everyone into that choice.

So you can stuff your so-called superiority.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: TsukiLunar

Too bad this ain't your forum. So, you can't tell BH to do squat!

Wanna try that one again?



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   
See now, here's a thing.

At least in MY kid's school district, the lunch program and the food served by it are a function of the school district administration. Not the White House. Towards the beginning of each school year the school administration brings the next year's proposed lunch program to a school board meeting. Not to the White House. The school board (which is comprised of local citizens elected to the four year position by the residents of the school district- not the White House) discusses the program, invites comments from the public (who are encouraged to attend every board meeting) and after due consideration either approves the proposed program or sends it back to the school district administration (not the White House) for changes.

While this may not be how every school district in the US is run, it HAS been the method of every school district I have been a resident in.

If you don't like what the lunch program is serving children in your school district, go to a school board meeting and demand changes. If the elected members of the school board refuse to make any changes, work to have them defeated at the next election. If you are unable to find any candidate you feel has your concerns at heart, run for the position yourself. Federal nutrition programs are mostly guidelines and are not mandatory. There are some that base federal funding upon compliance with those guidelines, but if compliance results in unacceptable quality compromises then it might be necessary to do without that funding.

The White House doesn't decide what your kids eat, the school board does, and if that board is making bad decisions it is YOUR responsibility to bring it to task ( not the White House).

Personal responsibility folks.
edit on 9/2/2014 by Montana because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/2/2014 by Montana because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

That's NOT my post! Please learn how to use the quote function.

And your sources do NOT state what you have claimed.
edit on 9/2/2014 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

Wow, do you read anything beyond what you think proves your point? Do you think about it?

The very next paragraph after the one you quoted from Let's Move states:



In 2012, we accomplished a critical step on the road to deliver healthier food to our nation’s school children when the U.S. Department of Agriculture released new rules that will boost the nutritional quality of the meals eaten by school children every day. The rules represent the first major revision of school meal standards in more than 15 years and make sure our kids' lunches and breakfasts will have more whole grains, vegetables, and fruits, and less fat and sodium and set sensible calorie limits based on the age of children being served.


So, your source is actually promoting the benefits of the same rules you're trying to portray as unfair and cruel.

That's a head-scratcher, huh?

Now regarding your next point, about the cuts in the Food Stamp program, is indeed troubling. What is really troubling is that the neocons and wingnuts in the Republican party wanted to cut three to five times as much! (MSNBC )



When House Republicans originally argued for a food stamp cut of between $20.5 billion and $39 billion, the White House threatened to veto both of those proposals. During his Friday speech, the president did not say whether he was satisfied with the final $8.7 billion figure, or even mention the cuts at all.


So, unless you're starting a movement to restore the Food Stamp budget to what it was (or even more unthinkable for a certain political ilk, what it should be) you're defeating your own argument here. I'm fairly sure that the "liberals and progressives" would be the first to support an increase in Food Stamp programs and the social safety net for kids to make sure no one goes hungry anywhere anytime.

Are you onboard with that? If not, your example here is more than specious: it's utterly dishonest.

You are very aware that those calorie requirements are the AVERAGE PER MEAL over the course of a week, not a hard limitation PER DAY . Another blatant misrepresentation. (EDIT: ... and if you're not aware of it, you might try reading Setting the Record Straight from the USDA before you post any other nonsense.)

You are also very aware that the Federal statute Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (Pub.L. 111–296) was enacted by the US Congress, not by some tyrannical mandate of the First Lady.

I think that fact qualifies your statement about "the starvation lunches that have been foisted upon school systems by M.O." as an utter, complete and intentional lie.


edit on 16Tue, 02 Sep 2014 16:58:18 -050014p042014966 by Gryphon66 because: Fixed format, added a link, as noted.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Montana


If you don't like what the lunch program is serving children in your school district, go to a school board meeting and demand changes. If the elected members of the school board refuse to make any changes, work to have them defeated at the next election. If you are unable to find any candidate you feel has your concerns at heart, run for the position yourself. Federal nutrition programs are mostly guidelines and are not mandatory. There are some that base federal funding upon compliance with those guidelines, but if compliance results in unacceptable quality compromises then it might be necessary to do without that funding.

The White House doesn't decide what your kids eat, the school board does, and if that board is making bad decisions it is YOUR responsibility to bring it to task ( not the White House).

Personal responsibility folks.


But that would take all the fun out of everything! It's much more fun to sit behind your keyboard and complain about how the evil Obamas are taking food out of our kids' mouths!!



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko



Good for you. I'm glad you're so much smarter then everyone else that you feel you have the right to force the rest of us to do what you think is right


Honestly...ketsuko - you can't just make up stuff to make your point. Grammie has already got that schtick covered :-)

It should not be legislated necessarily, but the facts and research are all there on all of these topics. There are conscious ways to eat and those that are not.

Right there in black and white - and again in orange. Why don't you cut some people some slack for having an opinion that's different than yours. Nobody is going to force you to do anything - at least not in this thread



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

They've got nothing but hate in their hearts for people different than themselves and a determination to be justified about it.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 11:00 PM
link   
I'm a fan of what is mentioned in the OP. It's a good idea to study the environmental impact of food production so that we can determine how sustainable and expandable it is. If it's not then we can correct it.

Where I run into problems is when government dictates that X food must be removed. If we decide as a nation that factory farming is an abomination and unsustainable then we should let supply/demand handle the new prices using other methods.

The governments role here is in making sure the food or methods of production won't kill us, giving us the information on production methods so we can decide if it's something we support (legislation or financial), and last that we have the capacity to keep ourselves fed.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Don't the unions understand that by raising the minimum wage is not what obama is really after.

He wants the minimum wage for fast food workers to go to $15 a hour so that these businesses go out of business.

Bankrupt KFC, Taco Bell, McDonald’s and all the rest and Obama gets what he wants.

The union does not get what they want and finds out Obama has screwed them big time.

Yet Obama can blame it on corporate greed that they went bankrupt.




top topics



 
16
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join