Could Sarah Palin be right about Michelle Obama?

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by mishigas

Originally posted by SaturnFX
reply to post by Sinnthia

 

It reminds me of when various (corporate owned) politicians came out against Michelle for planting a organic garden because she was not using massive pesticides, genetic modification seeds, etc...

Meh, some people have simply gone retarded.

Can you provide one example of a politician 'coming out' against Obama because she was not using massive pesticides, genetic modification seeds, etc...?

I must have missed the press releases on that.

Linky
happy reading

Thanks for the link, but I didn't see any politicians, only interest groups. And your use of hyperbole such as 'massive' pesticides is disturbing.

The interest groups made an excellent point - Obama touted the benefits of organic and local farming but did not list the disadvantages of it. America could not survive on organic farming alone. Obama was spreading propaganda to her advantage.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
This thread is amazingly revealing. It leads one to wonder why people who are so in favor of government control, even to the level of dictating what we eat would have any interest in a site like ATS? The last place on earth you would expect to find those who are FOR government control.

Or, is it that some let Partisanship and hatred of anyone who does not agree with their politics override their common sense. Hate is a powerful emotion and that hate has been carefully grown inside you and nurtured by your political party to tear us apart from inside, so they can have complete control of us. That I think is the truth here.

It's amazing the levels people will sink to out of the Bigotry of Partisan Politics. Even to the level of hating people they don't know, or willingly allowing those in power to control them; to let them tell you what to think, what to eat and how to act towards your fellow citizens. So brainwashed you no longer even realize how controlled you are and how they guide your thoughts and actions.

This is not about Palin. This is about Partisanship and HATE carefully cultured by the people in power who quite frankly could give a crap less about any of you. Your just a vote to them on an election day and a bother the rest of the time. They don't care if you get fat and die, or if your children are illiterate. It's all a ruse to buy your vote. It's a carefully orchestrated plan to keep you at each others throats and hating each other for their own sick reasons.

Fat IS the new Black for instance. Hate between fit people and those who are overweight is being carefully groomed to be used as a tool of control. They know most people are so shallow and narrow minded they can be controlled just that easily. For most of history they have used skin color or culture to divide us. Now they are turning to things like political party or how fit you are. It will work if this thread is any indication of how effective their mind control is. Many of you are attached directly to the strings they pull.

To many of you we are no longer fellow human beings. We are now Right or Left, Fat or Fit, Rich or Poor and it is incumbent upon you to HATE anyone not in your category and why? So the real bad guys can go merrily along their way using us and controlling us while we are busy hating each other.

Wake up folks. Your falling for the oldest tricks in the book.

Can you show me one post in this thread that supports the government controlling or dictating what we eat?

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Can you show me one post in this thread that supports the government controlling or dictating what we eat?

How about this quote from the OP -

My opinion:
You know what...Michelle is right...put the tub of chocolate covered ice cream down and get walking you fat $#@tards. Sarah...you seen your daughter lately? ya..put down the smores.

Did you actually read the thread?

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
State governments run public schools, NOT the federal government.

Correct me if I am wrong but "State government" is still government, right?
Just curious if my school taught me to read well or not.

Yes, but in the eyes of ideologues, there is a huge difference between the federal government and state governments.

Most liberals believe that it is the duty of the federal government to make the laws that provides for all of the citizens' needs, and levy the taxes necessary to enact those laws, Such is, for example, the battle over a federal healthcare system. The federal government may have a duty to provide healthcare to some who are in need, but it is argued that the federal government should NOT force its version healthcare on people who do not want that version.

Most conservatives believe in "states rights" and individual rights -- i.e., that state and local governments should be the ones passing laws to help provide most of the citizens' needs (although the fewer laws the better). They generally believe that the federal government, constitutionally, is only to provide defense, oversee the trade between states, and provide for general public welfare (and provide a judiciary to enforce these idea). This smaller federal government would levy fewer taxes, although the states would levy more taxes.

It's this idea of "general public welfare" that conservatives and liberals differ. That is to say: what exactly is included in "promoting the general public welfare"? THAT is the sticking point between liberals and conservatives.

In a nutshell, it could be said that a liberal is for a larger federal government who is more active in the day-to-day lives of the citizenry, while it could be said that a conservative is for a smaller federal government that only provides for the needs of the citizenry that 50 individual states cannot provide (i.e., defense and federal judiciary)

Oddly enough, both liberals and conservatives would argue that the constitution backs up their ideology -- and they are probably both right. The strength (and, it could be argued, the weakness) of the U.S. Constitution is that it is intentionally vague and could be interpreted different ways. That's probably why it has worked for the past 223 years with only a little "tweaking".

A case-in-point would be what I mentioned earlier: What does the Constitution say about how far the federal government could go to "promote general welfare". That's what we are arguing on this thread.

Many liberals would want the federal government to be in charge of education (i.e. decide how much is spent and who gets the money). Many conservatives want the states to retain that control over education.

Originally posted by Sinnthia
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Yeah I was just thinking how completely and utterly the same Michelle suggesting you eat healthy and "The Patriot Act" are. It is like they are carbon copies of the same policy but in different handwriting.

Warrantless search and siezure = suggesting I have a salad now and then.

Totally with you there!

Slagheap of sarcasm aside, you missed my point in the overall insinuation. The Government is too much in the lives of the people, whether it be passage of the Patriot Act, telling fastfood restraunts what they can and cannot sell and sending people to court for failing to mow their lawns.

Also, I love the patriot act defense that is always thrown around. People do understand that Congress, and NOT the President is responsbiel for the day to day operations of this country? The Patriot Act was created and supported by majorities in both houses, which I will point out at the time were controlled by Democratic majorities. So if you want to throw it around, please reference it right and palce it in context.

My point is government fixates on small issues that should be left to personal responsibility and the State governments. I would rather they spend time finding ways to reduce the debt and spending, creating a surplus that we can use to build the best academic / scientific schools / programs / labs throughout the nation.

Instead, we bicker over the past, and chose the most idiotic topics to care about, all the while we inch closer to defaulting.

No. There is no way. SHE ISN'T A ZOMBIE CONTROLLED BY HER HUSBAND. She is obviously a strong woman and her own woman. This is obvious by observing her. Unfortunatley Palin has becoming something of a conspiracy theorist...why would someone sensationalize a "government conspiracy" by telling people to eat healthy...IT IS A GOOD THING SINCE OBESITY IS AT THE HIGHEST POINT IN AMERICA EVER! If anyone can question that eating bad is healthy for Americans (especially since obesity drives up our health insurance rates because of increased heart attacks and obesity related health issues...ipso facto costs more to cover more claims that are related to increased overweight problems in our country). So there you go. There's the MICHELLE OBAMA CONSPIRACY...helping drive down our American health insurance premiums. (and sorry my comma key is broken on my computer...I don't suck at grammar)

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Can you show me one post in this thread that supports the government controlling or dictating what we eat?

Here's one - the point of this thread:

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
December 13, 2010
President Obama Signs Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 Into Law

First Lady Michelle Obama, Administration Officials and Let’s Move! Advocates Reaffirm Commitment to Raise a Healthier Generation of Kids

* Read the fact sheet (pdf)
* See a sample school lunch menu (pdf)

“Today is a great day for kids throughout our country as they will soon have healthier, and more nutritious food in their schools. As we continue to focus on the twin issues of childhood obesity and hunger, we will increase access to good, quality meals in school cafeterias so the nutritional needs of our youngsters are better met. The President and First Lady have advocated strongly for passing the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, and, this bill, along with the resources and the powers provided under it, are going to allow USDA to be much more effective and aggressive in responding to obesity and hunger challenges for America’s kids.”

www.whitehouse.gov...

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Slagheap of sarcasm aside, you missed my point in the overall insinuation. The Government is too much in the lives of the people, whether it be passage of the Patriot Act, telling fastfood restraunts what they can and cannot sell and sending people to court for failing to mow their lawns.

None of those things are SUGGESTIONS. Maybe you did not understand the sarcasm was mainly to point out that it is pretty obvious why you would see outrage over passage of laws and not SUGGESTIONS.

Also, I love the patriot act defense that is always thrown around. People do understand that Congress, and NOT the President is responsbiel for the day to day operations of this country? The Patriot Act was created and supported by majorities in both houses, which I will point out at the time were controlled by Democratic majorities. So if you want to throw it around, please reference it right and palce it in context.

I am really not sure what you are talking about. You said "during the Bush administration." When did the Patriot Act pass? I am pretty sure that was during the Bush administration. Blame whomever you like individually as I never made any such claim.

My point is government fixates on small issues that should be left to personal responsibility and the State governments. I would rather they spend time finding ways to reduce the debt and spending, creating a surplus that we can use to build the best academic / scientific schools / programs / labs throughout the nation.

I do not disagree with that but I wish you could use it for a moment to be a tad introspective.
This is about a suggestion. No one is going to make you feed your kids food that might be good for them.
Look back on your point now. Obama haters, Conservatives, etc fixate on small issues. While the real world is going by, they are all crying about the first lady recommending something. I hope you can at least see something in that.

Instead, we bicker over the past, and chose the most idiotic topics to care about, all the while we inch closer to defaulting.

The patriot act was and is an idiotic issue to care about but Michelle telling you to put down the fries is priority?
Tell me you really believe that.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Yes, but in the eyes of ideologues, there is a huge difference between the federal government and state governments.

Are you for real? Someone said simply "government." You 'corrected them about which government they meant when they never specified. You are now telling me that it makes sense to correct someone for something they never said because you know what they were thinking? Are you psychic?

Most liberals believe that it is the duty of the federal government to make the laws that provides for all of the citizens' needs, and levy the taxes necessary to enact those laws -- such as is, for example, the battle over a federal healthcare system. The federal government may have a duty to provide healthcare to some who are in need, but it is argued that the federal government should NOT force its version healthcare on people who do not want that version.

Did you learn that from a liberal or a conservative because it is wrong. All the rest of your post is a rant.
I just wanted to make sure I was reading ok. I saw the word "government." There was no mention of federal or state so you 'correcting' that post was indeed pointless and kind of wrong. Maybe you needed an excuse to post all this other right wing nonsense about what Liberals are and think. I am sure you learned everything you need to know about Jewish people from Himler.

I got it now. I can read. You interjected for no reason. Useful as a launch for you rant. Thanks. Back to the thread then.

reply to post by Sinnthia


Again you missed my points, although after reading your responses we might be on the same page, but saying it differently. That is my point, that we concentrate on the most idiotic things there is, and ignore the 14 trillion pound gorilla in the room.

Congress spends their time bitching about who screws who over, instead of passing meaningful legislation we get all sides who want all the credit, and will do what it takes to deny any credit going to the other side.

In the end the American people get the short end of the stick, while congress spends their days passing meaningless pieces of mineutia congratulating sports teams.

If Michelle Obama wants to promote healthy diets, good for her. If Sarah Palin wants to speak up about that, good for her. Its when topics like this dominate news cycles, ignoring important stuff, is what torques me off.

You used the patriot act in your post which is why I responded with it. I assumed incorrectly that your analogy was intended to be taken as a partisan jab. My bad man and I appologize.

We fixate on the little things...

The only way Sarah Palin could be right, is if that piece of trash put a gun to her head and pulled the trigger...

Originally posted by mishigas

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Can you show me one post in this thread that supports the government controlling or dictating what we eat?

Here's one - the point of this thread:

I am not sure if there is a language barrier or what here but I will try this another way.

Can you show me one post in this thread that supports the government controlling or dictating what we eat?


Hopefully the underlines will help you better understand and offer up a relevant response.

ETA: It also might help to keep in mind I was asking someone who made the claim specifically about people on ATS so uh...I hope that is not a confusing detail.

Originally posted by strangleholder1
The only way Sarah Palin could be right, is if that piece of trash put a gun to her head and pulled the trigger...

Me thinks you just made a watch list of some kind.....

reply to post by Sinnthia


Ummm....the whole point of the article in the OP, which is the topic of this thread, is whether or not the Federal government is responsible (i.e., enacting laws/levying taxes) for educating the public about eating healthy.

Someone then pointed out that it IS the responsibility of the government, because governments run education. I then responded to that person, and made the clarification that state governments control education spending and NOT the federal government. So in the context of the topic of this thread, I don't see why you are taking issue with my point about federal -vs- state control of education.

As for ranting, I don't think it was a rant as much as how pure liberals and conservatives differ -- although of course there are very few "pure" conservatives and liberal.

I myself am very moderate -- that is, I feel that the federal government has a duty to provide a "liberal amount" of services for the welfare of the citizenry, BUT I think they need to be fiscally conservative in doing so, and give the states as much power to do so as possible -- but fill in the gaps for what the states cannot provide.

I personally have no problem with the federal government providing (i.e., using tax money) for a program that helps people understand healthy eating if the states are not providing that education. HOWEVER, I don't want the federal government passing laws telling McDonalds what their menu should be.

reply to post by Sinnthia


Federal Government bans 4loco drink

Federal Government proposes to ban potatoes in schools

Federal Government proposes to ban "junk" food in schools

Fed Government plans to ban fishing and individual food production - HR 875

Again issues that should be left at the personal level, and possibly low level government (school board setup). Why the FEds need to involve themselves in something they have no business being in, while ignoring other, more pressing issues is the problem.

A debate between Palin and Obama is a distraction and nothing more.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Sinnthia

 

Again you missed my points, although after reading your responses we might be on the same page, but saying it differently. That is my point, that we concentrate on the most idiotic things there is, and ignore the 14 trillion pound gorilla in the room.

Not really. I am not sure what points you think I missed.

Congress spends their time bitching about who screws who over, instead of passing meaningful legislation we get all sides who want all the credit, and will do what it takes to deny any credit going to the other side.

Agreed.

In the end the American people get the short end of the stick, while congress spends their days passing meaningless pieces of mineutia congratulating sports teams.

If Michelle Obama wants to promote healthy diets, good for her. If Sarah Palin wants to speak up about that, good for her. Its when topics like this dominate news cycles, ignoring important stuff, is what torques me off.

Agreed.

You used the patriot act in your post which is why I responded with it. I assumed incorrectly that your analogy was intended to be taken as a partisan jab. My bad man and I appologize.

You mentioned liberals complaining during the 8 years while Bush was in office.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Why is it not acceptable for Republicans to "interfere" in peoples lives? When Bush was in office all we heard for 8 years from anyside but the right is Bush Administration is interfering in our lives. Get the Government out of our lives. The Government has no business doing this or doing that.

This is where I get confused. As a liberal I did indeed complain during those 8 years about things like the Patriot Act. I could care less what any first lady suggests. Why do you attempt to equate the complaints about the Bush administration to what should be complaints about the first lady's musings?

I'll take the personality of a nice happy kind overweight person, over a skinny smartassed combative prick any day of the year,
judge not lest ye be judged,
there's all kinds of different people all over the world, it's the attitudes that really matter.

small minds talk about people,
big minds talk about challenges and issues,
but then everyone already knows that, right.

It's time for liver and onions !

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Yes yes, I know. I got it already. You had to add something to create an argument you could then claim to win because you invented the terms of it by giving another post attributes that it did not actually contain. There is a word for that. I got it. Thanks.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Sinnthia

 

Federal Government bans 4loco drink

Federal Government proposes to ban potatoes in schools

Federal Government proposes to ban "junk" food in schools

Fed Government plans to ban fishing and individual food production - HR 875

Again issues that should be left at the personal level, and possibly low level government (school board setup). Why the FEds need to involve themselves in something they have no business being in, while ignoring other, more pressing issues is the problem.

A debate between Palin and Obama is a distraction and nothing more.

What is this in response to?

Originally posted by strangleholder1
The only way Sarah Palin could be right, is if that piece of trash put a gun to her head and pulled the trigger...

Now ain't that the truest statement on these boards!!!

Thank you fine sir!