Michelle Obama's New School Lunches Are A Flop

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Do none of you consider the overall rise of food costs in this country? Things dont stay the same price forever.

As the cost of things rise, sellers must charge more. Simple economics.

Now I should feel sorry for the CEO of the food companies that must charge exhorbitant prices and cut back on the portions in return so they make enough to support their families, and (sniff) you know(sniff, sniff) be able to build those underground bunkers and (sniff, sniff sniff) travel around the world...etc. ad nauseam.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

Also, i hate to break it to you, but the government will ALWAYS be involved in public schools. They aways have been. They always will be. Without them, WE WOULD NOT HAVE PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Are you Obama? Just asking!

reply to post by elrem48


You are complaining about quality now.. Can you please imagine for a moment the type of argument that would need to be formed in order to inact that sort of change? We are talking about just taking junk food out.. And that is met with the utmost resistance. Spending money on 'higher quality' food, would be met with even more resistance if only for the price tag it would be met with.

Personally, I completely agree with you. I want the best food for kids. Period. But we cant talk about things as if we are painting our own personal perfect world. We have to discuss them in the current parameters of our reality, and this reality can barely accept the truth about sugar and salt. They dont even think that is money well spent.

Originally posted by SamLuv
reply to post by elrem48

 

You are complaining about quality now.. Can you please imagine for a moment the type of argument that would need to be formed in order to inact that sort of change? We are talking about just taking junk food out.. And that is met with the utmost resistance. Spending money on 'higher quality' food, would be met with even more resistance if only for the price tag it would be met with.

Personally, I completely agree with you. I want the best food for kids. Period. But we cant talk about things as if we are painting our own personal perfect world. We have to discuss them in the current parameters of our reality, and this reality can barely accept the truth about sugar and salt. They dont even think that is money well spent.

In fairness, most of the complaints at this point are from dittoheads and kneejerk reactionaries... if Obama told them the government WASN'T going to spend money on improving school food these same people would be out in the street marching, claiming poor nutrition was part of a marxist plot to dumb down kids, etc.

They're NOT serious, just political advocates/operatives, trying to win an election, even at the expense of their kids health.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by blueorder
reply to post by antonia

 

I disagree, you seen the size of her humungous rear end, don't try and waffle to me that it ain't mainly fat

Having a large rear end is not the same as being fat. Her butt isn't even that big.

Agreed. Beyonce, Jennifer Lopez, Kim Kardashian - all those women are not considered fat - they just got curves. They're "bootylicious".

Basically, the big butt thing is just racism... it's just a ploy to constantly remind white folks that the President is a black man...

Originally posted by SamLuv
reply to post by Nucleardiver

 

YES! Her clothing is definitely more important than the health of our children going to school.

The kids prefer the pink slime, come on Michelle, stop being so mean making them eat fresh fruit and whole grains!

Its not like this is a typical responce from a kid to reject the healthier option in favor of the salty sweet option. I mean come on.

Are you guys serious? This is exactly what I would expect to happen to ANY person who tried to switch a kid from the # they normally consume, to a healthier alternative. I mean, even adults hate that crap. Whats with ignoring that? and only trying to see this as an evil thing?

You seem to be missing the point here which is that it is not the duty of government and especially the first lady to dictate what anyone eats. I'm not just saying this because its Michelle either, I would say it if it were anyone. The role of government is not to dictate what people do but to protect the individual rights of everyone. Included in those rights is the right to choose what you want to eat, now I am not advocating eating or feeding your kids junk food however we must not allow the government to continue to use the same old lame excuses such as "its for the children" or "its for your safety" just to establish reason to have control over every aspect of our lives.

IMHO anyone who thinks its okay for government to tell a person what to do, eat, wear, think, or act just because it creates a false sense of safety in no way values their liberty or has a clue what true freedom actually is. Part of being free is being free to engage in dangerous, unsafe, and unhealthy behavior it is therefore your responsibility to make the correct choices that will ensure your well being.

Anyone who is willing to sacrifice a little freedom in exchange for a little safety deserves niether.

Originally posted by Nucleardiver

Originally posted by SamLuv
reply to post by Nucleardiver

 

YES! Her clothing is definitely more important than the health of our children going to school.

The kids prefer the pink slime, come on Michelle, stop being so mean making them eat fresh fruit and whole grains!

Its not like this is a typical responce from a kid to reject the healthier option in favor of the salty sweet option. I mean come on.

Are you guys serious? This is exactly what I would expect to happen to ANY person who tried to switch a kid from the # they normally consume, to a healthier alternative. I mean, even adults hate that crap. Whats with ignoring that? and only trying to see this as an evil thing?

You seem to be missing the point here which is that it is not the duty of government and especially the first lady to dictate what anyone eats. I'm not just saying this because its Michelle either, I would say it if it were anyone. The role of government is not to dictate what people do but to protect the individual rights of everyone. Included in those rights is the right to choose what you want to eat, now I am not advocating eating or feeding your kids junk food however we must not allow the government to continue to use the same old lame excuses such as "its for the children" or "its for your safety" just to establish reason to have control over every aspect of our lives.

IMHO anyone who thinks its okay for government to tell a person what to do, eat, wear, think, or act just because it creates a false sense of safety in no way values their liberty or has a clue what true freedom actually is. Part of being free is being free to engage in dangerous, unsafe, and unhealthy behavior it is therefore your responsibility to make the correct choices that will ensure your well being.

Anyone who is willing to sacrifice a little freedom in exchange for a little safety deserves niether.

Please show us where Michelle has DICTATED what kids must eat. Please show us where people are going to prison for feeding their kids junk food, based on any actions by Michell Obama.

Originally posted by Nucleardiver

Anyone who is willing to sacrifice a little freedom in exchange for a little safety deserves niether.

It isn't safety though. It is more along the lines of free stuff and the idea that those in Govt know best.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Nucleardiver

Anyone who is willing to sacrifice a little freedom in exchange for a little safety deserves niether.

It isn't safety though. It is more along the lines of free stuff and the idea that those in Govt know best.

And BESIDES, the real quote is, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Allowing kids to eat snack food at school is NOT "essential liberty"... Nor, is a healthy diet, "temporary safety".

reply to post by Nucleardiver

IMHO anyone who thinks its okay for government to tell a person what to do, eat, wear, think, or act just because it creates a false sense of safety in no way values their liberty or has a clue what true freedom actually is. Part of being free is being free to engage in dangerous, unsafe, and unhealthy behavior it is therefore your responsibility to make the correct choices that will ensure your well being.

Michelle Obama was asked pretty much the same question on the program The View ,about government telling a person what to do and dictating to them how they should live, and she agreed that the government should NOT be telling others how to feed their children, but her program was basically to educate people how to make good choices.

I think that she has done something to put healthy food in school programs is great, and children do not have to eat them..they are allowed to bring anything from home they want for lunch.

The woman cares about health, and is being slammed for it..wow. I would rather a first lady that cares about the health of my child, than one who only cares about what she is wearing, and doesn't care one bit if school programs are serving junk to our children.

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Nucleardiver

Anyone who is willing to sacrifice a little freedom in exchange for a little safety deserves niether.

It isn't safety though. It is more along the lines of free stuff and the idea that those in Govt know best.

And BESIDES, the real quote is, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Allowing kids to eat snack food at school is NOT "essential liberty"... Nor, is a healthy diet, "temporary safety".

edit on 28-8-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)

Well if I had been quoting Ben Franklin I would have had my statement in parenthesis and it would have been followed by his name, I was just conveying my feelings on the role of government.

Originally posted by WhisperingWinds
reply to post by Nucleardiver

 

IMHO anyone who thinks its okay for government to tell a person what to do, eat, wear, think, or act just because it creates a false sense of safety in no way values their liberty or has a clue what true freedom actually is. Part of being free is being free to engage in dangerous, unsafe, and unhealthy behavior it is therefore your responsibility to make the correct choices that will ensure your well being.

Michelle Obama was asked pretty much the same question on the program The View ,about government telling a person what to do and dictating to them how they should live, and she agreed that the government should NOT be telling others how to feed their children, but her program was basically to educate people how to make good choices.

I think that she has done something to put healthy food in school programs is great, and children do not have to eat them..they are allowed to bring anything from home they want for lunch.

The woman cares about health, and is being slammed for it..wow. I would rather a first lady that cares about the health of my child, than one who only cares about what she is wearing, and doesn't care one bit if school programs are serving junk to our children.

edit on 28-8-2012 by WhisperingWinds because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-8-2012 by WhisperingWinds because: (no reason given)

Yes - I'm sick of the haters making up stuff about Michelle Obama forcing them to do something. ALL first ladies have traditionally picked a subject to raise awareness on. That's all it is - raising awareness. No mandates, no laws - just raising awareness. Nothing wrong with raising awareness on healthy eating and physical activity for kids. Nothing wrong with it AT ALL.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by Nucleardiver

Originally posted by SamLuv
reply to post by Nucleardiver

 

YES! Her clothing is definitely more important than the health of our children going to school.

The kids prefer the pink slime, come on Michelle, stop being so mean making them eat fresh fruit and whole grains!

Its not like this is a typical responce from a kid to reject the healthier option in favor of the salty sweet option. I mean come on.

Are you guys serious? This is exactly what I would expect to happen to ANY person who tried to switch a kid from the # they normally consume, to a healthier alternative. I mean, even adults hate that crap. Whats with ignoring that? and only trying to see this as an evil thing?

You seem to be missing the point here which is that it is not the duty of government and especially the first lady to dictate what anyone eats. I'm not just saying this because its Michelle either, I would say it if it were anyone. The role of government is not to dictate what people do but to protect the individual rights of everyone. Included in those rights is the right to choose what you want to eat, now I am not advocating eating or feeding your kids junk food however we must not allow the government to continue to use the same old lame excuses such as "its for the children" or "its for your safety" just to establish reason to have control over every aspect of our lives.

IMHO anyone who thinks its okay for government to tell a person what to do, eat, wear, think, or act just because it creates a false sense of safety in no way values their liberty or has a clue what true freedom actually is. Part of being free is being free to engage in dangerous, unsafe, and unhealthy behavior it is therefore your responsibility to make the correct choices that will ensure your well being.

Anyone who is willing to sacrifice a little freedom in exchange for a little safety deserves niether.

Please show us where Michelle has DICTATED what kids must eat. Please show us where people are going to prison for feeding their kids junk food, based on any actions by Michell Obama.

Just curious, where did the "people are going to prison for feeding their kids junk food" statement come from? I never said or implied that, was it just hyperbole to add your emphasis to your statement?

reply to post by SamLuv


The "REALITY" is the government is ever so subtly sticking its' nose into every facet of our lives...THAT is what I am against...no matter what facade it falls under! I am NOT...I repeat NOT against healthy food for children, it appears that this particular thread brought out the dissent in me!

Originally posted by Nucleardiver

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by Nucleardiver

Originally posted by SamLuv
reply to post by Nucleardiver

 

YES! Her clothing is definitely more important than the health of our children going to school.

The kids prefer the pink slime, come on Michelle, stop being so mean making them eat fresh fruit and whole grains!

Its not like this is a typical responce from a kid to reject the healthier option in favor of the salty sweet option. I mean come on.

Are you guys serious? This is exactly what I would expect to happen to ANY person who tried to switch a kid from the # they normally consume, to a healthier alternative. I mean, even adults hate that crap. Whats with ignoring that? and only trying to see this as an evil thing?

You seem to be missing the point here which is that it is not the duty of government and especially the first lady to dictate what anyone eats. I'm not just saying this because its Michelle either, I would say it if it were anyone. The role of government is not to dictate what people do but to protect the individual rights of everyone. Included in those rights is the right to choose what you want to eat, now I am not advocating eating or feeding your kids junk food however we must not allow the government to continue to use the same old lame excuses such as "its for the children" or "its for your safety" just to establish reason to have control over every aspect of our lives.

IMHO anyone who thinks its okay for government to tell a person what to do, eat, wear, think, or act just because it creates a false sense of safety in no way values their liberty or has a clue what true freedom actually is. Part of being free is being free to engage in dangerous, unsafe, and unhealthy behavior it is therefore your responsibility to make the correct choices that will ensure your well being.

Anyone who is willing to sacrifice a little freedom in exchange for a little safety deserves niether.

Please show us where Michelle has DICTATED what kids must eat. Please show us where people are going to prison for feeding their kids junk food, based on any actions by Michell Obama.

Just curious, where did the "people are going to prison for feeding their kids junk food" statement come from? I never said or implied that, was it just hyperbole to add your emphasis to your statement?

Well, a dictator puts people in prison when they don't do what they say, right? And you said she was dictating what kids should be eating, right? And you still didn't answer my question.

reply to post by kaylaluv


I never said she was a dictator, I said she was dictating.....big difference. I remember my father on many occasions dictating a letter to his secretary so she could type it out, so did that make him a dictator? I dictate to my children what time to be home at night so am I a dictator?

No. But I can tell that you are the type of person that will twist something someone says around in an attempt to make it fit your agenda and I won't be party to that. I made a point that the government is treading where it doesn't belong based of our founding principles of limited government and sadly you try and blow my statement out of proportion.

If you are okay with an ever increasingly intrusive government then please feel free to move to any of the numerous fascist didctatorships in the world. As for me I choose to live in freedom from intrusive government and prefer to live with limited government as was prescribed under the constitution. If I want to go out in my pasture and gather cow patties and make a big batch of cow patty stew every night to dinner, that's my right regardless of the health consequences. This is my body and no one owns it but me and I wil not allow someone to tell me what I can and cannot ingest into it.

Originally posted by Nucleardiver
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

I never said she was a dictator, I said she was dictating.....big difference. I remember my father on many occasions dictating a letter to his secretary so she could type it out, so did that make him a dictator? I dictate to my children what time to be home at night so am I a dictator?

No. But I can tell that you are the type of person that will twist something someone says around in an attempt to make it fit your agenda and I won't be party to that. I made a point that the government is treading where it doesn't belong based of our founding principles of limited government and sadly you try and blow my statement out of proportion.

If you are okay with an ever increasingly intrusive government then please feel free to move to any of the numerous fascist didctatorships in the world. As for me I choose to live in freedom from intrusive government and prefer to live with limited government as was prescribed under the constitution. If I want to go out in my pasture and gather cow patties and make a big batch of cow patty stew every night to dinner, that's my right regardless of the health consequences. This is my body and no one owns it but me and I wil not allow someone to tell me what I can and cannot ingest into it.

When has Michell Obama told you that you are not allowed to feed cow patty stew to your kids, or any other crap food for that matter?

reply to post by Nucleardiver

I never said she was a dictator, I said she was dictating.....big difference. I remember my father on many occasions dictating a letter to his secretary so she could type it out, so did that make him a dictator? I dictate to my children what time to be home at night so am I a dictator?

I'm pretty much done with stating what I believe ad nauseam, but I gotta tell you, this gave me my laugh for the afternoon! I needed that especially today!

Originally posted by jude11
Stay home and raise your own kids Mrs Obama. Stay out of the refrigerators of the citizens and stop talking about things of which you have no knowledge.

She owns it and I wonder how it will affect her husband at the voting booth?

We can only hope that it affects hubby just enough...to lose.

Peace

edit on 24-8-2012 by jude11 because: (no reason given)

Exactly, we need to be a nation of fat assed gluttons!

How dare she attempt to effect that

Originally posted by elrem48
reply to post by Nucleardiver

 

I never said she was a dictator, I said she was dictating.....big difference. I remember my father on many occasions dictating a letter to his secretary so she could type it out, so did that make him a dictator? I dictate to my children what time to be home at night so am I a dictator?

I'm pretty much done with stating what I believe ad nauseam, but I gotta tell you, this gave me my laugh for the afternoon! I needed that especially today!

Yeah, but the difference is, if the secretary refused to dictate the letter, she would get fired, and if the kids refused to come home on time, they get punished. What does Michelle do to you if you continue to feed your kids crap? Nada.