PDA

View Full Version : Moochelle's food nazis...they're heeeeere.



BadCat
02-15-2012, 10:21 AM
Right down the road from me. Raeford NC is very similar to Mayberry of TV lore...


A North Carolina mom is irate after her four-year-old daughter returned home late last month with an uneaten lunch the mother had packed for the girl earlier that day. But she wasn’t mad because the daughter decided to go on a hunger strike. Instead, the reason the daughter didn‘t eat her lunch is because someone at the school determined the lunch wasn’t healthy enough and sent it back home.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/n-c-food-inspector-sends-girls-lunch-home-after-determining-its-not-healthy-enough/

The lunch that was deemed "unhealthy" by Moochelle's food nazis?

A turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, a bag of potato chips and a box of apple juice.

Instead, the young girl was given cafeteria chicken nuggets and her mom was billed $1.22.

AmPat
02-15-2012, 10:43 AM
What a bunch of hypocrites. We all know for a fact that there are Ding Dongs in the White House.

Arroyo_Doble
02-15-2012, 11:02 AM
Sometimes, the Right's Noise Machine can whip up some pretty good stuff for their daily daily dose of outrage for the terminally offended. I mean some real pearl clutchers.

This is not one of those times.

fettpett
02-15-2012, 11:04 AM
I'd be pissed...fuck that, I give my kid the lunch then tell them to eat it regardless of what the teacher said. Then make damn well sure the school knew that.

noonwitch
02-15-2012, 11:07 AM
My mom would have been in big trouble. She would pack me a half a sandwich and an apple. But back then, ketchup counted as a vegetable, so if I had ketchup on sandwich, I would have had 2 servings from the vegetable/fruit category.

BadCat
02-15-2012, 11:11 AM
Sometimes, the Right's Noise Machine can whip up some pretty good stuff for their daily daily dose of outrage for the terminally offended. I mean some real pearl clutchers.

This is not one of those times.

Well, you eat penis for lunch, so your opinion really doesn't matter.

Arroyo_Doble
02-15-2012, 11:17 AM
Well, you eat penis for lunch, so your opinion really doesn't matter.

While this one is pretty good (as far as absurdity), the best in recent memory remains the outrage fed to the faithful over Chinese food being served for lunch at Sidwell Friends on December 7th. That was fucking awesome.

AmPat
02-15-2012, 11:30 AM
Sometimes, the Right's Noise Machine can whip up some pretty good stuff for their daily daily dose of outrage for the terminally offended. I mean some real pearl clutchers.

This is not one of those times.
Yes, much preferred is that time honored American tradition of bowing to tyrannical government overreach and simply opting for accepting that Big Brother knows best. :rolleyes:

Bailey
02-15-2012, 11:56 AM
Sometimes, the Right's Noise Machine can whip up some pretty good stuff for their daily daily dose of outrage for the terminally offended. I mean some real pearl clutchers.

This is not one of those times.

You really dont see a problem forcing a kid to eat food that was not approved by his/her parents?

Rockntractor
02-15-2012, 12:02 PM
While this one is pretty good (as far as absurdity), the best in recent memory remains the outrage fed to the faithful over Chinese food being served for lunch at Sidwell Friends on December 7th. That was fucking awesome.

Shouldn't you be cutting your wrists now or reading the emo forum?:confused:

BadCat
02-15-2012, 12:03 PM
You really dont see a problem forcing a kid to eat food that was not approved by his/her parents?

I'd like them to explain exactly what was "wrong" with that lunch...seems like a pretty good and healthy lunch to me.

Gotta remember this about the nazis...why did they do the things they did? Because they could.

Odysseus
02-15-2012, 12:18 PM
Sometimes, the Right's Noise Machine can whip up some pretty good stuff for their daily daily dose of outrage for the terminally offended. I mean some real pearl clutchers.

This is not one of those times.
Wow, you even capitalized Right's Noise Machine. I guess that makes it a real thing. :rolleyes:

While this one is pretty good (as far as absurdity), the best in recent memory remains the outrage fed to the faithful over Chinese food being served for lunch at Sidwell Friends on December 7th. That was fucking awesome.

Trying to change the subject? Not working so well, is it?

Here is the issue: A school bureaucrat unilaterally decided that a child's lunch didn't meet his/her personal nutritional standards and imposed a cost on the parents. The bureaucrat imposed his judgment over the parents' judgment, and then commanded that they pay for it. The amount involved is not very large, but the principle is huge. What if the school didn't like the kid's lunchbox (all those nasty corporate characters and logos) or notebook (is the notebook manufacturer unionized? Green? Do they give to the right causes?)? Can they demand that the parents purchase a school-approved lunchbox with a PBS character on it instead of a corporate one (My daughter will go berserk if they try to replace Scooby Doo with Nina Totenberg)? Can a school decide that a child's wardrobe isn't up to school standards and purchase a new one and bill the parents (Just think, Che t-shirts for everyone!)? Where does the school get the authority to decide how I will spend my money?

Arroyo_Doble
02-15-2012, 12:28 PM
Trying to change the subject?

Feel free to consume, Odie, while I admire the merchants' wares.

Novaheart
02-15-2012, 12:38 PM
While this one is pretty good (as far as absurdity), the best in recent memory remains the outrage fed to the faithful over Chinese food being served for lunch at Sidwell Friends on December 7th. That was fucking awesome.

You mean because the Chinese attacked Pearl Harbor? Well, that's understandable.



(And even if they served sushi it would not be the most worrisome thing fed to the bodies or minds at Sidwell Friends)

Novaheart
02-15-2012, 12:45 PM
I'd like them to explain exactly what was "wrong" with that lunch...seems like a pretty good and healthy lunch to me.

Gotta remember this about the nazis...why did they do the things they did? Because they could.

Turkey - old dead bird takes a long time from kill to consume, even if it's Boars Head. If it's cheap turkey, it's full of grease, gelatin, salt, and of course the decaying flesh of some kind of bird.

Cheese- No other animal eats the milk of another species. Think about it- would you snack down on a cow's titty for a direct connection? It's probably not real cheese anyway. The label of cheese slices (and I know because my mother insists on eating them) is 14 things other than milk.

Potato chips - one ounce of potato chips has 10.6 grams of fat.

The apple juice could be real or it could be some kind of juicy crap with HFCS and color added along with a mess of chemicals.

Bailey
02-15-2012, 01:03 PM
Turkey - old dead bird takes a long time from kill to consume, even if it's Boars Head. If it's cheap turkey, it's full of grease, gelatin, salt, and of course the decaying flesh of some kind of bird.

Cheese- No other animal eats the milk of another species. Think about it- would you snack down on a cow's titty for a direct connection? It's probably not real cheese anyway. The label of cheese slices (and I know because my mother insists on eating them) is 14 things other than milk.

Potato chips - one ounce of potato chips has 10.6 grams of fat.

The apple juice could be real or it could be some kind of juicy crap with HFCS and color added along with a mess of chemicals.


Ok if all of what you wrote is true what right does the school have in forcing her to eat something else? Never mind that chicken nuggets are filled with rat shit, hairs and what not.

Adam Wood
02-15-2012, 01:11 PM
Turkey - old dead bird takes a long time from kill to consume, even if it's Boars Head. If it's cheap turkey, it's full of grease, gelatin, salt, and of course the decaying flesh of some kind of bird.

Cheese- No other animal eats the milk of another species. Think about it- would you snack down on a cow's titty for a direct connection? It's probably not real cheese anyway. The label of cheese slices (and I know because my mother insists on eating them) is 14 things other than milk.

Potato chips - one ounce of potato chips has 10.6 grams of fat.

The apple juice could be real or it could be some kind of juicy crap with HFCS and color added along with a mess of chemicals.And three chicken nuggets is a vast improvement over that. :rolleyes:

fettpett
02-15-2012, 01:21 PM
Turkey - old dead bird takes a long time from kill to consume, even if it's Boars Head. If it's cheap turkey, it's full of grease, gelatin, salt, and of course the decaying flesh of some kind of bird.

Cheese- No other animal eats the milk of another species. Think about it- would you snack down on a cow's titty for a direct connection? It's probably not real cheese anyway. The label of cheese slices (and I know because my mother insists on eating them) is 14 things other than milk.

Potato chips - one ounce of potato chips has 10.6 grams of fat.

The apple juice could be real or it could be some kind of juicy crap with HFCS and color added along with a mess of chemicals.

So what? It IS NOT the schools job to monitor kids lunches. I wouldn't give a shit if all the kid had was jell-o, candy bars and a bag of sugar, it's still not their place to change what the parent's sent to school with them.

I grew up eating in the cafeteria at school....that shit is in no way healthier than what the mother sent to school with her daughter.

Apache
02-15-2012, 01:29 PM
Turkey - old dead bird takes a long time from kill to consume, even if it's Boars Head. If it's cheap turkey, it's full of grease, gelatin, salt, and of course the decaying flesh of some kind of bird.

Cheese- No other animal eats the milk of another species. Think about it- would you snack down on a cow's titty for a direct connection? It's probably not real cheese anyway. The label of cheese slices (and I know because my mother insists on eating them) is 14 things other than milk.

Potato chips - one ounce of potato chips has 10.6 grams of fat.

The apple juice could be real or it could be some kind of juicy crap with HFCS and color added along with a mess of chemicals.

Oh looky... the Fairey Gestapo Mother has reported in :rolleyes:

Novaheart
02-15-2012, 01:32 PM
Ok if all of what you wrote is true what right does the school have in forcing her to eat something else? Never mind that chicken nuggets are filled with rat shit, hairs and what not.


And three chicken nuggets is a vast improvement over that. :rolleyes:

You both have a point on the nuggets, my response was simply to the quality of the bag lunch. Of everything that was in the bag, the banana and the paper bag were probably the most wholesome.

Novaheart
02-15-2012, 01:33 PM
Oh looky... the Fairey Gestapo Mother has reported in :rolleyes:

Good morning, Cher.

Novaheart
02-15-2012, 01:40 PM
So what? It IS NOT the schools job to monitor kids lunches. I wouldn't give a shit if all the kid had was jell-o, candy bars and a bag of sugar, it's still not their place to change what the parent's sent to school with them.

I grew up eating in the cafeteria at school....that shit is in no way healthier than what the mother sent to school with her daughter.

Apparently it's someone's job to monitor the kids' lunches.

The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs — including in-home day care centers — to meet USDA guidelines. That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.

Now the problem I see with this, is that under these guidelines, the inspector would also turn away a lunch of a child packed by an educated and diet conscious mother who doesn't want her kid eating meat or milk. So I could send my little girl (who is now 17 BTW) to school with an organic sprouted wheat, alfalfa, and avocado sandwich, a bottle of Zephyrhills water, and an organic apple and her lunch wouldn't meet the FDA requirements which are bought and paid for by agribusiness to included meat and milk.

BTW, I did get into trouble one time at school because I wouldn't drink milk in sixth grade. They called my mother and she told them to stick it.

Bailey
02-15-2012, 01:51 PM
You both have a point on the nuggets, my response was simply to the quality of the bag lunch. Of everything that was in the bag, the banana and the paper bag were probably the most wholesome.

You never answered the most important part of the question, WHY is it ok to force kids to eat that food?

Bailey
02-15-2012, 01:53 PM
Apparently it's someone's job to monitor the kids' lunches.

The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs — including in-home day care centers — to meet USDA guidelines. That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.

Now the problem I see with this, is that under these guidelines, the inspector would also turn away a lunch of a child packed by an educated and diet conscious mother who doesn't want her kid eating meat or milk. So I could send my little girl (who is now 17 BTW) to school with an organic sprouted wheat, alfalfa, and avocado sandwich, a bottle of Zephyrhills water, and an organic apple and her lunch wouldn't meet the FDA requirements which are bought and paid for by agribusiness to included meat and milk.

BTW, I did get into trouble one time at school because I wouldn't drink milk in sixth grade. They called my mother and she told them to stick it.



Now I understand more and more why you are gay, mommy issues.

Zathras
02-15-2012, 01:54 PM
You mean because the Chinese attacked Pearl Harbor? Well, that's understandable.

No no no....it was the Germans that attacked Pearl Harbor. Everyone knows that. :D

Bailey
02-15-2012, 01:56 PM
No no no....it was the Germans that attacked Pearl Harbor. Everyone knows that. :D

shhh hes on a roll

Novaheart
02-15-2012, 02:05 PM
No no no....it was the Germans that attacked Pearl Harbor. Everyone knows that. :D

No, the Germans attacked Pearl Bailey............ because she was Jewish.

fettpett
02-15-2012, 02:15 PM
Apparently it's someone's job to monitor the kids' lunches.

The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs — including in-home day care centers — to meet USDA guidelines. That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.

Now the problem I see with this, is that under these guidelines, the inspector would also turn away a lunch of a child packed by an educated and diet conscious mother who doesn't want her kid eating meat or milk. So I could send my little girl (who is now 17 BTW) to school with an organic sprouted wheat, alfalfa, and avocado sandwich, a bottle of Zephyrhills water, and an organic apple and her lunch wouldn't meet the FDA requirements which are bought and paid for by agribusiness to included meat and milk.

BTW, I did get into trouble one time at school because I wouldn't drink milk in sixth grade. They called my mother and she told them to stick it.

the law is shit, thats my point. It's not their business, period. I do agree with you on the USDA, they are a bunch of jackasses too.

nightflight
02-15-2012, 02:23 PM
Sometimes, the Right's Noise Machine can whip up some pretty good stuff for their daily daily dose of outrage for the terminally offended. I mean some real pearl clutchers.

This is not one of those times.

Calling it ridiculous may get you approval from your fellow moonbats, but it doesn't make it go away. Having the freedom to eat one's food of choice is still one we have left. This small but significant story is a small but significant example of freedom being chipped away.

Imagine if instead it was a black child simply being told to sit somewhere away from the white kids. A small event yes, but you would hear howls of indignation coming from it. Sorry dude, Alinsky isn't an impenetrable shield.

Arroyo_Doble
02-15-2012, 02:34 PM
Calling it ridiculous may get you approval from your fellow moonbats, but it doesn't make it go away. Having the freedom to eat one's food of choice is still one we have left. This small but significant story is a small but significant example of freedom being chipped away.


I heard the The Battle Hymn of the Republic when I read that. Brought a tear to my eye.


Imagine if instead it was a black child simply being told to sit somewhere away from the white kids. A small event yes, but you would hear howls of indignation coming from it. Sorry dude, Alinsky isn't an impenetrable shield.

Alinsky?

Outstanding! You regurgitate like a penguin!

Bailey
02-15-2012, 02:54 PM
I heard the The Battle Hymn of the Republic when I read that. Brought a tear to my eye.



Alinsky?

Outstanding! You regurgitate like a penguin!



Arroyo's responce to a logical and sane point:... OH LOOK A PONY.


You arent even trying to be a good troll anymore.

fettpett
02-15-2012, 03:06 PM
my wife brought up a great point. What if the little girl had an allergy to something that the school served? What if the family was vegetarian or vegan (and had the corresponding sandwich)?

There are a 1,000 reasons why this was wrong and the law is wrong.

AmPat
02-15-2012, 03:12 PM
Feel free to consume, Odie, while I admire the merchants' wares.
Feel free to act like you missed the point. Hurts huh? That pesky little truthy thingy. Oh wait; You would call it a "So called" pesky little truthy thingy, right?

Apache
02-15-2012, 03:41 PM
Apparently it's someone's job to monitor the kids' lunches.

.Look into/monitor everything...

Hypocrite.

Novaheart
02-15-2012, 03:52 PM
Look into/monitor everything...

Hypocrite.

Could you use a different color type if and when you post anything worth reading? I'd hate to miss it.

Arroyo_Doble
02-15-2012, 04:05 PM
my wife brought up a great point. What if the little girl had an allergy to something that the school served? What if the family was vegetarian or vegan (and had the corresponding sandwich)?



I got $10 American that says there are procedures for that in the North Carolina (and local school district) nutrition program.

fettpett
02-15-2012, 04:14 PM
I got $10 American that says there are procedures for that in the North Carolina (and local school district) nutrition program.

who gives a rats ass if they do or not. that is not the fucking point. IT'S NOT THEIR BUSINESS WHAT A PARENT FEEDS THEIR OWN KID

Arroyo_Doble
02-15-2012, 04:18 PM
who gives a rats ass if they do or not. that is not the fucking point. IT'S NOT THEIR BUSINESS WHAT A PARENT FEEDS THEIR OWN KID

Or what light bulbs we want to use ....

fettpett
02-15-2012, 04:22 PM
Or what light bulbs we want to use ....

I know you're being a sarcastic jackass, but that is right.

Arroyo_Doble
02-15-2012, 04:30 PM
I know you're being a sarcastic jackass, but that is right.

There are plenty of reasons to be outraged. What happens to be in my light socket is down the list.

BadCat
02-15-2012, 04:33 PM
There are plenty of reasons to be outraged. What happens to be in my light socket is down the list.

You're right. It's also a smokescreen. While we're busy trying to get smaller government, less spending and lower taxes, the left is sneaking up on 4 year olds and confiscating their lunches.

fettpett
02-15-2012, 04:35 PM
There are plenty of reasons to be outraged. What happens to be in my light socket is down the list.

and the fact that a school system/state is forcing kids to eat what a parent may not want them too is pretty damn high on mine.

Odysseus
02-15-2012, 04:54 PM
Feel free to consume, Odie, while I admire the merchants' wares.
Do you have anything substantive to offer in rebuttal, or is this just going to be another of your snarkfests?


I heard the The Battle Hymn of the Republic when I read that. Brought a tear to my eye.
Alinsky?
Outstanding! You regurgitate like a penguin!
Snarkfest. Not surprised. Can we assume that you approve of the school's actions, then? Or is your goal here simply to insult everyone who doesn't in order to demonstrate your otherwise hilarious presumptions of mental superiority?


I got $10 American that says there are procedures for that in the North Carolina (and local school district) nutrition program.
Maybe there are, or not, but where does the school get the authority to override the parents' wishes as to their child's lunch? Just answer that one, itty-bitty question, snark-boy.

There are plenty of reasons to be outraged. What happens to be in my light socket is down the list.

So, the principle that the government can unilaterally dictate that a product that has been in production for over a century and is demonstrably safe be taken off the market in order to replace it with a product which costs more, entails serious health hazards and provides no benefit except to the company that lobbied for the change is okay with you?

Arroyo_Doble
02-15-2012, 04:56 PM
So, the principle that the government can unilaterally dictate that a product that has been in production for over a century and is demonstrably safe be taken off the market in order to replace it with a product which costs more, entails serious health hazards and provides no benefit except to the company that lobbied for the change is okay with you?

Is this about seat belts and that third brake light?

fettpett
02-15-2012, 05:00 PM
Is this about seat belts and that third brake light?

why not answer the damn question? It's apples and oranges anyway

Apache
02-15-2012, 05:02 PM
You're right. It's also a smokescreen. While we're busy trying to get smaller government, less spending and lower taxes, the left is sneaking up on 4 year olds and confiscating their lunches.

They have no trouble being told what to do or when to do it... Busybodies always like sticking their nose where it doesn't belong :rolleyes:

Arroyo_Doble
02-15-2012, 05:05 PM
why not answer the damn question?

I did.


It's apples and oranges anyway

Fruits?

Arroyo_Doble
02-15-2012, 05:06 PM
They have no trouble being told what to do or when to do it... Busybodies always like sticking their nose where it doesn't belong :rolleyes:

The Pro-Choice advocates like to use that line as well.

fettpett
02-15-2012, 05:11 PM
I did.



Fruits?

no you didn't, you came back with another lame ass question trying to change the subject.


the comparisons don't match and you know it.

Apache
02-15-2012, 05:11 PM
The Pro-Choice advocates like to use that line as well.

There's a difference between being informed and being told what you can or cannot do. Not that it makes a lick of sense to you.

Arroyo_Doble
02-15-2012, 05:18 PM
no you didn't, you came back with another lame ass question trying to change the subject.


No. It was on subject.


the comparisons don't match and you know it.

Yes, it does. The United States sets standards and regulates commerce on just about every damn thing, it seems. Suddenly, it is a problem of biblical proportions requiring daily outrage. I think that line crossed around ... I don't know .... January of 2009.

Is some of the regulation unnecessary? Sure. Is it worth being outraged over? Not when there are companies wanting to use the ground under my feet, right now, in Ft Worth, to dump their toxic waste (it is perfectly safe ... trust them).

I tend to agree with BadCat but not in the way he thinks. This crap is a smokescreen. Pick a fight that matters.

fettpett
02-15-2012, 05:27 PM
No. It was on subject.



Yes, it does. The United States sets standards and regulates commerce on just about every damn thing, it seems. Suddenly, it is a problem of biblical proportions requiring daily outrage. I think that line crossed around ... I don't know .... January of 2009.

Is some of the regulation unnecessary? Sure. Is it worth being outraged over? Not when there are companies wanting to use the ground under my feet, right now, in Ft Worth, to dump their toxic waste (it is perfectly safe ... trust them).

I tend to agree with BadCat but not in the way he thinks. This crap is a smokescreen. Pick a fight that matters.

What a parent sends with their child is not a matter of commerce, not a Constitutional one which is only governing interstate commerce, not what happens after the product is to market, let alone brought home or taken to school.

Vehicle safety is an entirely different matter as it does involve commerce between states, both in the manufacture of such and in how they are used on the road. Driving is a privilege, food consumption is not. the comparisons do not equate.

Odysseus
02-15-2012, 05:27 PM
Is this about seat belts and that third brake light?
No, it's about putting mercury-tainted bulbs in sockets around my children, as mandated by the federal government.

why not answer the damn question? It's apples and oranges anyway
Because he cannot.

I did.
Maybe in some other reality, but not in this one.


No. It was on subject.
Only if you consider the subject to be whatever the voices are telling you. It certainly wasn't what we were discussing.


Yes, it does. The United States sets standards and regulates commerce on just about every damn thing, it seems. Suddenly, it is a problem of biblical proportions requiring daily outrage. I think that line crossed around ... I don't know .... January of 2009.
Riiiight... because we suddenly turned on the government when Obama took over. Nobody here was complaining about excessive regulation or spending before then. :rolleyes: What color is the sky in your world?


Is some of the regulation unnecessary? Sure. Is it worth being outraged over? Not when there are companies wanting to use the ground under my feet, right now, in Ft Worth, to dump their toxic waste (it is perfectly safe ... trust them).
Sounds like that ought to be the subject of a thread, but not this one. The toxicity of the mercury in the bulbs requires special handling for disposal, and if they break or explode (as has happened), then the room in which the break occurred requires a full-on HAZMAT cleaning before it is safe to occupy.


I tend to agree with BadCat but not in the way he thinks. This crap is a smokescreen. Pick a fight that matters.

We are. The fight that matters is rolling back a federal government that has become tyrannically obtrusive. For somebody who claims to value freedom, you don't seem to get that.

Arroyo_Doble
02-15-2012, 05:30 PM
We are. The fight that matters is rolling back a federal government that has become tyrannically obtrusive. For somebody who claims to value freedom, you don't seem to get that.

No you're not. You are chasing fairies.

Apache
02-15-2012, 05:36 PM
. The United States sets standards and regulates commerce on just about every damn thing, it seems. Suddenly, it is a problem of biblical proportions requiring daily outrage. I think that line crossed around ... I don't know .... January of 2009.



You sure don't remember much history from this board if you think that...:rolleyes:

fettpett
02-15-2012, 05:49 PM
You sure don't remember much history from this board if you think that...:rolleyes:

it doesn't fit in their nice little box

Arroyo_Doble
02-15-2012, 06:00 PM
You sure don't remember much history from this board if you think that...:rolleyes:

I remember. The DU kooks would run around in circles about how Chimpy McCokespoon was going to send his big government jack booted thugs to come take their stamp collection and people here would make fun of them.

Apache
02-15-2012, 06:00 PM
it doesn't fit in their nice little box

No it doesn't, but I do remember plenty of outrage towards Bush form members here for things they knew he was wrong on. I wasn't around for the TSA formation or Homeland Security... but I had my own problems with those two items alone...

fettpett
02-15-2012, 06:13 PM
No it doesn't, but I do remember plenty of outrage towards Bush form members here for things they knew he was wrong on. I wasn't around for the TSA formation or Homeland Security... but I had my own problems with those two items alone...

Not to mention NCLB and McCain-Feingold

Apache
02-15-2012, 06:19 PM
Not to mention NCLB and McCain-Feingold

Oh yes! I remember all of CU throwing confetti and tooting horns....:rolleyes:

Apache
02-15-2012, 06:57 PM
I remember. The DU kooks would run around in circles about how Chimpy McCokespoon was going to send his big government jack booted thugs to come take their stamp collection and people here would make fun of them.

Ah yes! Cherry picking again I see...

Madisonian
02-15-2012, 07:47 PM
Cheese- No other animal eats the milk of another species. Think about it- would you snack down on a cow's titty for a direct connection? It's probably not real cheese anyway. The label of cheese slices (and I know because my mother insists on eating them) is 14 things other than milk.



Only because they don't have opposable thumbs and don't know how to milk a cow or culture cheese.

I'm sure a lion would prefer grilled zebra rather than raw if they could start a fire and roast it.

AmPat
02-15-2012, 07:52 PM
Could you use a different color type if and when you post anything worth reading? I'd hate to miss it.
I'm sorry, does anybody else see the font???
Bueller?:confused:

Retread
02-15-2012, 07:55 PM
6 am in the morning - I reach up on the wall of the stall and take down a tin cup. Holding it under the bag, I squezze off about a cup of the rawest, mot completely nutritious fluid known to man - at body temp. Lean back, swallow it down and then proceed to get the other 4.95 gallpns and take it in to Grandma.

Every morning about age 12 to 17 if Dad was on night shift.

Oh, yeah - rinsed out the cup in the water trough and hung it back on the nail.

Apache
02-15-2012, 07:58 PM
Could you use a different color type if and when you post anything worth reading? I'd hate to miss it.
I'm sorry, does anybody else see the font???
Bueller?:confused:

:D

AmPat
02-15-2012, 08:01 PM
Look into/monitor everything...

Hypocrite.
AD believes if he can minimize the point through ridicule. Mock the larger point by using small, somewhat innocuous examples, he can negate the larger principle that is under attack. We Conservatives who actually want to preserve our freedom, see the larger point.

AD wants us to ignore the most recent small paper cut while he and his tyranny loving associates continue cutting elsewhere. Each cut can be pishawed away, but we understand that a thousand small cuts can still bring down a large target.

Apache
02-15-2012, 08:12 PM
AD believes if he can minimize the point through ridicule. Mock the larger point by using small, somewhat innocuous examples, he can negate the larger principle that is under attack. We Conservatives who actually want to preserve our freedom, see the larger point.

AD wants us to ignore the most recent small paper cut while he and his tyranny loving associates continue cutting elsewhere. Each cut can be pishawed away, but we understand that a thousand small cuts can still bring down a large target.

I recognise the tactic all too well.

Like I said, you can't nail down Jell-O. Between him and princess they've got the walls covered :eek:

AmPat
02-15-2012, 08:29 PM
I recognise the tactic all too well.

Like I said, you can't nail down Jell-O. Between him and princess they've got the walls covered :eek:
I figured you did. I just wanted to take the opportunity to put the resident liberals here on notice that we are all too aware and acquainted with this worn out tactic. ;)

NJCardFan
02-15-2012, 11:58 PM
Sometimes, the Right's Noise Machine can whip up some pretty good stuff for their daily daily dose of outrage for the terminally offended. I mean some real pearl clutchers.

This is not one of those times.

Please tell me how chicken nuggets, that's processed chicken meat that is formed, breaded, and then fried was a healthier option to a turkey & cheese sandwich, a banana, and a bag of chips(seems to me all food groups are covered here)? And since when do government employees have a say in what a parent feeds their child. Of course you're all for this because indoctrination isn't complete without being told what to eat. Fuck you and all you stand for. This is why my children will never see the inside of a public school.

NJCardFan
02-16-2012, 12:31 AM
Turkey - old dead bird takes a long time from kill to consume, even if it's Boars Head. If it's cheap turkey, it's full of grease, gelatin, salt, and of course the decaying flesh of some kind of bird.

Cheese- No other animal eats the milk of another species. Think about it- would you snack down on a cow's titty for a direct connection? It's probably not real cheese anyway. The label of cheese slices (and I know because my mother insists on eating them) is 14 things other than milk.

Potato chips - one ounce of potato chips has 10.6 grams of fat.

The apple juice could be real or it could be some kind of juicy crap with HFCS and color added along with a mess of chemicals.
I was going to ask if you get tired of building strawmen but apparently you turned it into a science. You're making assumptions on the cheese. Who's to say it isn't Boarshead American cheese? And just because YOU don't eat cheese(or drinks milk apparently) doesn't mean others can't. Milk and other dairy products are very healthy, especially to a growing child. It's not like this mother sent this child to school with a Big Mac and a Little Debbie snack cake. She took the time to make a sandwich for her child. And I find it funny how you tear apart what the mother sent with her child but have no problem with the school forcing the child to eat processed chicken nuggets.

Odysseus
02-16-2012, 01:17 AM
Maybe there are, or not, but where does the school get the authority to override the parents' wishes as to their child's lunch? Just answer that one, itty-bitty question, snark-boy.

Still waiting... :rolleyes:

NJCardFan
02-16-2012, 02:11 AM
Still waiting... :rolleyes:
You might be a while.

Novaheart
02-16-2012, 03:08 AM
You're making assumptions on the cheese.

No, I made a clearly marked guess about the cheese slices. So that's two words you need to look up in Merriam Webster : straw man and assumption.


And just because YOU don't eat cheese(or drinks milk apparently) doesn't mean others can't.

I didn't say that others can't, my entire post was my dietary assessment of the bag lunch.


Milk and other dairy products are very healthy, especially to a growing child.

See if you can find qualified objective support for that position.

NJCardFan
02-16-2012, 07:14 AM
No, I made a clearly marked guess about the cheese slices. So that's two words you need to look up in Merriam Webster : straw man and assumption.




And you tore apart that lunch selection based on that assumption. Using the government's own food pyramid, cheese(and other dairy products) is on there and yes, you were building a strawman trying to justify the government, i.e. this school official's decision to rook from the child the meal her mother prepared for her for the meal the government official deemed better(still waiting for your answer as to why the chicken nuggets could even be remotely better than a turkey and cheese sandwich).

I didn't say that others can't, my entire post was my dietary assessment of the bag lunch.
No, you went on a mini tirade about there is no other creature who drinks the milk of another creature(whatever that is supposed to mean) and tried to equate cheese with a handful of cookies, so, again, I must point out that milk is a part of the government's own food pyramid.

See if you can find qualified objective support for that position.
Um, again, the USDA (http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/Fpyr/pmap.htm). See, dairy is a great source of calcium which is essential to the development of strong bones and teeth. But of course you'd be the one to go find "qualified objective" support against it from some peta-eqsue vegan source to counter this, however, I'm using the government against itself in this argument. You're building scarecrows with yours. Of course, the main issue here is completely lost on you and that is that who gives this person the right to tell a parent what is good for their child. Anyone with an IQ above absolute zero knows that there was nothing wrong with what that child was given to eat by her mother. Even the chips aren't bad given in moderation(both fat and potatoes are essential, again, per the USDA's food pyramid).

Oh, nice of you to blow off the fact that this government official deemed it appropriate to force the child to eat something that is ground into some kind of paste, formed into shape, then breaded, fried, and filled with preservatives and then wants the parent to pay for it. This only goes to show that you are all for the government telling people how to raise their children.

fettpett
02-16-2012, 09:33 AM
And you tore apart that lunch selection based on that assumption. Using the government's own food pyramid, cheese(and other dairy products) is on there and yes, you were building a strawman trying to justify the government, i.e. this school official's decision to rook from the child the meal her mother prepared for her for the meal the government official deemed better(still waiting for your answer as to why the chicken nuggets could even be remotely better than a turkey and cheese sandwich).

No, you went on a mini tirade about there is no other creature who drinks the milk of another creature(whatever that is supposed to mean) and tried to equate cheese with a handful of cookies, so, again, I must point out that milk is a part of the government's own food pyramid.

Um, again, the USDA (http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/Fpyr/pmap.htm). See, dairy is a great source of calcium which is essential to the development of strong bones and teeth. But of course you'd be the one to go find "qualified objective" support against it from some peta-eqsue vegan source to counter this, however, I'm using the government against itself in this argument. You're building scarecrows with yours. Of course, the main issue here is completely lost on you and that is that who gives this person the right to tell a parent what is good for their child. Anyone with an IQ above absolute zero knows that there was nothing wrong with what that child was given to eat by her mother. Even the chips aren't bad given in moderation(both fat and potatoes are essential, again, per the USDA's food pyramid).

Oh, nice of you to blow off the fact that this government official deemed it appropriate to force the child to eat something that is ground into some kind of paste, formed into shape, then breaded, fried, and filled with preservatives and then wants the parent to pay for it. This only goes to show that you are all for the government telling people how to raise their children.

USDA is bought and sold by the dairy industry and other big agriculture, I wouldn't listen to them. Take a look at the Harvard study, that is much more accurate as they didn't take any money from anyone associated with agriculture and it was pure science. They show much less dairy consumption than what the USDA suggests is what is really healthy for a person.

However that said, it's entirely the parent's (in this case) or an individuals choice on the matter, not the damn governments.

AmPat
02-16-2012, 12:00 PM
No, I made a clearly marked guess about the cheese slices. So that's two words you need to look up in Merriam Webster : straw man and assumption.
I didn't say that others can't, my entire post was my dietary assessment of the bag lunch.

See if you can find qualified objective support for that position.
Forget what kind of cheese, what difference does that make? The State has NO RIGHT to make dietary decisions on those children. They would have a hard time paying their teachers if they tried this with me as I'd own that school by the time I got done. I bet you libs would line up behind the parents of this boy if he took Pot Brownies to school.

Novaheart
02-16-2012, 01:20 PM
Forget what kind of cheese, what difference does that make? The State has NO RIGHT to make dietary decisions on those children. They would have a hard time paying their teachers if they tried this with me as I'd own that school by the time I got done. I bet you libs would line up behind the parents of this boy if he took Pot Brownies to school.

You're short, aren't you?

You would not own that school, as your case would have no merit and no demonstrable damages. In addition, none of your civil rights have been violated.

The state and/or federal government has had a role in childhood nutrition for a very long time, like since public schools started having kitchens, food subsidies, and free lunch programs for the urban poor.

School lunch programs started in 1853 in New York. My guess would be that's where the first required high school gym showers were as well.

Rebel Yell
02-16-2012, 01:33 PM
Not when there are companies wanting to use the ground under my feet, right now, in Ft Worth, to dump their toxic waste (it is perfectly safe ... trust them).

The ground under your feet is already holding toxic waste.

fettpett
02-16-2012, 01:43 PM
You're short, aren't you?

You would not own that school, as your case would have no merit and no demonstrable damages. In addition, none of your civil rights have been violated.

The state and/or federal government has had a role in childhood nutrition for a very long time, like since public schools started having kitchens, food subsidies, and free lunch programs for the urban poor.

School lunch programs started in 1853 in New York. My guess would be that's where the first required high school gym showers were as well.

providing food is not the same as forcing a kid to change what their parent sent them.

That does make me think that the school might have another agenda...bring up their school lunch rolls so that they get more money

Rockntractor
02-16-2012, 01:45 PM
People are living well into their eighties and nineties, much longer then a century or even fifty years ago yet we are to believe what we eat is all unhealthy.

Novaheart
02-16-2012, 01:50 PM
People are living well into their eighties and nineties, much longer then a century or even fifty years ago yet we are to believe what we eat is all unhealthy.

My family has always lived into their 80's and 90's. It's actually common for Scots and English to be long lived, if they live past the age of 50.

The rise in lifespan in this country has been largely through mitigation of the subgroups and issues which dragged down the average even with the long lifespans of the longlived. Medical advances i treating fevers and strokes, combined with lowered workplace deaths, and the leaps and bounds in childhood survival have raised the average. I'd say that anyone who eats processed junk and lives to be a hundred might have lived longer without it.

NJCardFan
02-16-2012, 08:20 PM
You're short, aren't you?

You would not own that school, as your case would have no merit and no demonstrable damages. In addition, none of your civil rights have been violated.

The state and/or federal government has had a role in childhood nutrition for a very long time, like since public schools started having kitchens, food subsidies, and free lunch programs for the urban poor.

School lunch programs started in 1853 in New York. My guess would be that's where the first required high school gym showers were as well.

Funny how you're still ignoring the fact that they wouldn't allow this child to eat a turney and cheese sandwich but it was OK for her to eat school chicken nuggets. As usual, you run away when you're caught with your hand in the cookie jar. So, go ahead, please explain to the class how school chicken nuggets(which aren't exactly top of the line) are healthier than a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, and chips.

NJCardFan
02-16-2012, 08:37 PM
http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/430516_332983270073491_215319478506538_925622_8013 7575_n.jpg

Apache
02-16-2012, 08:39 PM
Funny how you're still ignoring the fact that they wouldn't allow this child to eat a turney and cheese sandwich but it was OK for her to eat school chicken nuggets. As usual, you run away when you're caught with your hand in the cookie jar. So, go ahead, please explain to the class how school chicken nuggets(which aren't exactly top of the line) are healthier than a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, and chips.Because the government gave it to her, that's why... Ain't that right princess?

AmPat
02-17-2012, 10:58 AM
You're short, aren't you? No, unless 6'2" is short in your world. You're stupid, aren't you?


You would not own that school, as your case would have no merit and no demonstrable damages. In addition, none of your civil rights have been violated.

The state and/or federal government has had a role in childhood nutrition for a very long time, like since public schools started having kitchens, food subsidies, and free lunch programs for the urban poor.
I'm not a shit house lawyer like you so I suppose you owned me there. Man, I feel used. :rolleyes: You don't recognize hyperbole do you?

School lunch programs started in 1853 in New York. My guess would be that's where the first required high school gym showers were as well.
I don't give a tinker's damn how long government tyranny has been around, it needs to be fought whenever it occurs. If you desire chains, move to your favorite Marxist paradise and leave the work of defending the Country to the men.

NJCardFan
02-17-2012, 01:31 PM
Funny how you're still ignoring the fact that they wouldn't allow this child to eat a turkey and cheese sandwich but it was OK for her to eat school chicken nuggets. As usual, you run away when you're caught with your hand in the cookie jar. So, go ahead, please explain to the class how school chicken nuggets(which aren't exactly top of the line) are healthier than a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, and chips.

Still waiting.

noonwitch
02-17-2012, 03:10 PM
Please tell me how chicken nuggets, that's processed chicken meat that is formed, breaded, and then fried was a healthier option to a turkey & cheese sandwich, a banana, and a bag of chips(seems to me all food groups are covered here)? And since when do government employees have a say in what a parent feeds their child. Of course you're all for this because indoctrination isn't complete without being told what to eat. Fuck you and all you stand for. This is why my children will never see the inside of a public school.

You missed the Hostess/Little Debbie/Dolly Madison food group!

Rockntractor
02-17-2012, 03:15 PM
You missed the Hostess/Little Debbie/Dolly Madison food group!

Mmmmmm, Nutty bars!:smile:

fettpett
02-17-2012, 05:03 PM
Mmmmmm, Nutty bars!:smile:

http://blog.rifftrax.com/wp-content/uploads/homer-drooling.jpg

Odysseus
02-17-2012, 06:25 PM
I don't give a tinker's damn how long government tyranny has been around, it needs to be fought whenever it occurs. If you desire chains, move to your favorite Marxist paradise and leave the work of defending the Country to the men.

QFT. John Adams had a similar comment:


If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

fettpett
02-17-2012, 08:27 PM
QFT. John Adams had a similar comment:

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!


and just try and think of any of those men that are know to posterity...

Novaheart
02-17-2012, 10:26 PM
and just try and think of any of those men that are know to posterity...

Not to be a pain, but the Byrds of Virginia and the Fairfax and Snowden families comes to mind.

fettpett
02-17-2012, 11:24 PM
Not to be a pain, but the Byrds of Virginia and the Fairfax and Snowden families comes to mind.

Byrds don't count, the family was bankrupt and the land sold off by the time of the Revolutionary war, and William Byrd 3rd committed suicide in 1777, George William Fairfax fought with Washington.


Adams meant specifically people that would not stand up and fight for freedom, instead hid behind their money. Most of them were Tories and went to Canada after the war.

NJCardFan
02-18-2012, 01:00 AM
Not to be a pain, but the Byrds of Virginia and the Fairfax and Snowden families comes to mind.

I'm still waiting to hear how school chicken nuggets were a healthier meal than what the girl brought to school.

Novaheart
02-18-2012, 02:28 AM
I'm still waiting to hear how school chicken nuggets were a healthier meal than what the girl brought to school.

Get comfortable.

NJCardFan
02-18-2012, 03:22 AM
Get comfortable.

So in other words, you're too chicken shit to admit that what the school did was wrong. Thought as much. :rolleyes:

AmPat
02-18-2012, 12:18 PM
So in other words, you're too chicken shit to admit that what the school did was wrong. Thought as much. :rolleyes:

He is. He has a dictator telling him what is permissible and a nanny state in charge. He'll soon have all his needs met and won't need to produce anything. Sort of a Jabba The Hutt without servants.

Novaheart
02-18-2012, 01:00 PM
So in other words, you're too chicken shit to admit that what the school did was wrong. Thought as much. :rolleyes:

See post #20

Novaheart
02-18-2012, 01:01 PM
He is. He has a dictator telling him what is permissible and a nanny state in charge. He'll soon have all his needs met and won't need to produce anything. Sort of a Jabba The Hutt without servants.

I wasn't talking about height.

Wei Wu Wei
02-19-2012, 06:09 PM
What's absurd about this is the Right's obsession with stories like this. Yeah the situation is stupid, yeah they shouldn't have taken the kids food away, yeah the actions were wrong. Relatively speaking though, this isn't all that big of a deal. I can certainly see why the parents would be upset and they should be offered an apology for it.

Beyond that, it just gets silly. The fact that some people use this to construct an entire paranoid narrative is the absurd part. This situation sucks, but why is it so dreadfully meaningful for the right? Why is it that this story will get more airtime on Fox News than will reporting on the war in Afghanistan? The fact that a story like this gets more airtime than issues of war, poverty, embargos, etc. illustrates something about the propaganda media and the mindsets of the people who watch it.

The middle east is in the midst of a revolutionary fire, we are fighting a war and several small "non-wars" with real catastrophic effects every day, our economy is struggling and millions of working class Americans seem to have no voice or outlet for their own experiences, while this lunchroom mishap becomes breaking news, certain to be repeated dozens of times across Fox News television and several radio stations.

Yes it's fun to talk about an issue like this and yes I agree it was a stupid action on the part of the school, but the importance of this story, relative to all other events, in the right-wing mind is stunning.

Huxley was right...
http://i.imgur.com/Ij0L1.jpg

Rockntractor
02-19-2012, 06:19 PM
What's absurd about this is the Right's obsession with stories like this. Yeah the situation is stupid, yeah they shouldn't have taken the kids food away, yeah the actions were wrong. Relatively speaking though, this isn't all that big of a deal. I can certainly see why the parents would be upset and they should be offered an apology for it.

Beyond that, it just gets silly.

The only obsession here is Michelle's, it is a news story and it was discussed, most gave far more concise answers than yourself.

Apache
02-19-2012, 07:01 PM
What's absurd about this is the Right's obsession with stories like this. Yeah the situation is stupid, yeah they shouldn't have taken the kids food away, yeah the actions were wrong. Relatively speaking though, this isn't all that big of a deal. I can certainly see why the parents would be upset and they should be offered an apology for it.

Beyond that, it just gets silly. The fact that some people use this to construct an entire paranoid narrative is the absurd part. This situation sucks, but why is it so dreadfully meaningful for the right? Why is it that this story will get more airtime on Fox News than will reporting on the war in Afghanistan? The fact that a story like this gets more airtime than issues of war, poverty, embargos, etc. illustrates something about the propaganda media and the mindsets of the people who watch it.

The middle east is in the midst of a revolutionary fire, we are fighting a war and several small "non-wars" with real catastrophic effects every day, our economy is struggling and millions of working class Americans seem to have no voice or outlet for their own experiences, while this lunchroom mishap becomes breaking news, certain to be repeated dozens of times across Fox News television and several radio stations.

Yes it's fun to talk about an issue like this and yes I agree it was a stupid action on the part of the school, but the importance of this story, relative to all other events, in the right-wing mind is stunning.

Huxley was right...
http://i.imgur.com/Ij0L1.jpg

That's all you have? A retread of Oreo's argument?


Why am I surprised? That's all you guys ever have....:rolleyes:

Rockntractor
02-19-2012, 07:05 PM
That's all you have? A retread of Oreo's argument?


Why am I surprised? That's all you guys ever have....:rolleyes:

They go to the same meetings.

fettpett
02-19-2012, 07:30 PM
What's absurd about this is the Right's obsession with stories like this. Yeah the situation is stupid, yeah they shouldn't have taken the kids food away, yeah the actions were wrong. Relatively speaking though, this isn't all that big of a deal. I can certainly see why the parents would be upset and they should be offered an apology for it.

Beyond that, it just gets silly. The fact that some people use this to construct an entire paranoid narrative is the absurd part. This situation sucks, but why is it so dreadfully meaningful for the right? Why is it that this story will get more airtime on Fox News than will reporting on the war in Afghanistan? The fact that a story like this gets more airtime than issues of war, poverty, embargos, etc. illustrates something about the propaganda media and the mindsets of the people who watch it.

The middle east is in the midst of a revolutionary fire, we are fighting a war and several small "non-wars" with real catastrophic effects every day, our economy is struggling and millions of working class Americans seem to have no voice or outlet for their own experiences, while this lunchroom mishap becomes breaking news, certain to be repeated dozens of times across Fox News television and several radio stations.

Yes it's fun to talk about an issue like this and yes I agree it was a stupid action on the part of the school, but the importance of this story, relative to all other events, in the right-wing mind is stunning.

Huxley was right...
http://i.imgur.com/Ij0L1.jpg

maybe we should send them over to your place and let them decide what you eat

Wei Wu Wei
02-19-2012, 07:57 PM
Many right-wingers supported Nancy Reagan telling Americans what to put into their bodies. Who remembers "Just say No"? The only difference is that Michelle Obama's campaign is all about being informed to make good choices, not about the police actually bursting down doors to bust people for it. Yes this school took away a kids food, but no one has been arrested for anything, unlike the WAr on DRugs.

The war on drugs, and Nancy Reagan's support for it is a perfect example of the government telling you how to live a healthy lifestyle, and many conservatives agree with it. WIth the war on drugs, people are actually put into prisons for lengthy sentences if they are caught possessing drugs 3 times.

Not a single person has been arrested for having a Big Mac.

Why is this food issue such a terrible assault on freedom, but when it comes to marijuana, the war on drugs, and Nancy Reagan's Just Say No campaign there is no fuss about it/

Rockntractor
02-19-2012, 08:00 PM
Many right-wingers supported Nancy Reagan telling Americans what to put into their bodies. Who remembers "Just say No"? The only difference is that Michelle Obama's campaign is all about being informed to make good choices, not about the police actually bursting down doors to bust people for it. Yes this school took away a kids food, but no one has been arrested for anything, unlike the WAr on DRugs.

The war on drugs, and Nancy Reagan's support for it is a perfect example of the government telling you how to live a healthy lifestyle, and many conservatives agree with it. WIth the war on drugs, people are actually put into prisons for lengthy sentences if they are caught possessing drugs 3 times.

Not a single person has been arrested for having a Big Mac.

Why is this food issue such a terrible assault on freedom, but when it comes to marijuana, the war on drugs, and Nancy Reagan's Just Say No campaign there is no fuss about it/

Illegal drugs = food, Wei Wei = moron

AmPat
02-19-2012, 08:09 PM
Many right-wingers supported Nancy Reagan telling Americans what to put into their bodies. Who remembers "Just say No"? The only difference is that Michelle Obama's campaign is all about being informed to make good choices, not about the police actually bursting down doors to bust people for it. Yes this school took away a kids food, but no one has been arrested for anything, unlike the WAr on DRugs.

The war on drugs, and Nancy Reagan's support for it is a perfect example of the government telling you how to live a healthy lifestyle, and many conservatives agree with it. WIth the war on drugs, people are actually put into prisons for lengthy sentences if they are caught possessing drugs 3 times.

Not a single person has been arrested for having a Big Mac.

Why is this food issue such a terrible assault on freedom, but when it comes to marijuana, the war on drugs, and Nancy Reagan's Just Say No campaign there is no fuss about it/
Nice try Skippy. Nancy wasn't actively and hipocritically promoting placebos instead of the real thing. Your godess is telling us what to eat, not what to just say no to. Not only is that an active attack, it is hipocritical for a fat woman to presume to tell anybody, especially active duty personnel what to eat.

Wei Wu Wei
02-19-2012, 08:23 PM
Illegal drugs = food, Wei Wei = moron

I'm willing to bet that someone who consumes marijuana every day (but doesn't smoke it) is far less likely to face health problems than someone who eats McDonalds every day.


I like how you classify "illegal drugs", as if drugs are inherently illegal. They were made illegal by the government. Would you treat a Big Mac the same as a marijuana joint if the government passed a law making Big Macs illegal? After all, it's the illegal part that makes it bad, isn't it?

The war on drugs is the reality of what right-wingers fantasize this healthy eating initiative is. The federal government will not break into your home and arrest you if you triple-chicken-fry your steak. However, try growing marijuana plants on your own property and you're likely to get thrown into prison.

You're right though, they aren't exactly the same. One of these initiatives is a nationwide federal program designed to protect Americans from unhealthy consumption by telling you what you can put into your body and arresting you if you disobey. The other is an insignificant "healthy food choices" program with no real legal authority.

Wei Wu Wei
02-19-2012, 08:26 PM
Nice try Skippy. Nancy wasn't actively and hipocritically promoting placebos instead of the real thing. Your godess is telling us what to eat, not what to just say no to. Not only is that an active attack, it is hipocritical for a fat woman to presume to tell anybody, especially active duty personnel what to eat.

The difference is the government won't arrest you for eating a bad food. Even if a state decides to restrict what items are sold in restaurants (which is actually pretty rare), you can still cook and eat whatever you like in the privacy of your home.

Nancy Reagan was only saying "Just Say No", but the unspoken truth behind it was "Just Say No, or else we will arrest you". That is simply not true about this current health food campaign. THere are no threats to arrest anyone for putting salted lard on your bullshit sandwich.

Rockntractor
02-19-2012, 08:31 PM
I'm willing to bet that someone who consumes marijuana every day (but doesn't smoke it) is far less likely to face health problems than someone who eats McDonalds every day.


I like how you classify "illegal drugs", as if drugs are inherently illegal. They were made illegal by the government. Would you treat a Big Mac the same as a marijuana joint if the government passed a law making Big Macs illegal? After all, it's the illegal part that makes it bad, isn't it?

The war on drugs is the reality of what right-wingers fantasize this healthy eating initiative is. The federal government will not break into your home and arrest you if you triple-chicken-fry your steak. However, try growing marijuana plants on your own property and you're likely to get thrown into prison.

You're right though, they aren't exactly the same. One of these initiatives is a nationwide federal program designed to protect Americans from unhealthy consumption by telling you what you can put into your body and arresting you if you disobey. The other is an insignificant "healthy food choices" program with no real legal authority.

Nothing provable or even sensible here yet. Try again Mr.Feelings.

Apache
02-19-2012, 08:48 PM
I'm willing to bet that someone who consumes marijuana every day (but doesn't smoke it) is far less likely to face health problems than someone who eats McDonalds every day.


I like how you classify "illegal drugs", as if drugs are inherently illegal. They were made illegal by the government. Would you treat a Big Mac the same as a marijuana joint if the government passed a law making Big Macs illegal? After all, it's the illegal part that makes it bad, isn't it?

The war on drugs is the reality of what right-wingers fantasize this healthy eating initiative is. The federal government will not break into your home and arrest you if you triple-chicken-fry your steak. However, try growing marijuana plants on your own property and you're likely to get thrown into prison.

You're right though, they aren't exactly the same. One of these initiatives is a nationwide federal program designed to protect Americans from unhealthy consumption by telling you what you can put into your body and arresting you if you disobey. The other is an insignificant "healthy food choices" program with no real legal authority.

The "Oh, somthing shiny." argument :rolleyes: Apple meet orange. Did you pay to get that fucked up education?

Wei Wu Wei
02-19-2012, 08:51 PM
If you don't want the government telling people they must make healthy choices, and prohibiting what they can put in their body, why do people support the War on Drugs?

If you don't like first ladies supporting programs that mandate healthy choices and prohibit unhealthy consumption, why do people support "Just Say No"?

It's just too simple.

Apache
02-19-2012, 08:53 PM
The difference is the government won't arrest you for eating a bad food. Even if a state decides to restrict what items are sold in restaurants (which is actually pretty rare), you can still cook and eat whatever you like in the privacy of your home.

Nancy Reagan was only saying "Just Say No", but the unspoken truth behind it was "Just Say No, or else we will arrest you". That is simply not true about this current health food campaign. THere are no threats to arrest anyone for putting salted lard on your bullshit sandwich.

AHA! So that's your problem! I knew it, I knew it!

THe reason behind your communist views... You're a doper burn-out that can't get a job :rolleyes: So how many years did you do in the slammer? Did Bubba hurt you bad? :frown:

Apache
02-19-2012, 08:57 PM
If you don't want the government telling people they must make healthy choices, and prohibiting what they can put in their body, why do people support the War on Drugs?

If you don't like first ladies supporting programs that mandate healthy choices and prohibit unhealthy consumption, why do people support "Just Say No"?

It's just too simple.

To prevent dainbramage like you have received...

Can you send in a picture? You can be our poster child...



Don't let this be you....

and then, of course, your picture :wink:


Who knows how many will be saved:confused:


Will you help Wei... Think of the childrentm :smile:

Wei Wu Wei
02-19-2012, 09:18 PM
To prevent dainbramage like you have received...

Can you send in a picture? You can be our poster child...



Don't let this be you....

and then, of course, your picture :wink:


Who knows how many will be saved:confused:


Will you help Wei... Think of the childrentm :smile:

Propaganda. Read some pharmacology books, don't watch Reefer Madness.

Marijuana is surprisingly safe, and some of the great minds of our time have used it. One of my favorites is the brilliant astronomer Carl Sagan. Plenty of normal minds in our time use it too. I personally do not, but I understand that it's pretty benign compared to alcohol or fried foods.

Each drug is a different story, with it's own effects and health risks, lumping them all together is ignorant.

Unhealthy food is proven to cause health risks, including heart disease which is one of the main killers of Americans.

If this is an issue of health, then your argument doesn't hold up.

Apache
02-19-2012, 09:29 PM
Propaganda. Read some pharmacology books, don't watch Reefer Madness.

Marijuana is surprisingly safe, and some of the great minds of our time have used it. One of my favorites is the brilliant astronomer Carl Sagan. Plenty of normal minds in our time use it too. I personally do not, but I understand that it's pretty benign compared to alcohol or fried foods.

Each drug is a different story, with it's own effects and health risks, lumping them all together is ignorant.

Unhealthy food is proven to cause health risks, including heart disease which is one of the main killers of Americans.

If this is an issue of health, then your argument doesn't hold up.

So you're a pothead. Now that we've cleared that up, you do know that there are many institutions and organizations to help you with your addiction, right? You have to WANT the help though, they won't do it for you...

Rockntractor
02-19-2012, 09:30 PM
Wei Wei, coming soon to a rehab near you!http://planetsmilies.net/smoking-smiley-7579.gif (http://planetsmilies.net)

fettpett
02-19-2012, 10:35 PM
Propaganda. Read some pharmacology books, don't watch Reefer Madness.

Marijuana is surprisingly safe, and some of the great minds of our time have used it. One of my favorites is the brilliant astronomer Carl Sagan. Plenty of normal minds in our time use it too. I personally do not, but I understand that it's pretty benign compared to alcohol or fried foods.

Each drug is a different story, with it's own effects and health risks, lumping them all together is ignorant.

Unhealthy food is proven to cause health risks, including heart disease which is one of the main killers of Americans.

If this is an issue of health, then your argument doesn't hold up.

It's not a health issue, it's an issue of the Government overriding the parents, and stepping in where they don't belong, under the pretense of "health issue". You're trying to equate the two and it doesn't hold up. But even if you do compare the two, how they are carried out are quite different. Where the "War on Drugs" and the "Just Say No"/DARE programs come in is that those were programs that disseminate information to the public in the form of TV ads and this is the Government hiring people to physically force change. If you can't figure out the difference, well...

Wei Wu Wei
02-19-2012, 10:50 PM
So you're a pothead. Now that we've cleared that up, you do know that there are many institutions and organizations to help you with your addiction, right? You have to WANT the help though, they won't do it for you...

You're the one who seems stoned, buddy. Your reading comprehension is dismal, and you seem to think posts like this are funny.

I don't use pot. I like beer with my dinner sometimes plus happy hour on Friday after work with some friends. I am well aware though that alcohol abuse carries more health risks than marijuana use.

However, lets think about your logic here, if someone opposing the war on drugs, or having the bare minimum of knowledge about drug abuse makes them a pothead, then I suppose your opposition to this healthy food initiative makes you a greasy disgusting fatass glutton?

Learn some self control you obese monster. I'm sure a sick elephant or something will appreciate the organ donations after you eat yourself to a heart attack, but think about your family.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSJQEl5vcAo

Wei Wu Wei
02-19-2012, 10:54 PM
It's not a health issue, it's an issue of the Government overriding the parents, and stepping in where they don't belong, under the pretense of "health issue". You're trying to equate the two and it doesn't hold up. But even if you do compare the two, how they are carried out are quite different. Where the "War on Drugs" and the "Just Say No"/DARE programs come in is that those were programs that disseminate information to the public in the form of TV ads and this is the Government hiring people to physically force change. If you can't figure out the difference, well...

You've got this entirely backwards.

The War on Drugs is just an information campaign? If you grow marijuana in your backyard the government isn't going to mail you an information pamphlet. There's a reason the prison population has exploded in the last few decades, making us the #1 prison nation in the entire world: its the war on drugs.

How anyone can suggest the War on Drugs isn't fought with force is beyond me.

Try making the greasiest, saltiest, most unhealthy food item you can come up with in your kitchen and eating it. Hell take pictures of it and mail it to your local police station. If any government official comes to arrest you, I'll eat my shoe.

If you try growing cannabis in your own backyard....different story.

Apache
02-19-2012, 10:58 PM
You're the one who seems stoned, buddy. Your reading comprehension is dismal, and you seem to think posts like this are funny.

I don't use pot. I like beer with my dinner sometimes plus happy hour on Friday after work with some friends. I am well aware though that alcohol abuse carries more health risks than marijuana use.

However, lets think about your logic here, if someone opposing the war on drugs, or having the bare minimum of knowledge about drug abuse makes them a pothead, then I suppose your opposition to this healthy food initiative makes you a greasy disgusting fatass glutton?

Learn some self control you obese monster. I'm sure a sick elephant or something will appreciate the organ donations after you eat yourself to a heart attack, but think about your family.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSJQEl5vcAo

You called me fat:party:

You have the distinction of being the first person ever to call me fat :biggrin-new:


Now about your pot addiction and alcohol abuse...:cool: Did you turn to these before or after the sexual abuse committed by your professor :confused:


Fat! :biggrin-new:

Rockntractor
02-19-2012, 11:01 PM
You've got this entirely backwards.

The War on Drugs is just an information campaign? If you grow marijuana in your backyard the government isn't going to mail you an information pamphlet. There's a reason the prison population has exploded in the last few decades, making us the #1 prison nation in the entire world: its the war on drugs.

How anyone can suggest the War on Drugs isn't fought with force is beyond me.

Try making the greasiest, saltiest, most unhealthy food item you can come up with in your kitchen and eating it. Hell take pictures of it and mail it to your local police station. If any government official comes to arrest you, I'll eat my shoe.

If you try growing cannabis in your own backyard....different story.

Nancy Reagan's just 'say no to drugs' campaign was directed toward keeping illegal drugs away from children, yet you equate this to a turkey sandwich. You are the biggest of fools, alcohol is legal and we still don't allow children to drink it legally. Sometimes you really disgust me.

Apache
02-19-2012, 11:03 PM
You've got this entirely backwards.

The War on Drugs is just an information campaign? If you grow marijuana in your backyard the government isn't going to mail you an information pamphlet. There's a reason the prison population has exploded in the last few decades, making us the #1 prison nation in the entire world: its the war on drugs.

How anyone can suggest the War on Drugs isn't fought with force is beyond me.

Try making the greasiest, saltiest, most unhealthy food item you can come up with in your kitchen and eating it. Hell take pictures of it and mail it to your local police station. If any government official comes to arrest you, I'll eat my shoe.

If you try growing cannabis in your own backyard....different story.

The word you are searching for is... ILLEGAL


il·le·gal/iˈlēgəl/




Adjective:




Contrary to or forbidden by law, esp. criminal law: "illegal drugs".







Noun:




An illegal immigrant.







Synonyms:


unlawful - illicit - illegitimate - lawless - wrongful

Rockntractor
02-19-2012, 11:05 PM
You called me fat:party:

You have the distinction of being the first person ever to call me fat :biggrin-new:


Now about your pot addiction and alcohol abuse...:cool: Did you turn to these before or after the sexual abuse committed by your professor :confused:


Fat! :biggrin-new:
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/image-1-for-fat-animals-top-10-gallery-157741000.jpg

Apache
02-19-2012, 11:07 PM
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/image-1-for-fat-animals-top-10-gallery-157741000.jpg

It skips a generation sometimes :tongue:

Wei Wu Wei
02-19-2012, 11:09 PM
The word you are searching for is... ILLEGAL


il·le·gal/iˈlēgəl/




Adjective:




Contrary to or forbidden by law, esp. criminal law: "illegal drugs".







Noun:




An illegal immigrant.







Synonyms:


unlawful - illicit - illegitimate - lawless - wrongful

That's right, the government has made possessing relatively benign drugs like marijuana a criminal offense and enforce it with the police. They've decided you can't use marijuana and they will put you in prison for non-compliance.

The government has done what with this healthy eating thing? Some public service announcements? Changed the food pyramid to a plate?


The fact that people support the war on drugs but think that this eating healthy thing is some extreme government assault on individual liberties is a total joke. There's no reasoning behind it other than "oogy boogy democrats baddd"

Thanks for clearing it up for everyone.

fettpett
02-19-2012, 11:12 PM
You've got this entirely backwards.

The War on Drugs is just an information campaign? If you grow marijuana in your backyard the government isn't going to mail you an information pamphlet. There's a reason the prison population has exploded in the last few decades, making us the #1 prison nation in the entire world: its the war on drugs.

How anyone can suggest the War on Drugs isn't fought with force is beyond me.

Try making the greasiest, saltiest, most unhealthy food item you can come up with in your kitchen and eating it. Hell take pictures of it and mail it to your local police station. If any government official comes to arrest you, I'll eat my shoe.

If you try growing cannabis in your own backyard....different story.

I was talking about the campaigns you were referring too, not the whole of the War on Drugs. I think the whole thing is a waste of time. I was talking about the ad campaigns and programs like D.A.R.E.

Wei Wu Wei
02-19-2012, 11:13 PM
Nancy Reagan's just 'say no to drugs' campaign was directed toward keeping illegal drugs away from children, yet you equate this to a turkey sandwich. You are the biggest of fools, alcohol is legal and we still don't allow children to drink it legally. Sometimes you really disgust me.

Michelle Obama is doing what, exactly? Encouraging kids to "get up and move"? The horror.

The difference is Nancy Reagan's campaign was part of an ACTUAL, really existing government program designed to dictate to adults what they can and cannot put in their bodies using the police force.

Michelle Obama's healthy lifestyle is part of a made-up, imaginary narrative about the big bad government telling you what to do.

If you really cared about the government telling adults what they can do with their bodies, then you'd oppose the war on drugs. Otherwise, it's just partisan cheerleading and nothing more.

Rockntractor
02-19-2012, 11:15 PM
That's right, the government has made possessing relatively benign drugs like marijuana a criminal offense and enforce it with the police. They've decided you can't use marijuana and they will put you in prison for non-compliance.

The government has done what with this healthy eating thing? Some public service announcements? Changed the food pyramid to a plate?


The fact that people support the war on drugs but think that this eating healthy thing is some extreme government assault on individual liberties is a total joke. There's no reasoning behind it other than "oogy boogy democrats baddd"

Thanks for clearing it up for everyone.

You heard it here, Wei wants to drug the children!http://planetsmilies.net/angry-smiley-17113.gif (http://planetsmilies.net)

Wei Wu Wei
02-19-2012, 11:16 PM
I was talking about the campaigns you were referring too, not the whole of the War on Drugs. I think the whole thing is a waste of time. I was talking about the ad campaigns and programs like D.A.R.E.

So what's the terrible thing about Michelle Obama's healthy lifestyle campaign for kids?

Kids should be educated about healthy lifestyles and nutrition, just like they should be educated about the risks of drug use. The parents are perfectly able to educate children about drug use, so why don't you oppose "just say no" and DARE overstepping parental authority?

Rockntractor
02-19-2012, 11:21 PM
Wei Wei's crack for kiddies program.:mad:

Apache
02-19-2012, 11:21 PM
The government has done what with this healthy eating thing? .


It‘s unclear from reports who determined the lunch wasn’t healthy enough. The Carolina Journal refers to the person as a “state agent,” while the Atlanta Journal-Constitution calls the persona “state inspector” who was checking lunches that day

Reading...it helps:wink:

Apache
02-19-2012, 11:24 PM
Wei Wei's crack for kiddies program.:mad:

Flintstonestm chewy ice...

Make sure your kids are up to speed :wink:

Apache
02-19-2012, 11:26 PM
So what's the terrible thing about Michelle Obama's healthy lifestyle campaign for kids?



Hypocrisy :confused:

fettpett
02-19-2012, 11:27 PM
So what's the terrible thing about Michelle Obama's healthy lifestyle campaign for kids?

Kids should be educated about healthy lifestyles and nutrition, just like they should be educated about the risks of drug use. The parents are perfectly able to educate children about drug use, so why don't you oppose "just say no" and DARE overstepping parental authority?

did you even read the story? or are you just thick? They have people that FORCED this little girl to change meals, from the turkey sandwich and banana etc to chicken nuggets. That is FAR and away different than those campaigns.

I don't have a problem with a campaign teaching healthy living/eating. but that's not what this is doing.

Wei Wu Wei
02-20-2012, 12:44 AM
Reading...it helps:wink:

What does that have to do with Michelle Obama? Did her exercise-themed speeches take her food away?

If so, then it follows that Nancy Reagan's Just Say No is responsible for police busting down people's doors.

Rockntractor
02-20-2012, 12:47 AM
What does that have to do with Michelle Obama? Did her exercise-themed speeches take her food away?

If so, then it follows that Nancy Reagan's Just Say No is responsible for police busting down people's doors.

Nancy Reagan passed no laws, drugs were illegal long before she begin her program of drug awareness for children.
Why do you want children to take drugs?

Apache
02-20-2012, 12:50 AM
What does that have to do with Michelle Obama? Did her exercise-themed speeches take her food away?

If so, then it follows that Nancy Reagan's Just Say No is responsible for police busting down people's doors.

Boy I got you nailed! And right on cue you change the subject....
Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei


The government has done what with this healthy eating thing? .Remember that question? You know, the one I answered :rolleyes:


You're just like your Lefty brothers here... Just can't nail down Jell-O.

Thanks for being so damned predictable:thumbsup:

Wei Wu Wei
02-20-2012, 12:56 AM
Boy I got you nailed! And right on cue you change the subject....Remember that question? You know, the one I answered :rolleyes:


You're just like your Lefty brothers here... Just can't nail down Jell-O.

Thanks for being so damned predictable:thumbsup:

I agree that it is upsetting and wrong that a government official took the girls food away, I never argued that point.

What I'm asking is why is this instance a terrible atrocity when the thousands of cases in the War on Drugs are perfectly acceptable? Both cases have a first lady supporting an initiative.

Rockntractor
02-20-2012, 12:58 AM
I agree that it is upsetting and wrong that a government official took the girls food away, I never argued that point.

What I'm asking is why is this instance a terrible atrocity when the thousands of cases in the War on Drugs are perfectly acceptable? Both cases have a first lady supporting an initiative.

Why do you want to kill our children Wei, why are you evil?

Apache
02-20-2012, 12:58 AM
I agree that it is upsetting and wrong that a government official took the girls food away, I never argued that point.

What I'm asking is why is this instance a terrible atrocity when the thousands of cases in the War on Drugs are perfectly acceptable? Both cases have a first lady supporting an initiative.

The word you are searching for is... ILLEGAL


il·le·gal/iˈlēgəl/




Adjective:




Contrary to or forbidden by law, esp. criminal law: "illegal drugs".







Noun:




An illegal immigrant.







Synonyms:


unlawful - illicit - illegitimate - lawless - wrongful

Rockntractor
02-20-2012, 01:10 AM
Wei Wei teaches.http://planetsmilies.net/smoking-smiley-5411.gif (http://planetsmilies.net)

NJCardFan
02-20-2012, 01:14 AM
I agree that it is upsetting and wrong that a government official took the girls food away, I never argued that point.

What I'm asking is why is this instance a terrible atrocity when the thousands of cases in the War on Drugs are perfectly acceptable? Both cases have a first lady supporting an initiative.

You really don't know the difference? For starters, drugs are illegal. 2nd, Nancy Reagan's slogan was "Say no to drugs" basically encouraging kids not to partake in illegal drugs. Michelle Obama just isn't suggesting eating healthy, she's mandating it and doing it physically with the above story being only 1 example. What's next, you're going to rail against keeping child molesters from doing what they want?

Apache
02-20-2012, 02:05 AM
It seems lightning strikes twice (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/exclusive-2nd-n-c-mother-says-daughters-school-lunch-replaced-for-not-being-healthy-enough/)...

What was that Wei?

Rockntractor
02-20-2012, 02:30 AM
It seems lightning strikes twice (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/exclusive-2nd-n-c-mother-says-daughters-school-lunch-replaced-for-not-being-healthy-enough/)...

What was that Wei?

Why do Wei's people obsess about this?http://planetsmilies.net/confused-smiley-17425.gif (http://planetsmilies.net)

fettpett
02-20-2012, 02:35 AM
sounds like it was the same day too...the only thing "missing" from the 2nd kids meal was a second fruit/veggie, which ironically enough was missing form the school's menu as well, unless chicken nuggets or milk some how became a fruit or veggie

Rockntractor
02-20-2012, 03:04 AM
unless chicken nuggets or milk some how became a fruit or veggie

That may have been the chickens last meal.:confused:

NJCardFan
02-20-2012, 11:00 AM
sounds like it was the same day too...the only thing "missing" from the 2nd kids meal was a second fruit/veggie, which ironically enough was missing form the school's menu as well, unless chicken nuggets or milk some how became a fruit or veggie

And, again, the school found it necessary to replace her lunch with processed chicken full of preservatives, then breaded and fried to pre-cook. But nova and wee wee thinks it's OK because it's follows their agenda. Question, what would have happened if a parent sent their child to this school with a chicken nugget happy meal that had the fruit slices instead of fries?

Odysseus
02-20-2012, 12:17 PM
Many right-wingers supported Nancy Reagan telling Americans what to put into their bodies. Who remembers "Just say No"? The only difference is that Michelle Obama's campaign is all about being informed to make good choices, not about the police actually bursting down doors to bust people for it. Yes this school took away a kids food, but no one has been arrested for anything, unlike the WAr on DRugs.

The war on drugs, and Nancy Reagan's support for it is a perfect example of the government telling you how to live a healthy lifestyle, and many conservatives agree with it. WIth the war on drugs, people are actually put into prisons for lengthy sentences if they are caught possessing drugs 3 times.

Not a single person has been arrested for having a Big Mac.

Why is this food issue such a terrible assault on freedom, but when it comes to marijuana, the war on drugs, and Nancy Reagan's Just Say No campaign there is no fuss about it/

There are several reasons. First, the Obama campaign isn't about being informed to make good choices, it's about confiscating foods that aren't approved and replacing them, overriding the rights of parents. Nancy Reagan actually was trying to get kids to make the right choice, while Michelle Obama is simply imposing her choices without discussion or debate, and that brings us to the other major issue: Drugs are illegal because legislatures voted to make them so. The legislature has a Constitutional right and duty to pass laws, and while the wisdom of these particular laws is debatable, the fact is that they are laws and if we want to change them, we have to build a consensus and get them changed. There is no law on the books that gives the First Lady or her proxies the authority to confiscate foods given to kids by parents. It is a power grab, and thus a threat to freedom. Finally, there is a hypocrisy issue. Nancy Reagan wasn't abusing the drugs that she told people not to use, while Michelle Obama's diet is not consistent with her message.

Novaheart
02-20-2012, 01:36 PM
Question, what would have happened if a parent sent their child to this school with a chicken nugget happy meal that had the fruit slices instead of fries?

Nova considers McDonald's food, including any attempt at "healthy" on their part to be garbage; even their fruits and vegetables are soaked in chemicals. On a warm humid day, the McDonald's ten blocks from here smells like a wet ashtray.

NJCardFan
02-20-2012, 01:38 PM
Nova considers McDonald's food, including any attempt at "healthy" on their part to be garbage; even their fruits and vegetables are soaked in chemicals. On a warm humid day, the McDonald's ten blocks from here smells like a wet ashtray.

But you're OK with the school serving chicken nuggets. :rolleyes:

NJCardFan
02-20-2012, 01:50 PM
There are several reasons. First, the Obama campaign isn't about being informed to make good choices, it's about confiscating foods that aren't approved and replacing them, overriding the rights of parents. Nancy Reagan actually was trying to get kids to make the right choice, while Michelle Obama is simply imposing her choices without discussion or debate, and that brings us to the other major issue: Drugs are illegal because legislatures voted to make them so. The legislature has a Constitutional right and duty to pass laws, and while the wisdom of these particular laws is debatable, the fact is that they are laws and if we want to change them, we have to build a consensus and get them changed. There is no law on the books that gives the First Lady or her proxies the authority to confiscate foods given to kids by parents. It is a power grab, and thus a threat to freedom. Finally, there is a hypocrisy issue. Nancy Reagan wasn't abusing the drugs that she told people not to use, while Michelle Obama's diet is not consistent with her message.

You're pissing up a rope, dude. Wee wee is perfectly OK when it's his side but when it comes to his religion, which is drugs, it's not OK. Drugs has done more to ruin lives than any turkey and cheese sandwich could ever dream to. Drugs have broken up families. Drugs have killed countless people either by the drugs themselves or by actions of those dealing in such. Drugs have caused more crime. And while the over consumption of food has caused it's share of damage, I can eat a Big Mac a day for the rest of my life but if I exercise regularly and make sure the rest of my food choices are better for me, that Big Mac a day will not cause me any harm. However, smoking a joint a day does have an everlasting affect. Meth, coke, acid, and any other illicit drug destroys brain cells and leads to other maladies. No amount of exercise is going to remove the after affects of drugs. Also, I've never heard of anyone getting robbed or killed over a Big Mac.

Apache
02-20-2012, 02:41 PM
But you're OK with the school serving chicken nuggets. :rolleyes:

Sure he is...

AmPat
02-20-2012, 02:59 PM
The difference is the government won't arrest you for eating a bad food. Even if a state decides to restrict what items are sold in restaurants (which is actually pretty rare), you can still cook and eat whatever you like in the privacy of your home.

Nancy Reagan was only saying "Just Say No", but the unspoken truth behind it was "Just Say No, or else we will arrest you". That is simply not true about this current health food campaign. THere are no threats to arrest anyone for putting salted lard on your bullshit sandwich.
Spoken like a true paranoid scizophrenic. I believe the voices that actually weren't in your head were law enforcement, not Nancy Reagan.

MOOchelle is a hipocrite plain and simple.

Nancy didn't suggest to children to "just say no" with a doobie hanging from her lips. MOOchelle tells active duty personnel what they should eat with the stench of a triple decker fat burger still on her breath.

MOOchell, with the help of Dear Leader husband will make pronouncements of prohibited food if they could get away with it. They won't make it illegal initially, but they'll make it difficult to acquire and off limits to those precious free loaders eating government food.

Novaheart
02-20-2012, 03:09 PM
MOOchelle

Childish

Apache
02-20-2012, 03:12 PM
Childish

:rolleyes:

Odysseus
02-20-2012, 05:45 PM
You're pissing up a rope, dude. Wee wee is perfectly OK when it's his side but when it comes to his religion, which is drugs, it's not OK. Drugs has done more to ruin lives than any turkey and cheese sandwich could ever dream to. Drugs have broken up families. Drugs have killed countless people either by the drugs themselves or by actions of those dealing in such. Drugs have caused more crime. And while the over consumption of food has caused it's share of damage, I can eat a Big Mac a day for the rest of my life but if I exercise regularly and make sure the rest of my food choices are better for me, that Big Mac a day will not cause me any harm. However, smoking a joint a day does have an everlasting affect. Meth, coke, acid, and any other illicit drug destroys brain cells and leads to other maladies. No amount of exercise is going to remove the after affects of drugs. Also, I've never heard of anyone getting robbed or killed over a Big Mac.

Wei is okay with drugs precisely because they kill people, ruin lives, destroy families and foster dependency. Drugs are socialism in a bottle.

Arroyo_Doble
02-20-2012, 06:12 PM
You should have gone with literacy, Wee. See, that means if Laura Bush ever watches television, she is hypocrite.

fettpett
02-20-2012, 06:16 PM
You should have gone with literacy, Wee. See, that means if Laura Bush ever watches television, she is hypocrite.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Arroyo_Doble
02-20-2012, 06:24 PM
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Pretty much sums up my thoughts on the issue, yes.

Odysseus
02-20-2012, 06:43 PM
Pretty much sums up my thoughts on the issue, yes.

That would imply that you have thoughts on the issue. What you have is attitude. Not the same thing.

Arroyo_Doble
02-20-2012, 06:48 PM
That would imply that you have thoughts on the issue. What you have is attitude. Not the same thing.

Thanks for your input.

Apache
02-20-2012, 07:43 PM
Thanks for your input.

Your's would be enlightening...if it weren't a fallacy...:rolleyes:

NJCardFan
02-21-2012, 02:08 AM
You should have gone with literacy, Wee. See, that means if Laura Bush ever watches television, she is hypocrite.

You know, I'd call you stupid but you'd have to improve your IQ about 3,000 points to aspire to be stupid.

Novaheart
02-21-2012, 03:01 AM
You know, I'd call you stupid but you'd have to improve your IQ about 3,000 points to aspire to be stupid.

Youze tell him Snookie.

NJCardFan
02-21-2012, 04:39 AM
Youze tell him Snookie.

Again with the childish name calling. :rolleyes: Oh, and since Snookie is a female and I'm not, perhaps it's better served that you should be called a female, no? Oh, and nobody I know says 'youze'. Only those with childish minds like you.

BadCat
02-21-2012, 09:55 AM
Pretty much sums up my thoughts on the issue, yes.

Your "thoughts" are summed up by "Which internet skank can I try to bang now?".

Odysseus
02-21-2012, 10:05 AM
Thanks for your input.

Right back at'cha, Snarko.

AmPat
02-21-2012, 02:03 PM
There are several reasons. First, the Obama campaign isn't about being informed to make good choices, it's about confiscating foods that aren't approved and replacing them, overriding the rights of parents. Nancy Reagan actually was trying to get kids to make the right choice, while Michelle Obama is simply imposing her choices without discussion or debate, and that brings us to the other major issue: Drugs are illegal because legislatures voted to make them so. The legislature has a Constitutional right and duty to pass laws, and while the wisdom of these particular laws is debatable, the fact is that they are laws and if we want to change them, we have to build a consensus and get them changed. There is no law on the books that gives the First Lady or her proxies the authority to confiscate foods given to kids by parents. It is a power grab, and thus a threat to freedom. Finally, there is a hypocrisy issue. Nancy Reagan wasn't abusing the drugs that she told people not to use, while Michelle Obama's diet is not consistent with her message.
Aw shucks, I said the same thing only without the charm school adjectives. :mad::biggrin:

AmPat
02-21-2012, 02:05 PM
Nova considers McDonald's food, including any attempt at "healthy" on their part to be garbage; even their fruits and vegetables are soaked in chemicals. On a warm humid day, the McDonald's ten blocks from here smells like a wet ashtray.

Let's try this: How would you feel if MOOchell mandated that you eat that "wet ashtray" smelling food? Would you then automatically obey your master (Master Moo)?:rolleyes:

AmPat
02-21-2012, 02:08 PM
You should have gone with literacy, Wee. See, that means if Laura Bush ever watches television, she is hypocrite.
I suppose to an intellectually devoid liberal, watching television absolutely precludes reading a book. Nope, can't do both!:rolleyes: