Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Revmitchell, Mar 2, 2010.
How stupid here just read it
What is stupid about it?
The school lunch program contributes no more to national security than any other countless everyday activities do.
Unless you wish to concede that my posting on the board today contributed to national security.
My posting this is just about as directly related to strengthing national security as kids eating their lunch.
Michelle Obama is apparently running for National Lunchroom Monitor or some such thing.
See post # 3
So feeding children healthy food so they grow up to be healthy soldiers has nothing to do with security. Would you rather have unhealthy young people. If nutrition is no factor in security why not feed soldiers cheap, unhealthy food?
I wonder when the last time she took a look at school lunch food, nothing healthy about it. They consider french fries todays vegetable.
I would like to know just how school lunches, as awful and pitiful as they are, help national security? If these lunches reflect our level of national security, or our seriousness about it, then we're in bad trouble.
Thought this thread and article was about school children and lunches, not soildiers. You really have to stretch everything to get anything to mean what you say don't you.
Then it should't be limited to the lunch program.
Is the textile worker that made some kids socks also contributing to national security?
How about the guy who mixed the paint that was used on the school bus that took the kid to school?
How far are you willing to take this national security contribution connection?
I found this sentence to be interesting...
"... and “help” convenience stores already in those neighborhoods offer healthier food choices."
So now the government is going to tell convenience stores what kind of foods they must sell?
"Help" convience stores?
As if the owner of the store cannot purchase items other than he already is?
Of course with the Democrats it has nothing to do with supply and demand.
The mean old store owner just doesn't carry healthier food choices because he wants to deprive his customers - it has nothing to do with whether or not his customers want to buy those healthier food choices.
no which is obvious to everyone who is not an Obama apologist,
Unnecessary and off topic. But we have come to expect that from you
Not off topic at all. I say health nutrition helps grow healthy adults. Healthy adults are needed for national security. I guess you do not care if kids are feed poorly. It has nothing to do with Obama, good nutrition is good nutrition regardless of who is in office.
I'll remember you have stated you do not care if kids get good nutrition or not. :laugh:
Just want to say once again :1_grouphug:I totally agree with you!
Yes, I am sure you will.
And you will believe it too.
Even though he said nothing of the sort.
But then that sort of mental gymnastics is typical for you. :laugh: :smilewinkgrin:
It depends on the school system. Here they have improved the menu ... but it could use more improvement.
It is what he has done with me a number of times. As my mother used to say, "What is good for the goose is good for the gander." :laugh:
Should kids be fed healthy food at school?
No...it's the not the school's job to feed kids. The school's job is to educate kids.
If mom and/or dad can't be bothered to make their kid up a good lunch to take to school, then maybe mom and/or dad shouldn't have a kid. Or they shouldn't send their kid to school. We need uneducated labor in this country.
What is that supposed to mean? :laugh:
I threw in the laughing icon because you seem to like it so much.
Kids should eat healthy food all the time - but what does that have to do with the OP?
Do you ever know what the topic is?
The first lady is every bit as big a moron as her husband, and even more radical.
Remember those Hebrew children who rejected the king's diet?
haven't seen anyone but CTB himself say this.
Not that this is alarming, we're used to it, whats alarming is he makes this stuff up and beleives it, and goes on as if it were true.
not one person is disputing this, but you.
this has nothing to dow ith school children, it has to do with maried people, usually applied when one wants to violate trust simply because the other has already done it, or when one wants to do something not right, because the other has already done it, in context it simply does not apply.
not so far on this board.
But I suspect it's an attempt to take the thread off topic of the article and Michelle Obama.