Feds To FINE Schools Who Don't Follow Michelle's Lunch Rules...

[OldLady]

there are ways to meet the guidelines while providing good lunches. if the school is choosing not to do that, that's on the school. take it up with the district.

My 3 year-old today for lunch, I gave him a piece of salmon, he had white rice and broccoli, the broccoli impossible to mash up, so it was chopped into small pieces and he also had a piece of cake and he had apple juice.

In that, a balanced lunch, it was substantial and contained the right nutrients.

Sounds good to me! A well-rounded lunch.

Food, the correct balanced food is crucially important for all children, if children aren't fed the right food with the right nutrients it's going to affect their brains also. So these children fed the crap that's Michelle Obama's lunches, I'm not sure they're even going to be able to concentrate in the classroom properly, they'll probably get lethargic as their brains are being deprived of the nutrients they need.

It's a very serious issue, feeding children that are growing.

Seriously, if that food (pictured) is truly what is served - I would dish it can it faster than crap through a goose. If "teacher" didn't like what I brought - we would, indeed, have a problem.

Hey so tomorrow for dinner, I just decide we'll have Jägerschnitzel

Is that sausage?

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

You fat mouth- breathers cant take care of yourselves, much less your spawn so you forced the hand of Big Govt you fool

Someone has to fight all the wars Republicans start

Why obesity is a national security threat - CNN.com

Retired Generals Fear That Kids Are Too Fat for War

gawd but OP is an butt hurt rw hacktard

This isn't the Federal government's job. Learn to live with it.

 

[OldLady]

Oh, so schools previously served only sugar!!? Wow! I had no idea!



Sarcasm, people.

The government is TAKING my money, buying their mandated lunch, trying to force schools to force my kids to eat it, then are threatening to take MORE of my money if the schools don't comply with Michelle's mandate.

Since it is MY money being used to purchase and provide these meals, I should have a bigger say in what my kids eat / are fed than Michelle Obama.

Not only that but the entire mission statement is fucked...they claim we need to better serve poor kids, who aren't fed at home...and yet they claim that the way to do that is to feed them FEWER calories???

In what alternate universe does fewer calories reduce hunger?

go on an all sugar diet. see how good you feel.

sugar fat and salt. that about covered it.

the point was that calorie count alone is a poor way to measure nutrition.

When you are talking about calorie depletion, which is the definition of HUNGER, then calorie count is the most important way to measure nutrition because you are trying to give them enough calories at school so that they will not starve if they eat nothing else all day.

You don't do that by giving them 4 crackers, a couple of tablepoons of slop, and a couple of cauliflower florets.

My kid and his kids will eat any raw (HEALTHY) vegetable as long as they can dip it in Ranch dressing. That was the better looking part of that meal.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'm fine with stopping the school lunch program or letting the PTA decide what's on their kids' menus. Some parents will feed their kid breakfast and pack them a good lunch every day, but it won't happen for all kids. A lot of kids will come to school hungry and stay hungry all day. You can say "Let parents decide" until you're blue in the face, but the reality is, a lot of kids won't eat. No matter how much you want that to be different.
My mother's first teaching job was in a one room school house during WWII. Even in that itty bitty community, she had to pack extra sandwiches and pretend she couldn't eat it all so the kids would feel okay with her sharing with them. Some of them had nothing. Or maybe half a raw potato.
We've got kids whose drug addict parents are still in bed when they leave for school. We've got kids who live in a house where the cupboard is bare half the time and there's nothing to send.
Breakfast and lunch provided by school is a really good idea, in my opinion. Now we just have to be willing to pay the $$$ for decent food for the kids to eat. Not stuff reheated from frozen and shipped across town from a central defrosting kitchen. Gross.

Look, no one is saying that there shouldn't be school lunches (and even breakfast). No one is saying that. However, take the DOE completely out of it. Back in the "dark ages" when I was in school, the lunch program was handled by the USDA (there was no BS department of education).

Most states had complete control over the lunch programs (and were reimbursed by the USDA). Now? The federal government (as in most cases) has insuinated themselves between the parent and the child.

Jesus - no one wants their child or children to go hungry. The problem arises when we allow the Feds to come into and impose their "will" upon the parent. Strict dietary control, strict compliance with a "First ladies BS" and it has been PROVEN that the vast majority of children throw away more than they eat. They DO NOT like the available selections. Waste in the school lunch program has gone UP - not down.

I agree with you. That USDA stuff was fine, as far as I am concerned, and I agree I'd almost like to see the DOE out of business, except that it does "level the playing field" for poor and rural, sparsely populated states and school districts, I'm told. Don't know how that works; I have never actually understood why they got their nose into it to begin with.

so what about the DOE offends you?

The federal government has no authority over education as it was left to the states

The DOE is just a way to hold state education systems hostage by offering federal money with strings attached.

Funny how our education system has actually worsened since the establishment of the DOE isn't it?

yah... ok.

again, i'll direct you to the general welfare clause and commerce clauses of the constitution. they allow for broad federal authority.

but I know... you only like the 2nd amendment....and not even what it really says. what you want it to say.

your assertion that education is worse is your opinion and not bourne out by fact.

the right doesn't like the DoE because it sets educational standards that don't allow you to teach kids creationism as science.

and this nonsense that there is no "authority" is simply a lie told by people who haven't a clue

All powers not specifically assigned to the federal government are left to the states

There is no specific assignation over education.

Besides the general welfare clause is in the preamble to the Constitution and the preamble does not grant or prohibit any powers of the government it is merely a description of the Constitution

 

[ClosedCaption]

There seems to be a problem,with her lunch ideas,the kids hate the food,and don't eat like they should.

Wait a minute, are you saying kids dont like school lunches? My god, I remember a time when kids LOVED school lunches like it was yesterday. It all started on the 35th of Neverary 1988

 

[AmericanFirst1]

You fat mouth- breathers cant take care of yourselves, much less your spawn so you forced the hand of Big Govt you fool

Someone has to fight all the wars Republicans start

Why obesity is a national security threat - CNN.com

Retired Generals Fear That Kids Are Too Fat for War

gawd but OP is an butt hurt rw hacktard

The op is correct, and you are an obuthole butt kissing commie anti American pos.

 

[Tom Horn]

Hardening of the arteries and high blood pressure?

Butter has regained it's superiority over margarine according to the "experts" for the time-being. And I don't believe salt's recent reputation of causing high BP either...expect salt to make a rebound like butter did.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Hardening of the arteries and high blood pressure?

Butter has regained it's superiority over margarine according to the "experts" for the time-being. And I don't believe salt's recent reputation of causing high BP either...expect salt to make a rebound like butter did.

There is nothing wrong with salting your food IF you prepare food from scratch

It's all the processed shit that has high sodium levels

When I cook I keep a ramekin full of coarse Kosher salt on the counter and use it liberally and my BP is just fine

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'm fine with stopping the school lunch program or letting the PTA decide what's on their kids' menus. Some parents will feed their kid breakfast and pack them a good lunch every day, but it won't happen for all kids. A lot of kids will come to school hungry and stay hungry all day. You can say "Let parents decide" until you're blue in the face, but the reality is, a lot of kids won't eat. No matter how much you want that to be different.
My mother's first teaching job was in a one room school house during WWII. Even in that itty bitty community, she had to pack extra sandwiches and pretend she couldn't eat it all so the kids would feel okay with her sharing with them. Some of them had nothing. Or maybe half a raw potato.
We've got kids whose drug addict parents are still in bed when they leave for school. We've got kids who live in a house where the cupboard is bare half the time and there's nothing to send.
Breakfast and lunch provided by school is a really good idea, in my opinion. Now we just have to be willing to pay the $$$ for decent food for the kids to eat. Not stuff reheated from frozen and shipped across town from a central defrosting kitchen. Gross.

Look, no one is saying that there shouldn't be school lunches (and even breakfast). No one is saying that. However, take the DOE completely out of it. Back in the "dark ages" when I was in school, the lunch program was handled by the USDA (there was no BS department of education).

Most states had complete control over the lunch programs (and were reimbursed by the USDA). Now? The federal government (as in most cases) has insuinated themselves between the parent and the child.

Jesus - no one wants their child or children to go hungry. The problem arises when we allow the Feds to come into and impose their "will" upon the parent. Strict dietary control, strict compliance with a "First ladies BS" and it has been PROVEN that the vast majority of children throw away more than they eat. They DO NOT like the available selections. Waste in the school lunch program has gone UP - not down.

I agree with you. That USDA stuff was fine, as far as I am concerned, and I agree I'd almost like to see the DOE out of business, except that it does "level the playing field" for poor and rural, sparsely populated states and school districts, I'm told. Don't know how that works; I have never actually understood why they got their nose into it to begin with.

so what about the DOE offends you?

The federal government has no authority over education as it was left to the states

The DOE is just a way to hold state education systems hostage by offering federal money with strings attached.

Funny how our education system has actually worsened since the establishment of the DOE isn't it?

yah... ok.

again, i'll direct you to the general welfare clause and commerce clauses of the constitution. they allow for broad federal authority.

but I know... you only like the 2nd amendment....and not even what it really says. what you want it to say.

your assertion that education is worse is your opinion and not bourne out by fact.

the right doesn't like the DoE because it sets educational standards that don't allow you to teach kids creationism as science.

and this nonsense that there is no "authority" is simply a lie told by people who haven't a clue

Here is something else on the preamble to the Constitution
Preamble

The Preamble to the Constitution is an introductory, succinct statement of the principles at work in the full text. It is referred to in countless speeches, judicial opinions, and in a song from Schoolhouse Rock. Courts will not interpret the Preamble to confer any rights or powers not granted specifically in the Constitution.

Shouldn't a lawyer know this?

 

[RandallFlagg]

Just another reason the DOE should be abolished and the schools be given back to the states.

The Department of Energy (DOE) has nothing to do with school lunches. Neither does the Education Department (ED).

It is the US Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Um, I believe that he meant the Department of EDUCATION

 

[RandallFlagg]

You fat mouth- breathers cant take care of yourselves, much less your spawn so you forced the hand of Big Govt you fool

Someone has to fight all the wars Republicans start

Why obesity is a national security threat - CNN.com

Retired Generals Fear That Kids Are Too Fat for War

gawd but OP is an butt hurt rw hacktard

Check History, Most wars were started with a Dem in office. Not a republican.

Lets see, Bay of PIGS? oh that was Kennedy.

WW1 Woodrow Wilson - Democrat

WW2 Democrat

Sending advisors to Vietnam? Kennedy

Who sent the troops there? Johnston, also Democrat

Korean WAR? Harry Truman , also a Democrat.

(yawn)

Bombing the shit out of Serbia? Clinton

OK who got us involved in Grenada? Reagan , alright he was a Republican.

Bush 1 and Bush 2 - we know the story but dont pretend the military industrial complex has always
been controlled by Republicans. Many many more have died under the supervision of Democrats.

And for all the talk of the twin towers being a right wing government plot to benefiy Haliburton, There has also been good talk that Roosevelt knew Pearl Harbor was going to happen before it did but did nothing so we would have the motivation to get involved in the war against Axis powers.

Funny story about Reagan and Grenada. I was working at the embassy at Moscow and we had a young SP4 there on TDY for one reason or the other and he reported to me for his Security Clearance. I noticed he had a CIB on his uniform and I said to him "Specialist - you're too damned young to have served in Viet Nam. How the hell did you get a CIB?"

He says "Chief, I sat on the beach in Grenada and helped a couple of pretty young girls aboard a boat for evac. For that, they awarded me a CIB". After I finished laughing at him, I said "really"? And he says "yes sir".

God I miss Ronnie Reagan...

He missed himself that last decade or so too.

God you're pathetic.....

 

[RandallFlagg]

Like I said - he only enforces laws the HE chooses. School lunches? Really?

For the love of God - I don't know how in God's name we survived in the 50s.....what, with PB&J and chicken noodle soup. And those horrible "chili lunch" days...and then there were the days of pimento cheese sandwiches with kook-aid to drink....oh, the humanity!!! How the hell was I able to live into my 70s???

Your dear leader might want to concentrate on things that are a "tad" more important to the American people, don't you think?

Obesity and high blood pressure are kind of important, but I think the problem is that most schools don't cook their own food anymore. It's all frozen convenience foods because they're saving money on lunch ladies' salaries. It's sad. Our lunch ladies served food they cooked. Real potatoes and apples and all the mystery meat in gravy you could wish for. No matter how poor it is, it's better than prepackaged frozen food. It's all about costs, I'm afraid.

Curious, though. When did it become the federal government's job to (in essence) raise our kids? Again, with all the problems this country is facing, don't you think their time could be better spent?

Let's let Mom and Dad decide what is "best" for THEIR kids, shall we?

I'm fine with stopping the school lunch program or letting the PTA decide what's on their kids' menus. Some parents will feed their kid breakfast and pack them a good lunch every day, but it won't happen for all kids. A lot of kids will come to school hungry and stay hungry all day. You can say "Let parents decide" until you're blue in the face, but the reality is, a lot of kids won't eat. No matter how much you want that to be different.
My mother's first teaching job was in a one room school house during WWII. Even in that itty bitty community, she had to pack extra sandwiches and pretend she couldn't eat it all so the kids would feel okay with her sharing with them. Some of them had nothing. Or maybe half a raw potato.
We've got kids whose drug addict parents are still in bed when they leave for school. We've got kids who live in a house where the cupboard is bare half the time and there's nothing to send.
Breakfast and lunch provided by school is a really good idea, in my opinion. Now we just have to be willing to pay the $$$ for decent food for the kids to eat. Not stuff reheated from frozen and shipped across town from a central defrosting kitchen. Gross.

Look, no one is saying that there shouldn't be school lunches (and even breakfast). No one is saying that. However, take the DOE completely out of it. Back in the "dark ages" when I was in school, the lunch program was handled by the USDA (there was no BS department of education).

Most states had complete control over the lunch programs (and were reimbursed by the USDA). Now? The federal government (as in most cases) has insuinated themselves between the parent and the child.

Jesus - no one wants their child or children to go hungry. The problem arises when we allow the Feds to come into and impose their "will" upon the parent. Strict dietary control, strict compliance with a "First ladies BS" and it has been PROVEN that the vast majority of children throw away more than they eat. They DO NOT like the available selections. Waste in the school lunch program has gone UP - not down.

I agree with you. That USDA stuff was fine, as far as I am concerned, and I agree I'd almost like to see the DOE out of business, except that it does "level the playing field" for poor and rural, sparsely populated states and school districts, I'm told. Don't know how that works; I have never actually understood why they got their nose into it to begin with.

Actually, the only thing the DOE does is support teacher unions. I would LOVE to see everyone of them disbanded.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Look, no one is saying that there shouldn't be school lunches (and even breakfast). No one is saying that. However, take the DOE completely out of it. Back in the "dark ages" when I was in school, the lunch program was handled by the USDA (there was no BS department of education).

Most states had complete control over the lunch programs (and were reimbursed by the USDA). Now? The federal government (as in most cases) has insuinated themselves between the parent and the child.

Jesus - no one wants their child or children to go hungry. The problem arises when we allow the Feds to come into and impose their "will" upon the parent. Strict dietary control, strict compliance with a "First ladies BS" and it has been PROVEN that the vast majority of children throw away more than they eat. They DO NOT like the available selections. Waste in the school lunch program has gone UP - not down.

I agree with you. That USDA stuff was fine, as far as I am concerned, and I agree I'd almost like to see the DOE out of business, except that it does "level the playing field" for poor and rural, sparsely populated states and school districts, I'm told. Don't know how that works; I have never actually understood why they got their nose into it to begin with.

so what about the DOE offends you?

The federal government has no authority over education as it was left to the states

The DOE is just a way to hold state education systems hostage by offering federal money with strings attached.

Funny how our education system has actually worsened since the establishment of the DOE isn't it?

yah... ok.

again, i'll direct you to the general welfare clause and commerce clauses of the constitution. they allow for broad federal authority.

but I know... you only like the 2nd amendment....and not even what it really says. what you want it to say.

your assertion that education is worse is your opinion and not bourne out by fact.

the right doesn't like the DoE because it sets educational standards that don't allow you to teach kids creationism as science.

and this nonsense that there is no "authority" is simply a lie told by people who haven't a clue

All powers not specifically assigned to the federal government are left to the states

There is no specific assignation over education.

Besides the general welfare clause is in the preamble to the Constitution and the preamble does not grant or prohibit any powers of the government it is merely a description of the Constitution

Indeed. The powers assigned to the Federal Government were few. The idea was that the STATES would take care of themselves. The federal government was assigned to collect tariffs and provide for the "common defense" of our borders - and that is about it. Look at the bloated, filthy monster than we have today.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Obesity and high blood pressure are kind of important, but I think the problem is that most schools don't cook their own food anymore. It's all frozen convenience foods because they're saving money on lunch ladies' salaries. It's sad. Our lunch ladies served food they cooked. Real potatoes and apples and all the mystery meat in gravy you could wish for. No matter how poor it is, it's better than prepackaged frozen food. It's all about costs, I'm afraid.

Curious, though. When did it become the federal government's job to (in essence) raise our kids? Again, with all the problems this country is facing, don't you think their time could be better spent?

Let's let Mom and Dad decide what is "best" for THEIR kids, shall we?

I'm fine with stopping the school lunch program or letting the PTA decide what's on their kids' menus. Some parents will feed their kid breakfast and pack them a good lunch every day, but it won't happen for all kids. A lot of kids will come to school hungry and stay hungry all day. You can say "Let parents decide" until you're blue in the face, but the reality is, a lot of kids won't eat. No matter how much you want that to be different.
My mother's first teaching job was in a one room school house during WWII. Even in that itty bitty community, she had to pack extra sandwiches and pretend she couldn't eat it all so the kids would feel okay with her sharing with them. Some of them had nothing. Or maybe half a raw potato.
We've got kids whose drug addict parents are still in bed when they leave for school. We've got kids who live in a house where the cupboard is bare half the time and there's nothing to send.
Breakfast and lunch provided by school is a really good idea, in my opinion. Now we just have to be willing to pay the $$$ for decent food for the kids to eat. Not stuff reheated from frozen and shipped across town from a central defrosting kitchen. Gross.

Look, no one is saying that there shouldn't be school lunches (and even breakfast). No one is saying that. However, take the DOE completely out of it. Back in the "dark ages" when I was in school, the lunch program was handled by the USDA (there was no BS department of education).

Most states had complete control over the lunch programs (and were reimbursed by the USDA). Now? The federal government (as in most cases) has insuinated themselves between the parent and the child.

Jesus - no one wants their child or children to go hungry. The problem arises when we allow the Feds to come into and impose their "will" upon the parent. Strict dietary control, strict compliance with a "First ladies BS" and it has been PROVEN that the vast majority of children throw away more than they eat. They DO NOT like the available selections. Waste in the school lunch program has gone UP - not down.

I agree with you. That USDA stuff was fine, as far as I am concerned, and I agree I'd almost like to see the DOE out of business, except that it does "level the playing field" for poor and rural, sparsely populated states and school districts, I'm told. Don't know how that works; I have never actually understood why they got their nose into it to begin with.

so what about the DOE offends you?

I don't know about her, but the education of our children was to be left to the individual state - not some bloated, asshole filled union loving government program. Clear enough for you?

 

[OldLady]

Obesity and high blood pressure are kind of important, but I think the problem is that most schools don't cook their own food anymore. It's all frozen convenience foods because they're saving money on lunch ladies' salaries. It's sad. Our lunch ladies served food they cooked. Real potatoes and apples and all the mystery meat in gravy you could wish for. No matter how poor it is, it's better than prepackaged frozen food. It's all about costs, I'm afraid.

Curious, though. When did it become the federal government's job to (in essence) raise our kids? Again, with all the problems this country is facing, don't you think their time could be better spent?

Let's let Mom and Dad decide what is "best" for THEIR kids, shall we?

I'm fine with stopping the school lunch program or letting the PTA decide what's on their kids' menus. Some parents will feed their kid breakfast and pack them a good lunch every day, but it won't happen for all kids. A lot of kids will come to school hungry and stay hungry all day. You can say "Let parents decide" until you're blue in the face, but the reality is, a lot of kids won't eat. No matter how much you want that to be different.
My mother's first teaching job was in a one room school house during WWII. Even in that itty bitty community, she had to pack extra sandwiches and pretend she couldn't eat it all so the kids would feel okay with her sharing with them. Some of them had nothing. Or maybe half a raw potato.
We've got kids whose drug addict parents are still in bed when they leave for school. We've got kids who live in a house where the cupboard is bare half the time and there's nothing to send.
Breakfast and lunch provided by school is a really good idea, in my opinion. Now we just have to be willing to pay the $$$ for decent food for the kids to eat. Not stuff reheated from frozen and shipped across town from a central defrosting kitchen. Gross.

Look, no one is saying that there shouldn't be school lunches (and even breakfast). No one is saying that. However, take the DOE completely out of it. Back in the "dark ages" when I was in school, the lunch program was handled by the USDA (there was no BS department of education).

Most states had complete control over the lunch programs (and were reimbursed by the USDA). Now? The federal government (as in most cases) has insuinated themselves between the parent and the child.

Jesus - no one wants their child or children to go hungry. The problem arises when we allow the Feds to come into and impose their "will" upon the parent. Strict dietary control, strict compliance with a "First ladies BS" and it has been PROVEN that the vast majority of children throw away more than they eat. They DO NOT like the available selections. Waste in the school lunch program has gone UP - not down.

I agree with you. That USDA stuff was fine, as far as I am concerned, and I agree I'd almost like to see the DOE out of business, except that it does "level the playing field" for poor and rural, sparsely populated states and school districts, I'm told. Don't know how that works; I have never actually understood why they got their nose into it to begin with.

Actually, the only thing the DOE does is support teacher unions. I would LOVE to see everyone of them disbanded.

Shows what I know. Where DOES all this red tape and regulatory nonsense come from, then? They give the states money the states can't afford to refuse and it comes with all this garbage. That much I know to be true. So where does it come from?

 

[RandallFlagg]

Curious, though. When did it become the federal government's job to (in essence) raise our kids? Again, with all the problems this country is facing, don't you think their time could be better spent?

Let's let Mom and Dad decide what is "best" for THEIR kids, shall we?

I'm fine with stopping the school lunch program or letting the PTA decide what's on their kids' menus. Some parents will feed their kid breakfast and pack them a good lunch every day, but it won't happen for all kids. A lot of kids will come to school hungry and stay hungry all day. You can say "Let parents decide" until you're blue in the face, but the reality is, a lot of kids won't eat. No matter how much you want that to be different.
My mother's first teaching job was in a one room school house during WWII. Even in that itty bitty community, she had to pack extra sandwiches and pretend she couldn't eat it all so the kids would feel okay with her sharing with them. Some of them had nothing. Or maybe half a raw potato.
We've got kids whose drug addict parents are still in bed when they leave for school. We've got kids who live in a house where the cupboard is bare half the time and there's nothing to send.
Breakfast and lunch provided by school is a really good idea, in my opinion. Now we just have to be willing to pay the $$$ for decent food for the kids to eat. Not stuff reheated from frozen and shipped across town from a central defrosting kitchen. Gross.

Look, no one is saying that there shouldn't be school lunches (and even breakfast). No one is saying that. However, take the DOE completely out of it. Back in the "dark ages" when I was in school, the lunch program was handled by the USDA (there was no BS department of education).

Most states had complete control over the lunch programs (and were reimbursed by the USDA). Now? The federal government (as in most cases) has insuinated themselves between the parent and the child.

Jesus - no one wants their child or children to go hungry. The problem arises when we allow the Feds to come into and impose their "will" upon the parent. Strict dietary control, strict compliance with a "First ladies BS" and it has been PROVEN that the vast majority of children throw away more than they eat. They DO NOT like the available selections. Waste in the school lunch program has gone UP - not down.

I agree with you. That USDA stuff was fine, as far as I am concerned, and I agree I'd almost like to see the DOE out of business, except that it does "level the playing field" for poor and rural, sparsely populated states and school districts, I'm told. Don't know how that works; I have never actually understood why they got their nose into it to begin with.

Actually, the only thing the DOE does is support teacher unions. I would LOVE to see everyone of them disbanded.

Shows what I know. Where DOES all this red tape and regulatory nonsense come from, then? They give the states money the states can't afford to refuse and it comes with all this garbage. That much I know to be true. So where does it come from?

Lady - you're probably as old (sorry) as I am. Tell me - do YOU remember teacher unions in the 50s? I didn't think so. The department of education began the "idea" of teacher representation. They support it whole-heartedly. Now - when teachers don't like the curriculum that a particular state or local jurisdiction has - they simply threaten to "strike" or stage a "walkout" and it is changed. The days of parents and teachers deciding what will or will not be taught is long over. Welcome to the USSR in public schools. Remove the Department of Education and every Teacher Union - and you will return to public schools that are the envy of the world - not the laughing stock.

 

[ogibillm]

i'm still stuck on the number of 'conservatives' championing waste, fraud, and abuse because they don't like michelle obama.

 

[RandallFlagg]

i'm still stuck on the number of 'conservatives' championing waste, fraud, and abuse because they don't like michelle obama.

Quite the contrary - Conservatives (for the most part) believe that the federal government is a monster. a monster that is consuming everything in it's path in the name of "progression". Frankly, I would be glad if the federal government was 75% LESS than it is now - you know, like our Constitution mandated?

 

[ogibillm]

i'm still stuck on the number of 'conservatives' championing waste, fraud, and abuse because they don't like michelle obama.

Quite the contrary - Conservatives (for the most part) believe that the federal government is a monster. a monster that is consuming everything in it's path in the name of "progression". Frankly, I would be glad if the federal government was 75% LESS than it is now - you know, like our Constitution mandated?

are you against the fining of schools that do not adhere to the agreed to nutrition guidelines?

 

[Syriusly]

Why is this thread still even going?

The claims of the OP attacking Michelle Obama are just the whining of a Right Wing Nut job who is too ignorant of the facts to know that it isn't Michelle Obama- the program was passed by Congress.


Of course he also needed to take the time to tell us all that our first African American First Lady doesn't know her place........

Keep throwing that 'race' card out like a good little liberal..

Just pointing out that you were the one telling an African American woman that she doesn't know her place.

Oh and also that your idiotic rant was just the whining of a Right Wing Nut job who is too ignorant of the facts to know that it isn't Michelle Obama- the program was passed by Congress.