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

[easyt65]

Yup, keep on bogusly throwing out that 'race' card S...your willingness to stoop to any low to avoid the real issues never gets old.

 

[ogibillm]

Yup, keep on bogusly throwing out that 'race' card S...your willingness to stoop to any low to avoid the real issues never gets old.

i'm curious, what do you think the 'real issue' is in this thread?

 

[OldLady]

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.

Randall, I'm more interested in an answer to my other question. Actually, as a teacher, I understand both sides of the union issue. School districts are famous for taking advantage of the fact that experienced teachers make more $ than newbies and will get away with overloading classes, firing teachers because they are about to cost the district too much--they do it to new teachers who haven't got tenure yet, anyway. As a teacher, I've bought my own supplies, taught without enough text books to go around, all kinds of happy horseshit. And I never even thought of grieving it to the union. Teaching has always been hard. You expect it. However, without a union, things would be worse, and it would affect student achievement eventually.
I've got to run, but I look forward to knowing where all this education red tape comes from, if you know.

 

[Muhammed]

Fucking psycho....

I agree...Michelle is a nut...

And judging by her fat ass, she doesn't know anything about nutrition. Or she's suicidal.

 

[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.

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.

Randall, I'm more interested in an answer to my other question. Actually, as a teacher, I understand both sides of the union issue. School districts are famous for taking advantage of the fact that experienced teachers make more $ than newbies and will get away with overloading classes, firing teachers because they are about to cost the district too much--they do it to new teachers who haven't got tenure yet, anyway. As a teacher, I've bought my own supplies, taught without enough text books to go around, all kinds of happy horseshit. And I never even thought of grieving it to the union. Teaching has always been hard. You expect it. However, without a union, things would be worse, and it would affect student achievement eventually.
I've got to run, but I look forward to knowing where all this education red tape comes from, if you know.

Well, hell, that's easy. Where does ALL "red-tape" come from? Any entity that says "government" on the side of the building. Oh, and (as a layman) I believe that tenure is the worst thing to EVER happen to school.

 

[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?

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

Nope. And let's put this into perspective, shall we? You claim that these guidelines are a "duly passed law" and should be followed with no question, right?

Ok. Illegal immigrants are constantly murdering America citizens in "sanctuary cities" where said cities refuse to follow federal laws.

Do you have a problem with murder? Or do you only have a problem with a lunch menu in a school?

What about states (Colorado) who have legalized marijuana laws, in direct opposition to federal narcotic laws?

See, following laws is a two-way street, I guess....

 

[Centinel]

so what about the DOE offends you?

That the federal government shouldn't involve itself in the internal affairs of the member states. It should concern itself with inter-state disputes, international affairs, and defending the states from invasion. Which is the supposed purpose for which it was established.

The states didn't establish their union because they needed it to educate their people.

 

[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?

Nope. And let's put this into perspective, shall we? You claim that these guidelines are a "duly passed law" and should be followed with no question, right?

Ok. Illegal immigrants are constantly murdering America citizens in "sanctuary cities" where said cities refuse to follow federal laws.

Do you have a problem with murder? Or do you only have a problem with a lunch menu in a school?

What about states (Colorado) who have legalized marijuana laws, in direct opposition to federal narcotic laws?

See, following laws is a two-way street, I guess....

non-sequitr

 

[jillian]

so what about the DOE offends you?

That the federal government shouldn't involve itself in the internal affairs of the member states. It should concern itself with inter-state disputes, international affairs, and defending the states from invasion. Which is the supposed purpose for which it was established.

The states didn't establish their union because they needed it to educate their people.

The federal has every right to set rules under its general welfare authority and the commerce clause.

Your view of what the government should do does not comport with what you want it to do. Otherwise the constitution would have been three paragraphs long.

Do you think the founders were kidding when they said the government had the right to regulate all matters relating to commerce between the states or should legislate for the genera welfare of the country?

 

[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?

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

Nope. And let's put this into perspective, shall we? You claim that these guidelines are a "duly passed law" and should be followed with no question, right?

Ok. Illegal immigrants are constantly murdering America citizens in "sanctuary cities" where said cities refuse to follow federal laws.

Do you have a problem with murder? Or do you only have a problem with a lunch menu in a school?

What about states (Colorado) who have legalized marijuana laws, in direct opposition to federal narcotic laws?

See, following laws is a two-way street, I guess....

non-sequitr

That's hypocritical bullshit and you know it. You are demanding lawful compliance to a law, while exempting those laws that you don't feel like obeying.

You're nothing more than another C. Clayton Jones.

 

[RandallFlagg]

so what about the DOE offends you?

That the federal government shouldn't involve itself in the internal affairs of the member states. It should concern itself with inter-state disputes, international affairs, and defending the states from invasion. Which is the supposed purpose for which it was established.

The states didn't establish their union because they needed it to educate their people.

The federal has every right to set rules under its general welfare authority and the commerce clause.

Your view of what the government should do does not comport with what you want it to do. Otherwise the constitution would have been three paragraphs long.

Do you think the founders were kidding when they said the government had the right to regulate all matters relating to commerce between the states or should legislate for the genera welfare of the country?

Absolute bullshit and you know that it is. Try harder next time.

 

[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?

Nope. And let's put this into perspective, shall we? You claim that these guidelines are a "duly passed law" and should be followed with no question, right?

Ok. Illegal immigrants are constantly murdering America citizens in "sanctuary cities" where said cities refuse to follow federal laws.

Do you have a problem with murder? Or do you only have a problem with a lunch menu in a school?

What about states (Colorado) who have legalized marijuana laws, in direct opposition to federal narcotic laws?

See, following laws is a two-way street, I guess....

non-sequitr

That's hypocritical bullshit and you know it. You are demanding lawful compliance to a law, while exempting those laws that you don't feel like obeying.

You're nothing more than another C. Clayton Jones.

if colorado, or those sanctuary cities, voluntarily agreed to a program enforcing marijuana laws and immigration laws, accepted money for the enforcement, and then didn't follow through on their commitment and i had a problem with that you'd have an apt analogy.

as it is you're just throwing up cover for those looking to abuse the system and waste money.

 

[RandallFlagg]

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?

Nope. And let's put this into perspective, shall we? You claim that these guidelines are a "duly passed law" and should be followed with no question, right?

Ok. Illegal immigrants are constantly murdering America citizens in "sanctuary cities" where said cities refuse to follow federal laws.

Do you have a problem with murder? Or do you only have a problem with a lunch menu in a school?

What about states (Colorado) who have legalized marijuana laws, in direct opposition to federal narcotic laws?

See, following laws is a two-way street, I guess....

non-sequitr

That's hypocritical bullshit and you know it. You are demanding lawful compliance to a law, while exempting those laws that you don't feel like obeying.

You're nothing more than another C. Clayton Jones.

if colorado, or those sanctuary cities, voluntarily agreed to a program enforcing marijuana laws and immigration laws, accepted money for the enforcement, and then didn't follow through on their commitment and i had a problem with that you'd have an apt analogy.

as it is you're just throwing up cover for those looking to abuse the system and waste money.

Again, bullshit. We either obey laws or we don't. You are upset because we don't want some "healthy" lunch menus pushed on us. And you are forgetting that liberals only obey the laws that they wish to.

Can't have it both ways, Einstein.

 

[Centinel]

Do you think the founders were kidding when they said the government had the right to regulate all matters relating to commerce between the states or should legislate for the genera welfare of the country?

I think you've been misled. They didn't say that congress had the right to regulate all matters relating to commerce between the states, nor that it should legislate for the general welfare of the country. If you contend that that is what the constitution says, please provide the relevant text.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Feds to Fine Schools for Not Following Michelle Obama’s Lunch Rules
Feds to Fine Schools for Not Following Michelle Obama’s Lunch Rules

The federal government is taking steps to fine schools that do not comply with first lady Michelle Obama’s school lunch rules.

Ok, enough is ENOUGH - time to put this bi@tch, her entire 'Royal Family', and EVERY 1st Lady or 1st Lady-to-be out their in their place:

Michelle, honey, YOU ARE NOT AN ELECTED OFFICIAL. No one voted for you, YOU are a 'PLUS 1' at this 'party'. Your role is mainly CEREMONIAL. You can plan parties and dignitary visits at the WH, but you don't have the authority to do SHITE, especially like mandating what lunches are served in schools across America...so do us a favor and




Michelle Obama needs to LEARN HER PLACE and butt the hell out of the public education system. If 'Mama' Michelle wants to join her daughter's PTA and get involved there, go for it. She does not work for the Federal Dept of Education, she is not an elected official, she Constitutionally has no REAL power, especially the power to have schools monetarily punished if they choose to ignore the 1st LADY'S OPINION-DRIVEN AGENDA.

This is sort of like Nancy Reagan coming up with the Anti-Drug policy of 'Just Say No' then having schools fined for not holding drug testing in school.

Right. Fine schools that libs claim are already under funded.

Good plan. Not.

Voluntary compliance.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Feds to Fine Schools for Not Following Michelle Obama’s Lunch Rules
Feds to Fine Schools for Not Following Michelle Obama’s Lunch Rules

The federal government is taking steps to fine schools that do not comply with first lady Michelle Obama’s school lunch rules.

Ok, enough is ENOUGH - time to put this bi@tch, her entire 'Royal Family', and EVERY 1st Lady or 1st Lady-to-be out their in their place:

Michelle, honey, YOU ARE NOT AN ELECTED OFFICIAL. No one voted for you, YOU are a 'PLUS 1' at this 'party'. Your role is mainly CEREMONIAL. You can plan parties and dignitary visits at the WH, but you don't have the authority to do SHITE, especially like mandating what lunches are served in schools across America...so do us a favor and




Michelle Obama needs to LEARN HER PLACE and butt the hell out of the public education system. If 'Mama' Michelle wants to join her daughter's PTA and get involved there, go for it. She does not work for the Federal Dept of Education, she is not an elected official, she Constitutionally has no REAL power, especially the power to have schools monetarily punished if they choose to ignore the 1st LADY'S OPINION-DRIVEN AGENDA.

This is sort of like Nancy Reagan coming up with the Anti-Drug policy of 'Just Say No' then having schools fined for not holding drug testing in school.

You have to love the communist-in-chief. They won't do a damned thing about sanctuary cities, or states allowing the sale of narcotics, but they are pissed about school lunches.

Sounds EXACTLY like Obama.

there is nothing communist here. before you open your yap, you should probably have at least a minimal knowledge of the subject matter.

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.

Processed foods.

Additives and preservatives.

There is nothing fresh about what is being served.

Feed them this and remove the concern for physical education.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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

Of course he meant that, but it just shows how little some people understand the topic.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Really? That's total bullshit! Many states do not even have teacher's unions as they are outlawed. Those that cannot strike might as well be, as they are all but neutered.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

i can't get over the idiocy of some of you people.

what problem do you have with the enforcement of a duly passed law?

That Sorry sack of shit Michelle Obama should have no say on lunches you fuck nut... Lol

did you say the same thing when barbara bush pushed literacy? was she a sorry sack of shit for that?

Hmmm...promoting education, vs controlling and restricting food to children.

YEAH! It's EXACTLY the same thing!!!!

yeah. promoting healthy eating. crazy. how dare she be so uppity

"promoting healthy eating."

How is "healthy eating" feeding children slop and lunches that aren't substantial and cannot contain the full nutrients that growing children need?

Keeps the little ones sedate. Lower their energy levels and you have them under control.

I wouldn't eat this food nor would I encourage my children or anyone else to eat it.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Oh come off it! Why are you spouting this bullshit? Teachers unions predate the Education Department by more than a century!

Please educate yourself on this topic! You are embarrassing yourself!