What would Liberals eat?

[Pogo]

Why does a school need to get food from the federal government in the first place?

That really is the issue. Why does the Federal government hoover up taxpayer dollars and then dole them out with strings attached?

Because that is the way to put areas that used to be governed by state and local governments under the Federal thumb. It's basically a maneuver to make the 10th Amendment meaningless.

Who doles out money without strings attached? Don't think I've ever seen that.

 

[haissem123]

Oh, that Salisbury Steak was nasty. But, I think you jpg is more circa 1965

I went to Public school in the Bronx and I'd rather eat plywood like a liberal than eat that Salisbury steak.

that's funny. you sell dope and move out of the bronx yet? or have a mattress business selling mexicans untaxed peanut wages lives so you could move on up over their wretched lives?

You should go to the nearest emergency room. You're concussed and not making a lick of sense. Pat your head and rub the stomach of the nearest person

just wondering what part of Bronx you saw? i saw that side. you see the bright side of it? where?

 

[Samson]

Then let local school districts decide what kind of lunches that kids don't like to make...one's where they aren't losing a ton of money.

How would a school district decide "what kind of lunches that kids don't like to make?"

Maybe they should ask you and your pals?

 

[bendog]

he's not a troll. And he's 100 percent correct.

Progressive pukes terrified everybody in to increasing funding for school lunch/breakfast programs based on "Children are hungry in the US! Sometimes the only food they get all day is at school!"

Then they promptly sliced the calories they provide as these meals meant to keep kids going all day.

We gave them more money, to feed kids less food, in order to combat hunger they say is rampant, as evidenced by the obesity of school children.

Progressive nutbag logic.

I disagree. A person relying on the government to feed their kid best be prepared for that government to tell them what they can and can not eat.

The only AMAZING thing is that they don't translate this to SNAP. Why aren't they telling SNAP users what they may or may not buy with their SNAP?

Does SNAP work like what they used to call food stamps? If it does, they to, to an extent. Probably not enough though, so good point.

Yeah, SNAPs sort of like food stamps. And, if we wanted to actually discuss the failures of govt, we'd be discussing the failure of federal nutrition assistance to getting people fresh fruit and veggies, as well as the reduction in urban communal gardens. But that doesn't fit the OP rant.

 

[boedicca]

Why does a school need to get food from the federal government in the first place?

That really is the issue. Why does the Federal government hoover up taxpayer dollars and then dole them out with strings attached?

Because that is the way to put areas that used to be governed by state and local governments under the Federal thumb. It's basically a maneuver to make the 10th Amendment meaningless.

Who doles out money without strings attached? Don't think I've ever seen that.

Has it ever occurred to you how corrupt it is to give people back their own money in social engineering experiments?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Then let local school districts decide what kind of lunches that kids don't like to make...one's where they aren't losing a ton of money.

Remember though, this is welfare we are talking about. Free lunch for illegal aliens out in my area. Parents who buy their own food for kids can feed them whatever they want.

This is heresy and I'll get it from all sides, but here is a novel idea, end the free lunch program.....

 

[G.T.]

Why does a school need to get food from the federal government in the first place?

That really is the issue. Why does the Federal government hoover up taxpayer dollars and then dole them out with strings attached?

Because that is the way to put areas that used to be governed by state and local governments under the Federal thumb. It's basically a maneuver to make the 10th Amendment meaningless.

Who doles out money without strings attached? Don't think I've ever seen that.

Has it ever occurred to you how corrupt it is to give people back their own money in social engineering experiments.

give them back their own money?

huh?

the families getting free and reduced lunches are taxpayers ya think? that's an odd thought.

 

[Samson]

Oh, that Salisbury Steak was nasty. But, I think you jpg is more circa 1965

NASTY!!!???

Salisbury Steak was a school cafeteria staple before Michelle O "ruined" school cafeteria menus!!!

 

[bendog]

Oh, that Salisbury Steak was nasty. But, I think you jpg is more circa 1965

NASTY!!!???

Salisbury Steak was a school cafeteria staple before Michelle O "ruined" school cafeteria menus!!!

Salisbury steak was around in the BushI and II years? Honestly it wasn't that bad. And, frankly what's wrong with that lunch. Sure corn is more a starch with a high sugar component, but canned peaches won't kill you. The meat was mystery meat, but a school lunch filled you up till you got home. You can't learn very well if you're hungry.

I just don't see the uproar.

Now poor people not knowing how to garden anymore ..... that's an outrage.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Oh, that Salisbury Steak was nasty. But, I think you jpg is more circa 1965

NASTY!!!???

Salisbury Steak was a school cafeteria staple before Michelle O "ruined" school cafeteria menus!!!

I defy anyone to show me that the new lunches are worse than that

 

[Samson]

Oh, that Salisbury Steak was nasty. But, I think you jpg is more circa 1965

NASTY!!!???

Salisbury Steak was a school cafeteria staple before Michelle O "ruined" school cafeteria menus!!!

Salisbury steak was around in the BushI and II years? Honestly it wasn't that bad. And, frankly what's wrong with that lunch. Sure corn is more a starch with a high sugar component, but canned peaches won't kill you. The meat was mystery meat, but a school lunch filled you up till you got home. You can't learn very well if you're hungry.

I just don't see the uproar.

Now poor people not knowing how to garden anymore ..... that's an outrage.

Make up your mind: First it was "Nasty," now, "it wasn't that bad."

With this type of waffling how will school districts decide "what kind of lunches that kids don't like to make?"

 

[koshergrl]

he's not a troll. And he's 100 percent correct.

Progressive pukes terrified everybody in to increasing funding for school lunch/breakfast programs based on "Children are hungry in the US! Sometimes the only food they get all day is at school!"

Then they promptly sliced the calories they provide as these meals meant to keep kids going all day.

We gave them more money, to feed kids less food, in order to combat hunger they say is rampant, as evidenced by the obesity of school children.

Progressive nutbag logic.

I disagree. A person relying on the government to feed their kid best be prepared for that government to tell them what they can and can not eat.

The only AMAZING thing is that they don't translate this to SNAP. Why aren't they telling SNAP users what they may or may not buy with their SNAP?

Does SNAP work like what they used to call food stamps? If it does, they do, to an extent. Probably not enough though, so good point.

SNAP is foodstamps. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance program.

But I'm not talking about snap. I'm talking about the ridiculous extortion that is being exerted in the name of "hungry children" via the school programs. That is NOT snap.

 

[koshergrl]

Again.

The progressives tell us that children are starving, and that we must provide MORE money to school lunch programs.

Then they reduce the calories offered via school lunch programs.

How does this address hunger again?

 

[Samson]

Oh, that Salisbury Steak was nasty. But, I think you jpg is more circa 1965

NASTY!!!???

Salisbury Steak was a school cafeteria staple before Michelle O "ruined" school cafeteria menus!!!

I defy anyone to show me that the new lunches are worse than that

I've heard a lot of talk about how bad they are, so you'll be flooded with responses........

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

he's not a troll. And he's 100 percent correct.

Progressive pukes terrified everybody in to increasing funding for school lunch/breakfast programs based on "Children are hungry in the US! Sometimes the only food they get all day is at school!"

Then they promptly sliced the calories they provide as these meals meant to keep kids going all day.

We gave them more money, to feed kids less food, in order to combat hunger they say is rampant, as evidenced by the obesity of school children.

Progressive nutbag logic.

I disagree. A person relying on the government to feed their kid best be prepared for that government to tell them what they can and can not eat.

The only AMAZING thing is that they don't translate this to SNAP. Why aren't they telling SNAP users what they may or may not buy with their SNAP?

Does SNAP work like what they used to call food stamps? If it does, they do, to an extent. Probably not enough though, so good point.

SNAP is foodstamps. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance program.

But I'm not talking about snap. I'm talking about the ridiculous extortion that is being exerted in the name of "hungry children" via the school programs. That is NOT snap.

It's the SAME principle. Government subsidized food. If you accept it, why shouldn't they be able to dictate what you eat?

 

[koshergrl]

The point is, it was high in calories, and the kids would eat it. Our school was authorized to feed us road kill..I remember fish & game bringing in venison for our cafeteria, it was great. We were allowed 2nds and 3rds. We ate hearty stews and spaghetti a lot..with a side of salad, homemade rolls and cookies.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Again.

The progressives tell us that children are starving, and that we must provide MORE money to school lunch programs.

Then they reduce the calories offered via school lunch programs.

How does this address hunger again?

Then argue that we should get rid of school provided lunches altogether.

You lazy fucking parents make your child a home packed lunch. Poor people, that's what SNAP is for.

Problem SOLVED

 

[boedicca]

Then let local school districts decide what kind of lunches that kids don't like to make...one's where they aren't losing a ton of money.

Remember though, this is welfare we are talking about. Free lunch for illegal aliens out in my area. Parents who buy their own food for kids can feed them whatever they want.

This is heresy and I'll get it from all sides, but here is a novel idea, end the free lunch program.....

It's not heresy...it's common sense.

If you subsidize something, you get more of it.

 

[koshergrl]

he's not a troll. And he's 100 percent correct.

Progressive pukes terrified everybody in to increasing funding for school lunch/breakfast programs based on "Children are hungry in the US! Sometimes the only food they get all day is at school!"

Then they promptly sliced the calories they provide as these meals meant to keep kids going all day.

We gave them more money, to feed kids less food, in order to combat hunger they say is rampant, as evidenced by the obesity of school children.

Progressive nutbag logic.

I disagree. A person relying on the government to feed their kid best be prepared for that government to tell them what they can and can not eat.

The only AMAZING thing is that they don't translate this to SNAP. Why aren't they telling SNAP users what they may or may not buy with their SNAP?

Does SNAP work like what they used to call food stamps? If it does, they do, to an extent. Probably not enough though, so good point.

SNAP is foodstamps. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance program.

But I'm not talking about snap. I'm talking about the ridiculous extortion that is being exerted in the name of "hungry children" via the school programs. That is NOT snap.

It's the SAME principle. Government subsidized food. If you accept it, why shouldn't they be able to dictate what you eat?

Pay attention.

They claimed that they needed more food to address the increased number of HUNGRY children who were not getting enough caloric intake.

Then they used the money provided to provide FEWER calories to the children that they previously claimed needed increased calories, as a justification for sucking more money out of us.

Explain.

 

[Samson]

Again.

The progressives tell us that children are starving, and that we must provide MORE money to school lunch programs.

Then they reduce the calories offered via school lunch programs.

How does this address hunger again?

Nutritional value is not all calories.