Seven Wyoming school districts drop Michelle O’s lunch rules

Well, you gave me proof that a few kids did not eat their lunch. I think that has happened since the beginning of, well, lunches.

But I noticed you did not answer my question. Kids seem to like candy and soda, Should we simply serve them candy and soda all the time?

 

1,000,000 is a few? If you say so.

Kids eat many things. Kids 'seemed' to like what they were getting until Michelle decided to take over. Go back to what they had before she decided to play mommy to all kids in America.

 

Your dearly departed mother, God rest her soul, was bound by her motherhood duty to provide for you. She saw fit to do it the way she thought best. I'm sure she wasn't given government instructions on how to do it. She kind of figured it out. The only brain trust involved was her own. Aside from your liberal leanings, you turned out okay.

 

Answer the questuion. As kids like candy and soda should we simply feed that to them all the time?

Is it really so difficult to admit that your position is not based in logic, but rather hatred and rejection of facts? Did you refuse to let your kids read because Laura Bush had her program? Did you give them cocaine because Nancy Reagan had hers? Of course not. Your objection to this seems wholly illogical.

 

I answered the question. Go back and read it.

My position is very logical. Kids were doing just fine until Mooshelle decided to feed then her way. Now the kids are throwing her crap away. That logically means they do not want it.

Laura Bush nor Nancy Reagan took anything away from kids by using the school system as reading or drug Nazis. A logical person would know that.
Nancy Reagan had cocaine?

 

True. Just like when they do unemployment...they don't like adding in the ones that dropped out.

 

I don't know. I personally don't care.

 

Michelle Obama's way or unlimited soda and candy for school kids...such an absurd dishonest straw man.
Surely fans of the Nanny State can do better than that.

 

I disagree.

I suppose they are not that hungry then.

Took something away? Is that what is going on here? She is taking away what? Diabetes? Heart disease? Early death? Morbid obesity?

 

Instead they get half your money and you get their dictates...

 

That's the kind of green autocratic progressives are really interested in. Never mind kale and cabbage for your children.

 

Brings us back to the only real issue..the hungry kiddies would sooner throw away the wonderful government food than eat the swill.

 

I disagree.

I think that the two other programs I mentioned, while perhaps flawed, were inherently good. I think we can all argue that reading is important, that kids not doing drugs is important, and kids eating healthy is important. MOD EDIT>>> BAITING<<<

 

It is really that simple. Don't like the healthier choices...bring your own.

 

Not that simple as the entire rationale for the school lunch program is to feed kids who are unable to afford that 'bring their own'...

 

Really? You do not recall bringing up Nancy Reagan and cocaine? Incredible!

Please. MOD EDIT>>>FLAME BAIT<<< brainchild was/is a matter of law............

Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act | Food and Nutrition Service
www.fns.usda.gov/.../healthy-hunger-free-kid...
Food and Nutrition Service
Mar 3, 2014 - Improving child nutrition is the focal point of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. The legislation authorizes funding and sets policy for ...

- - - Updated - - -

You tell me. Here's the law.........

Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act | Food and Nutrition Service
www.fns.usda.gov/.../healthy-hunger-free-kid...
Food and Nutrition Service
Mar 3, 2014 - Improving child nutrition is the focal point of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. The legislation authorizes funding and sets policy for ...

 

Exactly. The whole rationale for school lunches is to provide lunch for kids without their own, for whatever reason. Madam Michelle says let them eat arugula and kale, or go home hungry.

Not really much of a choice, is it.

 

Correct, they aren't telling them what they must eat, they're just taking away a choice of what to eat. Either eat the crap we are mandating, go hungry, or bring your own lunch. Never mind the fact parents are forced to pay for the crappy "mandated food" their kids won't eat and who'll now be purchasing more food to send with their kid so they don't go hungry. Geesh, all this MO food mandate stuff is soooooooo pathetically elitist. Pretty tasteless too.

 

At one time there were no laws passed telling kids what to eat at school and we had some of the most healthy kids in the world.

Progressive Nanny Staters don't want to admit it but video games and electronic devices are more responsible for fat kids than any other one thing, including what they eat for lunch.
But Big Government says obey and they say how much?

 

I do recall it. I am not sure why you thought I was attacking her. Let me explain this further.

Michelle Obama has her healthy kids campaign. Laura Bush had her reading campaign. Nancy Reagan had her anti drug campaign.

You with me so far?

Now, i think we can reasonably say that all three of things have their positive merits. So I think what you are doing her is objecting not to health food, but rather whose idea it was. That seems illogical to me.

 

If they cannot afford to bring their own, their parents are responsible for teaching their kids which foods are healthy or not. I'll bet that the kids complaining are the ones accustomed to eating junk food outside of school provided by parents.

 

Good luck getting people to do the right thing when they'd rather not.
We'd have 100% fewer problems if kids always did the right thing.

Michelle Obama is the 21st century equivalent of a bible thumping temperance crusader and she will fare no better than other Victorian era scolds did with getting people to stop drinking alcohol.

 

Excellent point. And I'm sure every parent who can't afford to purchase a lunch is simply an irresponsible tweed if they're not reading Health Food Mag every week, too.

What the hell is wrong with you people? Do you really think every one should be forced to comply with whatever agenda you deem is best for them? Why are you so afraid of freedom?

 

Obviously you understand nothing. Go back and read where I said it is not the govts job to tell people what they must eat.

 

You provided links where they were not eating it. How is that "must eat"?