Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

So what you all think about pizza being a vegetable?Follow

#52 Nov 18 2011 at 7:22 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,458 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm fairly sure (positive in fact) that pizza fits well within the minimum nutritional requirements outlined by that Act Joph. Good try though!
I'm fairly sure (positive in fact) that that act means they can actually change what is and what isn't acceptable. Good miss though!
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#53 Nov 18 2011 at 7:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
So we agree then that the mandate isn't just "Shove food in kids" but rather "to safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation's children and to encourage the consumption of nutritious agricultural commodities and other food". Excellent!

So movement towards more nutritious food is, in fact, directly within the stated mandate of the original act. Fantastic!

Quote:
Good try though!

I know, right? First I was like "I think I'll try to school Gbaji" and then it was all "Whoah! Gbaji just got schooled!" An excellent effort on my part indeed! Smiley: schooled
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#54 Nov 18 2011 at 7:47 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Jophiel wrote:
So we agree then that the mandate isn't just "Shove food in kids" but rather "to safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation's children and to encourage the consumption of nutritious agricultural commodities and other food". Excellent!


Health and well being meant "not going hungry" Joph. And nutritious, meant "provide sufficient grain, protein, milk, and vegetables to ensure they are getting the minimum amounts of those things so that they aren't starving". The movement to make those meals more "healthy" is completely different. The last thing the folks who wrote that Act were worried about was kids being too fat from eating the school lunches.

Quote:
So movement towards more nutritious food is, in fact, directly within the stated mandate of the original act. Fantastic!


Nutritious is not the same as the "healthier" standard they're trying to move to today.


This is about the old adage that when all you have is a hammer, all problems look like nails. We have a problem with obesity among our youth, and the only solution the left can think of is to use government programs to manipulate what children eat. And if they have to use the school lunch program as their hammer, that's what they'll use.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#55 Nov 18 2011 at 7:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm fairly sure (positive in fact) that pizza fits well within the minimum nutritional requirements outlined by that Act Joph. Good try though!
I'm fairly sure (positive in fact) that that act means they can actually change what is and what isn't acceptable. Good miss though!


To anything? And you wonder why us conservative oppose big government programs, even when they appear on the surface to address a real need. Because inevitably someone will come along later and redefine the requirements in order to use those programs for some new thing. Changing the school lunch nutrition requirements from "sufficient to prevent kids from going hungry" to "nothing but super healthy food so we can claim we're doing something about child obesity" is a perfect example of this.


It's meaningless anyway. As I pointed out earlier, does anyone actually believe that the contents of the lunches at public schools have *anything* to do with child obesity?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#56 Nov 18 2011 at 7:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,282 posts
gbaji wrote:
Olorinus wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said they are necessary to reduce childhood obesity and future health care costs.


Good thing socialized medicine has no effect on liberty.


So forcing kids to eat crappy pizza and never giving them veggies is the same as giving them liberty?


No. But the government taking food choices away is a reduction of liberty,


This is you saying that kids are being violated by not being able to choose pizza over broccoli.

Only gbaji would argue against people eating better instead of just eating to stay alive. GG.

At least I guess that's what he's arguing. As usual, he's run so many circles, I'm not sure what his argument is anymore. I'm guessing it's because he might have to contribute another penny or two in taxes.

Edited, Nov 18th 2011 8:59pm by Nadenu
#57 Nov 18 2011 at 8:06 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,458 posts
gbaji wrote:
And you wonder why us conservative oppose big government programs,
The funniest part of your argument is that it's been a program since the 40s, and this change isn't eliminating it or giving it more funds or anything. Government was already telling children what they can, and cannot eat. And do for the most part. So the "Big Bad Government" argument is worthless. Then there's your children's liberty argument, which is also worthless since children don't have liberties. Then you try to weasel in childhood obesity, when the only other person that argued it was Elinda but you seem so sure everyone else is making as well. The final straw is the "Well, what they REALLY meant in the 1940s when they talked about nutritional food for children was just enough so they don't pass out from starving."

So really, everything you've posted here is worthless. Or, as you're so apt to call it: Irrelevant.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#58 Nov 18 2011 at 8:20 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Nadenu wrote:
This is you saying that kids are being violated by not being able to choose pizza over broccoli.


Yup.

Quote:
Only gbaji would argue against people eating better instead of just eating to stay alive. GG.


I'm not arguing against people eating better versus eating to stay alive. I'm arguing that the government shouldn't be the one to decide what "better" is and force people to eat "better". I believe in individual freedom and individual responsibility. When the government controls your choices, even when it's forcing good choices, you lose both.

It still never ceases to amaze me how many people just utterly and completely do not understand the basic principles of liberty.

Quote:
At least I guess that's what he's arguing. As usual, he's run so many circles, I'm not sure what his argument is anymore. I'm guessing it's because he might have to contribute another penny or two in taxes.


The only circles I've had to run is with people who keep shifting their arguments around because they don't understand why I'm taking this position. They leap about projecting their own guesses about my motivations onto me while failing to actually read what I'm writing. If all you're getting from this is "gbaji doesn't want kids to eat healthy foods", you have failed to read my posts. Try again.


It's about the government (especially the federal government) not being empowered to tell people what to eat. It's about freedom of choice. What I'd like kids to eat isn't the point. What you want them to eat isn't the point. And what some bean counters in Washington want kids to eat isn't the point. It's about the belief that the kids and parents should make that choice. Not me, not you, and certainly not the folks in Washington.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#59 Nov 18 2011 at 8:26 PM Rating: Good
If the government were forcing kids to eat school lunches, you may have a point Gbaji. They still have the liberty to bring a lunch. God you're head is so far up the GOP **** it's funny.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#60 Nov 18 2011 at 8:36 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And you wonder why us conservative oppose big government programs,
The funniest part of your argument is that it's been a program since the 40s, and this change isn't eliminating it or giving it more funds or anything.


The proposed USDA criteria would have changed what foods would qualify under the existing program. Specifically, those changes specify that the tomato paste used on pizza can't be counted towards the vegetable requirements. Did you not bother to read the article in the OP?

Quote:
Government was already telling children what they can, and cannot eat.


The program set minimum requirements and very very broad standards in terms of which foods could be served and would qualify for the funding. Again, did you read the article:

Quote:
School districts have said some of the USDA proposals go too far and cost too much when budgets are extremely tight. Schools have long taken broad instructions from the government on what they can serve in the federally subsidized meals that are given free or at reduced price to low-income children. But some schools have balked at government attempts to tell them exactly what foods they can't serve.



This was a change pushed into the program by Obama, almost certainly as part of his wifes whole "get kids eating healthy" thing. To argue that this isn't anything new is dishonest.


Quote:
So the "Big Bad Government" argument is worthless.


No, it's not. This is government changing the criteria for a long existing program in order to manipulate what kids eat at school. It is exactly "Big Bad Government". Doubly so when you realize how little school lunches affect the problem they're trying to solve.

Quote:
Then there's your children's liberty argument, which is also worthless since children don't have liberties.


Are you kidding me? The parents then. Or the schools. Or the local community. WTF?

Quote:
Then you try to weasel in childhood obesity, when the only other person that argued it was Elinda but you seem so sure everyone else is making as well.


You didn't read the article, did you? Hell, this is the section I quoted which started this particular argument:

Quote:
The school lunch proposal is based on 2009 recommendations by the Institute of Medicine, the health arm of the National Academy of Sciences. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said they are necessary to reduce childhood obesity and future health care costs.


Dude. Do you even try to inform yourself before posting? Um... And the "future health care costs" are those associated with too many fat kids driving up health care costs when they become adult diabetics (among other things). Just in case you're still confused as to how this all relates to child obesity.

Quote:
The final straw is the "Well, what they REALLY meant in the 1940s when they talked about nutritional food for children was just enough so they don't pass out from starving."


They certainly were not designed to prevent kids from becoming too fat. Seriously? This is the "final straw" for you? The meals have to meet minimum requirements, but those requirements were based on making sure they got enough of the various types of food groups to be healthy. Not that they avoided eating too much of anything. And certainly not "we want kids to eat fresh vegetables instead of pizza, so lets say that tomtato paste doesn't count!". Or "we think that potatoes are too fattening, so lets disqualify them as well".


Those recommendations were not made based out of a concern that kids weren't getting sufficient amounts of the needed food types, which is what the program is designed to do. This is about taking an existing program and twisting it around to do something different.

Edited, Nov 18th 2011 6:40pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#61 Nov 18 2011 at 8:38 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,891 posts
Well-made pizza with the proper toppings can provide quite a bit of nutritional value. New York pizza (not New York style, but made with water fresh from the Catskills) is good enough to meet just about any requirements.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#62 Nov 18 2011 at 8:44 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Technogeek wrote:
If the government were forcing kids to eat school lunches, you may have a point Gbaji. They still have the liberty to bring a lunch.


Well, by that argument, why not allow the government to control what restaurants can serve as well? After all, you still have the liberty to cook your own food at home, right? And what about the school? The point is that there's a whole hierarchy of participants here which we can rank in terms of order of how much control they should have over what a child eats while at school. The child and parents of the child are first. Then the school itself. Then the school district. Then the city/municipality that district is in. Then the state. Then, finally, at the very very tail end of the line is the federal government.


But, as usual, the liberals have it backwards.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#63 Nov 18 2011 at 8:55 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Debalic wrote:
Well-made pizza with the proper toppings can provide quite a bit of nutritional value. New York pizza (not New York style, but made with water fresh from the Catskills) is good enough to meet just about any requirements.


The bizarre thing (on top of several) is that in terms of providing quantities of certain types of food groups, pizza is quite efficient. Bread, tomato paste, dairy (cheese), and meat/protein in package that kids will actually eat. The problem is that you have a bunch of bookworms concluding that if they make the tomato paste on pizza not count as a vegetable that kids will eat a bunch of carrot sticks instead or something and avoid the too much bread/cheese issue that pizza has.


Anyone with kids think that this will actually work? The irony is that by declaring potatoes and pizza to not meet the requirements they used to, lots of kids will likely get even less vegetables than they do now. At least the paste on the pizza is "something". But idealism is getting ahead of realism here. So this likely fails even at what they're claiming to try to do.


And that's before looking (again) at the fact that no one expect this to actually do anything about child obesity. It's a PR move. They want to appear to be doing something. I just think that creating broad mandates in the name of doing something you know wont work, but will maybe make some people think you tried is just a really really bad way to set policy.

Edited, Nov 18th 2011 6:56pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#64 Nov 18 2011 at 8:57 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,458 posts
gbaji wrote:
Well, by that argument, why not allow the government to control what restaurants can serve as well?
You mean besides it not having anything to do with this discussion; That the 70 year old act is for schools only; That the government doesn't fund restaurants; The government already controls what restaurants can and cannot serve to a degree (have to get a separate license for alcohol, after all!); That said restaurants aren't there to take care of children for a majority of the day, and therefor liable for their well being? Besides all that?

The misguided thought that children have liberties is a pretty liberal mindset there, hippy.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#65 Nov 18 2011 at 9:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,282 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm arguing that the government shouldn't be the one to decide what "better" is and force people to eat "better". I believe in individual freedom and individual responsibility. When the government controls your choices, even when it's forcing good choices, you lose both.


The government will never be able to force a kid to eat or not eat. That's always up to the parents. We can pack a lunch for our kids if we don't like what the cafeteria is serving our kids.

Also, once again, KIDS DON'T GET CHOICES. The parents make all the decisions for the kids. Stop acting like you're so concerned that Johnny might have to eat carrots instead of french fries. It's not his call. It's his mother's call.

If the government was trying to control what someone over the age of 18 was eating, you'd have an argument.
#66 Nov 18 2011 at 9:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,282 posts
Debalic wrote:
Well-made pizza with the proper toppings can provide quite a bit of nutritional value. New York pizza (not New York style, but made with water fresh from the Catskills) is good enough to meet just about any requirements.

Yeah, I said something like this before.

To be honest, AS A **** PARENT, I'm ok with what the government, be it state or federal, wants to serve my son. If they want to make everything healthier, more power to them. I honestly can't see why gbaji is arguing against this, except for the fact that a Conservative didn't come up with the idea first.
#67 Nov 18 2011 at 9:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,282 posts
lolgaxe wrote:

The misguided thought that children have liberties is a pretty liberal mindset there, hippy.

He doesn't really believe that. He's just upset that this change (which was shot down) comes from liberals.
#68 Nov 18 2011 at 9:42 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
Technogeek wrote:
If the government were forcing kids to eat school lunches, you may have a point Gbaji. They still have the liberty to bring a lunch.


Well, by that argument, why not allow the government to control what restaurants can serve as well? After all, you still have the liberty to cook your own food at home, right? And what about the school? The point is that there's a whole hierarchy of participants here which we can rank in terms of order of how much control they should have over what a child eats while at school. The child and parents of the child are first. Then the school itself. Then the school district. Then the city/municipality that district is in. Then the state. Then, finally, at the very very tail end of the line is the federal government.


But, as usual, the liberals have it backwards.


Because the government isn't paying for the restaurant's food? God you make the worst comparisons.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#69 Nov 18 2011 at 9:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,282 posts
gbaji wrote:
The child and parents of the child are first.

No, not the child. The parents have a say.
#70 Nov 18 2011 at 10:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Hey Gbaji, where were you out crying "LIBERTY" when the PATRIOT act went in? Oh, must be making school lunches more healthy must be much more important to liberty than unwarranted wire taps, and things like that.

____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#71 Nov 19 2011 at 3:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
So we agree then that the mandate isn't just "Shove food in kids" but rather "to safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation's children and to encourage the consumption of nutritious agricultural commodities and other food". Excellent!
Health and well being meant "not going hungry" Joph. And nutritious, meant "provide sufficient grain, protein, milk, and vegetables to ensure they are getting the minimum amounts of those things so that they aren't starving".

I'm not even going to bother laughing at how desperately you're stretching here.
Quote:
This is about the old adage that when all you have is a hammer, all problems look like nails.

Right. When the only tool you've been taught is to cry about "liberty", you have to twist and stretch each issue to become an attack on "liberty" no matter how asinine the argument.
gbaji wrote:
Technogeek wrote:
If the government were forcing kids to eat school lunches, you may have a point Gbaji. They still have the liberty to bring a lunch.
Well, by that argument, why not allow the government to control what restaurants can serve as well? After all, you still have the liberty to cook your own food at home, right?

As noted, the government isn't subsidizing the restaurant. I wonder if there's any food programs out there that the government DOES subsidize and DOES place restrictions on which were already mentioned in this thread but you scurried away from talking about rather than expose your hypocrisy further...?

Also, participation in the National School Lunch Program is not mandatory. It's a grant. Schools participate in it because it assists low income students and because the school gets surplus food from government agricultural subsidy stocks which are used to feed all the students getting a school lunch. But if the state or school district is that worked up about the loss of their precious "liberty" when the scary government monster says that two tablespoons of corn syrup & salt laden tomato paste isn't a vegetable, they're certainly free to start their own locally funded programs. Perhaps Gbaji should cry less about the federal program and instead petition his local district, pledging to pay for their lunch programs and promising them that they can stuff the kids full of Crisco and Cracker Jack if they so desire. All in the name of liberty!

Edited, Nov 19th 2011 5:49am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#72 Nov 19 2011 at 4:08 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,340 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Did anyone else watch the show where the British chef came to the "unhealthiest town in America" and served real food at the high school? It was a good show.
This guy?


____________________________
Someone on another forum wrote:
Wow, you've got an awesome writing style.! I really dig the narrator's back story, humor, sarcasm, and the plethora of pop culture references. Altogether a refreshingly different RotR journal (not that I don't like the more traditional ones, mind you).

#73 Nov 19 2011 at 6:39 AM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said they are necessary to reduce childhood obesity and future health care costs.


Good thing socialized medicine has no effect on liberty.

People are still free to give their kids a bagged lunch.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#74 Nov 19 2011 at 7:18 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,268 posts
So what?

When I was in elementary school(1991-2001), there was no cafeteria, parents were to send their students with a lunch, that was eaten in the classroom during the lunch break(30 mins inside, 30 minutes outside). If students lived within 10 minutes walking distance, the often went home to eat, and there was a daily program where kids from families who couldn't afford to send them with any lunch whatsoever, could have lunch.

In grade 7, if the child's parents signed a permission slip at the beginning of the year, kids could go off school grounds at lunch to nearby restaurants or stores. Every Thursday, if a child brought $5 and a signed permission slip, they would get 2 slices of pizza at lunch Friday from whichever pizza place was participating in that program that year, when I was in grade 8, the added choices of KFC(2 piece chicken+very small fries or popcorn chicken) and Taco Bell(never picked this one, no one ever did, don't know what the choices were) were offered because Pizza hut was doing it that year). On wednesdays, hot dogs were sold for a dollar, with a maximum amount of 2(I think) per student.

When I was in High School, there was a cafeteria, and everything in it cost money.

So now I ask, why are there cafeterias serving free food in schools? Especially elementary schools? If people are mad that their kids are being fed pizza and french fries, then why not push for a less completely **** stupid, system?
____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#75 Nov 19 2011 at 7:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Driftwood wrote:
If people are mad that their kids are being fed pizza and french fries, then why not push for a less completely @#%^ing stupid, system?

Like, maybe they should pass standards saying not to serve those things unless they meet certain minimum nutritional guidelines?

Fascinating idea. Someone call Washington!

The National School Lunch Program has been around since the 1940's. It reimburses school districts for giving free or reduced cost lunches to low income students. It also distributes surplus food from federal agricultural programs to schools at no cost to them for the benefit of all students eating a school lunch (better than having the rats eat it, I guess). Any public or nonprofit private school can apply but they're not required to. It sounds as though your school might have been participating when you said:
Quote:
there was a daily program where kids from families who couldn't afford to send them with any lunch whatsoever, could have lunch.


Quote:
So now I ask, why are there cafeterias serving free food in schools? Especially elementary schools?

You just answered that question yourself. They're not giving everyone free food, just select students who apply. However, participating schools usually tailor their menu around the NSLP guidelines for sake of simplicity. They're not forced to stay completely within those lines though; many schools offer a la carte items which aren't available to NSLP recipients (chips, candy bars, sodas, shakes, ice cream, etc). And, as you note, schools are welcome to allow students to buy pizza or fried chicken or whatever else provided the money isn't coming from NSLP grants.

Bemoan this loss of liberty! Smiley: cry

Edited, Nov 19th 2011 7:59am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#76 Nov 19 2011 at 7:55 AM Rating: Default
****
9,268 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Driftwood wrote:
If people are mad that their kids are being fed pizza and french fries, then why not push for a less completely @#%^ing stupid, system?

Like, maybe they should pass standards saying not to serve those things unless they meet certain minimum nutritional guidelines?



No. I think the system I grew up with is much better.
____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#77 Nov 19 2011 at 7:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
27,340 posts
Driftwood wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Driftwood wrote:
If people are mad that their kids are being fed pizza and french fries, then why not push for a less completely @#%^ing stupid, system?

Like, maybe they should pass standards saying not to serve those things unless they meet certain minimum nutritional guidelines?



No. I think the system I grew up with is much better.
The one with the kids eating the fast food?
____________________________
Someone on another forum wrote:
Wow, you've got an awesome writing style.! I really dig the narrator's back story, humor, sarcasm, and the plethora of pop culture references. Altogether a refreshingly different RotR journal (not that I don't like the more traditional ones, mind you).

#78 Nov 19 2011 at 7:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
As I noted in edit, the "system you grew up with" is the same system that's been in place since the 1940s.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#79 Nov 19 2011 at 8:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,282 posts
Driftwood wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Driftwood wrote:
If people are mad that their kids are being fed pizza and french fries, then why not push for a less completely @#%^ing stupid, system?

Like, maybe they should pass standards saying not to serve those things unless they meet certain minimum nutritional guidelines?



No. I think the system I grew up with is much better.

You said low-income kids had their meals paid for. How is that different from now?
#80 Nov 19 2011 at 8:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I think Driftwood was under the impression that the NSLP gave everyone a free lunch.

Which is impossible. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#81 Nov 19 2011 at 8:20 AM Rating: Default
****
9,268 posts
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
Driftwood wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Driftwood wrote:
If people are mad that their kids are being fed pizza and french fries, then why not push for a less completely @#%^ing stupid, system?

Like, maybe they should pass standards saying not to serve those things unless they meet certain minimum nutritional guidelines?



No. I think the system I grew up with is much better.
The one with the kids eating the fast food?



The main points of my post were as follows:

1. Parents were in charge of what their kids ate for lunch at school until the kids were older. If a parent did not want their kid to eat the fast food, then the kid wouldn't be allowed to have any(barring friends giving them some) because they didn't have the signed slip with the money. Note also, that this was 1 day per week, if the parents never fed their kids fast food, then that was one meal out of an optimal 21 meals/week. Basically, as much of the control of the child's diet rests with the parent as possible.

2. At older age there was no fast food in the school, if kids wanted to eat McDonalds or something like that, they'd have to go during lunch break and spend their money and time doing so. There was a cafeteria, and it cost money to eat from it, there were both healthy and unhealthy foods offered. Result: The control of the child's diet slowly passes from the parent to the child as the child gets older.
____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#82 Nov 19 2011 at 8:23 AM Rating: Default
****
9,268 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Which is impossible. There's no such thing as a free lunch.


If that is the case, then what's the issue? It's not like the parents have to give their kids money to eat the "unhealthy food".
____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#83 Nov 19 2011 at 8:29 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,268 posts
Nadenu wrote:
You said low-income kids had their meals paid for. How is that different from now?


The food was usually sandwiches and stuff(I had to eat there sometimes) and maybe orange juice. Run in a classroom Paid for by the local school board, not actually a law(at the time, don't know what laws there are here now regarding that sort of thing) as far as I know. The whole thing probably cost less than $100/day.
____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#84 Nov 19 2011 at 8:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,282 posts
Driftwood wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
You said low-income kids had their meals paid for. How is that different from now?


The food was usually sandwiches and stuff(I had to eat there sometimes) and maybe orange juice. Run in a classroom Paid for by the local school board, not actually a law(at the time, don't know what laws there are here now regarding that sort of thing) as far as I know. The whole thing probably cost less than $100/day.

They do the same thing at my son's school. If a kid can't pay and isn't on the free/reduced lunch program, they get a sandwich.
#85 Nov 19 2011 at 8:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Driftwood wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
If that is the case, then what's the issue?

Smiley: dubious

It was... a joke.
Driftwood wrote:
The food was usually sandwiches and stuff(I had to eat there sometimes) and maybe orange juice. Run in a classroom Paid for by the local school board, not actually a law(at the time, don't know what laws there are here now regarding that sort of thing) as far as I know. The whole thing probably cost less than $100/day.

If the local school board is paying for it, they can serve whatever they want. The standards mentioned in the OP only apply if the school district voluntarily applies to receive federal NSLP grant money and only applies to the subsidized meals themselves. If a school decides as a matter of practicality to have only one or two menus, that's up to them.

Getting worked up (not you specifically) over the idea that the government should actually say "Hey, here's the money you asked for and here's what you're allowed to spend it on" seems ridiculous, especially when you're getting hysterical over "liberty". Just don't ask for the money.


Edited, Nov 19th 2011 8:39am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#86 Nov 19 2011 at 8:36 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,268 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Driftwood wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
You said low-income kids had their meals paid for. How is that different from now?


The food was usually sandwiches and stuff(I had to eat there sometimes) and maybe orange juice. Run in a classroom Paid for by the local school board, not actually a law(at the time, don't know what laws there are here now regarding that sort of thing) as far as I know. The whole thing probably cost less than $100/day.

They do the same thing at my son's school. If a kid can't pay and isn't on the free/reduced lunch program, they get a sandwich.



Then as I already mentioned, I don't understand the issue if the kids aren't being force-fed pizza and french fries.
____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#87 Nov 19 2011 at 8:39 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,268 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Driftwood wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
If that is the case, then what's the issue?

Smiley: dubious

It was... a joke.


My mistake, never heard of the saying before.
____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#88 Nov 19 2011 at 9:24 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
I think if parents of these children want to have them eating healthy they should get up early or stay up late and make them a god **** lunch. Why should it be the schools and governments responsibility to raise your child for you.

I think it is an absurd story, and a waste of money and time.

Edited, Nov 19th 2011 10:25am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#89 Nov 19 2011 at 9:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,282 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
I think if parents of these children want to have them eating healthy they should get up early or stay up late and make them a god **** lunch. Why should it be the schools and governments responsibility to raise your child for you.

I think it is an absurd story, and a waste of money and time.

Edited, Nov 19th 2011 10:25am by rdmcandie

Go smoke some more weed and shut up.
#90 Nov 19 2011 at 11:05 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
When I smoke weed I actually talk more, but I will do my best at the shutting up.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#91 Nov 19 2011 at 11:16 AM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,282 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
When I smoke weed I actually talk more, but I will do my best at the shutting up.

My ex was like that. One of the many reasons he's my ex.
#92 Nov 19 2011 at 11:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
rdmcandie wrote:
I think if parents of these children want to have them eating healthy they should get up early or stay up late and make them a god **** lunch.

Technically, it's the government who wants them to be eating a nutritious meal if they're the ones paying for it. Hence the whole point of the NSLP being "to safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation's children and to encourage the consumption of nutritious agricultural commodities and other food". So if you want your kids eating unhealthy, the thing to do would be to stay up late and pack them a lunch full of the most salt and sugar laden products money can buy.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#93 Nov 19 2011 at 11:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,678 posts
Don't forget the lard.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#94 Nov 19 2011 at 12:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I figured you'd stir the salt and sugar right into the lard and dump it in their bag.

Maybe fry the outside of it first for texture.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#95 Nov 19 2011 at 12:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,678 posts
Fry it? I thought we wanted them to eat it, not whip it at cars.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#96 Nov 19 2011 at 2:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Everybody understands that this program was started because of the high percentage of draftees who were declared 4F due to chronic malnutrition during WWII, right? That this program was put in place for the benefit of the military?

Edited, Nov 19th 2011 1:34pm by Bijou
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
My own extraordinary nature has nothing to do with the validity of what I'm talking about..
#97 Nov 19 2011 at 2:33 PM Rating: Good
Stoopid double.Smiley: mad

Edited, Nov 19th 2011 1:35pm by Bijou
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
My own extraordinary nature has nothing to do with the validity of what I'm talking about..
#98 Nov 19 2011 at 2:40 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Nadenu wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
When I smoke weed I actually talk more, but I will do my best at the shutting up.

My ex was like that. One of the many reasons he's my ex.


and i care why?
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#99 Nov 19 2011 at 2:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
And, today, it's estimated that 25% of the population is too fat to join the military.

Well, Gbaji says that "nutrition" means to just shove them full of whatever the fuck we have laying around just so they don't die in the streets so he's probably right. Gbaji's always right when he's defining words for us in ways that make no sense on the surface, but I'm certain that it's just... obvious?

Edited, Nov 19th 2011 2:44pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#100 Nov 19 2011 at 2:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,282 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
When I smoke weed I actually talk more, but I will do my best at the shutting up.

My ex was like that. One of the many reasons he's my ex.


and i care why?

I thought I told you to shut up.
#101 Nov 19 2011 at 3:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,859 posts
Hmm. Steak, or "vegetable" tonight for dinner?
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 35 All times are in CDT
Poldaran, tribalfusion009, Anonymous Guests (33)