Somebody needs to put a pie in her face! (Page 4): SO, are you still blaming the government or the school staff for being idiots?

chrisscholbe Loc: Kansas City, MO

Big Bill wrote:

I thought what I wrote was pretty clear. br The ne... (show quote)

SO, are you still blaming the government or the school staff for being idiots?

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

Cabooses wrote:

Yea, idaholover, let's keep the obesity rate up in our children....
I'm sure if Laura Bush had supported this you would have no problem with it.

We have a problem with any federal government intervention in anyone's life unless it involves foreigners trying to kill us. Then they are obligated to take them out. Otherwise they have no business getting involved.
In the case of Laura Bush, she suggested that people learned to read. In no way was it mandated through laws.

Big Bill Loc: Phoenix, AZ

chrisscholbe wrote:

SO, are you still blaming the government or the school staff for being idiots?

Well, the school staff are only doing what they are being forced to do by the government.
You figure it out.

chrisscholbe Loc: Kansas City, MO

Big Bill wrote:

Well, the school staff are only doing what they are being forced to do by the government.
You figure it out.

ROTFLMAO.

You think the gov told these people to prepare the food badly?????? OMG.

Then you must think this is a form of protest by the schools?

Big Bill Loc: Phoenix, AZ

chrisscholbe wrote:

ROTFLMAO.

You think the gov told these people to prepare the food badly?????? OMG.

Then you must think this is a form of protest by the schools?

I am sorry. I thought you understood what was being discussed. Totally my mistake.

Here's the discussion:
The Federal Government, led by Mrs. Obama, has decided that schools should provide lunches that are more nutritious than what has been served in the past. To achieve that goal, the government has provided guidelines to the schools, telling them what foods are to be served, and what foods are not to be served.
The result has been lunches that are, indeed, more nutritious than what had been served, but also are not appealing to the children, and are thus ending up in trash containers uneaten.
Got that?
Now, given the wonderful intent, but bad result, do you understand the problem?

chrisscholbe Loc: Kansas City, MO

Big Bill wrote:

I am sorry. I thought you understood what was bein... (show quote)

I've understood the "problem" from the start.

The schools are NOT preparing the food correctly.

If I read between the lines correctly, you think it's better to serve less nutritious food, just because they'll eat it.

And, you don't seem to agree that if the food IS prepared correctly, that the kids will eat it anyway.

So, serve them what they'll eat instead of "fix" the 2 problems.

1) the school not fixing the food correctly
2) teach the kids about good nutrition.

Finally, let me ask this....even though I run the risk of sidetracking you on the ENTIRE conversation, if they kids WERE eating the nutritious food, would you still think the government program was ....."wrong"?
Please be specific in your answer and not the general, the gov should stay out of our lives, period. That would be so trite.

dljen Loc: Central PA

chrisscholbe wrote:

ROTFLMAO.

You think the gov told these people to prepare the food badly?????? OMG.

Then you must think this is a form of protest by the schools?

It goes hand in hand with their paranoia, Chris. :wink:

Big Bill Loc: Phoenix, AZ

chrisscholbe wrote:

I've understood the "problem" from the s... (show quote)

Reading between the lines is risky.
In this case, you're taking what I say, and making it something else entirely.
Please quote the part where I even hinted that the food was incorrectly prepared.

It's amazing to me that you are not just moving the goalposts, but hiding them entirely, then claim you win.
If you would be more honest with yourself, and not try to argue with what wasn't said, you'd have a LOT more credibility.

chrisscholbe Loc: Kansas City, MO

Big Bill wrote:

Reading between the lines is risky.
In this case, you're taking what I say, and making it something else entirely.
Please quote the part where I even hinted that the food was incorrectly prepared.

It's amazing to me that you are not just moving the goalposts, but hiding them entirely, then claim you win.
If you would be more honest with yourself, and not try to argue with what wasn't said, you'd have a LOT more credibility.

Contrary to your opinion, I think I've boiled down the "issue" to it's elemental parts.

If this wasn't a governmental dictate but rather a program created by the school(s), would you still be against it?

Big Bill Loc: Phoenix, AZ

chrisscholbe wrote:

Contrary to your opinion, I think I've boiled down the "issue" to it's elemental parts.

If this wasn't a governmental dictate but rather a program created by the school(s), would you still be against it?

I think you still miss my point...
I'm not against governmental rules, I just don't like those that, no matter how well intentioned, just don't work as intended.
I'm sure you've heard of unintended consequences?

chrisscholbe Loc: Kansas City, MO

Big Bill wrote:

I think you still miss my point...
I'm not against governmental rules, I just don't like those that, no matter how well intentioned, just don't work as intended.
I'm sure you've heard of unintended consequences?

See, I knew we agreed.

Big Bill Loc: Phoenix, AZ

chrisscholbe wrote:

See, I knew we agreed.

Well, since that's pretty much what I wrote in the first place, I'm glad you understand.