• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Study Finds Elementary Students Like New Healthier Lunches

Tucker Case said:
[/INDENT]
[/INDENT]

Allow me to refresh your memory:




These lunches are "so much better". This is what those of us who actually understand reality call a "fact".

Now, I don't really expect you to understand this because you're a ****ing retard.
Click to expand...

No, they're not better Tucker. Not for everyone, not even for the larger group. They're better for the fatties and the folks whose parents don't care all that much for them but still feed them. They're worse for the hungry, the underfed, and the active.

But that doesn't address what you've sloughed off. The topic of the OP was the assertion that elementary kids LIKE these new lunches. That's a blatant lie told to disguise the fact that the program is a fail.
 
clownboy said:
No, they're not better Tucker. Not for everyone, not even for the larger group.
Click to expand...

False. We're primarily talking about lunch programs in food deserts where junk food is the only option, not affluent neighborhoods. The food is much much better than what they would otherwise recieve.
 
Excon said:
BS!
In this case, yeah it pretty much does, and is only one of the many possible explanations for the third party finding.

Especially as we already know what the coverage of this has been.
The students do not like it and the food is going in the trash.
And this is about the Administrators opinion. Not the actual students opinion. Duh!
So that 70% means diddly squat.


:lamo
You keep arguing in circles but get nowhere. That is because you are not paying attention.
Those are not just some images from the internet. But for the last one (which tells you where it is from), they are tied directly to twitter accounts of real people.
Now pay attention, because for some reason what has already been said needs to be repeated because you haven't countered it.
1.) "You suggesting that they may be fake is unsupportable, and w/o evidence to even suggest such, is an idiotic argument."​


:doh
A great example of you not paying attention.

As I already stated.
​
And yet here you are trying to put words into my mouth that I did not say, and still trying to absurdly suggest something happened without any evidence to support it. D'oh!
Click to expand...

Without the nanny state program Michelle Obama is pushing, students were getting reasonably healthy lunches with occasional treats thrown in...such as spegetti, pizza, etc. The kids had something to look forward to. Now the food is largely ending up in the dumpster.
 
Tucker Case said:
False. We're primarily talking about lunch programs in food deserts, not affluent neighborhoods. The food is much much better.
Click to expand...

Once again, no. And no, the program isn't confined to food deserts. In fact, even worse for food deserts considering you're likely to see a higher percentage of the hungry and underfed in food deserts.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Without the nanny state program Michelle Obama is pushing, students were getting reasonably healthy lunches with occasional treats thrown in...such as spegetti, pizza, etc. The kids had something to look forward to. Now the food is largely ending up in the dumpster.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?
 
Morality Games said:
... Americans are heavily over proteined. There's no general need to supply kids with more protein.

Whole grains are packed with protein anyway. The majority of these "low protein" meals still supply 33% of the protein a person needs in a day.
Click to expand...

Anything with grain in it is processed. It's not good to eat too much of it.
 
Boo Radley said:
Her case is strong, and the photo op gotcha moment isn't a worthy tactic.
Click to expand...

Her case is very weak, considering that so much of the nanny state lunches end up in the dumpster.
 
Tucker Case said:
[/INDENT]
[/INDENT]

Allow me to refresh your memory:




These lunches are "so much better". This is what those of us who actually understand reality call a "fact".

Now, I don't really expect you to understand this because you're a ****ing retard.
Click to expand...
:lamo:lamo:lamo
You have refreshed nothing. :doh
We are speaking towards "like".

Not it being healthy.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Her case is very weak, considering that so much of the nanny state lunches end up in the dumpster.
Click to expand...

No one said anything about a nanny state. But if we spend our tax dollars, it's best to spend it not on junk, but healthy food. She merely advocates for healthy eating. It's incredible that anyone would object to that, let alone call someone names for it.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Getting caught in a photo-op eating unhealthy food does not help her lame cause,
Click to expand...

I'm at my ideal bmi (give or take a pound) and like to have pizza and ice cream on occasion. My regular M.O. is to watch my calories and exercise regularly. Am I a hypocrite?
 
roguenuke said:
Because you think that parents aren't free to take their children out every single day after school and load them up with junk food due to school lunch guidelines? No one has ever said that everyone has to eat completely healthy all the time, but that doesn't mean schools shouldn't serve healthy food. Parents can serve the unhealthy food, as they should be the ones making that decision. It is much better to serve the healthy food to all and have kids and parents upset about how it taste than to serve the unhealthy food, have unhealthy children and students less likely to be prepared to learn (healthier food leads to better learning), and parents that are complaining that the food is all junk food. Let the parents give the kids the junk food.
Click to expand...

If it ends up in the dumpster, it's not helping anyone.
 
ObamacareFail said:
If it ends up in the dumpster, it's not helping anyone.
Click to expand...

From the OP:

When the federal government implemented new school-meal regulations in 2012, a majority of elementary-school students complained about the healthier lunches, but by the end of the school year most found the food agreeable, according to survey results released Monday.
Click to expand...

Reading is gud.
 
clownboy said:
Once again, no. And no, the program isn't confined to food deserts. In fact, even worse for food deserts considering you're likely to see a higher percentage of the hungry and underfed in food deserts.
Click to expand...

In food deserts you find people who are malnurished, not underfed. Thus, the food is better.
 
Cardinal said:
From the OP:

When the federal government implemented new school-meal regulations in 2012, a majority of elementary-school students complained about the healthier lunches, but by the end of the school year most found the food agreeable, according to survey results released Monday.
Click to expand...

Reading is gud.
Click to expand...

Want to bet they didn't look in the trash when engineering that survey.
 
Tucker Case said:
See? I called it.

We are speaking towards "better", BTW.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Not the healthy "better" that you suggest. But the "like" as in "like" the food better, as in taste.
 
Boo Radley said:
No one said anything about a nanny state. But if we spend our tax dollars, it's best to spend it not on junk, but healthy food. She merely advocates for healthy eating. It's incredible that anyone would object to that, let alone call someone names for it.
Click to expand...

I do not have a problem with healthy eating. I just do not feel that it should be pushed or mandated by a nanny state government. What's next? Will Michelle decide which brand of toilet paper is used in the schools?
 
Boo Radley said:
No one said anything about a nanny state. But if we spend our tax dollars, it's best to spend it not on junk, but healthy food. She merely advocates for healthy eating. It's incredible that anyone would object to that, let alone call someone names for it.
Click to expand...

Not her place, not her venue. This is not a federal issue nor should the feds be at all making these decisions. This is all local, that's who should decide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom