• 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!

Obama to sign Child Nutrition Bill today

Kelzie said:
I don't see how her parents political leaning has any bearing. And really? The cause is over-eating, it's simple physics. You cannot gain weight unless you consume more calories then you burn. I'm sure if there had been a legitimate medical reason, the child wouldn't have been taken away. Although your willingness to come to their defense is very telling of just how far you think parent's rights should extend.

It added plenty to the discussion. If you're too hot under the collar to see the similarity between what I did and the comment you liked, that's not my problem.

You see what I mean UtahBill?
Click to expand...


My God....You really don't read your own articles do you? I even reposted it above hoping you would get it....Their political lean has nothing to do with it other than your disgusting attempt to smear those who disagree with your point of view. But look, I'll even bold it so you can see it this time k?

"Anamarie's weight problem is not new: she has been taken into hospital repeatedly since she was a few months old because of it."

Now what do you suppose they were doing? Huh? putting Big Mac's into the blender and force feeding it to this girl through a funnel?

You are absurd.

Oh, and BTW address me when you are talking to me. You want to talk to Bill address him.

j-mac
 
Kelzie said:
I don't see how her parents political leaning has any bearing. And really? The cause is over-eating, it's simple physics. You cannot gain weight unless you consume more calories then you burn. I'm sure if there had been a legitimate medical reason, the child wouldn't have been taken away. Although your willingness to come to their defense is very telling of just how far you think parent's rights should extend.

It added plenty to the discussion. If you're too hot under the collar to see the similarity between what I did and the comment you liked, that's not my problem.

You see what I mean UtahBill?
Click to expand...
Yes, I do....and I have put quite a few posters here on ignore. They call themselves conservatives, but they are far right, so far right that they can't see reason. and anybody to the left of them is a liberal by their standards. They are rude, ignorant, arrogant, and lacking in social graces. But they do seem to have god on their side. Problem is, it is the mean god of the Old Testament, not the loving god that Jesus speaks of in the New Testament.
They also trade sock puppets. Sounds disgusting, but there it is.:(
 
justabubba said:
or it could be viewed as promoting the general welfare of our citizens
Click to expand...

From a liberal perspective...you bet. Good lord...it is no wonder we have so many pathetic crippled dependent pets in this country.
 
Grim17 said:
Here's the kind of government the left supports...

"We Can't Just Leave It Up To The Parents"

RealClearPolitics - Video - Michelle Obama On Fat Children: "We Can't Just Leave It Up To The Parents"
Click to expand...

Anyone notice Michelle and Barack seem to think the whole reason they are in the WH is to dish out entitlements to those in need, or perceived need? I see no shame from them that we have so many in need under this administration.
What we need is a growing economy and jobs so people can take care of their own families. If I'm not mistaken there are 1 in 7 households receiving foodstamps. That is just unacceptable to me, but no problem to them. It's a disgrace. We need to get people back to work and leading productive lives or this country is done for as we know it.
 
VanceMack said:
From a liberal perspective...you bet. Good lord...it is no wonder we have so many pathetic crippled dependent pets in this country.
Click to expand...
Not sure you mean this to be so harsh....one of my nephews was a cripple, physically and mentally. He finally died, but the family suffered in the 3.5 years he lived. One of my grandchildren has an inoperable tumor, and as a result of removing an operable tumor, has seizures that so far are controlled by meds.....no telling when her final days will be.
Want to qualify your definition of pathetic crippled dependend pets?.
 
j-mac said:
I know exactly what it means, and how you love it so.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Here is the definition of "statism".

Statism (or etatism) is an ideology advocating the use of states to achieve goals, both economic and social.
Click to expand...

Please tell me which part of Republicanism as practiced by the US has not embraced 'Statism' since 1776? I'll tell you which: None.
 
Last edited:
UtahBill said:
Not sure you mean this to be so harsh....one of my nephews was a cripple, physically and mentally. He finally died, but the family suffered in the 3.5 years he lived. One of my grandchildren has an inoperable tumor, and as a result of removing an operable tumor, has seizures that so far are controlled by meds.....no telling when her final days will be.
Want to qualify your definition of pathetic crippled dependend pets?.
Click to expand...

I have far more empathy for the 'true' crippled. I worked with an individual this last weekend that was in-the-act suicidal because he realized that he was dependent, would always be dependent, and it made him ANGRY...depressed to the point of self harm...that he would ALWAYS be dependent on someone...some system...for the rest of his life. Inspirational...as opposed to the emotional cripples we see regularly that have been told forever they 'cant' take care of themselves...its not their fault. Able bodied and intellectually capable individuals that have been given excuse after excuse (or disorder after disorder) for failure.

Yes...I mean it as harsh as it sounds. I am disgusted by the "poor pathetic me, someone take care of me" mindset of able bodied individuals. Our 'welfare' should be reserved for those that truly are in need. And in my opinion, your nephew and grandson are far more capable than those that WONT provide for themselves.
 
back on topic, stay out of our lives, dont tell me or my children what we can and can not eat.
What we "should" or "should not" eat would be a welcome suggestion maybe, otherwise stfu
 
shades said:
back on topic, stay out of our lives, dont tell me or my children what we can and can not eat.
What we "should" or "should not" eat would be a welcome suggestion maybe, otherwise stfu
Click to expand...

Not a little ironic that today, advocates of yet MORE and bigger government were only a few months ago defending their right to spend their welfare dollars and food stamps on junk food...
 
shades said:
back on topic, stay out of our lives, dont tell me or my children what we can and can not eat.
What we "should" or "should not" eat would be a welcome suggestion maybe, otherwise stfu
Click to expand...
Were you tackled, hogtied, and dragged to a session and told how to eat?
 
UtahBill said:
Were you tackled, hogtied, and dragged to a session and told how to eat?
Click to expand...

He was. Then they sat him in front of a television and made him watch public service announcements on soy products.
 
Hatuey said:
He was. Then they sat him in front of a television and made him watch public service announcements on soy products.
Click to expand...

I am a little bit lactose intolerant, cheese on a sandwich is OK, ice cream in moderation is OK, but not milk. I use Almond Breeze milk substitute.
I am also somewhat gluten intolerant, so I limit myself to plain white bread in moderation. Multi-grain and/or high fiber and/or whole wheat makes me sick. Cold cereals are limited to corn chex, rice puffs, and some oats, but no wheat.
But SOY? that stuff is poison to me...even a little and I have to avoid open flames....:3oops:
 
UtahBill said:
I am a little bit lactose intolerant, cheese on a sandwich is OK, ice cream in moderation is OK, but not milk. I use Almond Breeze milk substitute.
I am also somewhat gluten intolerant, so I limit myself to plain white bread in moderation. Multi-grain and/or high fiber and/or whole wheat makes me sick. Cold cereals are limited to corn chex, rice puffs, and some oats, but no wheat.
But SOY? that stuff is poison to me...even a little and I have to avoid open flames....:3oops:
Click to expand...

The government is going to take your Almond Breeze ass away. Keep playin with us son.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Irony........ :lamo
Click to expand...

It sounds like it but actually cheap food is very unhealthy. It's not all having enough food, you need the right food, fact is kids from low income families often suffer from all kinds of vitamin and nutritional deficencies that contribute to serious health problems later on. In short, you can't eat pop-tarts every night.
 
Hatuey said:
The government is going to take your Almond Breeze ass away. Keep playin with us son.
Click to expand...

Given the efficiency of most govt programs, they won't find me.:lol:
 
Last edited:
Sean_H said:
It sounds like it but actually cheap food is very unhealthy. It's not all having enough food, you need the right food, fact is kids from low income families often suffer from all kinds of vitamin and nutritional deficencies that contribute to serious health problems later on. In short, you can't eat pop-tarts every night.
Click to expand...
But you can still eat them every morning, right?
Careful what you say about pop tarts, Kelloggs has spies on this forum..
 
I would agree, Utah. I do not pretend to be the paragon of financial security or prudence. So, I myself hesitate to think myself better than my fellow man, but along the way, there must be a line we do not cross.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
My biggest concern about this legislation is whether children are going to be willing to eat the healthier food.
Click to expand...

If they are hungry enough, they will eat most of it. I used to get prunes twice a week in my school cafeteria lunches. Green beans, and other healthy stuff. Milk cartons instead of cokes. What happened?
 
j-mac said:
My God....You really don't read your own articles do you? I even reposted it above hoping you would get it....Their political lean has nothing to do with it other than your disgusting attempt to smear those who disagree with your point of view. But look, I'll even bold it so you can see it this time k?

"Anamarie's weight problem is not new: she has been taken into hospital repeatedly since she was a few months old because of it."

Now what do you suppose they were doing? Huh? putting Big Mac's into the blender and force feeding it to this girl through a funnel?

You are absurd.

Oh, and BTW address me when you are talking to me. You want to talk to Bill address him.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Even children a few months old will gain too much weight if you feed them too much. A three year-old cannot weigh 150 pounds without being overfed. It is not physically possible.

Their political lean still has nothing to do with it. If some conservatives say that liberals want a government that usurps all parental authority, I can bring up a case where parental authority clearly needs to be usurped. And again, the fact that you're trying to defend parents that would turn their three year-old into a walking health bomb shows exactly how unsupportable your opinions are.

And I can address who ever I want in my posts. Hi UtahBill. Ooooo it burns doesn't it?
 
shades said:
back on topic, stay out of our lives, dont tell me or my children what we can and can not eat.
What we "should" or "should not" eat would be a welcome suggestion maybe, otherwise stfu
Click to expand...

Only no one is doing this. You're free to eat whatever you like.
 
What baffles me about party-lines is that it's usually the conservatives who are anti-drinking and smoking (weed) freedoms. . .but then they turn around and say "the government can't tell me what to put in my body!"

Why is one thing NOT OK and other thing OK?

this is why I couldn't commit myself to staying Republican - and couldn't commit myself to turning Democrat. They both have these quirks that I can't get over.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
What baffles me about party-lines is that it's usually the conservatives who are anti-drinking and smoking (weed) freedoms. . .but then they turn around and say "the government can't tell me what to put in my body!"

Why is one thing NOT OK and other thing OK?

this is why I couldn't commit myself to staying Republican - and couldn't commit myself to turning Democrat. They both have these quirks that I can't get over.
Click to expand...

To be fair to both, no one is really demanding anyone eat well or telling anyone what they ahve to eat. And someone believe there is a difference between food and illegal drugs, no matter what illegal drug we're talking about.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
What baffles me about party-lines is that it's usually the conservatives who are anti-drinking and smoking (weed) freedoms. . .but then they turn around and say "the government can't tell me what to put in my body!"

Why is one thing NOT OK and other thing OK?

this is why I couldn't commit myself to staying Republican - and couldn't commit myself to turning Democrat. They both have these quirks that I can't get over.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity...where are you seeing this massive throngs of conservatives that are anti-drinking, smoking, etc? You want to see the most restrictive state with regards to individuals and personal freedoms you might look at the PRK (Peoples Republik of Kalifornia).

I DO see conservatives say "drink responsibly or suffer consequences"
I see conservatives say "use your welfare and food stamps to buy healthy food" but I DONT see conservatives clamoring for the government to take care of them or dictate to them or others how to live. (and shame on them that do for claiming to be a conservative)

And for the record...Im all for the states allowing their voters to legalize pot...I personally couldnt care less...treat it like alcohol.
 
Kelzie said:
Oooo, I can play that game too! Here's the kind of parenting that conservatives believe should be protected:

BBC News | HEALTH | Overweight toddler taken into custody
Click to expand...

That's right! Because, where do you draw the line? How do you stop the government from going too far and who is going to protect us from an overintrusive government? The government? What do parents do when the government decides that their child's health is danger, because the kid is ten pounds overweight? Then what happens when to the kid? Take Mickey Shane's suggestion and starve them into eating healthy?

What kind of demented mother****er would do that to a kid?
 
apdst said:
That's right! Because, where do you draw the line? How do you stop the government from going too far and who is going to protect us from an overintrusive government? The government? What do parents do when the government decides that their child's health is danger, because the kid is ten pounds overweight? Then what happens when to the kid? Take Mickey Shane's suggestion and starve them into eating healthy?

What kind of demented mother****er would do that to a kid?
Click to expand...

:shrug: I really don't know. That's something I mentioned earlier that I have issues answering for myself. Obviously the situation I brought up borders on child abuse. But I don't know where the line is.

That's why I do support healthier lunches and nutritional education in schools. Even extremely "liberal" programs like school gardens. Childhood obesity is a major problem, the rights of the parents aside.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom