Kids to Michelle Obama: WE ARE HUNGRY!

I will veer off and agree with you here - if a parent really can't control what their kid eats, then something's a problem.

 

Why am I not surprised you're one of them?

Got a cite for that? Yeah...Thought not.

Why? Because the black woman supports them! See below:

So, what's your complaint? Why are you now not supporting healthy school lunches? I mean, other than the fact that the buhlack woman of the socialist communist muslim negro communist illegal gay immigrant is supporting it???

Yes, they are. They don't have the time to feed their kids healthy food and instead let the little brats eat whatever they want. They don't give a darn what the kids eat at school, so today this is what most school kids look like:

 

No, they look like that because the parents don't give a darn what their kids eat - period. Kids don't gain weight like that from 1 meal a day at school, they gain it from porking out on junk food several times a day at home.

10 bucks says that the kid's parent is a Democrat and paid for most of his food with her EBT card anyway - the lowest income class is also the most obese, and consequentially more likely to vote Democrat. Conservatives usually expect their kid to be held to higher standards, play sports instead of sit around all day playing video games, etc

 

So, I trust that you've been opposed to this every time, and, not just when Michelle Obama proposed it, correct?

 

Good point.

Vote for Romney and women can surrender their wombs to the religious right.

 

Well even as an adult - who'd want to eat that - a bunch of bland vegetables sitting on a place? C'mon.

Cook something tasty that has vegetables in it, I make Cajun casserole with artichoke hearts, or an omlete with Creole seasoning and sauteed vegetables, for example - that's way more tasty than a bunch of limp vegetables sitting on a plate, and has the same amount of veggies.

Way more tasty than a greasy fast food burger or a stale Twinkie too.

 

That is absolutely brilliant right there.

Just opt point out such partisan brilliance, and how likely it is to be utterly wrong., allow me to point out that red states, those with the higher percentage of Republicans are the highest users per capita of "food stamps", so statistically, it is more likely that this kid's parents were Republicans.

Just to point out how ridiculous your statement is.

http://www.politicususa.com/fox-news-food-stamps.html

 

Good. Kids can get that stuff outside of school. On a list of things that children actually need, candy and soda pop are on page 29 right after colonoscopy.

I honestly fail to see how that is a bad thing.

 

Actually no, most of the states with the highest users are located in or near the South - the South has a much higher percentage of blacks and Hispanics, who are racially much higher users of food stamps than Caucasians (or Asians for that matter), and also more likely to vote Democrat. The majority of the users are probably black or Hispanic Democrat voters.

 

Well, she does have a big o' ass.

Does that count?

 

Yeah, I know. You were wrong, you got caught making things up, so somehow it is my fault.

 

You couldn't be more wrong. Whites are, by far, the largest recipients of food stamps, at 49%

And, as most intelligent people know, most southern whites vote republican.

 

The largest by pure populaton, but not by percentage - blacks have a much, much higher percentage of food stamp users.

 

I can just visualize the scene from Dickens' Oliver Twist where the waif - short-changed on his ration of swill - goes up and asks: "Please sir. Could have some more?" And the local Michelle-komissar backhands the kid.

 

I know that you have the potential to come up with a REAL thread!
So. . . what's up with this constant string of ridiculous, totally unfounded negative propaganda?

If kids are REALLY hungry, they will eat their vegetables and their cereals. . .
If kids are ADHD (as so many are these days), reducing the sugar and fat in their diet might be more beneficial than the costly (both in terms of health and in economic terms) prescription medication they are given to be able to stay still and focus in school.
By the way, even this picture is silly. so what. . .Since there are only THREE kids in what is supposed to be an overcrowded class, it seems that the kids are taking a short nap during recess. . .instead of going to the playground and bullying others. . .is that so bad?
I must agree that the video does demonstrate some creativity and is fun to watch. . .but so silly if taken even remotely seriously! And. . .couldn't those kids from what is obviously an upper middle class neighborhood have been sensitive (or smart) enough to include at least a few "minorities" to make it look a little more real?

 

.....Kids eat what they're given. They'll want junk if they've been exposed to it. A snack/treat can be fruit or granola just as easily as candy and fries. Common sense.

You don't whine about the "Nanny state" by suggesting a better govt. program for public school lunch. You eliminate the so-called nanny (which is govt.) and fix the lunch yourself. More common sense.

 

Another silly comment!
Obesity is not damaging to children (and adults) because of the "look," although it is certain that obese kids will have more problem adjusting socially because of their look and their decrease ability to participate in sports than the healthy weight ones, but the primary concern about obesity, especially in kids, are the medical issues that are sure to develop at an early (or later) age. Childhood diabetes is sharply increasing, and it is threatening the life of those children (and is a huge weight on the medical resources in this country).
It is not because Michelle Obama doesn't want to look at an ugly or obese kid that she sponsors healthy eating habits, it is because she cares about the health of those children.

And, you are correct that calories are important for growing bodies. . .the RIGHT KIND of calories, not the calories obtained solely from fat and sugar. It is much better to get 850 calories of protein and fiber than 1500 calories from fat and sugar. . .those are "empty" calories, that provoke a quick increase in energy, but just as quick lead to a "sugar low" and a lack of energy.

 

How are they harmed by having to eat a healthier diet at school? The uproar seems to be about the portion size if I'm not mistaken, and that's something that can be tweaked. The calorie limit for high schoolers is 800 calories, which is close to half of what you're supposed to eat per day in just one meal.

Is it ironic that in a nation with an obesity rate like ours, we are outraging over schools switching to healthier menus(which, it's worth adding, does not prevent students from bringing their own food, nor does it affect what they eat during non-school hours, or even non-school lunch hours). Good lord, all that's happened is school cafeteria's now have to serve somewhat more nutritious food.

 

I fail to see how regulating these things is bad?

at school. You forgot to add that to the end. You might want to throw a line in there about how nobody is forced to buy a school lunch, nor are they prevented from bringing their own extra items with them.

Which is why it fails.

 

Completely false - many body builders and athletes need to eat 4000-5000 (healthy) calories per day. Some like Ronnie Campbell would literally have to eat 9,000-10,000 calories a day in order to put on weight. Me, I have a high metabolism, I can easily eat 4,000-5,000 calories a day and not have to worry about gaining weight. And when I do gain weight, the only weight I gain is healthy (lean muscle) mass anyway, I can eat whatever I want and still keep my body fat percentage of 5% or less.

Why should a high school athlete be forced to eat the same amount of food as a kid who is 50 lbs overweight.

They don't serve nutritious food - the food served in public schools is no better or even worse than what a kid would eat at McDonald's - public schools still continue to use "pink slime" meat even after fast food chains like McDonald's discontinued it.

The regulation only limits quantity, not quality, of food - and children who are obese are not getting that way from eating one 800 calorie meal at school - if that was they only food they ate all day, they'd be pencil thin - they get that way from gorging on huge amounts of junk food at home, combined with lack of exercise. So as I've pointed out, the legislation is useless.

Plus school lasts 8 hours a day (or more if the kid has extracurriculars, like football, baseball, band class, etc), so 850 calories in 8-10 hours is really not all that much.

 

He's not. The cost of the lunch buys the same amount of food no matter who you are, just like it always did. Someone trying to maintain a high calorie intake would be better off doing it on healthier foods, and those people are going to require more than just cafeteria food to achieve it anyhow.

I suggest you check this site out. The bill is more than just a limit on calorie intake.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Governance/Legislation/nutritionstandards.htm

Kids aren't supposed to go that long between meals anyhow. They should be snacking a couple times a day as well, aside from lunch. Lunch is not meant to be the meal that sustains you for the entire day. What exact do you think school lunches were before this law? I was in high school about 12 years ago, in a fairly well-to-do district, and I can tell you that school lunches were not a bountiful serving of food. And they would serve you anything. Maybe the calorie limits can be tweaked, but I think the idea, and the mandates to use healthier foods, and local farm products as well, are a great step in the right direction. Schools may not be able to control what kids eat outside the building, but they don't have to contribute to the problem either.

 

American kids would rather starve than eat a pea and carrot, their accustomed to hot dogs, candy, and treats.

Shucks, take good tasting food away from a fat American adult, and there's hell to pay, much less a little fat American kid.

This should start at home, with parents taking personal responsibility, not public force, smarties right, its a violation of liberty.

 

This is really the whole crux of the matter. Liberals love to impose rules designed as solutions to the problems of a very small percentage of people. IOW, punish the many for the sins of the few.

Obesity affects 17% of children in the United States. Which means 83% aren't obese.

Leave it to the loony left to starve 83% of our children in the name of progress. It's what they do, folks.

 

your right, we should just feed them big macs

guess what? no one is forced to eat the healthy meals the school is providing, they can bring the