Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<Wouldn't it be better, and more efficient, to just use some of the tax dollars collected from everyone to ensure that children all across the country, that are enrolled in school, get at least one good meal each day? How is that not a good use of the tax payers money?>> I have no issue if my tax money helps out schools, I never argued that. But I want to help out the students in my state first.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<I don't believe that one bit.>> I wouldn't. I don't expect a stranger to help me but I certainly will help them.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney I know what the Constitution says. I am an educated person. I am saying it doesn't represent the MORAL code by which we should live. Tea Partiers think that if it's not in the Constitution then who gives a crap. I disagree. The Constitution is outdated. We don't live in the 18th century anymore, or the wild west. We have the ability to help people and we already subsidize school lunches so why SHOULDN'T they be healthy?
Originally Posted By DyGDisney >>>I wouldn't. I don't expect a stranger to help me but I certainly will help them.<<< What if you didn't have friends or family who could help? YOu wouldn't go to a food bank if you were homeless or so poor you had no food? You wouldn't accept food stamps if your child were starving and you couldn't get a job? My mom had a full time job but didn't make enough money to support us once my dad ran out. He was no help, and my mom ran out of money before the end of the month quite often. My grandma would bring us groceries, but what if my mom didn't have that help? Should we just have starved? I know you said you aren't saying other people shouldn't, I just have a hard time believing there is no circumstance under which you would. What about unemployment? Would you accept that?
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<I know what the Constitution says. I am an educated person. I am saying it doesn't represent the MORAL code by which we should live.>> As a US citizen you are more than welcome to write your Representatives in Washington DC and encourse them to modify our nations laws. As if is the US Constitution IS the supreme law of the land. And school lunches are the responcibility of the STATE not the Federal government. Again, before passing judgement on me please by all means find a single, just one post where I said a child should starve. Don't worry I will wait.
Originally Posted By dshyates I don't even know why we are discussing "lunch" when the whole public education scam is a commusocialist plot to make our children gay!
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 RE 124-Because it's just me right now, no I wouldn't. Now your situation was different and that was the right thing to do. I'm just applying the situation to myself as of today.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 BTW Congress didn't take away school lunch, they took away healthier lunches. I think that's getting lost in the argument. I'd rather have a child eat something. And of course I would prefer it's something healthier.
Originally Posted By dshyates "BTW Congress didn't take away school lunch, they took away healthier lunches. I think that's getting lost in the argument. I'd rather have a child eat something. And of course I would prefer it's something healthier." Right. At least that is what it was about until someone in the 3rd post went off on the conservative mantra about personal responsibilty.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Congress didn't take away school lunch, they took away healthier lunches. I think that's getting lost in the argument. I'd rather have a child eat something. And of course I would prefer it's something healthier.<< So then you are in favor of what the Obama administration is advocating -- healthier food in school lunches as opposed to pizza and french fries. Good! The reason some in Congress are against mandating healthier lunches is because they get a lot of money from various lobbying groups, not because they truly believe that french fries are better than other whole vegetables. In other words, they're selling the nation's kids out.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<Right. At least that is what it was about until someone in the 3rd post went off on the conservative mantra about personal responsibilty.>> Oh how awful wanting parents to take care of their children.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 And what about getting farmers involved in providing for our schools with some healthier options. See I'm for everyone pitching in not just Congress.
Originally Posted By dshyates DAR, what does that have to do with the GOP congress getting rich by upping the crap in the lunch I pay good money for?
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Here's my original statement: It's not just the school or the governments responsibility they're just one part. Parents also have to make an effort to make sure their kids eat healthier and are active. And while it maybe difficult for some families you at least have to put the effort into it. Please tell me what is wrong with that statement.
Originally Posted By ecdc Reposting this because it's just so true: >>This is possibly the most depressing thread since the ones during Hurricane Katrina. I'm sitting here with my jaw dropped at some of what I've read. The inability to have compassion for the plight of the less fortunate is really disturbing and shocking to me.<< BTW, the Hurricane Katrina threads and this have a common element.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<If this guy is altruistic enough to do this, he should be altruistic enough to provide a list of foods he's providing - how difficult is that?>> <I'm not 100% certain but I'm sure he did. > Then what exactly is the problem, and why did you bring it up? To review: this guy did something nice for his local school. The board said "thanks, but remember, some kids are allergic to certain things. Can you give us a list of what you're giving?" And, according to you, he said "Sure. Here." So the problem is... ???
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Normally one doesn't simply quote one's one post without referencing someone else's. You've already said that, and your odd view of the Constitution has already been refuted.>> That's my quote, so it's the only one I'll address. <School lunches are a STATE issue, not a Federal issue.> Says you. But the courts do not. Sorry. The Constitution doesn't mention airplanes, computers, and on and on and on, as I said before, yet the Feds have a role in all of the above. A Federal role in education is long-established and never found to be unconstitutional. I'll repeat that again. A Federal role in education is long-established and never found to be unconstitutional. This is not rocket science. (Something else not mentioned in the Constitution...)
Originally Posted By DyGDisney >>>Again, before passing judgement on me please by all means find a single, just one post where I said a child should starve. Don't worry I will wait.<<< Well, considering you never answered my question when I flat out asked you if you would let a child starve, you probably didn't.
