Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<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... ???>> But they still told him no.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney >>>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.<<< It was off topic. The point of the topic was Congresses sellout to the salt and potato lobbies.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox "PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE" Anyone here wanna guess where these words come from? Making sure our infrastructure doesn't crumble into total disrepair is indeed providing for the common defense and promoting the general welfare. Without adequate roads, bridges, electrical lines, gas pipes, and water and sewer systems, we are defenseless. We need to fix our failing infrastructure across the country; it would be unconstitutional for the government to not do so. Making sure our schools are well maintained and our children are provided for inside those schools is also providing for the common defense (by preparing young citizens for potential military careers and service) as well as promoting the general welfare. Kids on campus are under the care and supervision of school personnel. Giving them at least one healthy and nutritious meal during their day is morally responsible. It isn't spelled out specifically in the Constitution, but it is within the purview of the Federal government to do so, if the state and local governments lack the resources to provide those meals. This is promoting the general welfare, which our Federal government is required to do per the Constitution. Unbelievable that some folks cannot accept the fact that our Founding Fathers deliberately kept the Constitution in general terms specifically to address a changing nation, a growing nation, that they could not precisely predict or account for, several generations down the road. Fundamentalist thinking, even with regard to how our government works or should work, is merely another excuse to halt change and keep certain demographics in control.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "Please tell me what is wrong with that statement." It's a non-sequitur to the OP. No one argued against what you're saying. Here's a statement. DL is a wonderful place. Parents can take their kids there and have a great time. Now what's wrong with that statement? Kind of irrefutable, isn't it? And also completely irrelevant to the point of the OP.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Parents also have to make an effort to make sure their kids eat healthier and are active.<< Yep. As a society, it makes sense that we support that as much as possible. Things like moveon.gov and literature about the benefits of healthy eating habits and early childhood education and efforts by private industry too, can reinforce the message parents are telling their kids. As taxpayers, we can improve the overall health of America's youth by using the money we're already spending on healthier food options. Some in Congress, however, would rather get money from people pushing pizza and french fries and salty, highly processed crapola. And that's what this thread is about, or at least should have been about. Are chicken nuggets better than nothing? Sure. Is that the best we can come up with? Not by a million miles. This whole thread reminds of Sarah Palin bringing cookies to a classroom visit, suggesting that Michele Obama would outlaw cookies. It's all very tiring and stupid.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 My point is that it shouldn't be just up to Congress to make sure our children are eating healthy. Step one is in the home. And yeah yeah what if it can't be done. You know what you're a parent you find a way to make sure you're kids have the best possible life.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "But they still told him no" Link, please? This is starting to not pass the smell test.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>My point is that it shouldn't be just up to Congress to make sure our children are eating healthy.<< Has anyone said that it is? Nope. However, taxpayers do provide free or reduced cost school lunches for those that qualify because, as a society, we believe in that sort of thing. Thank God. >>You know what you're a parent you find a way to make sure you're kids have the best possible life.<< Most parents do just that, to the very best of their ability. Again, no one is suggesting they shouldn't do all they can. But some of us recognize that sometimes circumstances get in the way of that, sometimes things beyond the control of a parent and certainly beyond the control of a child. It's appropriate for government to step in when a child needs help.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 And again I never argued that there shouldn't be help. I just said it should come from the local governments.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>And I also stated the school board rejected it.<< Many school districts discourage or even outright prohibit food prepared in homes being distributed at school. It may be overly cautious, but there are some good reasons behind it. Not every home has the same standards of cleanliness in food preparation/storage areas, and it becomes a liability issue should a classroom of kids get e-coli or something.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<Tom, your views disgust me and strike me as ignorant and selfish.>> Like WOW, I missed that one. I'd be curious Dave to hear what your views are on single women like Octomom having 14 children.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<Well, considering you never answered my question when I flat out asked you if you would let a child starve, you probably didn't.>> I answered that question in post # 51. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say it is a legitimate role of the Federal Government to supply school lunches. School lunches are a STATE issue not a Federal issue. And every state is entitled to decide just how that state wants to tackle the issue of school lunches. I have already said that the responsibility and burden of feeding a child lies with the parents. And that if the parents can not feed a child then that in my opinion constitutes a suspecion of child abuse and the proper "authorities" need to be involved. Which is a completely different issue than Federally subsidized school lunches. <<Well, considering you never answered my question when I flat out asked you if you would let a child starve, you probably didn't.>> Yeah, I probably never said I would let a child starve.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<It wasn't from a home it was from a business>> I don't recall Octomom having a business. Was this a partnership or a corporation?
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 As I looked over the posts, it appears that I want to achieve a similar goal in this as the rest of or most of you. I'm just for taking a different path. It doesn't make my way right nor does it make anyone else's way wrong. As long as we can get there that's all that matters.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "You want me to link a conversation I had?" Ah. A conversation. So, in other words, you got (and relayed) one side of this story. Which is fine, but recognize that that's what this is. School districts are strapped. They don't normally refuse help from local benefactors/businesses unless there's a good reason. Allergies could be a good reason. If a kid got sick or died, the school could get sued big time. As the saying goes, there are two sides to every story. We have no one telling us the other one.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "School lunches are a STATE issue not a Federal issue." Because you say so? Because the Constitution certainly doesn't, no matter how much you may wish it so. The courts (appointed by that Constitution you claim to know) as the arbiters, agree with me, not with you.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<Because you say so?>> No because it is in the US Constitution. <<Because the Constitution certainly doesn't, no matter how much you may wish it so.>> Yes it does. That's why I made sure I posted this in post #120 -All unenumerated powers are reserved to the respective states and the people. That means anything not specified in the US Constitution is assumed to be a power reserved for the respective states and the people. << The courts (appointed by that Constitution you claim to know) as the arbiters, agree with me, not with you.>> Are we talking about the same US Supreme Court that ruled American citizens do NOT have the right to private property despite the fact that the US Constitution explicity says we all do. We all know that the Federal Government is fond of imposing any rules and regulations they want. After all we are talking about the same Federal Government that imposed a national christmas tree tax last week. All because 500 christmas tree producers requested the Federal government impose a national tax so those same 500 christmas tree producers can conduct a marketing campaign. Where in the US Constitution does it say that it is a legitimate function of the Federal Government to impose a national tax for the explicit purpose of funding a private organizations marketing campaign?
