It takes a Village Idiot to raise a child or Michelle Obama on Child Nutrition

Michelle Obama on Child Nutrition: ‘We Can’t Just Leave It Up To The Parents’


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBYo_s2dLpE&feature=player_embedded

Nutrition,health care,energy,wealth,employment....where does it end ?

Michelle Obama want to control what people eat.
President Obama wants to control how we get our health care.
The President want to control our energy consumption through cap and tax.
Employment,the White House is doing anything they can to keep unemployment high.
Congress wants to phony up some global climate issues to get us all to drive electric cars.:eusa_hand:
 
Wow comparing sharpton calling some idiot a faggot 30 years ago to Norquist ( a current leader on the right) saying he wants to kill the US government is pretty telling.


Your party wants to end the American government so they can have the 1% control us.

Al sharpton called a punk a faggot.


You have pleanty of distain for al and Not a word on Norquist huh?


I fear the end of the country I love much more than I fear some asswink on the Morton downey Jr show getting his feelings hurt.
 
For fuck's sake. It's virtually obligatory for the first lady to take on a cause. Nancy Reagan gave us "Just Say No", Laura Bush had the whole encouraging children to read thing, and Michelle Obama has taken on childhood obesity, which is a huge fucking problem. For the people that actually follow the numbers, like me, we know that diabetes is going to be the number one pathology in Americans very soon and the rate of childhood obesity has skyrocketed because kids are eating unhealthy foods. Couple that with the fact that diabetes is 100% preventable by early lifestyle change and that when a person is officially diagnosed with diabetes it is immediately only a problem that can be managed and not cured. Also, the statistics show that people who become diabetic started showing glucose intolerance 12 years prior to diagnosis. This is a preventable disease and it's going to cause the cost of healthcare to balloon.

Why you guys would fucking bitch about someone trying to use their time for a good cause (whether it's getting kids to read or to eat more healthy) is beyond me. So I am left to conclude that it's only to be a bunch of fucking assholes who will just oppose anything that the Obama's do. I don't recall the left bitching about Laura Bush's reading initiative. Why? Because it's makes sense. You automatically impeach yourselves on the issue of being a rational responder when you guys harp on this issue.

Not so ironically, the one first lady who tried to weld some real power on a policy issue (Hillary Clinton and Healthcare) caused the right to go bat-shit crazy too.

Michelle Obama isn't the problem here. You are the problem.
 
For fuck's sake. It's virtually obligatory for the first lady to take on a cause. Nancy Reagan gave us "Just Say No", Laura Bush had the whole encouraging children to read thing, and Michelle Obama has taken on childhood obesity, which is a huge fucking problem. For the people that actually follow the numbers, like me, we know that diabetes is going to be the number one pathology in Americans very soon and the rate of childhood obesity has skyrocketed because kids are eating unhealthy foods. Couple that with the fact that diabetes is 100% preventable by early lifestyle change and that when a person is officially diagnosed with diabetes it is immediately only a problem that can be managed and not cured. Also, the statistics show that people who become diabetic started showing glucose intolerance 12 years prior to diagnosis. This is a preventable disease and it's going to cause the cost of healthcare to balloon.

Why you guys would fucking bitch about someone trying to use their time for a good cause (whether it's getting kids to read or to eat more healthy) is beyond me. So I am left to conclude that it's only to be a bunch of fucking assholes who will just oppose anything that the Obama's do. I don't recall the left bitching about Laura Bush's reading initiative. Why? Because it's makes sense. You automatically impeach yourselves on the issue of being a rational responder when you guys harp on this issue.

Not so ironically, the one first lady who tried to weld some real power on a policy issue (Hillary Clinton and Healthcare) caused the right to go bat-shit crazy too.

Michelle Obama isn't the problem here. You are the problem.


Michelle is not the problem, per se, just her politics

Were Nancy's programs dictated by law?

Who is "we" in Lady Obama's statement?
 
Last edited:
Michelle is not the problem, per se, just her politics

So we can agree that trying to get kids to get off their asses and eat better so they aren't diabetic at 35 is a worthy goal?

Were Nancy's programs dictated by law?

You are kidding right? She was the PR side of the Reagan Administrations larger "War on Drugs".

Who is "we" in Lady Obama's statement?

You tell me. You seem to delight in getting wrapped up in petty semantics.
 
Michelle is not the problem, per se, just her politics

So we can agree that trying to get kids to get off their asses and eat better so they aren't diabetic at 35 is a worthy goal?

Were Nancy's programs dictated by law?
You are kidding right? She was the PR side of the Reagan Administrations larger "War on Drugs".

Who is "we" in Lady Obama's statement?
You tell me. You seem to delight in getting wrapped up in petty semantics.


Wothy goal- sure; but not by gov't dictate
You believe in choice or is that for only some things ?

PR is not law- now is it

Well if the semantics are petty, then you should not be afraid to say who "we" is in her statement
 
Wothy goal- sure; but not by gov't dictate
You believe in choice or is that for only some things ?

PR is not law- now is it

Well if the semantics are petty, then you should not be afraid to say who "we" is in her statement


Jut what about this:

12/14/2010 --- US President Obama has signed the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act 2010, a $4.5-billion measure that allocates more money to poor areas to subsidize free meals and requires schools to abide by health guidelines drafted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The legislation was championed by first lady Michelle Obama and her "Let's Move" campaign to combat child obesity in the United States.

Obama Signs Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act into Law - FoodIngredientsFirst

Do you find objectionable? Public schools are instruments of the state, therefore, they are subject to state and federal policies and laws. Nowhere in the bill are any demands or conditions being made on people's personal homes.

If it bothers you so much that the federal government would fund and mandate healthier lunches for kids on reduced or free meal programs, then conservatives are more than welcome to put their kids in private schools. Of course, if you can afford to put your kid in private school, then this probably isn't an issue you'd have to worry about anyways.
 
Last edited:
Your first lady stood by and watched your guy take the US to war on a pack of lies.

Mrs Obama is trying to talk kids and parents into knowing and practicingbetter nutrition.


You people are the most unfair human beings I have ever talked to.

If Melia crashed her care into an Ex boyfriends car and killed him you people would be screaming all kinds of consperiracy threorys of Drunk Driving cover ups.

YOU know it

I know it


We all know it.
 
Your first lady stood by and watched your guy take the US to war on a pack of lies.

Mrs Obama is trying to talk kids and parents into knowing and practicingbetter nutrition.


You people are the most unfair human beings I have ever talked to.

If Melia crashed her care into an Ex boyfriends car and killed him you people would be screaming all kinds of consperiracy threorys of Drunk Driving cover ups.

YOU know it

I know it


We all know it.



Talk? It is now more than talk -it is law

YOU know it

Of course, I am sure the ones in the "we" are happy now. After all, "we" can't trust parents on these important issues


(she was your first lady too)
:eusa_angel:
 
Last edited:
If Bush was never elected....then how did he end up in the White House? and why did people all over the world recognize him as President of the United States....
 
Your first lady stood by and watched your guy take the US to war on a pack of lies.

Mrs Obama is trying to talk kids and parents into knowing and practicingbetter nutrition.


You people are the most unfair human beings I have ever talked to.

If Melia crashed her care into an Ex boyfriends car and killed him you people would be screaming all kinds of consperiracy threorys of Drunk Driving cover ups.

YOU know it

I know it


We all know it.

It seems to me that you're the one implying fault rests with Mrs. Bush. Yet you want to say that hypothetically if Melia was involved in such a tragedy, I or anyone else would act the same as you are. I hope the situation never comes up, because you are right, plenty of people WILL make up bullshit stories to belittle Melia, just as you are doing to Mrs. Bush. So, kindly shut the fuck up and stop acting like a daft bitch.
 
I am still curious about what specifically the right finds objectionable about this bill.

Healthier meals for kids on reduced and free lunch programs seems like a no-brainer.

Of course, I am in a hospital that services a patient population that is almost 100% medicaid and I see the end result of a lifetime of poor nutrition which is diabetes and heart disease which have to be managed for decades and cost the taxpayers a shit ton of money.

This seems like money well spent to me.
 
One day the Socialists/Progressives will simply declare "We Can't just leave anything up to the People." I'm always amazed at how many ignorant Government Goose Steppers we have in this country. Everyday they pass more useless Laws that only allow the Government to further intrude in Citizens' lives. And the silly Goose Steppers continue to cheer them on. They will always use "Crisis" Fear Mongering to force their agendas through. Here's a woman who actually declared Fat Kids were "National Security Threats." Such Bullshit. Yet the sheep just keep on falling for that kind of B.S. It really is very sad.
 
I am still curious about what specifically the right finds objectionable about this bill.

Healthier meals for kids on reduced and free lunch programs seems like a no-brainer.

Of course, I am in a hospital that services a patient population that is almost 100% medicaid and I see the end result of a lifetime of poor nutrition which is diabetes and heart disease which have to be managed for decades and cost the taxpayers a shit ton of money.

This seems like money well spent to me.


I bet, it would be the same reason most of the founding fathers would have found it objectionable

:eusa_whistle:
 
I am still curious about what specifically the right finds objectionable about this bill.

Healthier meals for kids on reduced and free lunch programs seems like a no-brainer.

Of course, I am in a hospital that services a patient population that is almost 100% medicaid and I see the end result of a lifetime of poor nutrition which is diabetes and heart disease which have to be managed for decades and cost the taxpayers a shit ton of money.

This seems like money well spent to me.


I bet, it would be the same reason most of the founding fathers would have found it objectionable

:eusa_whistle:

Wow. The "founding father fiat card". How surprising. You don't have any idea what the founding fathers would have thought about this matter. It's funny to see you guys evoke yoru magic Quija board.

Also funny, when it comes to actually discussing specifics on this matter you punt and resort to vague statements.
 
I am still curious about what specifically the right finds objectionable about this bill.

Healthier meals for kids on reduced and free lunch programs seems like a no-brainer.

Of course, I am in a hospital that services a patient population that is almost 100% medicaid and I see the end result of a lifetime of poor nutrition which is diabetes and heart disease which have to be managed for decades and cost the taxpayers a shit ton of money.

This seems like money well spent to me.


I bet, it would be the same reason most of the founding fathers would have found it objectionable

:eusa_whistle:

Wow. The "founding father fiat card". How surprising. You don't have any idea what the founding fathers would have thought about this matter. It's funny to see you guys evoke yoru magic Quija board.

Also funny, when it comes to actually discussing specifics on this matter you punt and resort to vague statements.

It was opinion- was it not?


Well, apparently you feel you do

Please tell- why would it be wrong?
 

Forum List

Back
Top