What's wrong with Michelle Obama ....

[RadiomanATL]

I'm pretty sure he wasn't being serious.

No, he's quite serious. He's pretty bigoted against Mormons.

Oh no I'm aware that he's quite serious about that one.

But what I interpreted as what you were calling his "Backpedal" is the statement that in saying "Magic underpants man," he might have meant Huntsman. I didn't think that was a backpedal, but rather an attempt at humor.

When it was quite clear he meant Romney, I call it a backpedal when he tries to say it was about Huntsman.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nancy Reagan promoted a cause which was against something illegal.

Laura Bush promoted a cause to help citizens get the most of something which is available to you.

Michelle Obama promotes control over the choices of what you can or cannot put in your body and has lobbied for legislative and policy change to meet that end, influenced the food industry to changes not based on personal choice but predetermined offerings that meet her design and sets the tone that food access is racially motivated in the country.

Laura Bush was a teacher. Her project of literacy was something she knew something about.

Laura Bush's major project was hunger in America. And you never heard a peep from the rightwing nuts about it. Imagine if THAT were Michelle Obama's cause.

 

[Cuyo]

No, he's quite serious. He's pretty bigoted against Mormons.

Oh no I'm aware that he's quite serious about that one.

But what I interpreted as what you were calling his "Backpedal" is the statement that in saying "Magic underpants man," he might have meant Huntsman. I didn't think that was a backpedal, but rather an attempt at humor.

When it was quite clear he meant Romney, I call it a backpedal when he tries to say it was about Huntsman.

Yes, it appears he was poking fun at the obvious fact that he was referring to Romney, hence the "" in his reply...
Just sayin... Doesn't really matter to me either way but that appears to be what he was doing.

 

[earlycuyler]

Oh it's awful, it's awful, I feel SO sooo Oppressed!

Given that many children eat as many as two meals a day at school, it’s pretty clear that schools have a vital role to play if we’re going to combat the disturbing rise in childhood obesity we’ve seen in recent years. Just as clear is that schools participating in USDA’s HealthierUS School Challenge honored at the White House this week demonstrate the kind of deep commitment needed to create and maintain a healthy school environment. These schools are leaders that set an example for schools across the country.

The HealthierUS School Challenge is a key component of First Lady Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move! initiative to end childhood obesity within a generation. In February 2010, USDA and the First Lady called on stakeholders to double the number of Challenge schools in a year  a goal reached in June  and add 1,000 schools per year for two years after that.

The 1,273 challenge schools honored at the White House on Monday voluntarily agreed to provide healthy meals based on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, including a variety of fresh fruits and vegetables, whole-grain foods, and fat-free or low fat milk. Challenge schools also have to do what schools do best: They have to teach their students what it means to eat smart. They have to ensure that kids take part in regular physical activity. To achieve that goal some schools offer creative options, such as supporting walking clubs and community-sponsored sports tournaments, or by just keeping a basket of simple items available for students to use during recess, such as jump ropes or hula hoops.

First Lady Michelle Obama and USDA believe that schools can take a leadership role in helping students learn to make healthier eating and active lifestyle choices that will result in healthier children and young adults. Knowing how and why to eat smart is important, but a good diet must be balanced with adequate physical activity to maintain good health.

First Lady Michelle Obama Recognizes the HealthierUS School Challenge Participants | Let's Move!

Bubububut I want more tater tots! Waaaaa!

And the schools ! Yes there food sucks to. More noise needs to be made about school food to. Good post.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Laura Bush's major project was hunger in America. And you never heard a peep from the rightwing nuts about it. Imagine if THAT were Michelle Obama's cause.

It is but only thru the aperture of whitey keeping the brothers down and from easy .gov funded access to escarole and broccoli-mushroom risotto which they so desperately long for.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nancy Reagan promoted a cause which was against something illegal.

Laura Bush promoted a cause to help citizens get the most of something which is available to you.

Michelle Obama promotes control over the choices of what you can or cannot put in your body and has lobbied for legislative and policy change to meet that end, influenced the food industry to changes not based on personal choice but predetermined offerings that meet her design and sets the tone that food access is racially motivated in the country.

So if there were a 'pro-life' first lady whose cause was to campaign against abortion,

that would be reprehensible and inappropriate?

 

[Katzndogz]

Nancy Reagan promoted a cause which was against something illegal.

Laura Bush promoted a cause to help citizens get the most of something which is available to you.

Michelle Obama promotes control over the choices of what you can or cannot put in your body and has lobbied for legislative and policy change to meet that end, influenced the food industry to changes not based on personal choice but predetermined offerings that meet her design and sets the tone that food access is racially motivated in the country.

Laura Bush was a teacher. Her project of literacy was something she knew something about.

Laura Bush's major project was hunger in America. And you never heard a peep from the rightwing nuts about it. Imagine if THAT were Michelle Obama's cause.

No, Laura Bush's project was literacy, but she wasn't a teacher. She was actually a librarian.

George W. Bush Presidential Center

You might look it up. Laura Bush went around the world promoting literacy, particularly female literacy.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Nancy Reagan promoted a cause which was against something illegal.

Laura Bush promoted a cause to help citizens get the most of something which is available to you.

Michelle Obama promotes control over the choices of what you can or cannot put in your body and has lobbied for legislative and policy change to meet that end, influenced the food industry to changes not based on personal choice but predetermined offerings that meet her design and sets the tone that food access is racially motivated in the country.

So if there were a 'pro-life' first lady whose cause was to campaign against abortion,

that would be reprehensible and inappropriate?

Firstly I see great value in a woman's lawful right to cull her children, the outcome of which facilitates the diminution of such pre-disposition and/or cultural imbuement to another generation.

Secondly. Culling is legal. I would view such a cause as the equivalence of an anti-2nd Amendment crusade.

Bad juju.

 

[earlycuyler]

As I said, I dont own a TV, so I have not seen any speech where she injects race.


And I dont care about an adult mans lard ass until the fat bastards heart explodes and My insurance go's up because he is not covered.

The whole food desert / access disparity campaign is race-centeric.

So then you ARE a proponent of outside determination of what you can eat or put in your body if only for your own cost protection assurances. Nice.

Why not ? If I smoke six packs of cigarettes a day, why should you have to pay for my care when I get lung cancer ? but to be totally honest, I could personally give a shit less about some fat bastard who suffered an infarction because he wants to sit on the couch eating Salisbury steak and french fries and watch dancing with the stars. Thats his problem. To hell with him. If you are on food stamps, YES, I am for controlling what can be purchased with them. If they controlled what you could purchase with food stamps you would see less of this.

All thees little fatsos are future increases in my insurance premiums.

 

[OODA_Loop]

[Why not ? If I smoke six packs of cigarettes a day, why should you have to pay for my care when I get lung cancer ? All thees little fatsos are future increases in my insurance premiums.

Private insurers can exclude or create covered items and you as a consumer can elect other means of insurance ?

 

[JoeB131]

Nancy Reagan promoted a cause which was against something illegal.

Laura Bush promoted a cause to help citizens get the most of something which is available to you.

Michelle Obama promotes control over the choices of what you can or cannot put in your body and has lobbied for legislative and policy change to meet that end, influenced the food industry to changes not based on personal choice but predetermined offerings that meet her design and sets the tone that food access is racially motivated in the country.

Historians will look back on the "War on Drugs" with the same looks of contempt that we today look at the prohibitionists and Temperence movement. Truly, the damage we have done to ourselves with this massive stupidity is beyond words. I just don't see the value of locking up 2 million of our citizens. I really don't.

We are treating a medical problem as a criminal one, and it's stupid.

Now, for Mrs. Obama. Bless her for making the people who sell our kids unhealthy junk and entice them with toys be more responsible. Just can't see why it's a bad, unless you are a McDonald's stockholder.

 

[JoeB131]

Accusing me of hate? Really? Try again. She is lobbying for legislation to impose this nonsense by law. Nice she preaches this stuff...but she also needs to practice what she preaches...

I don't think it's nonsense, since the government already has the authority to regulate food and drugs.

 

[JoeB131]

Oh, knock off the hysteria. I don't 'hate' Obama.... moron. This low IQ crap of accusing everyone of 'hate' or 'racism' or whatever the current insult of the day is might make you feel empowered but it is laughably ignorant.

Actually, I call them as I see them. the fact you want to back a guy who essentially believes the same things, and is just as liberal, but is "white and delightsome", says it all.

At least I'll back a guy with a different opinion.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Historians will look back on the "War on Drugs" with the same looks of contempt that we today look at the prohibitionists and Temperence movement. Truly, the damage we have done to ourselves with this massive stupidity is beyond words.

Now, for Mrs. Obama. Bless her for making the people who sell our kids unhealthy junk and entice them with toys be more responsible. Just can't see why it's a bad, unless you are a McDonald's stockholder.

Unfettered by .gov control / access to illegal drugs = Bad

Regulated .gov control / access to food = Good

Who can argue with that ?

To do so = Racism

 

[Full-Auto]

Nancy Reagan promoted a cause which was against something illegal.

Laura Bush promoted a cause to help citizens get the most of something which is available to you.

Michelle Obama promotes control over the choices of what you can or cannot put in your body and has lobbied for legislative and policy change to meet that end, influenced the food industry to changes not based on personal choice but predetermined offerings that meet her design and sets the tone that food access is racially motivated in the country.

Historians will look back on the "War on Drugs" with the same looks of contempt that we today look at the prohibitionists and Temperence movement. Truly, the damage we have done to ourselves with this massive stupidity is beyond words. I just don't see the value of locking up 2 million of our citizens. I really don't.

We are treating a medical problem as a criminal one, and it's stupid.

Now, for Mrs. Obama. Bless her for making the people who sell our kids unhealthy junk and entice them with toys be more responsible. Just can't see why it's a bad, unless you are a McDonald's stockholder.

The toy doesnt mean a damn thing. Its the parent. But in true lefty leaning fashion you want to hit the business and avoid the personal responsibility.

Now explain how I have that wrong

 

[earlycuyler]

[Why not ? If I smoke six packs of cigarettes a day, why should you have to pay for my care when I get lung cancer ? All thees little fatsos are future increases in my insurance premiums.

Private insurers can exclude or create covered items and you as a consumer can elect other means of insurance ?

I shouldn't have to consider other means of insurance when the quadruple bypass's and diabetes drugs the kids in those pictures will need when they reach 20 years of age are 110% preventable. Same for the heart disease, and various cancers caused by smoking or bad living in general. Insurance companies should not have to insure them either.

 

[JoeB131]

Historians will look back on the "War on Drugs" with the same looks of contempt that we today look at the prohibitionists and Temperence movement. Truly, the damage we have done to ourselves with this massive stupidity is beyond words.

Now, for Mrs. Obama. Bless her for making the people who sell our kids unhealthy junk and entice them with toys be more responsible. Just can't see why it's a bad, unless you are a McDonald's stockholder.

Unfettered by .gov control / access to illegal drugs = Bad

Regulated .gov control / access to food = Good

Who can argue with that ?

To do so = Racism

No, guy, here's the real problem.

More people die in this country every year from bad eating habits than from drugs. But the food industry has lobbyists and congressmen, and getting them to behave is a real struggle.

On the other hand, why are drugs still illegal? Because people are making money off the war on drugs. We lock up close to two million people in a population of 300 million. Germany locks up 72,000 out of a population of 80 million.

It's like Deep Throat said. Follow the money. When you see something that is truly screwed up, follow the money to the people who benefit from it.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Private insurers can exclude or create covered items and you as a consumer can elect other means of insurance ?

I shouldn't have to consider other means of insurance ....... Insurance companies should not have to insure them either.[/QUOTE]

No they don't. But they do.

So start shopping.

 

[JoeB131]

[Why not ? If I smoke six packs of cigarettes a day, why should you have to pay for my care when I get lung cancer ? All thees little fatsos are future increases in my insurance premiums.

Private insurers can exclude or create covered items and you as a consumer can elect other means of insurance ?

I shouldn't have to consider other means of insurance when the quadruple bypass's and diabetes drugs the kids in those pictures will need when they reach 20 years of age are 110% preventable. Same for the heart disease, and various cancers caused by smoking or bad living in general. Insurance companies should not have to insure them either.

Or we could just do what any sensible country does and just have universal coverage...

If you want to take the "MEdical Calvinist" view of medicine, big insurance would never have to pay for anything. It's always your own damned fault.

 

[earlycuyler]

Nancy Reagan promoted a cause which was against something illegal.

Laura Bush promoted a cause to help citizens get the most of something which is available to you.

Michelle Obama promotes control over the choices of what you can or cannot put in your body and has lobbied for legislative and policy change to meet that end, influenced the food industry to changes not based on personal choice but predetermined offerings that meet her design and sets the tone that food access is racially motivated in the country.

Historians will look back on the "War on Drugs" with the same looks of contempt that we today look at the prohibitionists and Temperence movement. Truly, the damage we have done to ourselves with this massive stupidity is beyond words. I just don't see the value of locking up 2 million of our citizens. I really don't.

We are treating a medical problem as a criminal one, and it's stupid.

Now, for Mrs. Obama. Bless her for making the people who sell our kids unhealthy junk and entice them with toys be more responsible. Just can't see why it's a bad, unless you are a McDonald's stockholder.

The toy doesnt mean a damn thing. Its the parent. But in true lefty leaning fashion you want to hit the business and avoid the personal responsibility.

Now explain how I have that wrong

You dont. What you do is go head and give the kid his happy meal, then hand him/her a catchers mit and ball and have them throw it and chase it for an hour or two. Parents are a bit heavy thees days to and could use some time off the couch to.