If GOP is upset about Michele Obama's anti-obesity campaign...

[Jarhead]

I ate at Bonefish last night (I had the Mahi-Mahi, thank you very much) and there were SALT SHAKERS ON EVERY TABLE!!!! I thought Michele was going to burst in at any moment with guns blazing!

Did you use the salt?

No. The asparagus was perfectly cooked, and I would never put salt on fish.

Had the best roasted asparagus the other night...a friend made it.
Salt on fish would be a major mistake.

How would you like it if the restaurant told you that law prohibits lemon on the fish...(assuming lemon were not deeemed as healthy)?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Irregardless of your "integrity", I am correct.

There is no such word as "irregardless," and you are far from correct.

 

[Synthaholic]

So nobody on the Right wants to talk about the possibility of the GOP to support a serial adulterer and his harlot wife?

 

[peach174]

I ate at Bonefish last night (I had the Mahi-Mahi, thank you very much) and there were SALT SHAKERS ON EVERY TABLE!!!! I thought Michele was going to burst in at any moment with guns blazing!

It is being done in New York. They are trying to ban it in N.Y. Restaurants.
Ban salt to save lives, restaurants in New York told - Americas, World - The Independent

What a silly person he is. What do you think his chances are, considering the fact that there are a large number of Lefties in NY State?

Pretty darn good because this is a leftist agenda. They did it with the trans fat.

 

[bodecea]

So. You want me to go away now? Is this part of your doing "nothing but debate intelligently"?

*I* for one, don't want you to go away.

I really enjoy mocking and humiliating you!

And in all fairness, credit where due, you seem to take it pretty well.

That is part and parcel of your Integrity, isn't it? Uncensored?

Or at least telling yourself that you are mocking and humiliating someone?

 

[Synthaholic]

Did you use the salt?

No. The asparagus was perfectly cooked, and I would never put salt on fish.

Had the best roasted asparagus the other night...a friend made it.
Salt on fish would be a major mistake.

How would you like it if the restaurant told you that law prohibits lemon on the fish...(assuming lemon were not deeemed as healthy)?

But the law wouldn't prohibit lemon, just as the law doesn't prohibit salt.

 

[bodecea]

They don't want to deal with choice. They just want to take away. People are not able to do it on their own. The left truly believe this.

What I truely believe, peach, is that I'm still seeing salt at restaurants. Can you enlighten us as to why that is?

Becuase legislation at the federal level has not yet been passed.
However, some local governments have passed similar legislation.

Really? I would love to read up on where that has happened. Please link that information for us.

 

[peach174]

So nobody on the Right wants to talk about the possibility of the GOP to support a serial adulterer and his harlot wife?

That's because Gingrich hasn't a chance at winning.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Guess who Chelsea's father is. (Hint: It's not Bill.)

Madeline Albright? Janet Reno?

Just a guess.

 

[Jarhead]

Just a second...are you trying to say that you DID NOT say those things to me? On two different occasion? When you supposedly were doing "NOTHING but debate this intelligently"?

Nope. Didnt say that I never said it....I

Actually, I admitted saying it when I said you cherry picked two lines of mine out of dozens of posts..

So there you go again...spinning what I said.....seems to be a bad habit of yours.

So now I have a deal for you. You spin what I say, I will no longer respond to you.

You say something that is worthy of the debate at habnd, I will respond to you.

Sadly, I dont see much responding to you in the future based on the interaction I have had with you in the past.

So my guess is....this is s true "cya"...

Cherry picking. You mean, if I had shown both posts in their entirety, those 'cherrypicked' sentences would NOT come out as personal insults? That they would clearly show that you were doing NOTHING but debating intelligently?


Oh, apparently you are running away now.

No...that was a valid question....and one worhty of a response.

I thought I made myself clear...but I guess I need to go the extra yard for you...and I will gladly do so...

I consider it cherry picking when you take two lines out of dozens of posts and make a judgement call on my intentions and agenda in the thread based on those two lines....

Furthermore, those two lines were used strictly for AND directly in response to your intenitonally spinning of things I had said during the debate....and I believed such intentional spinning was taking away from the flow of the debate and was a pathetic tactic of yours to avoid responding to the crux of my sentiments.

 

[bodecea]

You opened the door to a discussion about infidelity so here goes. The former carpet bag senator from NY and now Secy State Hillary Clinton is the world class enabler and everyone knows it. For whatever reason I don't want to know about she allowed her husband to abuse women for years. She created the "bombo eruption" team that was dedicated to ruining the lives of any woman who had the courage to come forward with allegations about her husband. She sat in front of the cameras and told the Country that the "vast right wing conspiracy" was responsible for the DNA on Monica's dress while she knew and condoned what her husband was doing. The left should think twice before they ever bring up the infidelity issue.

Guess who Chelsea's father is. (Hint: It's not Bill.)

I beg your pardon?

 

[bodecea]

Irregardless of your "integrity", I am correct.

There is no such word as "irregardless," and you are far from correct.

How very odd...I have my American Heritage dictionary open right now to the word "irregardless"...

So, it would appear I am correct on both counts.

 

[bodecea]

It is being done in New York. They are trying to ban it in N.Y. Restaurants.
Ban salt to save lives, restaurants in New York told - Americas, World - The Independent

What a silly person he is. What do you think his chances are, considering the fact that there are a large number of Lefties in NY State?

Pretty darn good because this is a leftist agenda. They did it with the trans fat.

So, are you interested in some kind of wager on this happening? This year? Next year?

 

[Trajan]

I’m waiting to hear the GOP base explain why Michelle Obama is a bad First Lady for advocating against childhood obesity, but Callista Gingrich would be a good First Lady even though she had an affair with a married man and broke up his marriage.

Anyone want to take a 'spin'?

sure; I am against any gov. duplication/re-funding/creation most especially of a pgrm. or mantra that has not lived up to its hype or prior expense employed .

we have been funding like prgms.; this is just another bite at the same apple to the tune of 4.5 Billion dollar prgm. that has basically been in effect for decades ( we spend 12 Billion now) . I have already posted in this forum a couple of months ago when the funding was passed, some stats ala childhood obesity which was approx. . 5-7% 35 years ago....its now over 25% in some areas 15-18% being the average.

In addition this bill comes with some added food or Calorie Police enforcement- wait till you see, as I guarantee you will, those ubiquitous wtf is the gov. doing now reports where in some granny somewhere got her cupcakes trashed ( thrown away) or someones daughter could not bring an angel food cake to a bake sale becasue it has trans fats or has been deemed fattening or unhealthy according to the new paradigm.

And, lets cut right to the chase; even sympathetic food service school district admins admit- the kids will not eat salad and no Fu Fu dishes either, its a no go.....its that simple, slice it anyway you like. ( no pun intended).

And I have not touched the whole social engineering aspect.......I'll leave that out.

 

[bodecea]

Nope. Didnt say that I never said it....I

Actually, I admitted saying it when I said you cherry picked two lines of mine out of dozens of posts..

So there you go again...spinning what I said.....seems to be a bad habit of yours.

So now I have a deal for you. You spin what I say, I will no longer respond to you.

You say something that is worthy of the debate at habnd, I will respond to you.

Sadly, I dont see much responding to you in the future based on the interaction I have had with you in the past.

So my guess is....this is s true "cya"...

Cherry picking. You mean, if I had shown both posts in their entirety, those 'cherrypicked' sentences would NOT come out as personal insults? That they would clearly show that you were doing NOTHING but debating intelligently?


Oh, apparently you are running away now.

No...that was a valid question....and one worhty of a response.

I thought I made myself clear...but I guess I need to go the extra yard for you...and I will gladly do so...

I consider it cherry picking when you take two lines out of dozens of posts and make a judgement call on my intentions and agenda in the thread based on those two lines....

Furthermore, those two lines were used strictly for AND directly in response to your intenitonally spinning of things I had said during the debate....and I believed such intentional spinning was taking away from the flow of the debate and was a pathetic tactic of yours to avoid responding to the crux of my sentiments.

Did you or did you not say you were doing NOTHING but debating intelligently? Do those two "cherrypicked" comments show that you were doing NOTHING but debating intelligently?

Yes or no?

 

[Uncensored2008]

How very odd...I have my American Heritage dictionary open right now to the word "irregardless"...

So, it would appear I am correct on both counts.

Sure you do.

The thing is stupidfuck, it is a double-negative. The word is "regardless," to negate it with "ir" is absurd and would alter the meaning to "regarded."

What you are doing is combining "irrespective" with "regardless."

IF you are not openly lying about AH carrying the word (they carry "ain't") there is zero doubt that they denote it as incorrect.

You're an idiot, but at least..

Oh wait, there is no "but."

 

[bodecea]

no if i was a thug, i would break your ******* knees caps with a baseball bat and take your ******* money.

If you thought you could pull it off and get away with it, there is little doubt you would do that.

and no i feel you should be able to eat and do what you like, but kids dont get all the rights we do. Schools are not 100% all right areas.

And you view yourself, rather than the parents as the appropriate arbiter of how they should raise their children.

I understand.

Hey, here's a word reserved just for you "Stupidfuck."

It defines you like no other word can.

oh..i could.

Outside of school, parents have full 100% control as to what goes into their childs mouth. I'll never curve that ever. ( well so long as they are feeding the shit bleach or something, like your parents did)

It is in the best interests of governments to have their children healthy. Its costs less in the long term and provides a stable society. Or at least better society.

you see the problem with your argument is that you are trying to use the parents as your excuse. Parents have every right to watch what their kids eat. I didn't see anywhere in the legs, that they would monitor what is inside home brought lunches. They are just taking one area of availability away from the kids.

so your parents angle doesnt work at all.

It IS a pretty amazing thing that with all the hair pulling and pearl clutching about government schools FORCING kids to eat healthy and how very horrible that is....it can all be completely bypassed when parents provide their children with their own lunch. That, apparently, is not a viable option for some.

It reminds me of the Tea Party signs saying "Keep your Government out of my Medicare"

 

[Uncensored2008]

It is in the best interests of governments to have their children healthy.

Right, because children belong to the government, not to their parents - don't they Chairman Mao?

ROFL

What a stupid little shit you are.

 

[Vanquish]

please offer me an example of any other first lady that used tax payer money to gain support through TV ads and billboards for her own idea for legislation.

Show me one.

DUDE! Read the shit you write. It wasn't that long ago actually.

What drugs are you taking or concussions have you suffered that your attention span isn't that long.

THEY ALL get funds. And they ALL use them in public campaigns for causes.

Stop being a fuckwit.

Dude...

Why dont YOU read what I write.

My question was what first lady used tax payer money to push LEGISLATION.

Why do you keep ignoring that part of my question?

I have done nothing but agree that it is appropriate for her to have obesity as a cause and spend money educating the public as it pertains to proper eating habits.

But I also keep saying it crosses the line when she uses tax payer money to push legislation that GOVERNMENT should control the eating habits of the people.

LEGISLATION. LEGISLATION. LEGISLATION. LEGISLATION.

STOP ignoring that word!

I'm not IGNORING that word you fuckwit. They all push legislation. You seriously have your head up your own ass.

YOU DIDNT EVEN READ THE FIRST PAGE OF THE LINK THAT I GAVE YOU WHERE YOU WERE INSTANTLY DISPROVEN!!!

Ellen Wilson, 1913-1914
After visiting the squalid streets where many of Washington D.C.'s poor black and immigrant denizens lived, Woodrow Wilson's first wife took up the need for better urban housing. In early 1914, "Ellen Wilson's bill" — the first legislation to be so publicly spurred on by a first lady — was introduced. Although Congress initially squabbled over who would pay, lawmakers quickly passed the bill after hearing of Ellen's rapidly declining health. She lived just long enough to get the news before succumbing to kidney disease that August.

Read more: A Brief History of First Ladies and Their Causes - Photo Essays - TIME

And that's just the beginning. Stop trying to get your ass out of a sling with little technicalities that dont stand up.

Take your lumps like a man, fuckwit. They all push legislation and changes in the government. And they all use their staff to do it.

**** this is like hitting my brain against a brick wall talking to such a fuckwit.

 

[bodecea]

How very odd...I have my American Heritage dictionary open right now to the word "irregardless"...

So, it would appear I am correct on both counts.

Sure you do.

The thing is stupidfuck, it is a double-negative. The word is "regardless," to negate it with "ir" is absurd and would alter the meaning to "regarded."

What you are doing is combining "irrespective" with "regardless."

IF you are not openly lying about AH carrying the word (they carry "ain't") there is zero doubt that they denote it as incorrect.

You're an idiot, but at least..

Oh wait, there is no "but."

Wait, so the dictionary is wrong....or rather, YOU are saying the dictionary is wrong. Must be more of your INTEGRITY, no?

I guess these guys are wrong too:

Irregardless - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

and these guys:

Irregardless | Define Irregardless at Dictionary.com

and these guys:

Irregardless - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Seems to me, your Integrity on this issue (and others) is shaky at best.

You don't seem to know much about word usage and definitions....and you wanted to school US?