Make it mandatory

[Muhammed]

It's parents' job to raise their kids, not the schools. Statist idea is statist.

It's the parents' job to do this, yet no one is telling them how to do it PROPERLY, and they're teaching their kids how to do it BADLY. And so the cycle of stupidity continues.

And? Still not the government's job to be the parent.

I didn't say it was their job to be the parent.

I said it was their job to sort out social problems. In order to solve this social problem them need to be educating people in how to do things properly. Clearly, I suggest it is quite clear, that many people have a problem when they're lacking the education which used to be passed down through the generations and now isn't, there is a big problem with people bringing up their kids, especially from poorer families, but also other families.

There was a program on TV, very interesting, by a guy called Jaime Oliver, a British chef who's into trying to educate kids so they have the skills for life.

Jamie Oliver s Food Revolution - TV.com

This is the program, I haven't watched it for a long time, but it's really worth watching to see how the US is simply not dealing with its problems on any level, this being one such example, and how the people fought against this, and even when he got some on his side he still had problems then with the govt.

Oliver knows a few good unoriginal recipes but he doesn't know jack about nutrition.

Does he need to know much about nutrition?

Yes.

 

[frigidweirdo]

People have all the knowledge they need right at their fingertips via the internet. If they really wanted to know about nutrition/healthy eating, etc they would. A lot of people are simply lazy, they'd rather go to the drive-through rather than spend the time/energy preparing food at home.

Then again those who learn stuff at school are far more likely to get it.

I don't get your attitude. It's almost as if you're willing for many people to fail in life.

Yes, people are lazy. Fine, people are lazy. But they're lazy and they're BREEDING and they're producing kids and teaching them to be lazy.

On the other side of the pacific, the Chinese are producing and they're producing hard working robots.

Often people see something as easy, they go for it. They don't think about the consequences. Knowledge is power.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's the parents' job to do this, yet no one is telling them how to do it PROPERLY, and they're teaching their kids how to do it BADLY. And so the cycle of stupidity continues.

And? Still not the government's job to be the parent.

I didn't say it was their job to be the parent.

I said it was their job to sort out social problems. In order to solve this social problem them need to be educating people in how to do things properly. Clearly, I suggest it is quite clear, that many people have a problem when they're lacking the education which used to be passed down through the generations and now isn't, there is a big problem with people bringing up their kids, especially from poorer families, but also other families.

There was a program on TV, very interesting, by a guy called Jaime Oliver, a British chef who's into trying to educate kids so they have the skills for life.

Jamie Oliver s Food Revolution - TV.com

This is the program, I haven't watched it for a long time, but it's really worth watching to see how the US is simply not dealing with its problems on any level, this being one such example, and how the people fought against this, and even when he got some on his side he still had problems then with the govt.

Oliver knows a few good unoriginal recipes but he doesn't know jack about nutrition.

Does he need to know much about nutrition?

Yes.

Great reply.... not.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The g/w clause doesn't give congress the power to legislate general welfare ... you know, like making mandatory the joining of a sports team and eating the foods the gov't says people should.

You may be paying for the meal but taxes go towards paying the workers and food purchases.

No, schools should not be feeding kids. Schools are there to teach children; parents are the children's providers of necessities, like food. If you want to buy a Mickey D lunch and pack it for your kid, have at it I don't care. Take all the money spent on food/cafeteria workers, etc and give it to the teachers.

"So, if parents go to McDonalds they should take packed lunches, it's not the responsibility of private companies to feed the kids, it's the parents' responsibility?" wtf does this even mean? Since when is McD's a school funded with taxpayer money?

Had Oliver taught the parents about good food/prep/nutrition then the parents would be better able to send their kids to school with a proper lunch, no need for purchasing the schools food. If everyone did this then the school food could just go away ... as it should.

Then again I'm not talking about making the joining of a sports team mandatory.

What we're talking about would be the equivalent of the govt setting up sports teams and giving kids the chance to participate. We're not talking mandatory here.

You said it's okay for parents to give their kids McDonalds. So why isn't it okay for parents to give their kids meals that have been prepared at school? It's their choice, not yours.

You say you're spending money on food workers. I'm saying make parents pay for the food in schools. Pay for the workers, the whole thing run in a non-for profit manner, but doesn't lose money either. Sort of like McDonalds, only, without profit and without loss and healthy.

Had Oliver taught the parents about good food, then what? If they don't have the time, or the inclination, or they don't understand or many other possibilities. Like you said, this stuff is on the internet already. if they're not doing it already, then what?

Kids on the other hand are more susceptible to good advice. Teach them in school and maybe you'll change a generation.

My parents didn't have time to send me to school with proper food. I also didn't get school meals. I used to go to school with two pieces of bread. Both my parents were stressed to hell doing full time jobs and didn't notice everything. At home I got healthy meals, never unhealthy meals.

It's just not possible for many parents to give their kids food. Also, you get many kids whose parents are just complete and utter a-holes. I could give you examples, but I doubt you need them. Food at school for some kids is the best meal they're going to get all day, maybe the only proper meal they're going to get.

Saying parents should cook good food ignores the reality.

If kids are going to school hungry they don't study properly, they don't behave properly, then they get behind and their life is going to suck big time, and it's not their fault. And then they have kids and do the same thing. This is what's happening in the US.

In the UK there are programs for kids to get breakfast and lunch at school and it makes them better students, it gives them a ******* chance in life.

I wonder why you don't want kids to have a chance.

 

[Zoom-boing]

People have all the knowledge they need right at their fingertips via the internet. If they really wanted to know about nutrition/healthy eating, etc they would. A lot of people are simply lazy, they'd rather go to the drive-through rather than spend the time/energy preparing food at home.

Then again those who learn stuff at school are far more likely to get it.

I don't get your attitude. It's almost as if you're willing for many people to fail in life.

Yes, people are lazy. Fine, people are lazy. But they're lazy and they're BREEDING and they're producing kids and teaching them to be lazy.

On the other side of the pacific, the Chinese are producing and they're producing hard working robots.

Often people see something as easy, they go for it. They don't think about the consequences. Knowledge is power.

Go back and read what I actually wrote ... I never said not to teach them. I said that the parents should provide food for their kids, get the schools out of THAT, have that money to increase teachers salaries, have them teach nutrition, home ec, etc.

Stop providing for them and instead teach them how to fend for themselves and you won't have nearly as many people leeching off the government. Stopping school lunches (government providing food) is a good first step; put this responsibility back on the parents where it belongs. Once you have a generation or two who know how to fend for themselves, they raise children who do the same, less people depending on government.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Then again I'm not talking about making the joining of a sports team mandatory.

What we're talking about would be the equivalent of the govt setting up sports teams and giving kids the chance to participate. We're not talking mandatory here.

They already do that, it's call phys ed and it is mandatory. Kids are still fat. Here's a novel idea: instead of getting even more government involved in people's lives how about parents parent their kids, boot them off their technology, and boot them outside to play. Oh and schools stop recess around 5th grade. wtf? Recess until h/s graduation would do everyone good.

You said it's okay for parents to give their kids McDonalds. So why isn't it okay for parents to give their kids meals that have been prepared at school? It's their choice, not yours.

Because schools are there to teach not to provide food. Too much govt/big argi in bed together. It's not necessary and it gives gov't even more power and control.

You say you're spending money on food workers. I'm saying make parents pay for the food in schools. Pay for the workers, the whole thing run in a non-for profit manner, but doesn't lose money either. Sort of like McDonalds, only, without profit and without loss and healthy.

You have any idea how much it costs to run a restaurant? And you want parents to foot the bill for what is essentially a restaurant? Why, when parents can just pack their own kid's lunch? No, get rid of school lunches altogether.

Had Oliver taught the parents about good food, then what? If they don't have the time, or the inclination, or they don't understand or many other possibilities. Like you said, this stuff is on the internet already. if they're not doing it already, then what?

Lather, rinse, repeat until you've raised a generation or two who know how to fend for themselves and are raising kids who can fend for themselves. There will always be lazy-assed people, stop accommodating them. Raise the bar.

Kids on the other hand are more susceptible to good advice. Teach them in school and maybe you'll change a generation.

I've no problem with this and have stated such.

My parents didn't have time to send me to school with proper food. I also didn't get school meals. I used to go to school with two pieces of bread. Both my parents were stressed to hell doing full time jobs and didn't notice everything. At home I got healthy meals, never unhealthy meals.

It's just not possible for many parents to give their kids food. Also, you get many kids whose parents are just complete and utter a-holes. I could give you examples, but I doubt you need them. Food at school for some kids is the best meal they're going to get all day, maybe the only proper meal they're going to get.

Saying parents should cook good food ignores the reality.

Parents don't have time to provide food for their kids? wth, that's what parenting is all about, providing for your kids. I call bullshit on that lame excuse (not that it doesn't happen but that is a bullshit excuse). If parents don't want to be bothered then they shouldn't have kids. Once again, government stepping in and taking over the role that belongs to/is the parents responsibility is not the answer.

If kids are going to school hungry they don't study properly, they don't behave properly, then they get behind and their life is going to suck big time, and it's not their fault. And then they have kids and do the same thing. This is what's happening in the US.

The opposite is true as well. So, teach the kids in school, let a generation or two grow up learning how to fend for themselves, and get the ball rolling in the other direction.

In the UK there are programs for kids to get breakfast and lunch at school and it makes them better students, it gives them a ******* chance in life.

Then move to the UK. I don't give a shit, it is NOT the schools/governments job to ******* provide for people. The more you provide the less self-reliant people are/become, the more dependent on government they are/become. NO.

I wonder why you don't want kids to have a chance.

Oh please, stop with the bullshit talking points. Seriously.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Has anyone else noticed that the big trend in school supplies this year is backpacks that come in a set with a matching lunchbox? Lunchboxes for kids had kinda gone out of fashion for a while, but they're back in a big way. Anyone think this might be a commentary on Michelle Obama's school lunch program?

 

[frigidweirdo]

People have all the knowledge they need right at their fingertips via the internet. If they really wanted to know about nutrition/healthy eating, etc they would. A lot of people are simply lazy, they'd rather go to the drive-through rather than spend the time/energy preparing food at home.

Then again those who learn stuff at school are far more likely to get it.

I don't get your attitude. It's almost as if you're willing for many people to fail in life.

Yes, people are lazy. Fine, people are lazy. But they're lazy and they're BREEDING and they're producing kids and teaching them to be lazy.

On the other side of the pacific, the Chinese are producing and they're producing hard working robots.

Often people see something as easy, they go for it. They don't think about the consequences. Knowledge is power.

Go back and read what I actually wrote ... I never said not to teach them. I said that the parents should provide food for their kids, get the schools out of THAT, have that money to increase teachers salaries, have them teach nutrition, home ec, etc.

Stop providing for them and instead teach them how to fend for themselves and you won't have nearly as many people leeching off the government. Stopping school lunches (government providing food) is a good first step; put this responsibility back on the parents where it belongs. Once you have a generation or two who know how to fend for themselves, they raise children who do the same, less people depending on government.

What? You're telling me to read what you wrote, then say you didn't say blah blah blah which I CERTAINLY didn't say.

Yes, I got the bit where you said parents should feed their kids. I also point out that parents paying for food that is dished out at school is PARENTS FEEDING THEIR KIDS. As you've said going to McDonalds is parents feeding their kids, why wouldn't parents paying for food at school not be parents feeding their kids? Kids need to eat at school.

Also what I said is that parents often don't HAVE THE TIME to prepare meals for their kids. We're in the modern world where many tasks are done by others. I don't do my plumbing, I call a plumber.

And again you've made the same point which I already discussed. I said PARENT PAY FOR THE FOOD THEIR KIDS EAT. Therefore the school isn't giving food for free, it's there if they want it, and it's healthy too.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Then again I'm not talking about making the joining of a sports team mandatory.

What we're talking about would be the equivalent of the govt setting up sports teams and giving kids the chance to participate. We're not talking mandatory here.

They already do that, it's call phys ed and it is mandatory. Kids are still fat. Here's a novel idea: instead of getting even more government involved in people's lives how about parents parent their kids, boot them off their technology, and boot them outside to play. Oh and schools stop recess around 5th grade. wtf? Recess until h/s graduation would do everyone good.

You said it's okay for parents to give their kids McDonalds. So why isn't it okay for parents to give their kids meals that have been prepared at school? It's their choice, not yours.

Because schools are there to teach not to provide food. Too much govt/big argi in bed together. It's not necessary and it gives gov't even more power and control.

You say you're spending money on food workers. I'm saying make parents pay for the food in schools. Pay for the workers, the whole thing run in a non-for profit manner, but doesn't lose money either. Sort of like McDonalds, only, without profit and without loss and healthy.

You have any idea how much it costs to run a restaurant? And you want parents to foot the bill for what is essentially a restaurant? Why, when parents can just pack their own kid's lunch? No, get rid of school lunches altogether.

Had Oliver taught the parents about good food, then what? If they don't have the time, or the inclination, or they don't understand or many other possibilities. Like you said, this stuff is on the internet already. if they're not doing it already, then what?

Lather, rinse, repeat until you've raised a generation or two who know how to fend for themselves and are raising kids who can fend for themselves. There will always be lazy-assed people, stop accommodating them. Raise the bar.

Kids on the other hand are more susceptible to good advice. Teach them in school and maybe you'll change a generation.

I've no problem with this and have stated such.

My parents didn't have time to send me to school with proper food. I also didn't get school meals. I used to go to school with two pieces of bread. Both my parents were stressed to hell doing full time jobs and didn't notice everything. At home I got healthy meals, never unhealthy meals.

It's just not possible for many parents to give their kids food. Also, you get many kids whose parents are just complete and utter a-holes. I could give you examples, but I doubt you need them. Food at school for some kids is the best meal they're going to get all day, maybe the only proper meal they're going to get.

Saying parents should cook good food ignores the reality.

Parents don't have time to provide food for their kids? wth, that's what parenting is all about, providing for your kids. I call bullshit on that lame excuse (not that it doesn't happen but that is a bullshit excuse). If parents don't want to be bothered then they shouldn't have kids. Once again, government stepping in and taking over the role that belongs to/is the parents responsibility is not the answer.

If kids are going to school hungry they don't study properly, they don't behave properly, then they get behind and their life is going to suck big time, and it's not their fault. And then they have kids and do the same thing. This is what's happening in the US.

The opposite is true as well. So, teach the kids in school, let a generation or two grow up learning how to fend for themselves, and get the ball rolling in the other direction.

In the UK there are programs for kids to get breakfast and lunch at school and it makes them better students, it gives them a ******* chance in life.

Then move to the UK. I don't give a shit, it is NOT the schools/governments job to ******* provide for people. The more you provide the less self-reliant people are/become, the more dependent on government they are/become. NO.

I wonder why you don't want kids to have a chance.

Oh please, stop with the bullshit talking points. Seriously.

Physical education in schools is not enough exercise for kids. It's simply not. It's not enough exercise for 70 years either.

I agree that parents should bring their kids up properly. This isn't what we're dealing with here. We're not dealing with "they should do this or that", we're dealing with "they DON'T do this or that" and it's harming their children who are learning bad stuff and will continue this with their children and so on.

Do I know how much restaurants cost? Yes I do, I know how much it costs to produce meals to order, how much it costs for rent, how much it costs for waiters and waitresses, how much it costs for a lot of things you don't need in schools. You're not producing meals to order. You give them like three choices and you mass produce it. If parents want to pay, they'll pay. It's probably cost them $2 or $3 a day max.

Schools are there to teach. What happens when kids can't learn because they're hungry?

You're making the assumption that in a few generations they will know how to fend for themselves. It doesn't work like that, it's not working like that. You can see that already.

Parents don't have time. What's with parenting in a country where people have to work 60 hour weeks. There's all this talk of people working too much.

Okay, cut the amount of time someone can work legally down to 35 hours, then you might get more parenting. Or, give mothers maternity pay for the first 16 years of their child's life so they have the time to make school meals.
How's that going to go down in capitalist land?

So, it's the parents job to provide, they don't do it then what happens? What's your plan for parents who don't give their kids enough food to study properly? Nothing? Just let them grow up into a criminal and then lock them in the second largest prison system in the world per capita? Oh, great plan.

Then you really will have to provide for them. What's that? $30000 a year to keep them provided for every year in federal prison? More? A bit less for state prisons and even less for Louisiana's prison system as they're just breeding criminals and can't afford it.

Each idea you have just causes more problems. I agree you need to make parents self reliant. You don't do this by ******* the kids over and making them bad people.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Has anyone else noticed that the big trend in school supplies this year is backpacks that come in a set with a matching lunchbox? Lunchboxes for kids had kinda gone out of fashion for a while, but they're back in a big way. Anyone think this might be a commentary on Michelle Obama's school lunch program?

Maybe Michelle telling parents the food they're getting at school is crap, and some parents actually listened?

Well done Michelle.

 

[Unkotare]

, the Chinese are producing and they're producing hard working robots.....

You keep repeating this bigoted nonsense.

 

[Zoom-boing]

People have all the knowledge they need right at their fingertips via the internet. If they really wanted to know about nutrition/healthy eating, etc they would. A lot of people are simply lazy, they'd rather go to the drive-through rather than spend the time/energy preparing food at home.

Then again those who learn stuff at school are far more likely to get it.

I don't get your attitude. It's almost as if you're willing for many people to fail in life.

Yes, people are lazy. Fine, people are lazy. But they're lazy and they're BREEDING and they're producing kids and teaching them to be lazy.

On the other side of the pacific, the Chinese are producing and they're producing hard working robots.

Often people see something as easy, they go for it. They don't think about the consequences. Knowledge is power.

Go back and read what I actually wrote ... I never said not to teach them. I said that the parents should provide food for their kids, get the schools out of THAT, have that money to increase teachers salaries, have them teach nutrition, home ec, etc.

Stop providing for them and instead teach them how to fend for themselves and you won't have nearly as many people leeching off the government. Stopping school lunches (government providing food) is a good first step; put this responsibility back on the parents where it belongs. Once you have a generation or two who know how to fend for themselves, they raise children who do the same, less people depending on government.

What? You're telling me to read what you wrote, then say you didn't say blah blah blah which I CERTAINLY didn't say.

Yes, I got the bit where you said parents should feed their kids. I also point out that parents paying for food that is dished out at school is PARENTS FEEDING THEIR KIDS. As you've said going to McDonalds is parents feeding their kids, why wouldn't parents paying for food at school not be parents feeding their kids? Kids need to eat at school.

Also what I said is that parents often don't HAVE THE TIME to prepare meals for their kids. We're in the modern world where many tasks are done by others. I don't do my plumbing, I call a plumber.

And again you've made the same point which I already discussed. I said PARENT PAY FOR THE FOOD THEIR KIDS EAT. Therefore the school isn't giving food for free, it's there if they want it, and it's healthy too.

Except by having the schools run cafeterias it is much, much more than 'parents paying for their kids eat'. I thought you understood that. As long as public schools (government) is in the business of providing food (and let's face it, a lot of that food is subsidized = more taxpayers paying for someone else) they have more control and power. That is no good. Take the task of providing food to kids away from the school (government) and put it back 100% into the hands of who it really belongs to ... the parents. If you can't grasp this concept that's your problem.

Oh, parents are busy? Oh boo ******* hoo. Their first job, their most important job, the job that ALWAYS has to comes first is taking care of/providing for their kids. Too busy to pack a lunch? Give me a break. Once the kid is 8 they can pack their own lunch w/supervision. Waaah, waaaa parents are too busy to pack their kids lunch so they let the government feed their kids for them. Inch by inch by inch.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Then again I'm not talking about making the joining of a sports team mandatory.

What we're talking about would be the equivalent of the govt setting up sports teams and giving kids the chance to participate. We're not talking mandatory here.

They already do that, it's call phys ed and it is mandatory. Kids are still fat. Here's a novel idea: instead of getting even more government involved in people's lives how about parents parent their kids, boot them off their technology, and boot them outside to play. Oh and schools stop recess around 5th grade. wtf? Recess until h/s graduation would do everyone good.

You said it's okay for parents to give their kids McDonalds. So why isn't it okay for parents to give their kids meals that have been prepared at school? It's their choice, not yours.

Because schools are there to teach not to provide food. Too much govt/big argi in bed together. It's not necessary and it gives gov't even more power and control.

You say you're spending money on food workers. I'm saying make parents pay for the food in schools. Pay for the workers, the whole thing run in a non-for profit manner, but doesn't lose money either. Sort of like McDonalds, only, without profit and without loss and healthy.

You have any idea how much it costs to run a restaurant? And you want parents to foot the bill for what is essentially a restaurant? Why, when parents can just pack their own kid's lunch? No, get rid of school lunches altogether.

Had Oliver taught the parents about good food, then what? If they don't have the time, or the inclination, or they don't understand or many other possibilities. Like you said, this stuff is on the internet already. if they're not doing it already, then what?

Lather, rinse, repeat until you've raised a generation or two who know how to fend for themselves and are raising kids who can fend for themselves. There will always be lazy-assed people, stop accommodating them. Raise the bar.

Kids on the other hand are more susceptible to good advice. Teach them in school and maybe you'll change a generation.

I've no problem with this and have stated such.

My parents didn't have time to send me to school with proper food. I also didn't get school meals. I used to go to school with two pieces of bread. Both my parents were stressed to hell doing full time jobs and didn't notice everything. At home I got healthy meals, never unhealthy meals.

It's just not possible for many parents to give their kids food. Also, you get many kids whose parents are just complete and utter a-holes. I could give you examples, but I doubt you need them. Food at school for some kids is the best meal they're going to get all day, maybe the only proper meal they're going to get.

Saying parents should cook good food ignores the reality.

Parents don't have time to provide food for their kids? wth, that's what parenting is all about, providing for your kids. I call bullshit on that lame excuse (not that it doesn't happen but that is a bullshit excuse). If parents don't want to be bothered then they shouldn't have kids. Once again, government stepping in and taking over the role that belongs to/is the parents responsibility is not the answer.

If kids are going to school hungry they don't study properly, they don't behave properly, then they get behind and their life is going to suck big time, and it's not their fault. And then they have kids and do the same thing. This is what's happening in the US.

The opposite is true as well. So, teach the kids in school, let a generation or two grow up learning how to fend for themselves, and get the ball rolling in the other direction.

In the UK there are programs for kids to get breakfast and lunch at school and it makes them better students, it gives them a ******* chance in life.

Then move to the UK. I don't give a shit, it is NOT the schools/governments job to ******* provide for people. The more you provide the less self-reliant people are/become, the more dependent on government they are/become. NO.

I wonder why you don't want kids to have a chance.

Oh please, stop with the bullshit talking points. Seriously.

Physical education in schools is not enough exercise for kids. It's simply not. It's not enough exercise for 70 years either.

I agree that parents should bring their kids up properly. This isn't what we're dealing with here. We're not dealing with "they should do this or that", we're dealing with "they DON'T do this or that" and it's harming their children who are learning bad stuff and will continue this with their children and so on.

Do I know how much restaurants cost? Yes I do, I know how much it costs to produce meals to order, how much it costs for rent, how much it costs for waiters and waitresses, how much it costs for a lot of things you don't need in schools. You're not producing meals to order. You give them like three choices and you mass produce it. If parents want to pay, they'll pay. It's probably cost them $2 or $3 a day max.

Schools are there to teach. What happens when kids can't learn because they're hungry?

You're making the assumption that in a few generations they will know how to fend for themselves. It doesn't work like that, it's not working like that. You can see that already.

Parents don't have time. What's with parenting in a country where people have to work 60 hour weeks. There's all this talk of people working too much.

Okay, cut the amount of time someone can work legally down to 35 hours, then you might get more parenting. Or, give mothers maternity pay for the first 16 years of their child's life so they have the time to make school meals.
How's that going to go down in capitalist land?

So, it's the parents job to provide, they don't do it then what happens? What's your plan for parents who don't give their kids enough food to study properly? Nothing? Just let them grow up into a criminal and then lock them in the second largest prison system in the world per capita? Oh, great plan.

Then you really will have to provide for them. What's that? $30000 a year to keep them provided for every year in federal prison? More? A bit less for state prisons and even less for Louisiana's prison system as they're just breeding criminals and can't afford it.

Each idea you have just causes more problems. I agree you need to make parents self reliant. You don't do this by ******* the kids over and making them bad people.

I get it ... you want government to fill the void when parents don't do their job. Nope.

You wrote "Each idea you have just causes more problems".

Getting government out of people's lives, getting government to stop providing for people, teaching people (give them the opportunity) to once again become self-reliant equates to 'causing a problem' to you?

Go away, you're a loon.

 

[frigidweirdo]

People have all the knowledge they need right at their fingertips via the internet. If they really wanted to know about nutrition/healthy eating, etc they would. A lot of people are simply lazy, they'd rather go to the drive-through rather than spend the time/energy preparing food at home.

Then again those who learn stuff at school are far more likely to get it.

I don't get your attitude. It's almost as if you're willing for many people to fail in life.

Yes, people are lazy. Fine, people are lazy. But they're lazy and they're BREEDING and they're producing kids and teaching them to be lazy.

On the other side of the pacific, the Chinese are producing and they're producing hard working robots.

Often people see something as easy, they go for it. They don't think about the consequences. Knowledge is power.

Go back and read what I actually wrote ... I never said not to teach them. I said that the parents should provide food for their kids, get the schools out of THAT, have that money to increase teachers salaries, have them teach nutrition, home ec, etc.

Stop providing for them and instead teach them how to fend for themselves and you won't have nearly as many people leeching off the government. Stopping school lunches (government providing food) is a good first step; put this responsibility back on the parents where it belongs. Once you have a generation or two who know how to fend for themselves, they raise children who do the same, less people depending on government.

What? You're telling me to read what you wrote, then say you didn't say blah blah blah which I CERTAINLY didn't say.

Yes, I got the bit where you said parents should feed their kids. I also point out that parents paying for food that is dished out at school is PARENTS FEEDING THEIR KIDS. As you've said going to McDonalds is parents feeding their kids, why wouldn't parents paying for food at school not be parents feeding their kids? Kids need to eat at school.

Also what I said is that parents often don't HAVE THE TIME to prepare meals for their kids. We're in the modern world where many tasks are done by others. I don't do my plumbing, I call a plumber.

And again you've made the same point which I already discussed. I said PARENT PAY FOR THE FOOD THEIR KIDS EAT. Therefore the school isn't giving food for free, it's there if they want it, and it's healthy too.

Except by having the schools run cafeterias it is much, much more than 'parents paying for their kids eat'. I thought you understood that. As long as public schools (government) is in the business of providing food (and let's face it, a lot of that food is subsidized = more taxpayers paying for someone else) they have more control and power. That is no good. Take the task of providing food to kids away from the school (government) and put it back 100% into the hands of who it really belongs to ... the parents. If you can't grasp this concept that's your problem.

Oh, parents are busy? Oh boo ******* hoo. Their first job, their most important job, the job that ALWAYS has to comes first is taking care of/providing for their kids. Too busy to pack a lunch? Give me a break. Once the kid is 8 they can pack their own lunch w/supervision. Waaah, waaaa parents are too busy to pack their kids lunch so they let the government feed their kids for them. Inch by inch by inch.

Clearly it seems to be my problem. Or the problem of parents who don't have the time. You see threads from right wingers calling for people to work more and more and more. And then they turn around and say parents should be parenting more too.

Which is it? Should they be working 80 hour weeks or looking after their kids? Or is it the whole, the man goes work 80 hour weeks and the women should always stay at home like a good old traditional family?

But again, you simply don't get that parents can pay for their kids to have meals in schools. Why shouldn't one meal out of three in a day be provided at school? You've not given any reasons other that government is in the business of providing food. You've not given a reason why the govt shouldn't provide food.

They provide food in prisons. What, prisoners should go home and make their own lunches before being back at prison before 2pm or what?

Again, if the responsibility for feeding their kids is 100% with the parents, then the parents CAN CHOOSE to buy school lunches from school. It's simple.

 

[dblack]

Your children are property of the state! Uber alles.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I get it ... you want government to fill the void when parents don't do their job. Nope.

You wrote "Each idea you have just causes more problems".

Getting government out of people's lives, getting government to stop providing for people, teaching people (give them the opportunity) to once again become self-reliant equates to 'causing a problem' to you?

Go away, you're a loon.

Oh, oh, great, we've got down to the insulting as a part of an argument. Well done.... must make your parents proud huh?

You want people to be totally self reliant. Hell, make everyone grow their own crops. Oil, nah, unless you can get the oil yourselves, build your own house, no cars, horse and cart, but don't forget to breed the horse yourself.

That's self reliant. You going to turn Amish any time soon?

Jeez, you really are conservative. Conservative 1600s.

 

[Zoom-boing]

People have all the knowledge they need right at their fingertips via the internet. If they really wanted to know about nutrition/healthy eating, etc they would. A lot of people are simply lazy, they'd rather go to the drive-through rather than spend the time/energy preparing food at home.

Then again those who learn stuff at school are far more likely to get it.

I don't get your attitude. It's almost as if you're willing for many people to fail in life.

Yes, people are lazy. Fine, people are lazy. But they're lazy and they're BREEDING and they're producing kids and teaching them to be lazy.

On the other side of the pacific, the Chinese are producing and they're producing hard working robots.

Often people see something as easy, they go for it. They don't think about the consequences. Knowledge is power.

Go back and read what I actually wrote ... I never said not to teach them. I said that the parents should provide food for their kids, get the schools out of THAT, have that money to increase teachers salaries, have them teach nutrition, home ec, etc.

Stop providing for them and instead teach them how to fend for themselves and you won't have nearly as many people leeching off the government. Stopping school lunches (government providing food) is a good first step; put this responsibility back on the parents where it belongs. Once you have a generation or two who know how to fend for themselves, they raise children who do the same, less people depending on government.

What? You're telling me to read what you wrote, then say you didn't say blah blah blah which I CERTAINLY didn't say.

Yes, I got the bit where you said parents should feed their kids. I also point out that parents paying for food that is dished out at school is PARENTS FEEDING THEIR KIDS. As you've said going to McDonalds is parents feeding their kids, why wouldn't parents paying for food at school not be parents feeding their kids? Kids need to eat at school.

Also what I said is that parents often don't HAVE THE TIME to prepare meals for their kids. We're in the modern world where many tasks are done by others. I don't do my plumbing, I call a plumber.

And again you've made the same point which I already discussed. I said PARENT PAY FOR THE FOOD THEIR KIDS EAT. Therefore the school isn't giving food for free, it's there if they want it, and it's healthy too.

Except by having the schools run cafeterias it is much, much more than 'parents paying for their kids eat'. I thought you understood that. As long as public schools (government) is in the business of providing food (and let's face it, a lot of that food is subsidized = more taxpayers paying for someone else) they have more control and power. That is no good. Take the task of providing food to kids away from the school (government) and put it back 100% into the hands of who it really belongs to ... the parents. If you can't grasp this concept that's your problem.

Oh, parents are busy? Oh boo ******* hoo. Their first job, their most important job, the job that ALWAYS has to comes first is taking care of/providing for their kids. Too busy to pack a lunch? Give me a break. Once the kid is 8 they can pack their own lunch w/supervision. Waaah, waaaa parents are too busy to pack their kids lunch so they let the government feed their kids for them. Inch by inch by inch.

Clearly it seems to be my problem. Or the problem of parents who don't have the time. You see threads from right wingers calling for people to work more and more and more. And then they turn around and say parents should be parenting more too.

Which is it? Should they be working 80 hour weeks or looking after their kids? Or is it the whole, the man goes work 80 hour weeks and the women should always stay at home like a good old traditional family?

But again, you simply don't get that parents can pay for their kids to have meals in schools. Why shouldn't one meal out of three in a day be provided at school? You've not given any reasons other that government is in the business of providing food. You've not given a reason why the govt shouldn't provide food.

They provide food in prisons. What, prisoners should go home and make their own lunches before being back at prison before 2pm or what?

Again, if the responsibility for feeding their kids is 100% with the parents, then the parents CAN CHOOSE to buy school lunches from school. It's simple.

You're a statist, I get it. You're wrong ... but I get it.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Oh, oh, great, we've got down to the insulting as a part of an argument. Well done.... must make your parents proud huh?

You want people to be totally self reliant. Hell, make everyone grow their own crops. Oil, nah, unless you can get the oil yourselves, build your own house, no cars, horse and cart, but don't forget to breed the horse yourself.

That's self reliant. You going to turn Amish any time soon?

Jeez, you really are conservative. Conservative 1600s.

Please provide links to where I stated any of your bullshit.

I'll wait.

ps: once again, read what I actually wrote instead of what you think I wrote.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Oh, oh, great, we've got down to the insulting as a part of an argument. Well done.... must make your parents proud huh?

You want people to be totally self reliant. Hell, make everyone grow their own crops. Oil, nah, unless you can get the oil yourselves, build your own house, no cars, horse and cart, but don't forget to breed the horse yourself.

That's self reliant. You going to turn Amish any time soon?

Jeez, you really are conservative. Conservative 1600s.

Please provide links to where I stated any of your bullshit.

I'll wait.

ps: once again, read what I actually wrote instead of what you think I wrote.

Keep waiting, you started insulting. I don't do insulters.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Oh, oh, great, we've got down to the insulting as a part of an argument. Well done.... must make your parents proud huh?

You want people to be totally self reliant. Hell, make everyone grow their own crops. Oil, nah, unless you can get the oil yourselves, build your own house, no cars, horse and cart, but don't forget to breed the horse yourself.

That's self reliant. You going to turn Amish any time soon?

Jeez, you really are conservative. Conservative 1600s.

Please provide links to where I stated any of your bullshit.

I'll wait.

ps: once again, read what I actually wrote instead of what you think I wrote.

Keep waiting, you started insulting. I don't do insulters.

Translation: I've got bupkis so I'll distract you with whining cause you called me a loon.