Michelle Claims Fat Kids Are A National Security Threat

[uscitizen]

Don't forget folks, First they CAME AFTER SMOKERS..

Now FAT PEOPLE.

enjoy all the EXTRA MONEIES you all will be paying. bout time the Guberment came after YOU.

I think that fat people should not be getting the special rights they get....and marriage....surely they should not be allowed to marry......geesh, can you just imagine them in bed together? Ugh.

Were any positive role models in the bible really, really fat?

I do not recall weight being stated in the bible.

Many preachers tend to be overweight though.

 

[Synthaholic]

I think that fat people should not be getting the special rights they get....and marriage....surely they should not be allowed to marry......geesh, can you just imagine them in bed together? Ugh.

Were any positive role models in the bible really, really fat?

I do not recall weight being stated in the bible.

Many preachers tend to be overweight though.

I'm just wondering what the bible's position on obesity is.

 

[The T]

Were any positive role models in the bible really, really fat?

I do not recall weight being stated in the bible.

Many preachers tend to be overweight though.

I'm just wondering what the bible's position on obesity is.

See: Gluttony. In particuliar? Proverbs.

 

[Synthaholic]

I do not recall weight being stated in the bible.

Many preachers tend to be overweight though.

I'm just wondering what the bible's position on obesity is.

See: Gluttony. In particuliar? Proverbs.

Thanks. Any positive images of obesity?

 

[uscitizen]

Jesus fed the masses fish and chips?
I am sure it was transfat free though.

 

[chanel]

Proper nutrition has been taught in schools for decades. Nutrition labeling as well. It is not a lack of information. It is a choice. Government cannot solve the problem - unless they are prepared to leave all parenting decisions to the state. And ot frightens me how many parents are willing to do that.

Where is it stated that "government will solve the problem"?
Either you are for government support of education or you are against government support of education.
Which is it?
A simple yes or no will suffice.

A simple yes or no to what? Do I support public education? Duh. Yes. I am a teacher. Do I believe that more money, more requirements, and more responsibility for the schools will solve every problem? Duh. No. I am a teacher. And a realist.

Michelle Obama said, "We cannot just leave it up to the parents". And she got $5 billion to try. Pay attention.

Well, one silver lining: Now that fat kids are a national security threat, we can start profiling them. Oh wait...

 

[mudwhistle]

Proper nutrition has been taught in schools for decades. Nutrition labeling as well. It is not a lack of information. It is a choice. Government cannot solve the problem - unless they are prepared to leave all parenting decisions to the state. And ot frightens me how many parents are willing to do that.

The problem is we have a group of idealists that believe in symbolic action rather then concrete action. They pay lip-service to the problem but never actually solve it.

Provide incentives to food manufacturers to avoid producing junk and instead produce good quality nutritional food.

The problem I see, however, is lack of exercise. Nutrition alone won't solve this problem.

 

[pete]

Michelle is losing her mind.

Now she's saying that because only 1 in 4 kids in the US can qualify for the military this has become a threat to National Security.

“Military leaders … tell us that when more than one in four young people are unqualified for military service because of their weight,” the first lady says in the prepared remarks, “childhood obesity isn’t just a public health threat, it’s not just an economic threat, it’s a national security threat as well."

Now I've heard everything.

Call it one of those unintended consequences of the Nanny State.

Kids aren't allowed to run around and play like they did when I was growing up so now we've got kids that are getting by on Monster drinks just to keep from being bored to death.

After sitting around the house for hours on end in the summer kids get fat. Many parents won't allow them out on their own. School buses have to drop kids off mere feet from their doorstep. It's all just a side-effect of the Nanny State this country has immersed itself in.

I've felt for quite some time that all of this coddling that goes on is only going to make kids unable to cope with life but military life is out of the question folks. Our pampered kids won't be able to handle the culture-shock they will experience. It doesn't matter if they're out of shape or not.

LINK

Hypocritically Funny ... there seems to be all fat grown ups in the image posted.

 

[bodecea]

Michelle is losing her mind.

Now she's saying that because only 1 in 4 kids in the US can qualify for the military this has become a threat to National Security.

“Military leaders … tell us that when more than one in four young people are unqualified for military service because of their weight,” the first lady says in the prepared remarks, “childhood obesity isn’t just a public health threat, it’s not just an economic threat, it’s a national security threat as well."

Now I've heard everything.

Call it one of those unintended consequences of the Nanny State.

Kids aren't allowed to run around and play like they did when I was growing up so now we've got kids that are getting by on Monster drinks just to keep from being bored to death.

After sitting around the house for hours on end in the summer kids get fat. Many parents won't allow them out on their own. School buses have to drop kids off mere feet from their doorstep. It's all just a side-effect of the Nanny State this country has immersed itself in.

I've felt for quite some time that all of this coddling that goes on is only going to make kids unable to cope with life but military life is out of the question folks. Our pampered kids won't be able to handle the culture-shock they will experience. It doesn't matter if they're out of shape or not.

LINK

Hypocritically Funny ... there seems to be all fat grown ups in the image posted.

Maybe....just maybe...they don't want the next generation to end up like them?

 

[pete]

Michelle is losing her mind.

Now she's saying that because only 1 in 4 kids in the US can qualify for the military this has become a threat to National Security.



Now I've heard everything.

Call it one of those unintended consequences of the Nanny State.

Kids aren't allowed to run around and play like they did when I was growing up so now we've got kids that are getting by on Monster drinks just to keep from being bored to death.

After sitting around the house for hours on end in the summer kids get fat. Many parents won't allow them out on their own. School buses have to drop kids off mere feet from their doorstep. It's all just a side-effect of the Nanny State this country has immersed itself in.

I've felt for quite some time that all of this coddling that goes on is only going to make kids unable to cope with life but military life is out of the question folks. Our pampered kids won't be able to handle the culture-shock they will experience. It doesn't matter if they're out of shape or not.

LINK

Hypocritically Funny ... there seems to be all fat grown ups in the image posted.

Maybe....just maybe...they don't want the next generation to end up like them?

Its called exercise ...

 

[Gadawg73]

Proper nutrition has been taught in schools for decades. Nutrition labeling as well. It is not a lack of information. It is a choice. Government cannot solve the problem - unless they are prepared to leave all parenting decisions to the state. And ot frightens me how many parents are willing to do that.

Where is it stated that "government will solve the problem"?
Either you are for government support of education or you are against government support of education.
Which is it?
A simple yes or no will suffice.

A simple yes or no to what? Do I support public education? Duh. Yes. I am a teacher. Do I believe that more money, more requirements, and more responsibility for the schools will solve every problem? Duh. No. I am a teacher. And a realist.

Michelle Obama said, "We cannot just leave it up to the parents". And she got $5 billion to try. Pay attention.

Well, one silver lining: Now that fat kids are a national security threat, we can start profiling them. Oh wait...

She didn't get a nickel.
The programs, JUST LIKE YOU GETTING A CHECK FROM THE GOVERNMENT, got the $$.
Now I have no doubt whatsoever that you teach in the government schools.

 

[Toro]

Proper nutrition has been taught in schools for decades. Nutrition labeling as well. It is not a lack of information. It is a choice. Government cannot solve the problem - unless they are prepared to leave all parenting decisions to the state. And ot frightens me how many parents are willing to do that.

Here's the thing - it is a choice and it isn't.

Food companies spend billions of dollar in research every year to discover ways to make you eat more. They understand that people have deeply embedded physiological responses to food. For example, it is not a choice when your saliva glands start to water when you smell something delicious. It is a physical response. Food companies try to find ways for individuals to make impulsive decisions that play off of evolutionary instincts.

Food companies have to find ways to grow profits, otherwise their stock prices lag and executives don't receive bonuses. The size of a serving in a restaurant has increased by a third compared to 30 years ago. Bags of chips and bottles of soda are bigger than they were 20 years ago. This is because profits per unit rise with bigger servings.

Individuals can help themselves by knowing more. This, however, discourages sales. Individuals make better choices when they have more information. Sellers make more money when buyers have less information. It is why food companies have generally fought moves to increase labeling on food.

 

[Gadawg73]

Proper nutrition has been taught in schools for decades. Nutrition labeling as well. It is not a lack of information. It is a choice. Government cannot solve the problem - unless they are prepared to leave all parenting decisions to the state. And ot frightens me how many parents are willing to do that.

Here's the thing - it is a choice and it isn't.

Food companies spend billions of dollar in research every year to discover ways to make you eat more. They understand that people have deeply embedded physiological responses to food. For example, it is not a choice when your saliva glands start to water when you smell something delicious. It is a physical response. Food companies try to find ways for individuals to make impulsive decisions that play off of evolutionary instincts.

Food companies have to find ways to grow profits, otherwise their stock prices lag and executives don't receive bonuses. The size of a serving in a restaurant has increased by a third compared to 30 years ago. Bags of chips and bottles of soda are bigger than they were 20 years ago. This is because profits per unit rise with bigger servings.

Individuals can help themselves by knowing more. This, however, discourages sales. Individuals make better choices when they have more information. Sellers make more money when buyers have less information. It is why food companies have generally fought moves to increase labeling on food.

Bingo.
I ran the football booster club for a AAAAA high school when my son played many years ago. We had a contract with a certain cola company that bought us an expensive scoreboard as they do all the large schools if you buy and serve their product only. They came to us in 2000 and pressured us to go with a 20 ounce plastic bottle at 50 cents a bottle that we could sell at $2. The convenience is that we no longer had to clean the soda dispensers, load the syrup and do the fountain sales anymore. They pushed VERY HARD on that and stated continuosly "they get more, they get more, they get more".
We stayed with the fountain sales after my analysis was that it costs us 3 cents a 12 oz cup that we charged 50 cents for. Additionally, the massive amount of trash those plastic bottles make is unreal.
Ditto the same story for chips, candy bars, buns for the hot dogs and hamburgers, etc.
They pushed the BIGGER SIZE every time.
It is ALL ABOUT MORE now for the food purveyors.
Excellent post but the ideologues will ignore it because it is FACT.

 

[SwordofDamocles]

You're a piece of shit, you ******* asshole.

Syn, just igonore that worthless troll. He's not worth responding too, just worth making fun of.

Referring to the First Lady as a gorilla is beyond the pale.


No pun intended.

Absolutely correct, its offensive to gorillas....

 

[Synthaholic]

Syn, just igonore that worthless troll. He's not worth responding too, just worth making fun of.

Referring to the First Lady as a gorilla is beyond the pale.


No pun intended.

Absolutely correct, its offensive to gorillas....

**** off, asshole.

 

[trlrtrash13]

what i find odd is someone who thinks it's ok to interfere with fundamental rights like our control over our body and our right to marriage but scream about their liberty being infringed upon because they don't serve soda in school and they may have to wear a seatbelt.

i think that's kind of retarded

just sayin.

So if someone tells me I can't get a pick axe and hit someone in the temple with it, killing that person, aren't they interfering with my fundamental right of control over my body just as much as telling a woman with a growing human being inside of her not to have it killed?

you know that's really sad, right? i kind of expect better from you.

but in answer to your question. what roe decided, and what the approrpriate inquiry was and is... was at one point does the governmental interest in protecting a PROSPECTIVE life outweigh the woman's interest in determining her own body.

since that life exists on a continuum, the decision was correct.

but the 'small government', "give me liberty" wingers seem to think their right to a cupcake is more fundamental.

I am that 'small government', "give me liberty" winger, but... I'm pro choice. I don't think the government should dictate on abortion or cupcakes. Your logic is good here. How does it break down so easily at the concession stand? Let's follow this all the way through.

If eating junk food and becoming obese blocks you from serving in the Military, than wouldn't being aborted also? Hence, would not abortion be a threat to national security? What about homosexuality? Prior to DADT, gays were flat out restricted from serving. Were they a threat to national security? Shouldn't we have indoctrinated kids with anti-gay rhetoric? You know, in the interest of national security?

If the solution to the gay issue is to let them serve, then why not the same for obese kids? Why take a cupcake from one, but not the Elton John cd from the other?

This is the problem for liberals. It is inconsistent as hell. While it preaches tolerance and acceptance, it divides and discriminates. You're only protected from a hate crime if your skin is the right color or your reproductive organs are in instead of out. It makes a joke literal. Who's d--k do I have to suck to get that protection? The answer, of course, is anyone's. Because if I am gay, I am protected. But, as a straight white male, no such luck.

Liberalism leads to an oxymoron like "The USPS is an equal opportunity, affirmative action employer". How can one be both? Is the opportunity really equal if one gender or race is required to be represented in a certain number, but the other is not? Then, to top it all off they follow that line with this one. "Women and minorities are encouraged to apply". Why not men and majorities?

A great civil rights leader once told us to focus on the content of one's character, not the color of one's skin. So why does liberalism now teach us to celebrate our differences? Why do they legally divide us by race? Why not focus on what is common to all of us?

I am male, you are female. I am straight, you are gay. I am white, you are black. I am right, you are left. I am atheist, you are Christian. I am a human, so are you. As a 'small government' "give me liberty" winger, that is my focus.

I don't know if you like cupcakes, but I support your right to eat them if you choose. I support your right to _____________ so long as it does not infringe upon my freedom to __________. Fill that in yourself, because it works for me. Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose. Cool?

But remember... Your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you. You are free to work as much or as little as you wish, so long as I am free from paying your rent. You are free to retire at age 21, so long as I am free from paying your pension. You are free to abort a pregnancy, so long as I am free from subsidizing it.

That, to me, is what 'small government' "give me liberty" is all about.

 

[trlrtrash13]

Proper nutrition has been taught in schools for decades. Nutrition labeling as well. It is not a lack of information. It is a choice. Government cannot solve the problem - unless they are prepared to leave all parenting decisions to the state. And ot frightens me how many parents are willing to do that.

Here's the thing - it is a choice and it isn't.

Food companies spend billions of dollar in research every year to discover ways to make you eat more. They understand that people have deeply embedded physiological responses to food. For example, it is not a choice when your saliva glands start to water when you smell something delicious. It is a physical response. Food companies try to find ways for individuals to make impulsive decisions that play off of evolutionary instincts.

Food companies have to find ways to grow profits, otherwise their stock prices lag and executives don't receive bonuses. The size of a serving in a restaurant has increased by a third compared to 30 years ago. Bags of chips and bottles of soda are bigger than they were 20 years ago. This is because profits per unit rise with bigger servings.

Individuals can help themselves by knowing more. This, however, discourages sales. Individuals make better choices when they have more information. Sellers make more money when buyers have less information. It is why food companies have generally fought moves to increase labeling on food.

It is completely a choice. McDonalds still sells the same size hamburger they did 30 years ago. If you choose, you can get a quarter pounder. Coke still comes in a 12 oz can. If you choose, you can get the 2 liter. You could buy the family size bag and, as revolutionary as it may sound, share it with the family.

When I was a kid, they didn't have stores that sold cereal by the pallet. When Sam's Club came out, I didn't feel the need to eat a whole pallet of cereal just because they were selling them that way.

It's about personal responsibility. You can buy the triple whopper and blame Burger King, or you can be reasonable and get the Whopper Jr. Believe it or not, if you do that for a week or two, your body will become accustomed to the smaller portions and they will fill you up. You could also legislate the triple away, and someone will eat a half dozen juniors. It's choice.

Blame marketing if you like, but when a product fails, they don't keep marketing it until it succeeds. If nobody bought the 20oz, then all they would sell is the 12oz. It was the choice to buy the 20oz that lead to the 1 liter, not the marketing.

 

[Neotrotsky]

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