Trump ends Michelle Obama's effort to fight child hood obesity.

[Slade3200]

Youre right ray, let's bring back the vending machines and pump our kids full of coke and hohos. **** it, they can eat healthy at home.

And they can eat unhealthy at home too.

You're right, they can... but school is a place to gain education, learn about science, the arts, our language and our history. Learn how to socialize, compete in sports, and yes learn about health and nutrition. Our schools should set examples for healthy lifestyles and when the kids leave they can go make whatever choices they want to make. There is no crazy oppression going on by giving them whole wheat pizza instead of white crust. You are manufacturing a crisis. Very snowflake of you Ray.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Youre right ray, let's bring back the vending machines and pump our kids full of coke and hohos. **** it, they can eat healthy at home.

And they can eat unhealthy at home too.

You're right, they can... but school is a place to gain education, learn about science, the arts, our language and our history. Learn how to socialize, compete in sports, and yes learn about health and nutrition. Our schools should set examples for healthy lifestyles and when the kids leave they can go make whatever choices they want to make. There is no crazy oppression going on by giving them whole wheat pizza instead of white crust. You are manufacturing a crisis. Very snowflake of you Ray.

They can learn anything they want, but government limiting their choices as to what they can eat is not the governments business. I never said it was a crisis either. The only crisis is government making too many decisions on our behalf. Government should govern, and that's all the should do.

 

[Slade3200]

Youre right ray, let's bring back the vending machines and pump our kids full of coke and hohos. **** it, they can eat healthy at home.

And they can eat unhealthy at home too.

You're right, they can... but school is a place to gain education, learn about science, the arts, our language and our history. Learn how to socialize, compete in sports, and yes learn about health and nutrition. Our schools should set examples for healthy lifestyles and when the kids leave they can go make whatever choices they want to make. There is no crazy oppression going on by giving them whole wheat pizza instead of white crust. You are manufacturing a crisis. Very snowflake of you Ray.

They can learn anything they want, but government limiting their choices as to what they can eat is not the governments business. I never said it was a crisis either. The only crisis is government making too many decisions on our behalf. Government should govern, and that's all the should do.

Public schools are part of the government Ray. Providing a healthy menu is not limiting choices, that's a drama queen way of chacterizing the situation and you know it.

 

[Nosmo King]

What does it say about the Right Wingers here at USMBand the nation at large?

It says we want government out of our lives. It says we want government out of our children's lives. We want government out of our families lives.

Rather than justifying the ending of a program to combat childhood obesity with rational reasons, these knuckleheads use the issue as a platform to attack the for,era First Lay.

We don't have to justify anything to anybody. We won--you lost. Elections have consequences.

It's as if they were unaware of the hazards of obesity. It's as if their priorities are scoring cheap and irrelevant political points instead of showing any concern or awareness of the ultimate costs of childhood obesity.

You're not going to make fat kids skinny with this stupid feel good program. It's a waste of time and money. Are you so foolish enough to believe that the cause of obesity is what kids eat in school? If that were the case, they would get fat during the school year and come back skinny after summer vacation. That doesn't happen.

What do you folks really believe? Writing off the future of children is the cost of doing political business in this new Dark Age of American civic comportment?

The future of our children does not depend on some bored lady in the White House that can get her husband to implement her ideas. Americans elected Barack, not Mooochele.

Proving my point. You want government out of your life, but you will accept government in your old age. You claim elections have consequences, but you are not willing to own the consequence of childhood obesity.

You say that childhood obesity has nothing to do with what is fed in schools while ignoring the fact that many children get their only meals at school. And then you again use this issue to attack the former First Lady.

So, you have shown precisely what I was writing about. An unconcerned, largely ignorant attitude more concerned, as sports fans are, with winning rather than leading.

The reason I will accept government in my old age is because I was forced to pay into government programs my entire life.

Back in my day as a kid, we didn't have government raise our children. We didn't have government deciding what they should or shouldn't eat. We had different people to do that. I forget what we called them now.......it was.......something like.....oh yes, they were called PARENTS!

Yes, it was the parents (not the government) that accepted responsibility for the heath of their children. If the parents thought their kid was getting overweight, they did something about it--not government.

Government does have a place in our society, but a small place. For instance if the only time a kid eats is in school, government should take that child away from the parents and charge them with endangerment. If the only time a kid eats is in school, it doesn't matter what the kid eats because you will never get fat on one meal a day. School should be a place for children to learn, not be a place that acts as surrogate parents.

You would use government to break up a family (where else have we heard that?) but not to aid in the correction of the situation. What if we were talking about cholera rather than childhood obesity? Would you insist that the folks effected turn away government help?

 

[S.J.]

This issue is just another example of how liberals think.
If a conservative doesn't like guns, they don't buy one. If a liberal doesn't like guns, they want government to ban them for everyone.
If a conservative doesn't like someone's opinion, they don't listen to that person. If a liberal doesn't like someone's opinion, they want the government to silence them.
If a conservative doesn't like what the school offers their kid for lunch, they pack their own. If a liberal doesn't like what the school offers their kid for lunch, they want the government to FORCE them to eat what they want them to eat.

 

[Slade3200]

This issue is just another example of how liberals think.
If a conservative doesn't like guns, they don't buy one. If a liberal doesn't like guns, they want government to ban them for everyone.
If a conservative doesn't like someone's opinion, they don't listen to that person. If a liberal doesn't like someone's opinion, they want the government to silence them.
If a conservative doesn't like what the school offers their kid for lunch, they pack their own. If a liberal doesn't like what the school offers their kid for lunch, they want the government to FORCE them to eat what they want them to eat.

You are always good for a laugh SJ. Thanks for that

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What does it say about the Right Wingers here at USMBand the nation at large?

It says we want government out of our lives. It says we want government out of our children's lives. We want government out of our families lives.

Rather than justifying the ending of a program to combat childhood obesity with rational reasons, these knuckleheads use the issue as a platform to attack the for,era First Lay.

We don't have to justify anything to anybody. We won--you lost. Elections have consequences.

It's as if they were unaware of the hazards of obesity. It's as if their priorities are scoring cheap and irrelevant political points instead of showing any concern or awareness of the ultimate costs of childhood obesity.

You're not going to make fat kids skinny with this stupid feel good program. It's a waste of time and money. Are you so foolish enough to believe that the cause of obesity is what kids eat in school? If that were the case, they would get fat during the school year and come back skinny after summer vacation. That doesn't happen.

What do you folks really believe? Writing off the future of children is the cost of doing political business in this new Dark Age of American civic comportment?

The future of our children does not depend on some bored lady in the White House that can get her husband to implement her ideas. Americans elected Barack, not Mooochele.

Proving my point. You want government out of your life, but you will accept government in your old age. You claim elections have consequences, but you are not willing to own the consequence of childhood obesity.

You say that childhood obesity has nothing to do with what is fed in schools while ignoring the fact that many children get their only meals at school. And then you again use this issue to attack the former First Lady.

So, you have shown precisely what I was writing about. An unconcerned, largely ignorant attitude more concerned, as sports fans are, with winning rather than leading.

The reason I will accept government in my old age is because I was forced to pay into government programs my entire life.

Back in my day as a kid, we didn't have government raise our children. We didn't have government deciding what they should or shouldn't eat. We had different people to do that. I forget what we called them now.......it was.......something like.....oh yes, they were called PARENTS!

Yes, it was the parents (not the government) that accepted responsibility for the heath of their children. If the parents thought their kid was getting overweight, they did something about it--not government.

Government does have a place in our society, but a small place. For instance if the only time a kid eats is in school, government should take that child away from the parents and charge them with endangerment. If the only time a kid eats is in school, it doesn't matter what the kid eats because you will never get fat on one meal a day. School should be a place for children to learn, not be a place that acts as surrogate parents.

You would use government to break up a family (where else have we heard that?) but not to aid in the correction of the situation. What if we were talking about cholera rather than childhood obesity? Would you insist that the folks effected turn away government help?

Like I said, government does have a small role in our country. But deciding what a kid should eat is not one of them. Eating is a personal decision. What a child eats is a parental decision. It's not a government decision.

Protecting children that are being mistreated at home is a government role because we all expect our government to protect children from abusive parents. That's because they have no choice but to be mistreated and have nowhere to go in most cases unless they run away from home.

You're not going to correct obesity at school. Most kids eat one meal in school and that isn't enough to turn a fat kid skinny. It's what they do outside of the school that helps treat their problem which again, is overseen by the parents. Thinking that school will change the physique of a child is as ridiculous as thinking somebody will turn away from McDonald's because they have the calorie count on their food items. It's nothing more than a "feel good" effort that accomplishes nothing.

"Folks, liberals measure success by intent. Conservatives measure success by results."
Rush Limbaugh

 

[Slade3200]

What does it say about the Right Wingers here at USMBand the nation at large?

It says we want government out of our lives. It says we want government out of our children's lives. We want government out of our families lives.

Rather than justifying the ending of a program to combat childhood obesity with rational reasons, these knuckleheads use the issue as a platform to attack the for,era First Lay.

We don't have to justify anything to anybody. We won--you lost. Elections have consequences.

It's as if they were unaware of the hazards of obesity. It's as if their priorities are scoring cheap and irrelevant political points instead of showing any concern or awareness of the ultimate costs of childhood obesity.

You're not going to make fat kids skinny with this stupid feel good program. It's a waste of time and money. Are you so foolish enough to believe that the cause of obesity is what kids eat in school? If that were the case, they would get fat during the school year and come back skinny after summer vacation. That doesn't happen.

What do you folks really believe? Writing off the future of children is the cost of doing political business in this new Dark Age of American civic comportment?

The future of our children does not depend on some bored lady in the White House that can get her husband to implement her ideas. Americans elected Barack, not Mooochele.

Proving my point. You want government out of your life, but you will accept government in your old age. You claim elections have consequences, but you are not willing to own the consequence of childhood obesity.

You say that childhood obesity has nothing to do with what is fed in schools while ignoring the fact that many children get their only meals at school. And then you again use this issue to attack the former First Lady.

So, you have shown precisely what I was writing about. An unconcerned, largely ignorant attitude more concerned, as sports fans are, with winning rather than leading.

The reason I will accept government in my old age is because I was forced to pay into government programs my entire life.

Back in my day as a kid, we didn't have government raise our children. We didn't have government deciding what they should or shouldn't eat. We had different people to do that. I forget what we called them now.......it was.......something like.....oh yes, they were called PARENTS!

Yes, it was the parents (not the government) that accepted responsibility for the heath of their children. If the parents thought their kid was getting overweight, they did something about it--not government.

Government does have a place in our society, but a small place. For instance if the only time a kid eats is in school, government should take that child away from the parents and charge them with endangerment. If the only time a kid eats is in school, it doesn't matter what the kid eats because you will never get fat on one meal a day. School should be a place for children to learn, not be a place that acts as surrogate parents.

You would use government to break up a family (where else have we heard that?) but not to aid in the correction of the situation. What if we were talking about cholera rather than childhood obesity? Would you insist that the folks effected turn away government help?

Like I said, government does have a small role in our country. But deciding what a kid should eat is not one of them. Eating is a personal decision. What a child eats is a parental decision. It's not a government decision.

Protecting children that are being mistreated at home is a government role because we all expect our government to protect children from abusive parents. That's because they have no choice but to be mistreated and have nowhere to go in most cases unless they run away from home.

You're not going to correct obesity at school. Most kids eat one meal in school and that isn't enough to turn a fat kid skinny. It's what they do outside of the school that helps treat their problem which again, is overseen by the parents. Thinking that school will change the physique of a child is as ridiculous as thinking somebody will turn away from McDonald's because they have the calorie count on their food items. It's nothing more than a "feel good" effort that accomplishes nothing.

"Folks, liberals measure success by intent. Conservatives measure success by results."
Rush Limbaugh

You would have a point if the schools were checking kids lunches and not allowing them to eat unhealthy foods... but they aren't doing that are they? No, they are just revamping the food that they serve to kids that buy school lunches. And guess what? If kids don't like it they can still bring In Their own lunches. This whole stripping of rights and deciding what we eat case you are trying to make is totally bogus.

Also do you really think quoting a guy like Rush, helps your credibility at all? Haha

 

[S.J.]

This issue is just another example of how liberals think.
If a conservative doesn't like guns, they don't buy one. If a liberal doesn't like guns, they want government to ban them for everyone.
If a conservative doesn't like someone's opinion, they don't listen to that person. If a liberal doesn't like someone's opinion, they want the government to silence them.
If a conservative doesn't like what the school offers their kid for lunch, they pack their own. If a liberal doesn't like what the school offers their kid for lunch, they want the government to FORCE them to eat what they want them to eat.

You are always good for a laugh SJ. Thanks for that

Why do you even bother to comment if that's all you have?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Providing a healthy menu is not limiting choices

It is if that's all they offer.

 

[Slade3200]

This issue is just another example of how liberals think.
If a conservative doesn't like guns, they don't buy one. If a liberal doesn't like guns, they want government to ban them for everyone.
If a conservative doesn't like someone's opinion, they don't listen to that person. If a liberal doesn't like someone's opinion, they want the government to silence them.
If a conservative doesn't like what the school offers their kid for lunch, they pack their own. If a liberal doesn't like what the school offers their kid for lunch, they want the government to FORCE them to eat what they want them to eat.

You are always good for a laugh SJ. Thanks for that

Why do you even bother to comment if that's all you have?

That's exactly what I thought when I read your comment. I was just complimenting you on making a funny

 

[Slade3200]

Providing a healthy menu is not limiting choices

It is if that's all they offer.

That means every menu in the world is limiting all the options that are not on it. How dare these restaurants oppress us like this!!!!!!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It says we want government out of our lives. It says we want government out of our children's lives. We want government out of our families lives.

We don't have to justify anything to anybody. We won--you lost. Elections have consequences.

You're not going to make fat kids skinny with this stupid feel good program. It's a waste of time and money. Are you so foolish enough to believe that the cause of obesity is what kids eat in school? If that were the case, they would get fat during the school year and come back skinny after summer vacation. That doesn't happen.

The future of our children does not depend on some bored lady in the White House that can get her husband to implement her ideas. Americans elected Barack, not Mooochele.

Proving my point. You want government out of your life, but you will accept government in your old age. You claim elections have consequences, but you are not willing to own the consequence of childhood obesity.

You say that childhood obesity has nothing to do with what is fed in schools while ignoring the fact that many children get their only meals at school. And then you again use this issue to attack the former First Lady.

So, you have shown precisely what I was writing about. An unconcerned, largely ignorant attitude more concerned, as sports fans are, with winning rather than leading.

The reason I will accept government in my old age is because I was forced to pay into government programs my entire life.

Back in my day as a kid, we didn't have government raise our children. We didn't have government deciding what they should or shouldn't eat. We had different people to do that. I forget what we called them now.......it was.......something like.....oh yes, they were called PARENTS!

Yes, it was the parents (not the government) that accepted responsibility for the heath of their children. If the parents thought their kid was getting overweight, they did something about it--not government.

Government does have a place in our society, but a small place. For instance if the only time a kid eats is in school, government should take that child away from the parents and charge them with endangerment. If the only time a kid eats is in school, it doesn't matter what the kid eats because you will never get fat on one meal a day. School should be a place for children to learn, not be a place that acts as surrogate parents.

You would use government to break up a family (where else have we heard that?) but not to aid in the correction of the situation. What if we were talking about cholera rather than childhood obesity? Would you insist that the folks effected turn away government help?

Like I said, government does have a small role in our country. But deciding what a kid should eat is not one of them. Eating is a personal decision. What a child eats is a parental decision. It's not a government decision.

Protecting children that are being mistreated at home is a government role because we all expect our government to protect children from abusive parents. That's because they have no choice but to be mistreated and have nowhere to go in most cases unless they run away from home.

You're not going to correct obesity at school. Most kids eat one meal in school and that isn't enough to turn a fat kid skinny. It's what they do outside of the school that helps treat their problem which again, is overseen by the parents. Thinking that school will change the physique of a child is as ridiculous as thinking somebody will turn away from McDonald's because they have the calorie count on their food items. It's nothing more than a "feel good" effort that accomplishes nothing.

"Folks, liberals measure success by intent. Conservatives measure success by results."
Rush Limbaugh

You would have a point if the schools were checking kids lunches and not allowing them to eat unhealthy foods... but they aren't doing that are they? No, they are just revamping the food that they serve to kids that buy school lunches. And guess what? If kids don't like it they can still bring In Their own lunches. This whole stripping of rights and deciding what we eat case you are trying to make is totally bogus.

Also do you really think quoting a guy like Rush, helps your credibility at all? Haha

Well.......you tell me. Is he's wrong or not?

We are talking about the federal government here. Not local, not county, not state, but the federal government. Now if you're confused about what the federal government is supposed to be in charge of, there is this document out there called the US Constitution. There it tells you the exact role our federal government has.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Providing a healthy menu is not limiting choices

It is if that's all they offer.

That means every menu in the world is limiting all the options that are not on it. How dare these restaurants oppress us like this!!!!!!

You're not forced to eat at that restaurant five days a week.

 

[Slade3200]

Providing a healthy menu is not limiting choices

It is if that's all they offer.

That means every menu in the world is limiting all the options that are not on it. How dare these restaurants oppress us like this!!!!!!

You're not forced to eat at that restaurant five days a week.

You aren't forced to eat at school either, you can bring in your own lunch. Bag of snickers bars if you so desire

 

[S.J.]

You would have a point if the schools were checking kids lunches and not allowing them to eat unhealthy foods...

They're working on it.
School Tells Parents Sack Lunches Not Allowed, Kids Must Eat What’s Served | Off The Grid News

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This issue is just another example of how liberals think.
If a conservative doesn't like guns, they don't buy one. If a liberal doesn't like guns, they want government to ban them for everyone.
If a conservative doesn't like someone's opinion, they don't listen to that person. If a liberal doesn't like someone's opinion, they want the government to silence them.
If a conservative doesn't like what the school offers their kid for lunch, they pack their own. If a liberal doesn't like what the school offers their kid for lunch, they want the government to FORCE them to eat what they want them to eat.

That's because liberals are miserable people and can't stand to see others happy.

If a liberal is walking through a park and sees a man happily sitting all by himself harming nobody smoking a cigarette, the liberal will petition his representatives to stop the man from having a cigarette thus making him less happy.

If a liberal sees a man with a gun happy to have the right of protecting himself and his family, a liberal will petition his government to take that mans gun away making him less happy.

If a liberal sees a man happily enjoying his quarter pounder with cheese meal at McDonald's, he will make efforts to stop him from eating what he wants by protesting the restaurant making him less happy.

If a liberal sees people happy at a gathering to celebrate the win of their candidate for office, the liberal will disrupt and cause damage to the gathering making people less happy.

Liberalism is all about taking happiness from others. There is no other reason for it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Providing a healthy menu is not limiting choices

It is if that's all they offer.

That means every menu in the world is limiting all the options that are not on it. How dare these restaurants oppress us like this!!!!!!

You're not forced to eat at that restaurant five days a week.

You aren't forced to eat at school either, you can bring in your own lunch. Bag of snickers bars if you so desire

And I'm sure that's what many of them do.

 

[Nosmo King]

Proving my point. You want government out of your life, but you will accept government in your old age. You claim elections have consequences, but you are not willing to own the consequence of childhood obesity.

You say that childhood obesity has nothing to do with what is fed in schools while ignoring the fact that many children get their only meals at school. And then you again use this issue to attack the former First Lady.

So, you have shown precisely what I was writing about. An unconcerned, largely ignorant attitude more concerned, as sports fans are, with winning rather than leading.

The reason I will accept government in my old age is because I was forced to pay into government programs my entire life.

Back in my day as a kid, we didn't have government raise our children. We didn't have government deciding what they should or shouldn't eat. We had different people to do that. I forget what we called them now.......it was.......something like.....oh yes, they were called PARENTS!

Yes, it was the parents (not the government) that accepted responsibility for the heath of their children. If the parents thought their kid was getting overweight, they did something about it--not government.

Government does have a place in our society, but a small place. For instance if the only time a kid eats is in school, government should take that child away from the parents and charge them with endangerment. If the only time a kid eats is in school, it doesn't matter what the kid eats because you will never get fat on one meal a day. School should be a place for children to learn, not be a place that acts as surrogate parents.

You would use government to break up a family (where else have we heard that?) but not to aid in the correction of the situation. What if we were talking about cholera rather than childhood obesity? Would you insist that the folks effected turn away government help?

Like I said, government does have a small role in our country. But deciding what a kid should eat is not one of them. Eating is a personal decision. What a child eats is a parental decision. It's not a government decision.

Protecting children that are being mistreated at home is a government role because we all expect our government to protect children from abusive parents. That's because they have no choice but to be mistreated and have nowhere to go in most cases unless they run away from home.

You're not going to correct obesity at school. Most kids eat one meal in school and that isn't enough to turn a fat kid skinny. It's what they do outside of the school that helps treat their problem which again, is overseen by the parents. Thinking that school will change the physique of a child is as ridiculous as thinking somebody will turn away from McDonald's because they have the calorie count on their food items. It's nothing more than a "feel good" effort that accomplishes nothing.

"Folks, liberals measure success by intent. Conservatives measure success by results."
Rush Limbaugh

You would have a point if the schools were checking kids lunches and not allowing them to eat unhealthy foods... but they aren't doing that are they? No, they are just revamping the food that they serve to kids that buy school lunches. And guess what? If kids don't like it they can still bring In Their own lunches. This whole stripping of rights and deciding what we eat case you are trying to make is totally bogus.

Also do you really think quoting a guy like Rush, helps your credibility at all? Haha

Well.......you tell me. Is he's wrong or not?

We are talking about the federal government here. Not local, not county, not state, but the federal government. Now if you're confused about what the federal government is supposed to be in charge of, there is this document out there called the US Constitution. There it tells you the exact role our federal government has.

Ensuring domestic tranquility and promoting the general welfare. That's right up front.

 

[Slade3200]

Proving my point. You want government out of your life, but you will accept government in your old age. You claim elections have consequences, but you are not willing to own the consequence of childhood obesity.

You say that childhood obesity has nothing to do with what is fed in schools while ignoring the fact that many children get their only meals at school. And then you again use this issue to attack the former First Lady.

So, you have shown precisely what I was writing about. An unconcerned, largely ignorant attitude more concerned, as sports fans are, with winning rather than leading.

The reason I will accept government in my old age is because I was forced to pay into government programs my entire life.

Back in my day as a kid, we didn't have government raise our children. We didn't have government deciding what they should or shouldn't eat. We had different people to do that. I forget what we called them now.......it was.......something like.....oh yes, they were called PARENTS!

Yes, it was the parents (not the government) that accepted responsibility for the heath of their children. If the parents thought their kid was getting overweight, they did something about it--not government.

Government does have a place in our society, but a small place. For instance if the only time a kid eats is in school, government should take that child away from the parents and charge them with endangerment. If the only time a kid eats is in school, it doesn't matter what the kid eats because you will never get fat on one meal a day. School should be a place for children to learn, not be a place that acts as surrogate parents.

You would use government to break up a family (where else have we heard that?) but not to aid in the correction of the situation. What if we were talking about cholera rather than childhood obesity? Would you insist that the folks effected turn away government help?

Like I said, government does have a small role in our country. But deciding what a kid should eat is not one of them. Eating is a personal decision. What a child eats is a parental decision. It's not a government decision.

Protecting children that are being mistreated at home is a government role because we all expect our government to protect children from abusive parents. That's because they have no choice but to be mistreated and have nowhere to go in most cases unless they run away from home.

You're not going to correct obesity at school. Most kids eat one meal in school and that isn't enough to turn a fat kid skinny. It's what they do outside of the school that helps treat their problem which again, is overseen by the parents. Thinking that school will change the physique of a child is as ridiculous as thinking somebody will turn away from McDonald's because they have the calorie count on their food items. It's nothing more than a "feel good" effort that accomplishes nothing.

"Folks, liberals measure success by intent. Conservatives measure success by results."
Rush Limbaugh

You would have a point if the schools were checking kids lunches and not allowing them to eat unhealthy foods... but they aren't doing that are they? No, they are just revamping the food that they serve to kids that buy school lunches. And guess what? If kids don't like it they can still bring In Their own lunches. This whole stripping of rights and deciding what we eat case you are trying to make is totally bogus.

Also do you really think quoting a guy like Rush, helps your credibility at all? Haha

Well.......you tell me. Is he's wrong or not?

We are talking about the federal government here. Not local, not county, not state, but the federal government. Now if you're confused about what the federal government is supposed to be in charge of, there is this document out there called the US Constitution. There it tells you the exact role our federal government has.

Of course he is wrong. Anybody is going to measure success by both intent and results no matter what ideology. It just so happens that by nature liberals/progressive push for new innovative changes while conservatives fight to restrain those efforts. I actually like and appreciate the ying and yang. They balance each other

Like this school lunch program. Michelle did a great job bringing attention to the subject and did tremendous things to up the quality of food in our schools. It worked for many schools and students and has cause problems for some as well. I have no problem now loosening up some of the regulations so the problem areas can be resolved. I'm fine with giving more flexibility back to the schools. The end result is going to be better than where it started before her effort. If you were objective you would be able to see that.