DanteGabriel Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 The school board, in interpreting the new regulations, has stated that parents can no longer send in food for the classrooms. And so it's Michelle Obama's fault? Even more pathetic reasoning than your usual blame-the-black-person posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Then your school board is full of morons. Thanks Michelle Obama! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 If Obama wasn't President, these morons would be making smarter decisions! I am sure that fighting Obama's Muslim Communist FDA school lunch guidelines takes up valuable time that the school board would otherwise be devoting to requiring science teachers to teach Creationism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Frog Eater,Richland 1 will not let kids bring their own lunches? WTF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Frog Eater,Richland 1 will not let kids bring their own lunches? WTF? Because, quite possibly, some parents pack lunches that are horrible in nutritional content, e.g. full of sweets and processed food items that are probably no better, or even worse, than school lunches. And so, to avoid having to nutritionally inspect every brought-from-home lunch, they ban all such things. The conscientious parents who actually do pack better lunches are the losers, but the children whose parents are less knowledgeable and less able are the winners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Because, quite possibly, some parents pack lunches that are horrible in nutritional content, e.g. full of sweets and processed food items that are probably no better, or even worse, than school lunches. And so, to avoid having to nutritionally inspect every brought-from-home lunch, they ban all such things. The conscientious parents who actually do pack better lunches are the losers, but the children whose parents are less knowledgeable and less able are the winners. I suppose it's possible some local school board may require this, but the FDA's school nutrition guidelines simply do not regulate what kids bring in to eat from home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Nestor,I suppose it's possible some local school board may require this, but the FDA's school nutrition guidelines simply do not regulate what kids bring in to eat from home.QFT.TP,Here's my problem if you have a family that falls in the gap between qualifying for free lunch and being able to afford to pay for school lunches you might end up with a child who gets no lunch. That's problematic in my ernest opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Nestor,QFT.TP,Here's my problem if you have a family that falls in the gap between qualifying for free lunch and being able to afford to pay for school lunches you might end up with a child who gets no lunch. That's problematic in my ernest opinion. Most places don't have a gap between free lunch and full price lunch; there's free lunch, reduced lunch (I paid $.25 for lunch in HS), and full priced lunch. Also, in my state (and I think this might be federal) the school can't deny lunch to anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Nestor,QFT.TP,Here's my problem if you have a family that falls in the gap between qualifying for free lunch and being able to afford to pay for school lunches you might end up with a child who gets no lunch. That's problematic in my ernest opinion. If such a gap does exist, that'd be a big problem indeed. Do you have specific example that it does at a school district? Re: Nestor Yes I understand that this is a decision made at a local school board level and not a federal mandate. I was offering a possible reason on why a local school board might have made that decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Boy, we Democrats can frighten ourselves out of any certainty, can't we? First of all, I've not seen any convincing evidence that abandoning health insurance reform in 2010 would have permitted Democrats to keep the House that same year. It was a mid-term election in a terrible economy, and I suspect those factors counted for more than anything else. Even if such evidence were to be presented, I'm with Pelosi; you use your majority to do a job, not to keep one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 TP,Nope. Ace points out that "reduced" lunch fills the gap. It is still incredibly paternalistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 TP,Nope. Ace points out that "reduced" lunch fills the gap. It is still incredibly paternalistic. Yes, it is paternalistic. Seems to me that if there's going to be any policy on telling people how to be a better parent, e.g. feed your kids things that are actually nutritious and healthful, it cannot be anything but. Or do you envision a non-paternalistic way of doing it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkess Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 I think some school districts ban homemade treats for allergy concerns, as well. http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/calorie-counts-coming-to-a-restaurant-movie-theater-vending-machine-near-you/2014/11/24/e5bd25ae-7415-11e4-a5b2-e1217af6b33d_story.htmlThe FDA is about to take unprecedented step and requires chain restaurants, vending machines, grocery stores, coffee shops and pizza joints will soon have to display detailed calorie information on their menus.Very nice! I think is great. California does this, and it is very helpful for me. Although I did read an article once about a study where they found posting calorie contents actually made people consume more--I think they hypothesized that just considering choosing the lower calorie option made people feel better about getting the higher calorie option? Although I think it could be more likely that the difference in calories between, for example, a burger and a salad at a fast food isn't great enough to make up for the enjoyment factor. So without calorie counts, you could think "I'll be healthy and get the salad!" but with calorie counts you realize "the salad has 700 calories and the burger 800...just get the damn burger." I'll have to see if I can dig up the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 Ohio Could Pass the Country's Most Extreme "Secret Executions" BillThe execution of Dennis McGuire on January 16 of this year did not go as planned. Injected with an untested cocktail of drugs, the Ohio death row inmate gasped, choked, and writhed in his restraints. McGuire was declared dead after 26 minutes, having endured the longest execution in the state's history. "To a degree of medical certainty, this was not a humane execution," an anesthesiologist testified in a subsequent federal lawsuit against the state's execution team. The lawsuit, filed by McGuire's children, declares the execution method used on McGuire cruel and unusual and seeks to block its further use in Ohio. Yet state lawmakers are now rushing to pass a "secret executions" bill that would make it harder to know what really happens in the death chamber. If passed, HB663 will drop a veil of secrecy over the death penalty by exempting anyone participating in a lethal injection from public records requests that might reveal their identities or duties. It would apply to medical and nonmedical staff, companies transporting or preparing supplies or equipment used in executions, and the providers of the drugs used in the lethal injection. Fucking Republicans. Disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 Ohio Could Pass the Country's Most Extreme "Secret Executions" Bill Fucking Republicans. Disgusting. It's funny that people who defend the death penalty are ashamed to admit the details of actual executions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 Ohio Could Pass the Country's Most Extreme "Secret Executions" Bill Fucking Republicans. Disgusting.http://murderpedia.org/male.M/m1/mcguire-dennis.htmCould care less how this piece of shit was executed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 Cool. Then we'll mark you down as someone who doesn't give a fuck about the Constitution given that you've just shrugged aside the 8th Amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suttree Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 Cool. Then we'll mark you down as someone who doesn't give a fuck about the Constitution given that you've just shrugged aside the 8th Amendment. In this, as in most things, the Republican mind can be remarkably flexible. As in extreme mental gymnastics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 Cool. Then we'll mark you down as someone who doesn't give a fuck about the Constitution given that you've just shrugged aside the 8th Amendment. Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972),Justice Brennan wrote, "There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is 'cruel and unusual'."1 The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," especially torture."2 A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion.""3 A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society.""4 A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary."2-3 are not met. Possible 1, either way it wasn't intentional torture. This guy raped a pregnant woman and killed her and the baby. Sorry if I'm having trouble finding compassion for evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 lmao, you realize you're quoting the case that suspended capital punishment in the United States? In any case, it's fairly obvious you haven't read the rest of the article I linked, which is not about this specific execution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.