Chef Jim Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 they are being forced to eat healthy food? i mean, cant they just pack a lunch of cookies? Not here in CA. If you do your child will be coming home with a note to mom and dad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 at school? You said all day, not at school And yes, even at school. I had the option of eating the crappy school lunch or a lunch prepared by my Mom. Not exactly a difficult choice there At least until my friends started driving and we'd sneak out every once in a while for a fast food run. Especially going to Dairy Queen, not for the food but they had an old Juke Box that you could do like 10 songs for a quarter. We'd load up about 3 hours worth of Inna Gadda Da Vidda right before we'd leave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 should they have the option of healthy food? Not here in CA. If you do your child will be coming home with a note to mom and dad. get the !@#$ out... no way man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 (edited) Do some learning instead of absorbing like a sponge all the s**t your profs spew. You remind me of a PPP poster from Maryland (can't remember who) was arguing about all the illegals here in CA clogging up our jails, schools, and bankrupting local public hospitals. He was stating we must be lying because it wasn't like that in MD. Do you have the parking lot of Lowes or Home Depot full of illegals swearing at you because you didn't hire them? Edited October 3, 2012 by Wacka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 (edited) Do some learning instead of absorbing like a sponge all the s**t your profs spew. You remind me of a PPP poster from Maryland (can't remember who) was arguing about all the illegals here in CA clogging up our jails, schools, and bankrupting local public hospitals. He was stating we must be lying because it wasn't like that in MD. Do you have the parking lot of Lowes or Home Depot full of illegals swearing at you because you didn't hire them? i disagree with my professors all the time.. lol, wouldnt you just make them legal then? so they can pay taxes? shouldnt immigration be quick, like a 2 week background check, and then welcome to america, create something in the market? we wouldnt do this with ohio and michigan, so why not do it with countries on our border that present no military threat? not to mention, the violence on the border is almost exclusively from the drug war... Edited October 3, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 should they have the option of healthy food? get the !@#$ out... no way man You !@#$ing moronic !@#$, the issue isn't whether they have the 'option' of healthy food. They are required to take 'healthy' items regardless of whether they will eat the !@#$ing healthy items. They aren't being forced to eat 'healthy;' they are being forced to take food they won't eat and are being limited in how much they can take of items they WILL eat. And some of those 'unhealthy' items they are limited in are things such as meat. And it is across the board, who can't take too much of an 'unhealthy' item. A lacrosse player, a swimmer, or a cross country runner can't exceed the lunch caloric intake just the same as a slacker WoW player. !@#$ing brilliant. Because clearly those athletes shouldn't exceed the same caloric intake that a couch potato such as yourself should exceed. (Apologies if you aren't a couch potato, but the fact that you think this is a worthy endeavor leads me to believe that you need somebody to protect yourself from the Doritos.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Well there has to be a menu so one way or another, some gov't bureaucrat is going to decide what the kids get served. I don't see much harm in applying federal nutritional standards to the school level food purchasing. The difference is "I " can go to my BOE meeting and talk to my principal if I have issues with what they decide. the federal government does not need to decide what my kids eat for lunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Been to a 7/11 lately? They accept EBT and aren't exactly known for a healthy menu In Rhode Island legislation was recently passed that allows EBT to be used at Subway. No joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 In Rhode Island legislation was recently passed that allows EBT to be used at Subway. No joke. If passed, what's to stop McDonalds/BK/Taco Bell/etc from adding "healthy" items to their menu and open the way for an EBT Big Mac Attack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 If passed, what's to stop McDonalds/BK/Taco Bell/etc from adding "healthy" items to their menu and open the way for an EBT Big Mac Attack Where have you been? In CA, EBT cards have been valid a tfast food places for a few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 (edited) You !@#$ing moronic !@#$, the issue isn't whether they have the 'option' of healthy food. They are required to take 'healthy' items regardless of whether they will eat the !@#$ing healthy items. They aren't being forced to eat 'healthy;' they are being forced to take food they won't eat and are being limited in how much they can take of items they WILL eat. And some of those 'unhealthy' items they are limited in are things such as meat. And it is across the board, who can't take too much of an 'unhealthy' item. A lacrosse player, a swimmer, or a cross country runner can't exceed the lunch caloric intake just the same as a slacker WoW player. !@#$ing brilliant. Because clearly those athletes shouldn't exceed the same caloric intake that a couch potato such as yourself should exceed. (Apologies if you aren't a couch potato, but the fact that you think this is a worthy endeavor leads me to believe that you need somebody to protect yourself from the Doritos.) dude, relax... i dont agree with this strict calorie amount/only healthy foods for people dependent on school lunch. im just saying, maybe they should let someone have as much as they want, just have more options then fries and cheese burgers... thats all man... breathe man Edited October 3, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Where have you been? In CA, EBT cards have been valid a tfast food places for a few years. And people wonder why CA is bankrupt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 As I understand, it's been cut back, and in some places eliminated...because the little wilting lilies might get scrapes and bruises and have their delicate little egos damaged by competitive play. Here in California, the education budget keeps getting reduced in Sacramento because of revenue shortfalls by the state. Budgets get cut so the school districts have to cut, anything considered extra from the core business of education gets cut. Music, PE, nurses, after school programs, field trips, office staff, education specialists, etc. have all been eliminated. They are getting down to cutting bone now, and the kids will end up paying the price from receiving an inferior eduction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Here in California, the education budget keeps getting reduced in Sacramento because of revenue shortfalls by the state. Budgets get cut so the school districts have to cut, anything considered extra from the core business of education gets cut. Music, PE, nurses, after school programs, field trips, office staff, education specialists, etc. have all been eliminated. They are getting down to cutting bone now, and the kids will end up paying the price from receiving an inferior eduction. The kids receive an inferior education in California for too many reasons you will unlikely agree with anyway. They're overcroweded with children of illegals not paying into the system, and it's run by educators more interested in their own union priorities than anything that has to do with children. My wife's side of the family comes from a long line of previous and current California public school teachers...many of them almost as liberal as you...and THEY know the union doesn't give a crap about the students. And as goes the union, so goes the government. If you live in California with children and don't have them in private school, you need to have your head examined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 The kids receive an inferior education in California for too many reasons you will unlikely agree with anyway. They're overcroweded with children of illegals not paying into the system, and it's run by educators more interested in their own union priorities than anything that has to do with children. My wife's side of the family comes from a long line of previous and current California public school teachers...many of them almost as liberal as you...and THEY know the union doesn't give a crap about the students. And as goes the union, so goes the government. If you live in California with children and don't have them in private school, you need to have your head examined. Thanks for reminding me, it's been a while since I called my wife and thanked her for not wanting kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Thanks for reminding me, it's been a while since I called my wife and thanked her for not wanting kids. I suspect that's a fine choice for you guys. I never wanted them either, and only had one because it was required for my wife's health...and it turns out I was as wrong about kids as a person could be wrong about anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 I suspect that's a fine choice for you guys. I never wanted them either, and only had one because it was required for my wife's health...and it turns out I was as wrong about kids as a person could be wrong about anything. Much better to have made our decision and be wrong versus the other decision and be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 The kids receive an inferior education in California for too many reasons you will unlikely agree with anyway. They're overcroweded with children of illegals not paying into the system, and it's run by educators more interested in their own union priorities than anything that has to do with children. My wife's side of the family comes from a long line of previous and current California public school teachers...many of them almost as liberal as you...and THEY know the union doesn't give a crap about the students. And as goes the union, so goes the government. If you live in California with children and don't have them in private school, you need to have your head examined. I generally do agree with unions and why they were created but where I disagree with with unions and agree with you is that if an employee or teacher is bad or ineffective they should be fired right away. It's far to difficult to fire a bad teacher. And that is just plain wrong. That might be the achilles heel of unions, protecting bad teachers and bad employees, it will become their undoing. The other place I disagree with unions is negotiating for higher wages when it just doesn't make sense to pay more and makes a company become not viable. Unions have to realistic and act like a responsible business partner not an adversary of management. Hopefully unions can pull their collective heads out of their butts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 I generally do agree with unions and why they were created but where I disagree with with unions and agree with you is that if an employee or teacher is bad or ineffective they should be fired right away. It's far to difficult to fire a bad teacher. And that is just plain wrong. That might be the achilles heel of unions, protecting bad teachers and bad employees, it will become their undoing. The other place I disagree with unions is negotiating for higher wages when it just doesn't make sense to pay more and makes a company become not viable. Unions have to realistic and act like a responsible business partner not an adversary of management. Hopefully unions can pull their collective heads out of their butts. Good post. This is why I take no issue with private sector unions, but am strongly opposed to public sector unions. In the private sector, if a union pushes too far it will destroy it's own jobs by destroying the employers ability to turn a profit. This creates a natural balance. Public sector unions face no such barriers. Legislators negotiate contracts whose long term ramifications often don't rear their ugly heads until the legislators involved have moved on, and tax-payers can't "go out of business" destorying the public sector jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Good post. This is why I take no issue with private sector unions, but am strongly opposed to public sector unions. In the private sector, if a union pushes too far it will destroy it's own jobs by destroying the employers ability to turn a profit. This creates a natural balance. Public sector unions face no such barriers. Legislators negotiate contracts whose long term ramifications often don't rear their ugly heads until the legislators involved have moved on, and tax-payers can't "go out of business" destorying the public sector jobs. I caught the tail end of a segment on the radio today where a teacher called in and said that he and his wife (also a teacher) were at a conference. The union was handing out no on 32 buttons. Prop 32 would ban union contributions to state and local candidates, ban contributions by govt contractors to politicians that control their contracts and ban automatic contributions to unions from employees paychecks. He said that also handed out forms they "had" to sign pledging to vote no on 32 and also to vote for Obama. All on our tax dollars. Unions gone wild. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts