(05-28-2014 08:42 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Odd, I was skinny as a rail in school despite daily helpings of rectangle pizza and french fries.

Maybe little Johnny needs to get his fat ass off the couch and on his bicycle seat.

Clearly this. Of course. We make all kinds,o excuses all day long and try to point to other "factors" when there's really only one. If your kid is a fat ass, then get them off the couch, off the computer, off the xbox, off the ps3, off the iphone and HEY! perhaps out the door!

Mind blowing, I know.

We tossed out book bags on the front porch and were gone til dark or later in Summer. No one batted an eye.

(05-28-2014 04:17 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  She's a grown woman. She can eat whatever she wants.

Fit, I'm not arguing that fact... but she's been pushing for these "substandard" meals (and yes I do consider them that) for school kids, but doesn't demand the same for her own children?

Remember the phrase "do as I do, not as I say?"

(that's been my biggest argument with her 'school lunch push').

And I'll simply disagree with Torch and the others who refer to her as "obese" or "fat" . She's far from it, and to throw those labels on her is very disappointing from you guys.

I don't understand all the hubbub. if the federal government pays for your lunch (or any significant portion of it), then the federal government decides what you eat.

srsly. if washington pays the bill (or any part of it, really), then washington calls the shots. I thought we all knew that. that's sort of the big problem with ACA . . . .

(05-28-2014 10:16 PM)EagleX Wrote:  I don't understand all the hubbub. if the federal government pays for your lunch (or any significant portion of it), then the federal government decides what you eat.

srsly. if washington pays the bill (or any part of it, really), then washington calls the shots. I thought we all knew that. that's sort of the big problem with ACA . . . .

I understand what you're saying but the problem is the government is spending our money on our kids with the result of that money being wasted away because a few libs had a bad idea and turned it into a law. Moochelle wants to have a legacy, to be remembered for something, but it won't be this; it will be her numerous extravagant and expensive vactions, not fat kids who won't eat their school lunch.

(05-28-2014 04:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 04:24 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 04:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Poor torchy...you should pay special attention to the part that says "Learn the Facts"

Yes, trust timmy to believe that everything he learned in elementary school are "facts".

I suppose that's why your learning stopped there.

Deflect away clown.

What exactly did I deflect?

You simply know a few catch phrases and can't even use those correctly.

(05-28-2014 04:17 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  She's a grown woman. She can eat whatever she wants.

Please pass that little nugget along to her and to all the other "Bloombergs" out there that want to regulate what everyone else eats.

(05-29-2014 08:48 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 10:16 PM)EagleX Wrote:  I don't understand all the hubbub. if the federal government pays for your lunch (or any significant portion of it), then the federal government decides what you eat.

srsly. if washington pays the bill (or any part of it, really), then washington calls the shots. I thought we all knew that. that's sort of the big problem with ACA . . . .

I understand what you're saying but the problem is the government is spending our money on our kids with the result of that money being wasted away because a few libs had a bad idea and turned it into a law. Moochelle wants to have a legacy, to be remembered for something, but it won't be this; it will be her numerous extravagant and expensive vactions, not fat kids who won't eat their school lunch.

I understand what you're saying, and I understand that you understand what I'm saying ( ), but I submit that this is a symptom of a larger problem, not the problem itself.

(05-28-2014 04:17 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  She's a grown woman. She can eat whatever she wants.

See if she'll extend my and my family the same courtesy, will you?

Really people? Is there no end to your derangement? Michelle is signing bills into law and is also writing nutritional standards?

She's just an advocate people! Not to mention, the program she is advocating also pushes physical activity which you all claim is the only solution. But have any of you applauded her for that?

Jeez.

SMH.

(05-29-2014 08:50 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 04:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 04:24 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 04:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Poor torchy...you should pay special attention to the part that says "Learn the Facts"

Yes, trust timmy to believe that everything he learned in elementary school are "facts".

I suppose that's why your learning stopped there.

Deflect away clown.

What exactly did I deflect?

You simply know a few catch phrases and can't even use those correctly.

Poor torchy.

Dude, you have a long history here of misogyny. That's hatred and/or dislike for women. Own it.

(05-28-2014 05:58 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  I guarantee you Michele 0 is over 200 pounds

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Highly doubtful. Not to mention that the obese classification for 5'9" is around 203 pounds anyway. Michelle is 5'11".

(05-29-2014 10:00 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 05:58 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  I guarantee you Michele 0 is over 200 pounds

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Highly doubtful. Not to mention that the obese classification for 5'9" is around 203 pounds anyway. Michelle is 5'11".

I don't think she is obese, but she is definitely over 200. My wife is 5'7" and 200 with a similar body structure and is smaller than Michele.