Public School Kids Protest 'Let's Move' Lunches As First Daughters Get Meatball Subs, Ice Cream (cnsnews.com)

Conservative

151 ups - 60 downs = 91 votes

52 comments submitted at 17:51:57 on May 29, 2014 by chabanais

  • [-]
  • GarrMateys
  • -10 Points
  • 19:08:19, 29 May

So wait, are you advocating for equal treatment of all kids, regardless of background? The Obamas are rich and successful. Rich and successful people live better lives than us poor people. Usually conservatives are big fans of this idea, why the switch? honest question.

  • [-]
  • xaviergray5
  • 8 Points
  • 21:16:38, 29 May

I think hes pointing out the hypocrisy of removing the opportunity for kids to buy treats in their school with their own (parents) money while her own children are given the opportunity to buy treats in their school with their own (parents) money. So I would say yes, he is advocating for equal treatment of all kids by not denying them the opportunities they are afforded to purchase treats.

  • [-]
  • GarrMateys
  • -7 Points
  • 21:21:57, 29 May

word, thanks.

  • [-]
  • chabanais
  • 9 Points
  • 19:29:39, 29 May

I find it amusing that her children don't eat what she demands others consume.

There's a word in them thar parts fer that...

  • [-]
  • saxonjf
  • -1 Points
  • 22:02:19, 29 May

In this case, kids are going hungry in schools. Better schools have better food, and no one is denying that, but the standard isn't having the the highest quality food, the the regulations are leaving kids hungry because they are too restrictive. It has nothing to do with "equality."

So cut out the faux-egalitarian bullcrap.

  • [-]
  • GarrMateys
  • -3 Points
  • 22:12:19, 29 May

It's not "faux-egalitarian bullcrap". I saw it's a bunch of people getting their panties in a twist because rich kids at a private school eat better than poor kids at a poor school. I couldn't figure out the reasoning.

  • [-]
  • saxonjf
  • 0 Points
  • 22:21:58, 29 May

I gave you perfectly good reasoning. The amount of food is the primary issue, not the quality. I personally don't care if schools are selling soda or not. But the middling quality can by offset somewhat by providing enough to get students to dinnertime (which is what the school lunch program was supposed to be about, anyway).

I expect a double standard on the part of liberals, but it would be nice if the kids were fed enough to not go hungry. Rice crackers and water are low calorie and not filling: they're low in protein, and therefore less satisfying. The ice cream and meatball sandwiches are higher protein and thus more filling. No one is blaming people for giving their children filling foods, but Michelle Obama's regulations are making it impossible for public schools, regardless or cost or quality.

  • [-]
  • JHStarner
  • -2 Points
  • 19:20:26, 29 May

troll bait

  • [-]
  • GarrMateys
  • -3 Points
  • 19:21:51, 29 May

nope, but thanks for killing a conversation.

  • [-]
  • JHStarner
  • 0 Points
  • 19:34:01, 29 May

Actually you are.

The reason people are pissed off about this is not because of a rich/successful person living better than a poor person. It's the hypocrisy of the Obamas' do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do attitude.

If Moochel was so adamant about every child eating what she believes to be healthy, she would fight/force the same type of food restrictions at her daughters' private school.

But you don't see her fighting for this at the school's PTA meetings, or telling her daughters not to partake, do you?

EDIT: To further define my point, this is not an "equal-treatment" issue. This is a "removing of liberties for some and not for others" issue that you generally tend to see in dictatorships or monarchies.

  • [-]
  • conmalthu
  • 5 Points
  • 20:52:50, 29 May

>If Moochel was so adamant about every child eating what she believes to be healthy, she would fight/force the same type of food restrictions at her daughters' private school.

It looks like Sidwell's menu is already ahead of the USDA standards. Hard to tell exactly but there are a heck of a lot more vegetables on their menu than at my kids' public school.

Nutrition doesn't mean about never eating shitty food or having a treat, it means don't eat shitty food everyday.

  • [-]
  • tunnelworm2001
  • -1 Points
  • 22:30:42, 29 May

On the menu for tomorrow: May 30, 2014

MS/US Soup du Jour Chef's Choice Ice Cream Novelties

.....and for Monday June 2, 2014

MS/US Vegetarian Tortilla Soup Classic Caesar Salad Black Bean & Rice Salad w/ Chili Lime Vinaigrette All Beef Hot Dogs Brats Leanie Dogs Steamed Broccoli Baked Idaho Wedges Sliced Melon

I'll have a Brat, a Ceaser Salad, and how's about some of them tater wedges? NO. You're gonna eat your cream of corn and carrot sandwich if you know what's good for you!

  • [-]
  • conmalthu
  • 3 Points
  • 10:45:26, 30 May

My point was that the school that Michelle sends her kids to already exceeds the nutrition standards the USDA sets. In addition, they don't take USDA subsidies so they don't have to follow the standards. Yes, I would guess that Sidwell lunches cost parents a lot more than $2 but in America you still "get what you pay for..."

  • [-]
  • tunnelworm2001
  • 0 Points
  • 11:02:29, 30 May

How many kids do you have in public school, and do they buy the lunch? If so, are they eating it?

Genuinely curious

  • [-]
  • conmalthu
  • 1 Points
  • 12:05:17, 30 May

I have two kids in public school and they usually, but not always, bring their own lunch. And yes, both my wife and I have full time jobs.

  • [-]
  • bostonT
  • 6 Points
  • 23:03:35, 29 May

That's not what she's fighting for though; and this article and comments here clearly misrepresent her program, perhaps intentionally.

She simply wants government-funded food options and services to be healthier. If the American people are paying for it, then we should expect that it isn't creating additional burdens of health issues on society, much like the conservative idea that food stamps shouldn't be going to twinkies, alcohol, or energy drinks.

She has made no effort into pushing laws that dictate what parents feed their children in private settings (which is exactly how her daughters are consuming the "meatball subs and ice cream".) She is trying to promote overall health in the US by 1) encouraging awareness of the American public so that parents make informed decisions in private and 2) pushing healthy options in public schools, funded by taxpayer money, where parents often do not have the ability to enforce their children's eating habits.

  • [-]
  • bluefootedpig
  • 4 Points
  • 20:22:06, 29 May

Her child's school lunches are vastly healthier than public schools. Even in public schools that have made the changes are still not as good as her private school. So you are upset that the rich parents are feeding their children better food. This sounds like rich vs poor if I ever heard it.

  • [-]
  • JHStarner
  • 1 Points
  • 12:04:06, 30 May

I am not pissed that "rich people" are feeding their kids "better food". This has nothing to do with how good/bad the food is prepared. This has everything to do with the limitations on TYPES of food in the public school system, thanks to the First Lady. These same TYPES of food are being fully served for her children to consume, and she says nothing about it. This is a sign that she really doesn't care about children obesity. This shows that she is politically soapboxing, and would rather make an example out of everyone else, instead of being an example that others have the choice to follow.

To say that a proper portion of spaghetti prepared from one kitchen to the next makes it VASTLY HEALTHIER. Sure, quality ingredients make for better taste, and better nutrients in the food. However calorically, which is the main focus here, is exactly the same whether it tastes 5 star or microwaved. If spaghetti is not good for public schools, it shouldn't be good enough for her children, period. She is a hypocrite for limiting the lunches of public schools, and not being just as adamant about her private school's menu.

There is no food or class envy in this discussion. There is no covetous nature to this argument. People are not asking for every school to be given a 5-star chef/nutritionist, just because a private school has one. People are pissed that what they already pay for with their taxes, will become more expensive AND limited by government decree. People are pissed that the same treatment is not being applied to HER OWN DAMN FAMILY!

This is calling the woman out for being a straight up hypocrite. This is calling the whole situation out for being another case of the Government deciding what is best for you, when it has no business doing so. Then bringing to light how much they talk out their own ass when they don't practice what they preach.

Here is what is happening, broken down as simply as possible:

Moochel: "Here, have these rice cakes. They are all you need to be healthy."

People: "If they're so healthy, why aren't your children eating them?"

Moochel: "Why should I have to follow the rules that I made? Don't question my widsom peasant. Just eat it!"

  • [-]
  • uniquecannon
  • -4 Points
  • 19:12:52, 29 May

We're not advocating for equal treatment, we're advocating for ~~this black cunt~~ the government to stay the hell out of our children's lunch.