Reply With Quote
oddly enough, it is only the scent. I can eat vanilla ice cream.
Vanilla mayo ftw....
oddly enough, it is only the scent. I can eat vanilla ice cream.
There's nothing wrong with packing a lunch as there many items to serve cold or at room temperature. There are also insulated containers that keep food cold enough to prevent growth of bacteria.
Do parents administer x-rays? I don't think so. That's the logic strain that was used by someone else, and that is what I was arguing. I have no idea how to respond to the rest of your rant.
I do want to say that despite the fact that I do this, I still am all for regulations that public ins utions should be providing far more healthy options and far fewer unhealthy options. If for whatever reason I cannot make lunch, I cannot be there to choose the one (maybe) healthy option that is offered amongst the 7 or 8 unhealthy options. Additionally, the packing the lunch thing costs more than a reduced or free lunch. If I was to ever have to take advantage of the program, the same argument applies. Lastly, I am in the minority, and its not some of the kids' fault that their parents suck, yet they are suffering.
This isn't about controlling what parents give their children is it? It's about what schools give the children. In that context, the logic does indeed prove out. You as a parent want the same assurance that good nutritional standards are being met at your child's school, just as you would like for your friendly radiologist to follow good radiation limiting protocols when deciding which exam is best for you. Both necessarily entiail some broad oversight.
---oooopppppsssss----
Maybe that's part of the problem.
If kids are getting reduced or free lunches, then they should qualify for food stamps also. Maybe the solution is not to have reduced or free lunches since the families are already getting subsidies.
I say make the parents pack a lunch if they can't afford the meal price.
At least you came clean.
You know what a bigger problem is? You not do any sort of research before posting. Qualifying for reduced or free lunch does not automatically make one eligible for food stamps.
Even if it were true, what you posted here makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Just the same, people need to be responsible for their kids health and not expect the government to be Nanny.
I agree it would be best to have the schools offer healthier options. I just want to see the federal governments intrusion in our lives become less. Not more. Why si it soo hard to address this at a local level?
This is untrue. Thanks for playing.
Would you like to continue with your (consistently false) assumptions?
WC often muses ex tempore. Is there an intellectual equivalent of skinny dippin?
Don't associate good times with WC...
I agree with that in principle. I think your real argument is with the concept of school lunches themselves rather than their content. If you always come back to "parents responsibility" , then abolishing the school lunch program is what you should be pushing.
Why not at a local level? Because the nutritional needs of a kid in NJ are largely the same as one in WY. Its critical that standards be exactly that, standard.
@ Drachen
lol
Don't worry, I got ya the first time.
I just meant that his arguments, such as they are, are often brutal, dirty and shabbily dressed.
Being ing re ed is the common vernacular, I believe.
Got you, too. Hence lol.
LOL
True, there he goes using his roach logic.
@LNGR:
It was in my childhood, too, but can't we settle on a cliche that's somewhat less brutally offensive to people who have legit mental development issues? This is after all a public forum and not a locker room or even a sub locker room.
(Just us chickens in here, boss.)
feel free to disregard, LNGR. just wanted to register strong feelings on this count.
it's bad manners
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
