also, a bad simile IMHO
I really think that in this case, using polite language fails us, as it lacks a certain je ne sais quoi. To use polite language would merely be putting a curtain up over a grimy, stained window, or using incense to cover up the smell of a rotting corpse. The window is still grimy, the corpse is still there. In this case, WC's beleaguered thinking requires us to refer to it as it is, in the most open, honest, and sincerest of terms.
In that vacuum the logic does indeed prove out, but I would argue the fact that parents have the control and ultimate responsibility can't be ignored. As a parent I want some assurance that my children have the option to choose a healthy meal. Further, I believe that if that option was not presented, I would be able to influence change at the local level. I do not believe the federal government has that responsibility, and therefore should not have the authority to legislate change.
fair enough LNGR. i say it sometimes too, but it no longer sits right with me.
You obviously haven't been reading the Occupy thread. That said, if you must divorce it from the vulgar, I would suggest something that implies disease and disorder. Skinny dipping is far too neutral.
ok. noted.
I don't fight every battle. I try to choose carefully. I don't mind losing.
I pick and choose as well... usually. I drive-by here and there of course. There's just been quite a few civil liberty violations/threads as of late, hence my increased activity.
Is "itchy scrotum" a bit too vulgar?
for what, a personal disclosure?
Vulgar in its unelaborated form, but perhaps not too vulgar for this forum, in fact a bit prosaic.
itchy balls: guiding emblem of leisure time
also, WC, besides being everybody's personal pin-ya-ta, is just a dude behind a keyboard. It's not helpful in any respect to call him re ed, but in fairness, perhaps it's not intended to be.
WC's posts are akin to an itchy scrotum. You know it's unhealthy to engage, and it will probably make you look stupid, but sometimes you just have to scratch.
Not really. When WC deigns to use his brain in a topic, then I deign to recognize him as a person. When he devolves into mindless paranoia, bias, and outright folly, I see no need to engage him as a person looking for actual discussion. Others are more tolerant than I though, to be sure.
In that case ill refer you to my response to WC.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=266
If you come back to the parental responsibility argument then your real beef is with the existence of school lunches, not with their nutritional content. This particular discussion hinges on that.
Additionally, if your argument is one of local vs federal control, thats better stated up front.
I think we are in a totally polluted, toxic culture where UCA pushes their pathogenic (esp food and drugs) everywhere, all the time.
UCA loves to addict them young, hook kids on their , junk food-like salty/greasy/sweet substances, cigarettes.
Informed parents have an extremely hard time overcoming the UCA onslaught.
I sorta agree with WC that one healthy meal at school (some poor kids also eat breakfast at school) isn't going to help much, but it certainly can't hurt. My biggest objection is to govt intervention itself, but USDA intervention to flog/dump the taxypayer subsidized low-food value stuff on a captive audience.
It might help by showing kids how a healthy meal, absent high carb filler like potatoes and corn and estrogenic soy, can be tasteful and satisfying. However, their palates and eyes, jaded by junk food engineered and hyped up with chemicals, flavor/color enhancers, may be beyond reach.
On a philosophical level, the role of government is act a correcting force when market failure occurs (and before any of the wingbats chime in - markets fail. Even the staunchest of staunch free market supporters will agree with that) or when local government is either unable or unwilling to do what is necessary.
The question become: how did "unhealthy junk" become the default for school lunches? By schools providing healthy lunches, the government has not infringed upon your right to feed your kid a bunch of junk food - you still retain that right, you'll just have to provide that junk for the kid for yourself.
As for "why the federal government, why not the local level?" Great question. Why Not the local level? At some point for the health of our nation's citizens we can't sit around and wait for a bunch of localities to get off their ass and do something obvious.
To recap, with mandated healthier school-provided lunches:
1) If you want your kid to be fat, you still retain the right to do so.
2) If you want the school to feed your kid, then the default is going to be a healthy, balanced meal. We're not talking about a sprout sandwich on unleavened stone ground wheat... but you know, just a regular well-balance meal. A healthy portion of meat with a side of carbs and a side of veggies.
This is also overlooking the fact that, from an economic perspective, *all* school lunches are subsidized either directly or indirectly. Even if the exact cost of the lunch were passed along to a student who did not qualify for direct subsidies, the economies of scale the district experiences lowers the cost for all students, thus providing a de facto subsidy. It's blows my mind that we would want our publicly available, subsidized lunches to be defaulted to "unhealthy "
Am I the only one getting creepy PMs from WC crying about how he is mistreated in this forum?
I'll make sure to keep you posted on updates. Since I'm so unethical, I don't know why WC didn't foresee that I would post all these.
I see you're telling your mommy.
Nice job crybaby.
WC, I come to these forums for entertainment purposes. You provide countless hours of unintentional comedy. I'm not telling my mommy because I don't want you to stop. I want you to increase your efforts. Please continue!
lol
The difference between sandusky and this forum is quite clear:
If you don't like getting thrown against the shower walls, then put some ing clothes on and get out.
Scott left out something I think is important. Here is my post to him:
I simply replied to him in person rather than a thread that I was attacked in without provocation. I simply wish we could have civil threads.Do you realize how unethical you are, and how evil your motives are when you have to always find bad in others?
Why can't we ever have civil thread.
off troll.
off Scott. Stop stalking me.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
