GOP decides America can't afford nutritious school meals

Dixie said:
I got news for ya Dune, there is a whole bunch of shit the GOP is going to decide we can't afford anymore. The 'free ride' days are over bud. If you are getting your panties in a wad over this, you have a very agonizing future ahead of you, because things are going to be cut, things you like, things you believe we can't live without. It has to be that way so we can remain solvent and pay the bills. If you don't like it, go find another country to live in, because that's just how it's going to be from now on.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Since the bankers got bailed our for their treachery, the poor people will be taken care of too. That's how it's gonna be, nazi-fascist fuckface.
 
Related:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110602...public_schools_budget_slashed_by_75_million_1

Chicago Public Schools Budget Slashed by $75 Million
Rachel Bogart Rachel Bogart Thu Jun 2, 7:24 pm ET

According to a press release from the City of Chicago Office of the Mayor, Rahm Emanuel, along with Chicago Public Schools (CPS) CEO Jean-Claude Brizard, announced that the CPS budget would be saving $75 million for the upcoming 2011-2012 school year.

Mayor Emanuel commented about the cuts announced Thursday: "In tackling the CPS budget deficit, we will begin by cutting bureaucracy so that we can focus our resources on supporting students and teachers. This plan will reduce the Central Office budget and scale back on planned spending, keeping cuts as far away from the classroom as possible."...
Click to expand...
 
Annie said:
There are things that can be done to make meals more nutritious, without increasing costs. $.14 doesn't sound like that much, until you realize the multiple factor of requirement and the $.07 difference between the mandate and actual costs. As the one administrator brought up, what one 'serves' for the mandate and what the kids will eat are often at odds. Lunches from home are usually consumed, the lunches from school, not so much so. Often kids will eat the fruit, bread and throw out everything else.

The idea of eliminating potatoes is pretty weird, just stop frying them and use more healthy oils and spices in place of butter/margarine. Serve pasta or rice with spinach/greens/and shredded vegetables-at least more will eat than if the vegetable is off to the side.

Once again one must consider the primary purpose of schools and cost factors of what is being required of them. It seems to me that education is burden with with more unfunded and underfunded mandates than any other public sector.
Click to expand...



LOL, lil' Annie Fannie is a big government nutrition-Nazi who thinks the feds should decide what kids eat?
 
Annie said:
There are things that can be done to make meals more nutritious, without increasing costs. $.14 doesn't sound like that much, until you realize the multiple factor of requirement and the $.07 difference between the mandate and actual costs. As the one administrator brought up, what one 'serves' for the mandate and what the kids will eat are often at odds. Lunches from home are usually consumed, the lunches from school, not so much so. Often kids will eat the fruit, bread and throw out everything else.

The idea of eliminating potatoes is pretty weird, just stop frying them and use more healthy oils and spices in place of butter/margarine. Serve pasta or rice with spinach/greens/and shredded vegetables-at least more will eat than if the vegetable is off to the side.

Once again one must consider the primary purpose of schools and cost factors of what is being required of them. It seems to me that education is burden with with more unfunded and underfunded mandates than any other public sector.
Click to expand...


Actually, pasta and potatoes are horrible for human consumption.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
So the national GOP is comparable to the administration of a single public school in Chicago? I guess accuracy isn't important when you're high on your horse.
Click to expand...

Oh, was that my high horse? I thought I was standing firmly on the ground ridiculing both parties. I guess to a seriously partisan hack, it might look like a high horse.

It is comparable, not merely because of the program at a single public school, but because of the massive support that was shown for the program by liberals. But I'm glad you thought to ask for clarification before being an ass.
 
WinterBorn said:
Oh, was that my high horse? I thought I was standing firmly on the ground ridiculing both parties. I guess to a seriously partisan hack, it might look like a high horse.

It is comparable, not merely because of the program at a single public school, but because of the massive support that was shown for the program by liberals. But I'm glad you thought to ask for clarification before being an ass.
Click to expand...


When a single Democrat in Congress sponsors a bill that prohibits public school children from bringing their own lunches you may have a point. Until then, comparing the Republicans in Congress to the administration of a single school in Chicago is exactly the type of asinine shit that pisses me off about self-aggrandizing "non-partisan" so-called moderates.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
When a single Democrat in Congress sponsors a bill that prohibits public school children from bringing their own lunches you may have a point. Until then, comparing the Republicans in Congress to the administration of a single school in Chicago is exactly the type of asinine shit that pisses me off about self-aggrandizing "non-partisan" so-called moderates.
Click to expand...

I'll be sure and check with you before posting in the future. My post was sarcasm. I'm sorry you missed that part of it.
 
Return of Dune said:
They sure as hell are not democrats Sherlock.
Click to expand...

retard strikes again. why is it you keep running from actually answering the question? you claim it is the GOP party, but your link only says: some conservatives

you falsely attributed these mysterious, unnamed supposedly conservative members to the whole GOP. what are their names dune? how many are there?
 
Yurt said:
retard strikes again. why is it you keep running from actually answering the question? you claim it is the GOP party, but your link only says: some conservatives

you falsely attributed these mysterious, unnamed supposedly conservative members to the whole GOP. what are their names dune? how many are there?
Click to expand...


Here are their names:

HAROLD ROGERS, KY
C.W. BILL YOUNG, FL
JERRY LEWIS, CA
FRANK R. WOLF, VA
JACK KINGSTON, GA
RODNEY FRELINGHUYSEN, NJ
TOM LATHAM, IA
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, AL
JO ANN EMERSON, MO
KAY GRANGER, TX
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, ID
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, TX
ANDER CRENSHAW, FL
DENNY REHBERG, MT
JOHN R. CARTER, TX
RODNEY ALEXANDER, LA
KEN CALVERT, CA
JO BONNER, AL
STEVE LATOURETTE, OH
TOM COLE, OK
JEFF FLAKE, AZ
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, FL
CHARLES DENT, PA
STEVE AUSTRIA, OH
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, WY
TOM GRAVES, GA
KEVIN YODER, KS
STEVE WOMACK, AR
ALAN NUNNELEE, MS

They represent the GOP on the House appropriations committee.
 
Yurt said:
retard strikes again. why is it you keep running from actually answering the question? you claim it is the GOP party, but your link only says: some conservatives

you falsely attributed these mysterious, unnamed supposedly conservative members to the whole GOP. what are their names dune? how many are there?
Click to expand...

Take note here Yurt... notice how Davey Hubbins was quick to respond with a list of names? This is what you get into when you attempt to reason with, and debate a liberal. All you need to do, is stupidly open the door to the debate, and it's on... they will pull out all the stops to mislead, lie, distort, obfuscate... whatever it takes. What you need to learn is, you can't debate these people honestly, they won't play that way.

I was once very much like you, I know you find that hard to believe, but it's true. I didn't consider myself a republican or democrat, I was neither conservative or liberal, I could generally see both sides of an argument and my viewpoint was very much 'moderate' or in the middle on most things. But here's the problem, when arguing with left-wing ideologues from a 'moderate' stance, you can never gain ground, you can only lose ground, and they will take as much as humanly possible and then some. What you are left with is a completely left-wing solution, which you didn't originally agree with, but were cajoled into 'negotiating' because you began from a 'moderate' position. "Increasing taxes on the wealthy" is a good example.. the second you lend credibility to this stupidity by agreeing that... well, yeah, maybe it's a good idea to raise the tax rates on "the wealthy" then you've ceded the point to the liberals! You've accepted their premise that people who earn a large income, are "wealthy" and we are somehow entitled to more of their money than the average person. Once you've made that concession, you have lost the battle and the war.

The BEST option, I have found, is to categorically REJECT everything a lefty has to say. Don't be tempted to engage their idiocy with rational thinking, it doesn't work with a liberal. The moment you entertain their stupidity, the second you admit they have made some kind of point, you have lost the entire argument, and you won't get it back again, regardless of how much reason and logic you apply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top