• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

For You Non-Believers Who Say The Republicans Are Pussys!

The key word is POOR. The “healthy“ lunches were “Healthy” for the wealthy New York and Los Angeles and Washington DC kids whose “au pairs” were too DAMNED Lazy to cook them something decent and let them feast to their little eyes bugged out on McDonald’s French Fries and ice cream.

Poor is poor, not poor diet. Kids need calories. School is a hard day for those who are really trying.
OK? But a change to the national school lunch program doesn't actually affect the rich kids, because they pay for their own lunch, which means they can order off the al-la-cart menu all the chocolate milk they want. I can't speak for the setup in every school; but the 8 schools in 4 districts in 3 states that my nieces and nephews have attended in the past decade all have 2 different lunch tiers. The national school lunch program option (usually 2 different options per day) for the kids in that program, and the al-la-cart options for those who don't get financial assistance. I put "healthy" in quotes because the food in that "healthy" lunch is more likely based on which food sector the .gov is trying to subsidize than what's actually healthy.

Not sure where the argument is, until you imply that "healthy" means something different based on economic status. Are sugar calories MORE nutritional when a poor kid eats them? Nope, still just empty calories that contribute to any number of health and behavioral issues. If anything, poor kids need MORE whole foods in school lunches, because they get enough cheep junk food at home. Because "food is food and calories are calories" when you're on a budget. Except they aren't. A calorie from protein or fat are infinitely more useful to a growing body than refined sugars or even whole carbs. I don't give a crap what rich kids eat, because medicaid isn't paying for their dental or obesity related issues (and I still hate entitled rich kids in general). You want to help a poor kid, give them whole milk or more meat & veggies, not 2% milk with added sugar (what all school chocolate milk I've ever seen is).
 
  • Like
Reactions: thejeep
We had chocolate milk when I was in school.

VERY few fat kids.

Sugar isnt bad.

HFCS is bad.
Too much sugar is bad.
Processed, premade, junky food is bad.
Lazy parents who allow kids to not do anything but watch TV, game, or watch tiktok are bad.
I could eat all I wanted and never goin fat till I was about 27 yrs old. That’s when all the excercise, working out, and fucking stopped. When I married!😂
 
  • Like
Reactions: johnnycat
OK? But a change to the national school lunch program doesn't actually affect the rich kids, because they pay for their own lunch, which means they can order off the al-la-cart menu all the chocolate milk they want. I can't speak for the setup in every school; but the 8 schools in 4 districts in 3 states that my nieces and nephews have attended in the past decade all have 2 different lunch tiers. The national school lunch program option (usually 2 different options per day) for the kids in that program, and the al-la-cart options for those who don't get financial assistance. I put "healthy" in quotes because the food in that "healthy" lunch is more likely based on which food sector the .gov is trying to subsidize than what's actually healthy.

Not sure where the argument is, until you imply that "healthy" means something different based on economic status. Are sugar calories MORE nutritional when a poor kid eats them? Nope, still just empty calories that contribute to any number of health and behavioral issues. If anything, poor kids need MORE whole foods in school lunches, because they get enough cheep junk food at home. Because "food is food and calories are calories" when you're on a budget. Except they aren't. A calorie from protein or fat are infinitely more useful to a growing body than refined sugars or even whole carbs. I don't give a crap what rich kids eat, because medicaid isn't paying for their dental or obesity related issues (and I still hate entitled rich kids in general). You want to help a poor kid, give them whole milk or more meat & veggies, not 2% milk with added sugar (what all school chocolate milk I've ever seen is).
You make some excellent points, but a lot does not really apply to many of the children I had the privilege to teach. Mind you, I am not talking about sugar diets though a bit of sugar would not have hurt. I am talking about tasty food, filled with carbohydrates and protein. Baked barbecue chicken potatoes and a green salad is a far better meal for a poor, under nourished child than celery, carrots and a kale salad. but I digest

You know, healthy has enough calories to get through the day. It may not be what you and I think as adults would be “healthy.” So, that‘s kind a the point. My kids depended on the meals, breakfast and lunch that they got at schools. They likely got nothing at home worth eating. Some, were children of druggies and welfare bums. (That would be female welfare bums). Where the money went, I don’t know, but I would visit the home and the ‘parent’ would be climbing out of bed at 2-3 in the afternoon. One can read between the lines. “Ain’t gonna crawl out of bed, to worry with that kid, if he wants something, he can get it himself.”

The next group were children of less than capable single parents. No money, harsh living conditions and any decent meal they got was at school. The parent, as much as they loved their child and as much as they tried, they couldn’t.

Out in the country, we seemed to see too many of both.

Neither of these groups needs to be on a weight reduction diet. A little meat on their bones and some carbohydrates fueling their brains and muscles was a big boost. Yet, big hips obama did her best to make sure these young people got on a good weight reduction diet. Children in her very limited world, tended to be fat, out of shape and particularly lazy.

My kids really needed the calories. Celery and carrot sticks are great for me when I am trying to get down to cycling weight, but this does nto work for Poor Kids.

Note, Now, we also had kids, who were well cared for and receiving good nutrition. It was quite a mix.

OH, let me make one very clear point. (Totally unrelated). We were all told we had to be a member of the teachers union. Talk about a total waste. The only thing I ever got out of my money was a smelly one page newsletter telling us all the good they were doing, but they never really did anything at all. finally found a group that offered litigation protection, offered free workshops and didn’t cost as much. That damned newsletter stunk up my entire classroom. what kind of ink they used, I do not know but it was so bad, a skunk actually smelled better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jr81452
You make some excellent points, but a lot does not really apply to many of the children I had the privilege to teach. Mind you, I am not talking about sugar diets though a bit of sugar would not have hurt. I am talking about tasty food, filled with carbohydrates and protein. Baked barbecue chicken potatoes and a green salad is a far better meal for a poor, under nourished child than celery, carrots and a kale salad. but I digest (LOL)

You know, healthy has enough calories to get through the day. It may not be what you and I think as adults would be “healthy.” So, that‘s kind a the point. My kids depended on the meals, breakfast and lunch that they got at schools. They likely got nothing at home worth eating. Some, were children of druggies and welfare bums. (That would be female welfare bums). Where the money went, I don’t know, but I would visit the home and the ‘parent’ would be climbing out of bed at 2-3 in the afternoon. One can read between the lines. “Ain’t gonna crawl out of bed, to worry with that kid, if he wants something, he can get it himself.”
SNIP for brevity
We are in total agreement. You seem to have have misinterpreted something I said to equate my idea of healthy with moochels bs forced vegan program. I don't even have kids and I have no problem paying taxes to cover school based food programs, I just want it to be the kind of food that doesn't poison* their minds and bodies. (* for lack of a better term at the moment)

I was one of those poor kids who's family gave a damn. But our fortunes were entirely dependent on how good of a job dad had at the moment, which itself was a function of "how long since his latest DUI". My idea of a healthy kids meal is: 4- 8oz meat (not too lean), 3-6oz starch, 3-6oz veggies, 2-4oz fruit, 8oz whole milk (or a low sugar juice). Until my late 20's I used to say: "veggies aren't food, they're what food eats". I'm not one of these new age "health" nuts. But based on the number of sugar addicted kids I grew up with who ate fries, pizza, and chocolate milk everyday for school lunch, I think getting rid of the chocolate milk is a fine idea. If they need sugar I'd rather it was fruit, or even a cookie, as it's a less subtle way of consuming the sugar than in liquid form. Plus they are less likely to have an afternoon hyper/crash cycle if they have to "work" to digest it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dead Eye Dick
We are in total agreement. You seem to have have misinterpreted something I said to equate my idea of healthy with moochels bs forced vegan program. I don't even have kids and I have no problem paying taxes to cover school based food programs, I just want it to be the kind of food that doesn't poison* their minds and bodies. (* for lack of a better term at the moment)

I was one of those poor kids who's family gave a damn. But our fortunes were entirely dependent on how good of a job dad had at the moment, which itself was a function of "how long since his latest DUI". My idea of a healthy kids meal is: 4- 8oz meat (not too lean), 3-6oz starch, 3-6oz veggies, 2-4oz fruit, 8oz whole milk (or a low sugar juice). Until my late 20's I used to say: "veggies aren't food, they're what food eats". I'm not one of these new age "health" nuts. But based on the number of sugar addicted kids I grew up with who ate fries, pizza, and chocolate milk everyday for school lunch, I think getting rid of the chocolate milk is a fine idea. If they need sugar I'd rather it was fruit, or even a cookie, as it's a less subtle way of consuming the sugar than in liquid form. Plus they are less likely to have an afternoon hyper/crash cycle if they have to "work" to digest it.


Meat and vegetables are all you need.
Too much fruit isn't great, starch and grain are unnecessary.


My Dad went from 280 to 200 within 3 months of cutting out everything except salad and steak. No iceberg bullshit either. Romaine, spinach, etc.

I did it and dropped from 220 to 180 in 2 months.

He did it because he found out he was diabetic. Got his blood sugar back in control pretty much instantly.
I did it because I had a gig by his house, and between his diabetes and Mom's cancer I stayed with them and helped as much as I could while I was in the area.

My diet was already decent other than lots of bread. His was decent except for his addiction to Dr Pepper. (He would make fun of my habit of an 8oz RedBull at lunch, while he was finishing off his 2nd 2 liter of pop. Because everyone knows you can drink pop like water but a small red bull is going to kill you).

We now avoid starches as a family because my wife hates potatoes. We avoid grains because gluten makes the wife develop all sorts of fun skin disorders and she hates corn.

So mostly vegetables and meat. We're all better off for it. We do use heavy amounts of butter (margarine is garbage) and lots of cheddar cheese too make it easier to eat all those vegetables... 🤣
 
They're not pussies, they're in on it. UniParty is the operative word. Give you nice sound bites then sit back and collect the donations.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: kmckinnon and TACC