In response to:

Complaints Mount Against Michelle Obama’s New Lunch Menu

nodeamass Wrote: Sep 25, 2012 12:25 PM
Clownhallistas, your argument is:"Let us(the Clownhallistas) tell you when govt needs to interven or not intervene" When a woman wants an abortion, it's ok to have the govt force her to have a kid. When the gov't wants to interven in order to protect kids from diabetes, that's NOT OK! " this is the Claownhallian school of logic,"When we contradict our own arguments regarding gov't intervention , it's ok, since we are exceptional and know when govt should and should not interven.
hakko936 Wrote: Sep 25, 2012 12:45 PM
Your argument makes no sense. You are basically saying that you believe the gov't can't say a thing about how a woman deals with her body regarding abortion, but it is fine to tell people what to eat. How is that really any differenct that ridiculing those who say gov't should ban abortion, but stay out of what we eat?

Ress Wrote: Sep 25, 2012 12:32 PM
There is no inconsistency. All conservtives agree that protecting people from violence is a legitimate government function. Dictating what we may or may not eat is not.
bepperson Wrote: Sep 25, 2012 12:31 PM
Funny, I didn't know the gov. "forces" births. Huh.
DevilDog0311 Wrote: Sep 25, 2012 12:31 PM
when a slvt wants to murder a baby out of pure unadulterated selfishness.........

then she can pay for it herself

protect kids from diabetes.....

how? by forcing them on soylent green? all thopse chemicals in theirt food?

what is wrong with letting people CHOOSE for themselves?

what do you have against liberty, freedom and the right to CHOSE for oneself?

libturd logic,

we are the collective. we will decide FOR YOU. you have no rights except what we tell you, you can have. we decide all things for you and if you dont like it, to bad. for we know all and we know whats good for you and whats not and you have no CHOICE! you must do as you are TOLD and not as you WANT.

for we are cowardly pissants who sold our so
DevilDog0311 Wrote: Sep 25, 2012 12:32 PM
souls for master. we NEED masters. for without them, why we couldnt have IMMORTALLITY! only with masters can we live forever. even if it means chains and shackles. who cares? for we are immortal.

and isnt immortallity more important than freedom?
Birdman III Wrote: Sep 25, 2012 12:30 PM
Sorry, nomass, when woman wants to kill her child, we don't want to pay for it. Repeat after me, "The taxpayer does not pay for abortions", 10 times. Maybe it will stick in your little mind.

As a rule of thumb, the gov't should never intervene where it has no business. Less is better.
Rick2477 Wrote: Sep 25, 2012 12:28 PM
There are BIG 'choices' and LITTLE choices.

Protect kids from diabetes, protect them from ugly footwear and bad haircuts. Too much govt is a bad thing. Clearly, right?
nodeamass Wrote: Sep 25, 2012 12:31 PM
So govt has a role in protecting kids. My point EXACTLY!
Quintus Tullius Cicero Wrote: Sep 25, 2012 12:27 PM

Have you ever the Constitution?
Simplecaveman Wrote: Sep 25, 2012 12:33 PM
Do they have other choices instead of the food the school provides? Maybe they are forced.
Quintus Tullius Cicero Wrote: Sep 25, 2012 12:33 PM
Uh, no it's not. You seem to believe that the government can do anything it wants. BTW, the government attaches strings to those "free lunches." The main one is "You follow our guidelines or we'll cut off your money." The legal term for that is extortion.
In Wisconsin, high school athletes are complaining about not getting enough to eat each day, due to the skimpy new school lunch menu mandated by the United States Department of Agriculture and First Lady Michelle Obama.

The story we published earlier this week on that subject is unfortunately not unique. Students across the country are complaining about the new school lunch regulations.

Perhaps the real motive is to starve students into slimming down. Just ask students in Pierre, South Dakota who, too, are in an all-out revolt.

"I know a lot of my friends...