Clackdor posted:

---

This sort of intervention is necessary for kids who get sent to school with candy for lunch or nothing.

---

Clackdor posted:

---

This sort of intervention is necessary for kids who get sent to school with candy for lunch or nothing.

---

Abaddon_Ambrosius posted:

---

Clackdor posted:

---

This sort of intervention is necessary for kids who get sent to school with candy for lunch or nothing.

---

BS, Clack. There is no excuse for this kind of intervention.

OBSERVING a child eating nothing but candy for lunch repeatedly is grounds for a digital photo or two and a note to the parents. Then, dept of children/families (DCF) if it is truly persistent across multiple times.

OBSERVING a child sent to school with nothing at all repeatedly is grounds for a couple digital photos, and a call to DCF because inability to provide food, clothing and shelter or avail yourself of the 50 different aid programs/charities to fix that is child abuse.

Casual observation and an evidential log is all that is needed. No 'intervention' beyond that is required. No "oh let us create ANOTHER redundant bureaucracy" program is needed, either. We have ways of dealing with this now.

---

Clackdor posted:

---

BS on your BS. Feed the damn kids who come to school with nothing.

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

So the trouble with big government is that when they screw up people get pissed off and can address the issue?

Government has a lot of problems and there is no doubt they screwed up this one but this is hardly a big issue that can't be addressed relatively easily.

---

Cawlin posted:

---

No.

The trouble with big government is that you need people to run all their absurdly intrusive programs and ironically enough, those people usually are in actuality, as or more untrustworthy as they assume the people they oversee are.

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

Cawlin posted:

---

No.

The trouble with big government is that you need people to run all their absurdly intrusive programs and ironically enough, those people usually are in actuality, as or more untrustworthy as they assume the people they oversee are.

---

The key to any system is accountability. These types of jobs are very public. The fact that we are talking about it is good evidence of that.

Most of government is hidden which is really where the problems are. Not on these nothing issues.

---

Moe_Nox posted:

---

This sounds less like big government intervention and more like small town corruption.
Whichever food distributor supplies those lunches has Children's services/protective service people on the take that are increasing their sales.
That packed lunch was healthy and alot healthier than chicken nuggets.

The school is lucky the kid didn't have some rare allergy to chicken and have a reaction.
Its just another example of the system thinking they know your kid better than you, and overstepping their bounds with broad brush strokes.

---

Cawlin posted:

---

Most of government (in terms of dollars spent) is hidden, certainly. However, the trend is for bigger, more intrusive government and by virtue of that, more programs overseen by asstards like this USDA inspector in the article.

Discourse is good because it gives people a chance to really see what happens when they let government programs like this intrude into these intimate details of their lives. People can see the ineptitude and incompetence that is inevitable and reach the logical conclusion that such programs as this are absurd, abusive, intrusive, intolerable, and utterly unacceptable.

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

Cawlin posted:

---

Most of government (in terms of dollars spent) is hidden, certainly. However, the trend is for bigger, more intrusive government and by virtue of that, more programs overseen by asstards like this USDA inspector in the article.

Discourse is good because it gives people a chance to really see what happens when they let government programs like this intrude into these intimate details of their lives. People can see the ineptitude and incompetence that is inevitable and reach the logical conclusion that such programs as this are absurd, abusive, intrusive, intolerable, and utterly unacceptable.

---

We are talking about kids eating in a government run building. There is no doubt that they have a responsibility at that point. It is not really a question of having standards or not but what those standards are, how they are enforced, and once a problem is identified how they are solving the problem.

Schools are also known for selling out to soda companies and candy companies to make an extra buck. A major reason school lunches such is because of budgets. Most of these issues tend to come back to money.

---

Cawlin posted:

---

I am not arguing against schools making sure kids have a solid lunch. Nor am I arguing against subsidized lunches. School lunch programs are a morass of corruption though, and that's not even a part of the issue in this thread imo.

I'm arguing that the people who execute these government programs are jackoffs and idiots and that their presence is inevitable and frankly ubiquitous. People who are in favor of these sort of carte blanche policies need to be reminded of the idiots who they are giving all this authority to.

I see nothing wrong with this program implemented in a way such as that suggested by AA above in the thread. However, I'm imagining this inspector looking something like Baulbricker from Fast Times at Ridgemont High, rooting through kids' lunches, stealing the candy bars to stuff her fat face with, opening the sandwich bags, and grubbing the bread apart with her fat, wrinkly fingers to make sure that the lunchmeat is "good enough" and that there isn't too much fkn mayo...

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

Cawlin posted:

---

I am not arguing against schools making sure kids have a solid lunch. Nor am I arguing against subsidized lunches. School lunch programs are a morass of corruption though, and that's not even a part of the issue in this thread imo.

I'm arguing that the people who execute these government programs are jackoffs and idiots and that their presence is inevitable and frankly ubiquitous. People who are in favor of these sort of carte blanche policies need to be reminded of the idiots who they are giving all this authority to.

I see nothing wrong with this program implemented in a way such as that suggested by AA above in the thread. However, I'm imagining this inspector looking something like Baulbricker from Fast Times at Ridgemont High, rooting through kids' lunches, stealing the candy bars to stuff her fat face with, opening the sandwich bags, and grubbing the bread apart with her fat, wrinkly fingers to make sure that the lunchmeat is "good enough" and that there isn't too much fkn mayo...

---

You are being obtuse. People screw up with any job. The problem is not that people screw up it is that they are not held accountable. This person is clearly being called out on their incompetence.

You are being a lil emo bitch IMO.

---

Cawlin posted:

---

LOL

You are putting your head in the sand and ignoring the truth of the matter - which is that big intrusive government needs people to execute their programs - many of those people WANT to do this because they desire to have power over other people and such programs and positions give them an opportunity to have it. Who the fk else would want to be a lunch inspector at a fkn preschool hmm?

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

Cawlin posted:

---

LOL

You are putting your head in the sand and ignoring the truth of the matter - which is that big intrusive government needs people to execute their programs - many of those people WANT to do this because they desire to have power over other people and such programs and positions give them an opportunity to have it. Who the fk else would want to be a lunch inspector at a fkn preschool hmm?

---

The truth that this person made a mistake, was called out on it publicly, and the school is already saying that the guy screwed up.

OMG big government is ruining our lives!!!

I also tend to think that the reason the person is incompetent because they are probably just a glorified lunch lady who isn't paid much.

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

Are they being held accountable for the horror that was trading a turkey sandwich for chicken nuggets?

I think the real hidden problem here is not the switch to the school lunch but the low quality school lunch. If you want to complain about government you have a much better argument there than whining about one person screwing up and getting called out on it and corrected. Millions of poor school lunches served daily and you think this one incident is the end of the world.

You are a dumbass.

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

So your example of corruption and incompetence proving how big government is bad is a situation where a lunch lady determines that a kid's lunch doesn't meet standards(correctly btw) and then screws up by charging the kid for a full lunch instead of just supplementing the kid's lunch with an apple or something?

You are making mountains out of molehills. It is comical to watch though so keep it up.

---

Cawlin posted:

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

So your example of corruption and incompetence proving how big government is bad is a situation where a lunch lady determines that a kid's lunch doesn't meet standards(correctly btw) and then screws up by charging the kid for a full lunch instead of just supplementing the kid's lunch with an apple or something?

You are making mountains out of molehills. It is comical to watch though so keep it up.

---

You are intentionally downplaying it because you're a big, intrusive government supporter - no surprise given that you're a government employee. It's comical to watch you try to spin it as if the issue is about this post when the issue is clearly about the inability to sustain the big government desires of you and people like you.

---

Rosaria posted:

---

Not too long ago there was a thread about a largely Latino school in Chicago that prohibited all students from bringing any food to school. A reporter went to the school to observe lunch which included tamales and an apple. The reporter watched as full tray after full tray was dumped into the trash bin with only the milk and apple being consumed. An investigation was instituted as to why this rule was decided on and who the food service contract went to and possible relationship to the principal/and or board members. The parents are of course furious, many of whom are showing up on the playground to sneak food to their kids so they won't go hungry throughout the day. Its not wise to stand between a Latino mom and her babies' digestive tracts. Viva America!

I can't imagine anything worse to feed kids than chicken nuggets which are essentially balls of fat and salt. With all of the focus on teaching proper eating habits to our fairly obese childhood population its inconceivable that a school would choose to have these on their menu. They should replace them with much healthier turkey sandwhiches.

---

Rhodoman posted:

---

Put simply and w/o all the wacko conspiracy over-the-top-ness,

This example makes it pretty clear that the state has more power over us than it should.

We should change that.

Rho

---

Abaddon_Ambrosius posted:

---

I can't believe that there's anyone sane who supports staffing and paying for a school lunch inspector who inspects individual kids' lunches daily... and the program behind that... and the regulation behind that... and the resulting lawsuits behind that... on top of everything else already done for food, parental monitoring, and parental assistance to needy children.

This smells like another litmus test for idiocy, to me.

If you support this program, and you don't see the idiot in this scenario? Look in the mirror.

---

Cawlin posted:

---

Abaddon_Ambrosius posted:

---

This smells like another litmus test for idiocy, to me. If you support this program, and you don't see the idiot in this scenario? Look in the mirror.

---

No no AA, don't you see, this is about a single mistake made by a single inspector at a single school on ONE day! It's totally a non-issue! It has nothing to do with any of the concepts of overreaching government intervention or the inevitability of incompetence and corruption in such programs at all!

---

sweeny_comodore posted:

---

Why is not eating a lunch such a bad thing?
When I was in school, I never ate lunch. I took the ten bucks a week for meals and bought drugs with it.

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

There's a school lunch inspector?

Good lord.

I'm sure that same school district threatens to cut their music program every time their budget comes up.

---

Ashmaele posted:

---

The FDA won its two-year fight to shut down an Amish farmer who was selling fresh raw milk to eager consumers in the Washington, D.C., region after a judge this month banned Daniel Allgyer from selling his milk across state lines and he told his customers he would shut down his farm altogether.

Misleading headline and lolmoonietimes.jpg but is this a gubmint overreach?

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

I hope it is just a lunch lady.

---

ZigmundZag posted:

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

I hope it is just a lunch lady.

---

If that. It's probably a daycare TA who received a pamphlet six months ago about how to inspect lunches and was since decreed a "State Inspector". The story sounds much more ominous to Fox readers if they make it sounds like the state has employees in every preschool lunchroom, though.

---

Jaedence posted:

---

What amazes me most about this is the tea-party and their ilk campaign for smaller government, but they're the same people who want to regulate who you marry, what you smoke, how much you drink, what you watch.

PS, violence is okay, but don't you dare show a breast...

---

Cawlin posted:

---

This is a problem that goes to the fundamental issue of intrusive government programs. The incompetence of the administrators of such programs as well as their corruption is legendary. This particular story is just another in a long list of decades worth of evidence to this truth. To consider the entirety of the issue a single day's action by an incompetent inspector is the height of foolishness when considering the issue of expanding government and government programs.

---

For starters, the context in which all of this occurred was a public school pre-K program run by the state popularly known as “More at Four,” but now called the generic name “NC Pre-K.” In order to have a child enrolled in this program, which has a limited number of slots, the parents must actively choose to enroll, with priority going to “at-risk” children, to wit: special needs children and (importantly) low-income children. Indeed, to even be eligible for the program, the child must either fit in one of those two categories or have a parent on (or about to be called on) active military duty. Enrollment as an “at-risk” child means that the child’s enrollment is fully subsidized by the state, regardless of whether the day care is private or public.
.
.
.
The original story’s claim that the relevant regulation applies to all pre-schools is also false – to the contrary, it applies only to pre-schools choosing to participate in (and eligible for) the subsidized program.

The original story further obscures that in no circumstance was this child – or any child, for that matter – being forced to eat the school-provided lunch, nor was this child -or any other child – deprived of her boxed lunch. Instead, as the second linked story acknowledges, the child was just provided with additional food and given the option to consume that in addition to her boxed lunch. In other words, the claim that the school “replaced” this girl’s turkey sandwich, banana, apple, potato chips, and juice with chicken nuggets is totally bogus.
By and large, what this story boils down to is that a low-income child whose tuition is fully subsidized by the state under a program her mother opted into was offered some additional food to supplement the boxed lunch she brought from home. This option was provided not because of some overarching, generally applicable law or regulation, but because the program in which her mother and school voluntarily participate requires such an option be available. The mother apparently objects to this option being provided to her daughter, not because of any health concerns or the like, but because she incorrectly believes that she will be charged additional money for her child being provided this option. Since she won’t in fact be charged for this and there is no evidence she was ever going to be charged for it, there is absolutely no harm actually being done to her or her child.

Since this is also an opt-in program, there is no chance of this becoming some sort of generally applicable concern even to the extent there is some sort of nanny state concern here. If the mother has some sort of ethical problem with her child being provided with the option of drinking milk or eating vegetables at school, then she is surely free to send her child to an unsubsidized day care program.

Rosaria posted:

---

I don't necessarily believe that report, either.

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

So, I looked around a bit, and found...surprise, surprise!...that the story of this atrocity is full of distortions and omissions.

For starters, the context in which all of this occurred was a public school pre-K program run by the state popularly known as “More at Four,” but now called the generic name “NC Pre-K.” In order to have a child enrolled in this program, which has a limited number of slots, the parents must actively choose to enroll, with priority going to “at-risk” children, to wit: special needs children and (importantly) low-income children. Indeed, to even be eligible for the program, the child must either fit in one of those two categories or have a parent on (or about to be called on) active military duty. Enrollment as an “at-risk” child means that the child’s enrollment is fully subsidized by the state, regardless of whether the day care is private or public.
.
.
.
The original story’s claim that the relevant regulation applies to all pre-schools is also false – to the contrary, it applies only to pre-schools choosing to participate in (and eligible for) the subsidized program.

The original story further obscures that in no circumstance was this child – or any child, for that matter – being forced to eat the school-provided lunch, nor was this child -or any other child – deprived of her boxed lunch. Instead, as the second linked story acknowledges, the child was just provided with additional food and given the option to consume that in addition to her boxed lunch. In other words, the claim that the school “replaced” this girl’s turkey sandwich, banana, apple, potato chips, and juice with chicken nuggets is totally bogus.
By and large, what this story boils down to is that a low-income child whose tuition is fully subsidized by the state under a program her mother opted into was offered some additional food to supplement the boxed lunch she brought from home. This option was provided not because of some overarching, generally applicable law or regulation, but because the program in which her mother and school voluntarily participate requires such an option be available. The mother apparently objects to this option being provided to her daughter, not because of any health concerns or the like, but because she incorrectly believes that she will be charged additional money for her child being provided this option. Since she won’t in fact be charged for this and there is no evidence she was ever going to be charged for it, there is absolutely no harm actually being done to her or her child.

Since this is also an opt-in program, there is no chance of this becoming some sort of generally applicable concern even to the extent there is some sort of nanny state concern here. If the mother has some sort of ethical problem with her child being provided with the option of drinking milk or eating vegetables at school, then she is surely free to send her child to an unsubsidized day care program.

http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2012/02/15/a-north-carolina-non-troversy/


tl;dr...typical right wing demonizing of what sounds like a program to help poor kids.

---

Evil Gubmint Inspector posted:

---

Hey lisa, your lunch seems like it might not be enough for a growing kid. Want some chicken nuggets too?

---

RWNs posted:

---

OMG FASCISM! NANNY STATE! GULAG!

---

Rosaria posted:

---

Groucho, you know as well as I do that its complete folly to believe anything just because its in e-print. Wait a week, wait until more information is obtained and all the facts are in. I read what you posted but don't, as I said, necessarily believe any of it. There is no reason why I should. Its hard for me to believe that a school would give such a young child chicken nuggets to supplement a turkey sandwich. That's ludicrous. Why would they? She or he is not a linebacker for the high school football team. Did they give her anything at all? Is this an example of an over-reaching government? I don't know. I will never be in a position to experience that first hand unless private schools are outlawed.

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

Rosaria posted:

---

Groucho, you know as well as I do that its complete folly to believe anything just because its in e-print. Wait a week, wait until more information is obtained and all the facts are in. I read what you posted but don't, as I said, necessarily believe any of it. There is no reason why I should. Its hard for me to believe that a school would give such a young child chicken nuggets to supplement a turkey sandwich. That's ludicrous. Why would they? She or he is not a linebacker for the high school football team. Did they give her anything at all? Is this an example of an over-reaching government? I don't know. I will never be in a position to experience that first hand unless private schools are outlawed.

---

The Groucho article seems far more plausible, especially given the response of the principal in the other article.

That said even if it is false and we take the original story at face value it is still a non issue.

---

Rosaria posted:

---

The issue with the Latino children is a bigger issue and maybe indicative of fraud. If this happened its indicative of stupid. I still am having a hard time believing that a pre-K kid, meaning younger than 5, would eat a banana, turkey sandwich, milk, and chicken nuggets for lunch unless they were well on the way to joining the legions of obese kids in America.

---

Rosaria posted:

---

The issue with the Latino children is a bigger issue and maybe indicative of fraud. If this happened its indicative of stupid. I still am having a hard time believing that a pre-K kid, meaning younger than 5, would eat a banana, turkey sandwich, milk, and chicken nuggets for lunch unless they were well on the way to joining the legions of obese kids in America.

PS I'm also having a hard time accepting the fact that schools are providing balls of fat and salt to kids while admonishing parents about appropriate nutrition.

---

Rosaria posted:

---

Groucho, you know as well as I do that its complete folly to believe anything just because its in e-print. Wait a week, wait until more information is obtained and all the facts are in. I read what you posted but don't, as I said, necessarily believe any of it. There is no reason why I should. Its hard for me to believe that a school would give such a young child chicken nuggets to supplement a turkey sandwich. That's ludicrous. Why would they? She or he is not a linebacker for the high school football team. Did they give her anything at all? Is this an example of an over-reaching government? I don't know. I will never be in a position to experience that first hand unless private schools are outlawed.

---

The mother, who doesn’t wish to be identified at this time, says she made her daughter a lunch that contained a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, apple juice and potato chips. A state inspector assessing the pre-K program at the school said the girl also needed a vegetable, so the inspector ordered a full school lunch tray for her. While the four-year-old was still allowed to eat her home lunch, the girl was forced to take a helping of chicken nuggets, milk, a fruit and a vegetable to supplement her sack lunch.

Rosaria posted:

---

Groucho, you know as well as I do that its complete folly to believe anything just because its in e-print. Wait a week, wait until more information is obtained and all the facts are in. I read what you posted but don't, as I said, necessarily believe any of it. There is no reason why I should. Its hard for me to believe that a school would give such a young child chicken nuggets to supplement a turkey sandwich. That's ludicrous. Why would they? She or he is not a linebacker for the high school football team. Did they give her anything at all? Is this an example of an over-reaching government? I don't know. I will never be in a position to experience that first hand unless private schools are outlawed.

---

ZigmundZag posted:

---

Rosaria posted:

---

Groucho, you know as well as I do that its complete folly to believe anything just because its in e-print. Wait a week, wait until more information is obtained and all the facts are in. I read what you posted but don't, as I said, necessarily believe any of it. There is no reason why I should. Its hard for me to believe that a school would give such a young child chicken nuggets to supplement a turkey sandwich. That's ludicrous. Why would they? She or he is not a linebacker for the high school football team. Did they give her anything at all? Is this an example of an over-reaching government? I don't know. I will never be in a position to experience that first hand unless private schools are outlawed.

---

Wait, what? You wait for the rebuttal and then say "Hey, let's not believe everything on the Interwebs now!"

Bullshit.

---

Darwynnia posted:

---

Rosaria posted:

---

The issue with the Latino children is a bigger issue and maybe indicative of fraud. If this happened its indicative of stupid. I still am having a hard time believing that a pre-K kid, meaning younger than 5, would eat a banana, turkey sandwich, milk, and chicken nuggets for lunch unless they were well on the way to joining the legions of obese kids in America.

PS I'm also having a hard time accepting the fact that schools are providing balls of fat and salt to kids while admonishing parents about appropriate nutrition.

---

My son has the following for his lunch:

2 pieces of rye bread, buttered with a single slice of turkey, ham, smoked salmon or other sliced meat on it.
1/2 banana
4" of cucumber
3 snack (cherry) tomatoes
1 bunch of grapes (usually ~15)

With a 'fruit snack' for later

The other half of the banana
1 kiwi
4 strawberries or half an orange

....he's 3.5 and his lunchbox is empty. When he gets home he has a bowl of yogurt with some oatmeal on top because he's 'starving'.

He's 110 cm (~43.5 inches tall) and 48 pounds (22 kg)

ETA:

Sometimes he gets a small bag of shrimp as a treat too.

---

Rosaria posted:

---

That's awesome Darwy. Pics please you haven't posted any in a long time.

---

This isn’t China. This is the increasingly totalitarian state of Obama. The Communists want control of the children and they seek to dictate every facet of our lives. I hope these parents remove their child from this wretched place, hire an attorney, and tell the USDA and Moochelle Obama to get the he** out of their business.
I think I would have gone up to that school and beaten the dog sh** out of the food Nazi as well as the school administrator. This is absolutely outrageous.
.
.
.
Cant wait until some idiot force feeds a kid a school lunch that they are deathly alergic to, and it kills the kid. Lots of kids are very alergic to peanuts, fish, etc….

You parents would deserve it…. Keep sitting on your couch eating bon bons and watching the stupid MSM news. You deserve what you get for not marching down to that school right now and taking your kids out or DEMANDING something be changed.
Is the life of YOUR 4 year old worth a fight with the USDA and the A-hole control freaks that wear their stupid jackets?

If someone did that to my kid, they would surely die, because I would personally beat them to death. I dont care what 4 letters are on their govt jacket. They would die.

.
.
.
Parents that send their children to government schools have no rights.Teachers can take girls to have an abortion without telling the parents.Children are indoctrinated with socialism.There are more and more parents going to homeschooling becsuse of things like this.
.
.
.
How about fixing the real problem? Mandatory drug testing of teachers in our public schools. I find it incredible that we don’t drug test those individuals that educate our children at least for narcotics.
.
.
.Just keep voting for democrats if this is what you want. It is the crazy democrats who are doing this insanity. You are going to lose every little bit of your liberty and it is going to be democrats who take them.

According to the Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act of 2004, all local education agencies (LEAs) that participate in the National School Lunch Program were required to develop a local wellness policy to address specific nutrition and physical activity needs no later than June 30, 2006. The policy must include the following components: goals for nutrition education, physical activity, and other school-based activities that promote wellness; nutrition guidelines for all food available on campus during the school day; guidelines for reimbursable meals; a plan for measuring and implementing the policy, including designation of one or more persons within the LEA to assess implementation; and community involvement in development of the wellness policy. Developed

Darwynnia posted:

---

Rosaria posted:

---

That's awesome Darwy. Pics please you haven't posted any in a long time.

---

If you're on FB send me a PM. I have lots of pics there.

---

Moe_Nox posted:

---

You mean like the Hillary/Tipper Gore campaign of censorship during the 90's? Yeah, you see confused.

---

reesescups posted:

---

Moe_Nox posted:

---

You mean like the Hillary/Tipper Gore campaign of censorship during the 90's? Yeah, you see confused.

---

That was all Tipper....

And the one factor I would have never been able to over look in regards to voting for that ticket. Not that I had any inclination to vote for that ticket to begin with but we digress...

---

Rosaria posted:

---

Groucho I don't read right wing blogs, I don't read left wing blogs. I find them equally ridiculous. The OP is the only website I read, other than out of country news sources, that is not primarily economics focused. My main news sources are Al Jazeera and CNBC in the morning. I don't care what the left wing prints about the right wing, and I don't care about what the right wing prints about the left wing.

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

Rosaria posted:

---

Groucho I don't read right wing blogs, I don't read left wing blogs. I find them equally ridiculous. The OP is the only website I read, other than out of country news sources, that is not primarily economics focused. My main news sources are Al Jazeera and CNBC in the morning. I don't care what the left wing prints about the right wing, and I don't care about what the right wing prints about the left wing.

---

So, if you don't believe anything other blogs say, why are you commenting that MY link is suspect, but, apparently, have no problem with the original link?

If I hadn't posted my link, would you have posted in this thread? Would you have dismissed the OP as hearsay?

---

The rest are about Darwy's son, who you must admit is gorgeous and wonderful.

Rosaria posted:

---

Darwynnia posted:

---

Rosaria posted:

---

That's awesome Darwy. Pics please you haven't posted any in a long time.

---

If you're on FB send me a PM. I have lots of pics there.

---

He has your eyes and the rest is all Simon...well, the shape of your face too, maybe. God, he's gorgeous and so precious Darwy but you know that. What's he doing in school? What's he learning? What's his focus on? What are they covering with him? Say hello to Simon for me, please.

PS I see plants!

---

Abaddon_Ambrosius posted:

---

Funny how you think some of us haven't already pointed out Bush is not a fiscal conservative by any stretch? Since, like, his first year in office?

Amusing, indeed.

---

Cawlin posted:

---

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/exclusive-2nd-n-c-mother-says-daughters-school-lunch-replaced-for-not-being-healthy-enough/

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

Except this topic isn't about fiscal conservatism, it is about Big Government.

---

Aerlinthian posted:

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

Except this topic isn't about fiscal conservatism, it is about Big Government.

---

?? Fiscal prudence is the antithesis of Big Government. Both aspects are joined from the toes to the nose.

---

poetkiosk posted:

---

funny how this hasn't come up as a topic before.

---

Voodoo-Dahl posted:

---

And now faced with a sound rebuttal, you link Glenn Beck's website.

---

Voodoo-Dahl posted:

---

I don't actually look at information, I attack the source pretty much always because that's just easier for my little brain to handle.

---