Trying to save the lives of children is a horrible goal. Is she moslem too, I hear they eat their young.

“Limbaugh makes a crack at this every week, because who better to get your health advice from than a drug-addicted fat man?” he concluded.”

I prefer to take my HC advice from a thin , crack addicted lib, Charlie Sheen.

It’s not the eating healthy part, Bill. It’s the government mandate and regulation part.

Check back if you need help with anything else.

Looking through history at the role of First Ladies, he noted that they always promoted some “mundane” cause– in Obama’s case, “eat a little broccoli along with their lard”

Michelle needs to eat less lard along with her broccoli, son!

Using the same logic , the country is being run by a drug addicted , cigarette smoking , small time union organizing stringbean .

ProgLib said:
Trying to save the lives of children is a horrible goal..

So we need a First Lady to tell us what every mom has been telling their children for years “Eat more vegetables and fruits?”

Really?

Rightys just don’t like the fact that they are disproportionately obese.

Get over it Fatties!

How dare that evil lady give advice on eating healthier and exercising! I for one want my kids fat and lazy! What does she want us to live longer healthier lives or something? Surely she is the most evil vile woman ever!
~Eye Roll~

NORBIT Jr. said:
It’s not the eating healthy part, Bill. It’s the government mandate and regulation part.

Check back if you need help with anything else.

What objectionable mandates did she suggest? Healthier school lunches?

Seriously, what is a serious realistic objection to her efforts to teach healthier eating habits.

IMO , it’s just a prime example of the ridiculous completely unrealistic over reaction.
They really did comment on her plan contributing to pedestrian deaths. Can’t any conservative just admit that’s ridiculous. Is it in the code somewhere that you defend everything, no matter how ludicrous?
Sarah Palin painted it as a sign of wanting the government to control everything making this comment as she made smores on her reality show.
“”This is in honor of Michelle Obama, who thinks nobody in the land should have dessert.” which isn’t what Michelle said at all. Did Palin have the decency to at least acknowledge that obesity is a problem in this country and encouraging kids to eat healthier and get more exercise is a good idea? Is it just automatic to crap on anything a liberal says , even if it happens to make sense.
btw; what was that you said about reasoning in the other thread?
On her

notsofast said:
So we need a First Lady to tell us what every mom has been telling their children for years “Eat more vegetables and fruits?”

Really?

Since child obesity is an issue, maybe a reminder isn’t a bad idea. She also wants better school lunches and healthier choices in the vending machines. OMG it’s a government takeover. and, it contributes to pedestrian deaths because more people are walking. Do we really take something that profoundly stupid seriously.

Bill was over the top as usual but for fuck sake, does there have to be a knee jerk negative response to everything , no matter how stupid that response looks.

Did we really need Laura Bush telling us what everyone knows. Literacy is a good idea.

NORBIT Jr. said:
It’s not the eating healthy part, Bill. It’s the government mandate and regulation part.

Check back if you need help with anything else.

I agree! In fact, as part of the package for my next franchise offering, “Lardcake Factory”, there will be requirement that each piece of lardcake will contain a minimum of 2400 calores, primarily from sugars and fats, and that each store be located less than 600 feet from an elementary school. (we have determined thru extensive research this is the maximum distance a sixth grader can walk) Alos, I will hire a $arah Palin® impersonator to deliver plates of cookies to the schools everyday, with little complimentary sippy cups of high fructose corn syrup!

I love toppling little fat kids over and watching them roll downhill.

Lets mot forget all this outrage from Maher is fake. The guy has no conviction in his body excpect to the dollar. Back in the day (mid-90’s) he used to be a hard-core libertarian while on Comedy Central’s Politically Incorrect, but when HBO gave him a contract (via ABC), he IMMEDIATELY switched his “deeply held convictions” and became a far-left loon. The only difference between Com Cen. and HBO is the fact that HBO pays more so its obvious that Maher switched his views for the buck.

I’m sure if you offered him $20, he’d become a Tea Partier.

MAHER = PHONEY-ASSED BITCH

First Ladies are rarely the center of much controversy when they take on nonpolitical wellness issues…

…unless they’re Nancy Reagan

CosmosDan said:
What objectionable mandates did she suggest? Healthier school lunches?

Seriously, what is a serious realistic objection to her efforts to teach healthier eating habits.

IMO , it’s just a prime example of the ridiculous completely unrealistic over reaction.
They really did comment on her plan contributing to pedestrian deaths. Can’t any conservative just admit that’s ridiculous. Is it in the code somewhere that you defend everything, no matter how ludicrous?
Sarah Palin painted it as a sign of wanting the government to control everything making this comment as she made smores on her reality show.
“”This is in honor of Michelle Obama, who thinks nobody in the land should have dessert.” which isn’t what Michelle said at all. Did Palin have the decency to at least acknowledge that obesity is a problem in this country and encouraging kids to eat healthier and get more exercise is a good idea? Is it just automatic to crap on anything a liberal says , even if it happens to make sense.
btw; what was that you said about reasoning in the other thread?
On her

How about Michelle worries about her own husband’s unhealthiness? I don’t approve of Boehner, the President or anyone else smoking. Why should I have to subsidize the costs of someone that eats too much or smokes too much?

Also, what if you were a person that sent your child to private school? Why should you then have to contribute public funds when you didn’t send your own child through the system? That makes no sense.

Michelle could’ve been an advocate for getting gym back into the classroom. And instead of it being gym, it could’ve been walking around the track or working out for that time. I don’t think the public would have a problem if kids actually used gym as gym time. However, when I was in high school, it was a time to gossip & stand around.

who better to get your health advice from than a drug-addicted fat man?

Ooooh, ooooh, I know! A wimpy little coked up, sex-crazed pervert who lives inside the Blue Grotto at the Playboy Mansion!

Scott_in_MI said:
Lets mot forget all this outrage from Maher is fake. The guy has no conviction in his body excpect to the dollar. Back in the day (mid-90’s) he used to be a hard-core libertarian while on Comedy Central’s Politically Incorrect, but when HBO gave him a contract (via ABC), he IMMEDIATELY switched his “deeply held convictions” and became a far-left loon. The only difference between Com Cen. and HBO is the fact that HBO pays more so its obvious that Maher switched his views for the buck.

I’m sure if you offered him $20, he’d become a Tea Partier.

MAHER = PHONEY-ASSED BITCH

It seems like you never saw his shows on ABC.

Royce Earnest Jr said:
How dare that evil lady give advice on eating healthier and exercising! I for one want my kids fat and lazy! What does she want us to live longer healthier lives or something? Surely she is the most evil vile woman ever!
~Eye Roll~

.
I’m AOK with any First Ladies’ good works.

The problem with this First Lady’s little hobby is the legislation that is coming from it.

Big difference!

Leftist Asshat said:
Ooooh, ooooh, I know! A wimpy little coked up, sex-crazed pervert who lives inside the Blue Grotto at the Playboy Mansion!

.
Having a threesome with a goat and a bagpipe?

“First Ladies are rarely the center of much controversy when they take on nonpolitical wellness issues”…Wow , and we’ve had so many of those!

Hillary Clinton was a bit of a rarity when she became the first First Lady to ever come under criminal indictment.

Leftist Asshat said:
…unless they’re Nancy Reagan

Or Hillary Clinton!

Leftist Asshat said:
Ooooh, ooooh, I know! A wimpy little coked up, sex-crazed pervert who lives inside the Blue Grotto at the Playboy Mansion!

You’ve met Garth???

Michelle 0bama wants to get all the free food flowing into public schools that she can, so that they can squeal like stuck pigs if the ED comes under fire by mean ol’ republicans. We need some union nutritionists in all of our cash strapped school districts to be mommy while mommy is working to pay for all the taxes her husband wants to collect.

Yoda002 said:
It seems like you never saw his shows on ABC.

If anything, his ABC stint only proves my point that he sells out his “convictions” like a pimp sells him hookers. He was just as liberal at ABC as he is at HBO and since that gig was directly after his Com. Cen Politically Incorrect days (where someone gave him an ounce of weed and some scotch to pretend he’s “politically incorrect”) it proves that he’ll sell himself to the highest bidder.

The Tea Weasel® said:
I agree! In fact, as part of the package for my next franchise offering, “Lardcake Factory”, there will be requirement that each piece of lardcake will contain a minimum of 2400 calores, primarily from sugars and fats, and that each store be located less than 600 feet from an elementary school. (we have determined thru extensive research this is the maximum distance a sixth grader can walk) Alos, I will hire a $arah Palin® impersonator to deliver plates of cookies to the schools everyday, with little complimentary sippy cups of high fructose corn syrup!

I love toppling little fat kids over and watching them roll downhill.

Break the cycle weasel. Break the cycle.

WCinWI said:
Why should I have to subsidize the costs of someone that eats too much or smokes too much?

What are you talking about specifically are you talking about? How does it relate to the topic of discussion? Michelle wants to encourage people, especially kids, to eat healthier and get more exercise. That means you wouldn’t be subsidizing them right?

WCinWI said:
Also, what if you were a person that sent your child to private school? Why should you then have to contribute public funds when you didn’t send your own child through the system? That makes no sense.

I don’t see how this relates to this topic either , but since you mentioned it. The goal of the public school system is , ideally ,to offer all kids a good education. That’s good for the nation and benefits everyone in the long run. People without kids still support the schools. If people who chose private schools didn’t support the public system then soon we;d have far worse disparity than we have now in schools. Those who could afford it would have good schools and those who couldn’t, tuff luck.

WCinWI said:
Michelle could’ve been an advocate for getting gym back into the classroom. And instead of it being gym, it could’ve been walking around the track or working out for that time. I don’t think the public would have a problem if kids actually used gym as gym time. However, when I was in high school, it was a time to gossip & stand around.

I really have no idea what you’re talking about. She advocates for better diets and more exercise. Do you have a problem with that?

Grammie said:
The problem with this First Lady’s little hobby is the legislation that is coming from it.

What legislation are you talking about? How does it harm the country?

My issue is the ridiculous knee jerk reaction by some talking heads , including Sarah P, on this issue that finds fault with her promoting something any reasonable person would see as positive.

If there’s a problem with a specific piece of proposed legislation then point that out and propose a better plan, but just generally crapping on it just because she said it, is ridiculous.
What I don’t understand is the need to defend the ridiculous when it’s so apparent.

CosmosDan said:
What are you talking about specifically are you talking about? How does it relate to the topic of discussion? Michelle wants to encourage people, especially kids, to eat healthier and get more exercise. That means you wouldn’t be subsidizing them right?

I don’t see how this relates to this topic either , but since you mentioned it. The goal of the public school system is , ideally ,to offer all kids a good education. That’s good for the nation and benefits everyone in the long run. People without kids still support the schools. If people who chose private schools didn’t support the public system then soon we;d have far worse disparity than we have now in schools. Those who could afford it would have good schools and those who couldn’t, tuff luck.

I really have no idea what you’re talking about. She advocates for better diets and more exercise. Do you have a problem with that?

No – She wants to use legislation to provide healthy food and programs. And all I said is that before someone preaches healthy lifestyles, she should ask her husband to stop smoking. Simple as that. Both him and Boehner could do it together. :)

A good education. Not a healthy education. We want smart, productive people.

Yes – I have a problem with legislation from the government mandating funds for healthy food instead of getting rid of union leaders. Getting rid of union leaders would provide a way for educators to actually educate and reprimand kids. Most union leaders halt the financial efforts when it comes to kids and education. If you don’t get that, then I can’t help ya.

CosmosDan said:
What legislation are you talking about? How does it harm the country?

.
The House of Representatives, by a vote of 264-157, today passed the child nutrition bill, which was praised by first lady Michelle Obama as “a groundbreaking piece of bipartisan legislation.”

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/house-passes-child-nutrition-bill-michelle-obama-calls/story?id=12297829

“The $4.5 billion child nutrition bill would ban greasy food and sugary soft drinks from schools. The legislation – already passed on a bipartisan vote in the Senate — triggered criticism for its hefty price tag and new nutritional requirements that some say shouldn’t come from the federal government.

The legislation was backed by the Obama administration and the first lady, who has made childhood obesity a central focus.

The bill would expand eligibility for school lunch programs, establish nutrition standards for all school meals, and encourage schools to use locally produced food. It would also raise the reimbursement rate to six cents per meal, marking the first time in over 30 years that Congress has increased funding for school lunch programs. ”

Just what we need right now.

Billions more in spending, more regulations and expanding the already generous eligibility for free food.

Thirty five years ago I found out a neighbor and friend’s kids were eligible for free school lunches. I found out that 30% of the children in the grade school in my neighborhood were participating in the free/reduced program. I guarantee you there were no poor people living in the neighborhood. Nobody was going to go hungry without free food. Now they’re going to expand it again.

That is my objection..

WCinWI said:

Also, what if you were a person that sent your child to private school? Why should you then have to contribute public funds when you didn’t send your own child through the system? That makes no sense.

My wife and I have no kids, yet I still pay $6000 a year into the school fund via property taxes. And then part of my state income/federal income tax goes to fund charter schools.

Your argument is invalid.

WCinWI said:
I don’t think the public would have a problem if kids actually used gym as gym time. However, when I was in high school, it was a time to gossip & stand around.

That might explain those thighs.

The Tea Weasel® said:
My wife and I have no kids, yet I still pay $6000 a year into the school fund via property taxes. And then part of my state income/federal income tax goes to fund charter schools.

.
I’ll share my medal for paying taxes that support public schools while paying tuition for private schools for my own kids.

BTW, the private school they attended for grade school was a for profit school that had an outstanding physical plant and academic curriculum. I’m talking swimming pool, tennis courts, petting farm for the little ones, beautiful gym/auditorium, computer labs (in the 70s), music rooms, art facilities, maximum class size 25 students. First class in every aspect.

The tuition was slightly above half the average cost per pupil in the public schools in my parish. The two most noticeable differences were the strict discipline and the extremely small support staff as opposed to the teaching staff.

The Tea Weasel® said:
My wife and I have no kids, yet I still pay $6000 a year into the school fund via property taxes. And then part of my state income/federal income tax goes to fund charter schools.

Your argument is invalid.

That might explain those thighs.

1) The President would be ashamed of your lack of civility.

2) It was a scenario. If the schools aren’t going to graduate educated kids that at least try, why give some much tax money to it. That’s your choice to not have kids. I believe in allotting an amount to the betterment of society as a whole, that including kids. Just not at the point of a failing system. Or for the sake of funding foods for “urban” or “poor” areas. It is our duty to get those in such a circumstance a job.

Grammie said:
.
I’ll share my medal for paying taxes that support public schools while paying tuition for private schools for my own kids.

BTW, the private school they attended for grade school was a for profit school that had an outstanding physical plant and academic curriculum. I’m talking swimming pool, tennis courts, petting farm for the little ones, beautiful gym/auditorium, computer labs (in the 70s), music rooms, art facilities, maximum class size 25 students. First class in every aspect.

The tuition was slightly above half the average cost per pupil in the public schools in my parish. The two most noticeable differences were the strict discipline and the extremely small support staff as opposed to the teaching staff.

I went to a private, parochial school, however not as fancy as the one you just described. I graduated with a class size of 18 kids. The class below had 40 or a bit more. I matriculated into the public high school just fine and was sooo far ahead kids on various subjects. Or at least had the ability to study where other kids didn’t have that same initiative.

The small support staff and strict discipline were definitely features. We participated in music and art class every day. Nothing fancy, but part of the program. I never felt “odd” or that I was missing out on anything. I’m inclined to look at private schooling for my own kids in the future, should I have any.

The unions have ruined public education in this country. All Michelle 0bama has done is pander to the unions, and to the sheep that buy the “for the children” line every time.

WCinWI said:
The small support staff and strict discipline were definitely features. We participated in music and art class every day. Nothing fancy, but part of the program. I never felt “odd” or that I was missing out on anything. I’m inclined to look at private schooling for my own kids in the future, should I have any.

.
I recommend it highly if you can swing it. My husband and I gave up a lot of luxuries but I’m not sorry.

We used to laugh that they were going to make me in my Volkswagon bug use the back driveway. I really think it is all about the discipline in all facets.

From day one all work for all classes was graded on spelling and grammar. Courtesy was an absolute given at all times. Punishment was like KP in the military, rake leaves, sweep walkways, clean windows and all after school.

My problem is HC and fitness advice from a woman who is hauling around an ass with its own zip code and married to a man who smokes like a chimney. It is call hypocrisy.

Grammie said:
“The $4.5 billion child nutrition bill would ban greasy food and sugary soft drinks from schools. The legislation – already passed on a bipartisan vote in the Senate — triggered criticism for its hefty price tag and new nutritional requirements that some say shouldn’t come from the federal government.

That at least is a specific intelligent objection and that’s how it ought to work. You’d think conservatives like Sarah, and others could acknowledge that encouraging good nutrition and exercise in a nation with a child obesity problem is a good idea, and then discuss how best to accomplish it.

CosmosDan said:
That at least is a specific intelligent objection and that’s how it ought to work. You’d think conservatives like Sarah, and others could acknowledge that encouraging good nutrition and exercise in a nation with a child obesity problem is a good idea, and then discuss how best to accomplish it.

Sarah does talk about nutrition. She pretty much had a show about organic eating. She talks about salmon all the time. In a lot of her speeches, she talks about having just gone for a run, enjoying local scenery.

It’s quite a simple thing. You eat as many calories as you expend. If you don’t, you gain. And yes, if Michelle had been about a promotion of “this is what families should eat” and “this is what families could do together to exercise”, I’m all for that. I’m not for unnecessary legislation.

We are producing lazier and lazier generations of kids. We are living in a tech world where kids think it’s ok to spell things wrong. That’s not ok.

oops…before I get nailed by a typo police…I meant “It is called hypocrisy”. My bad.

CosmosDan said:
That at least is a specific intelligent objection and that’s how it ought to work. You’d think conservatives like Sarah, and others could acknowledge that encouraging good nutrition and exercise in a nation with a child obesity problem is a good idea, and then discuss how best to accomplish it.

It’s like whenever Oprah talks about getting fit. It just doesn’t make any sense.

CosmosDan said:
You’d think conservatives like Sarah, and others could acknowledge that encouraging good nutrition and exercise in a nation with a child obesity problem is a good idea

.
There are all manner of things that I think would be wonderful that I don’t want the Federal government to turn into another big price tag over regulated intrusion into every nook and cranny.

This is just the latest example in a long line of such boondoggles, We have spent ourselves into a deep pit that is now rapidly filling up with red ink and no life raft in sight. I no longer accept that every conceivable good must be codified into law.

Read Dr Sowell on this. He speaks for me:

“Is there any individual or business willing to spend money on everything that is not absolutely useless? There are thousands of useful things out there that any given individual or business would not spend their money on.

When I had young children, I often thought it would be useful to have a set of the Encyclopedia Britannica for them. But I never bought one. Why? Because there were other little things to spend money on, like food, clothing and shelter.

By the time I could afford to buy a set of the Encyclopedia Britannica, the kids were grown and gone. But at no time did I consider the Encyclopedia Britannica “useless.”

Weighing benefits against costs is the way most people make decisions– and the way most businesses make decisions, if they want to stay in business. Only in government is any benefit, however small, considered to be worth any cost, however large.”

http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2011/02/01/spilled_milk

Grammie said:
We have spent ourselves into a deep pit that is now rapidly filling up with red ink and no life raft in sight. I no longer accept that every conceivable good must be codified into law.

I happen to agree with you on this. There are ways to promote good nutrition and exercise without new laws and spending. Just as a thought though, I was listening to NPR in the car a day or so ago and they talked about budget cuts. The guest was saying that because politicians are to afraid of tackling the big things we need to address a lot of much smaller programs will be cut and a lot of them are very beneficial for money spent.

I want tax dollars well spent but investing in the next generation in the right way should be a priority.

CosmosDan said:
I happen to agree with you on this. There are ways to promote good nutrition and exercise without new laws and spending. Just as a thought though, I was listening to NPR in the car a day or so ago and they talked about budget cuts. The guest was saying that because politicians are to afraid of tackling the big things we need to address a lot of much smaller programs will be cut and a lot of them are very beneficial for money spent.

I want tax dollars well spent but investing in the next generation in the right way should be a priority.

What programs were listed as being beneficial? And yes, you can’t get a liberal to come to the table on talks that Paul Ryan has been making for years. This is not a Conservative issue – conservatives would love to raise the age or privatize parts of it (for my generation and for folks that don’t need the money) but you can’t get Liberals to talk about it.

CosmosDan said:
I want tax dollars well spent but investing in the next generation in the right way should be a priority.

.
Agreed. The rub is going to be in the details.

I know if not my generation it will he the baby boomers who kill the goose laying the golden eggs. I’m all for putting both Medicare and SS, including we current recipients, on the block with everything else. Except, actually, I’d be very very careful about cutting defense.

The sooner we take our medicine the easier it will go down and the faster we’ll be heading for recovery.

I wish I felt hopeful that not only our politicians but we the people have what it takes to do what absolutely must be done but I don’t. The only good thing is that I won’t be here to see the inevitable crash..

WCinWI said:
1) The President would be ashamed of your lack of civility.
.

One person’s lack of civility is another person’s cold, hard truth.

I doubt the Prez cares squat about my perceived lack of civility. He has bigger issues to deal with.

cotchie1967 said:
My problem is…. a woman who is hauling around an ass with its own zip code.

You just made a couple of women on this board cry.

So you prefer a woman who is a “pirate’s nightmare”? A women with a sunken chest with no booty?

I do remember the left making fun of Nancy Reagan fo the “Just say no” campaign. Did you guys on the left here defend her during that. No? I didn’t think so. Game over. Thanks for playing.

tatboy said:
I do remember the left making fun of Nancy Reagan fo the “Just say no” campaign. Did you guys on the left here defend her during that. No? I didn’t think so. Game over. Thanks for playing.

Because you remember so clearly? Right. Scored a major victory there.

Grammie said:
Except, actually, I’d be very very careful about cutting defense.

Considering the vast amount we spend on defense I’d say some serious cuts are called for. It’s just a matter of where. Of course paying private companies huge fees to do what the US Military used to do, doesn’t help.
Check out a movie called Iraq for Sale.
Personally I didn’t see the sense i railing about our national debt but also insisting on not raising the tax rates for the top the earners. We talk about citizens making sacrifices as American’s die in the Middle East, but a few % points here is too much?

CosmosDan said:
Considering the vast amount we spend on defense I’d say some serious cuts are called for. It’s just a matter of where. Of course paying private companies huge fees to do what the US Military used to do, doesn’t help.
Check out a movie called Iraq for Sale.
Personally I didn’t see the sense i railing about our national debt but also insisting on not raising the tax rates for the top the earners. We talk about citizens making sacrifices as American’s die in the Middle East, but a few % points here is too much?

I agree with you on the above comment. As the mine. Yes I remember the 80′s quite clearly an she was mocked by the left mercilessly for just say no.

If it wasn’t for Mediaite, No one woud have a clue what Mahr says. He is a bitter man with a face like a fist. He wouldn’t know a conviction unless it was a prison sentence

what bill said must be true,it has made a lot of right wing nut jobs here crazy.
They are not racist or stupid or crazy,they just have concerns about eating well,yea right.

CosmosDan said:
Considering the vast amount we spend on defense I’d say some serious cuts are called for. It’s just a matter of where. Of course paying private companies huge fees to do what the US Military used to do, doesn’t help.
Check out a movie called Iraq for Sale.
Personally I didn’t see the sense i railing about our national debt but also insisting on not raising the tax rates for the top the earners. We talk about citizens making sacrifices as American’s die in the Middle East, but a few % points here is too much?

We already pay too much in tax dollars. What I don’t like is the idea that I can’t choose where my tax money goes. I am all for the same amount of money being given away, however I should be able to choose which charity, not the government. I don’t believe in Planned Parenthood or NPR. Also, tax dollars on all income earners should not go up (as would’ve been the case with the increase). If a person making excessive money would like to donate their funds, they have the ability to do so. There is no person saying “don’t give your money”…..if you increase the tax rate, you’re increasing that on hundreds of thousands of small business owners.

I agree. Cuts in the military should be on the table.

The health care law is gonna be a moot point because the Supreme Court is gonna call it unconstitutional. However, even if it wasn’t, can you agree with a system where millions of people, many of them unions, are given waivers? That is not how the system was meant to work. If you tweak the system, it crashes the system, thus nullifying the point of the law, which was to keep costs down.

There are those who will take responsibility for raising their children. And then there are liberals.

As has been said, encouraging good eating habits is a worthy cause. Attempting to outlaw certain foods and taking away the ability to make decisions from the individual is wrong. That’s where the right objects… they don’t like the government demanding we eat (or not eat) something.

An example of this is the San Fran board of supervisors who are trying to get McDonalds to stop giving away toys with the “Happy Meals.” It’s an abuse of power… too much control.

PS-
To the person who said the right is “heavier” than the left… please provide evidence for that, or kindly stop making things up.

“Limbaugh makes a crack at this every week, because who better to get your health advice from than a drug-addicted fat man?”

—No Bill, I get FREEDOM advice from Rush and HEALTH advice from my doctor and my personal trainer. See? That’s how it’s supposed to be in a FREE society. Instead we have the First Fat Lady telling us not to be fat. Those hips don’t lie, my vegan chicken-fucker.

The Taxpayer-Funded Lifestyle of Jimmy Carter
http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/2011/02/taxpayer-funded-lifestyle-of-jimmy.html

And then Bill lit up a healthy joint.

em, anyone see “Supersize Me”? Or “waiting for superman’ – which is pretty negative on the teachers unions BTW. We are talking about companies like Sodexho with huge school lunch contracts feeding our children what is effectively poison. Is it wrong to suggest that kids should be fed more green stuff than pizza and fries through a government contract? And what is the price of inaction? It’s not a question necessarily about freedom of choice at the parental level. Bill is right IMHO. Not because he is a liberal but because what he says makes sense.

Maher just gets dumber by the minute. I don’t care if the government puts our info about food but telling schools and parents what they should eat is none of their business. Inform people then LET THEM DECIDE. Gee where have I heard that before?

Bill has often touted his marijuana use. Is he aware that breathing in smoke is also unhealthy? Maybe he eats it instead.

Bill Maher believes in freedom for people with whom he agrees.

@ dede

What kind of food are we talking about feeding the kids at lunch time? Salads for elementary school kids? Salmon and brown rice in Middle School?

I think healthy-ing up school lunch (which is the kid’s option to buy or not) isn’t a bad thing necessarily… but what are they going to serve instead?

It’s starts with a suggestion and then progresses from there to the Tea-baggers WALLET! Do we really need these clowns telling us the obvious? Keep us informed and then…shut the F@#k-UP!! After listening to Maher, it makes me want go out and get a super-sized meal down at the greasy-bucket, throw some salt on it, take a picture of myself eating it, with my middle finger up, and sent it to Maher! What we mostly don’t need is for this bottom-feeder telling us what we should, or shouldn’t be doing!!

gordonbloyershow said:
Maher just gets dumber by the minute. I don’t care if the government puts our info about food but telling schools and parents what they should eat is none of their business. Inform people then LET THEM DECIDE. Gee where have I heard that before?

I agree! What’s with these liberal first ladies telling me how to run my life. First Nancy Reagan doesn’t want me to do drugs and then Laura Bush wants me to read. Now Michelle Obama thinks I should eat healthier and exercise more? What gives her the right to do that? Nobody has the right to tell me what I should do in America. It’s called freedom!

Maher must be good friends with Obama’s good friend Cass Sunstein. They both seem to believe that Americans are too dumb to make their own choices…. and have no problem letting Big Brother give us orders.

Oh wait…. all the crap coming out of Michelle’s mouth is only directed at the peons. The people at the top of the food chain can do whatever they want….. and the poor,mindless liberals keep nodding their heads.

“latest” poll/survey – study(?) indicates that a “good” breakfast – makes you FAT/obese..??.. What Ever!

Bill Maher is a pathetic Progressive busybody, so of course he’s going to come to the defense of anyone trying to stick their nose into someone else’s business.

Bill Maher is a wacked out drug addict. Mrs Obama believes one shoul deat right while smoking crack like her and her husband does.

You guys are a bunch of nuts to believe that the government actually is telling you what to eat. Michelle Obama made suggestions about better food choices and you guys go ape shit. Well, all I can say is you have every right to eat shit and die!

GDC said:
Bill Maher is a wacked out drug addict. Mrs Obama believes one shoul deat right while smoking crack like her and her husband does.

Another refugee from the Fox News comment section.

RIChris said:
There are those who will take responsibility for raising their children. And then there are liberals.

… and there are the “conservatives” who do nothing right with their children but believe they have control of the child simply because they win the bread.

neither liberals or conservatives have shit to offer most children. Last time I checked, neither parents nor the American economy, going back to the 70s offered any sense of belonging, security, or gratitude to a young person who doesn’t want to sit at a desk, computer, telephone, or cash register for the rest of his/her life with something resembling half-assed, overpriced health insurance, 1800 miles away from the place where he/she grew up or any family, barely able to to afford housing, food, and transport….. Oh, but I guess you don’t get the message from any of this, right? Generation Y and Z, etc. are just ungrateful and feel entitled to something better, right? Does it ever occur to you that half or MOST of GenY will NOT adopt your baby boomer attitude because at a fundamental level, GenY never bought the American Dream and that YOUR SOLUTION of “go to college” or “get a job” has not been offering any sense of security or belonging? Gen Y is just full of invalid complaints, correct?

Here’s an answer: a gun blowing your fucking baby boom generation away because you don’t get it? that’s sad, but why would I care? I am in the same mental boat as people like Dick Cheney and Chairman Mao: too many f’ing stupid people on this planet and it takes death to make something new.

“Liberals” might be trying to improve the U.S., but I think that if the market of politics has a player interested in changing the U.S.A. in the interest of long term stability—-ie. China— then american insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and perhaps banks will NOT get their way any longer.

here’s a choice for you: in the future, free market gives 25% of population adequate work, housing, nutritious food, and some freetime. or, a certain amount of socialist planning offers a lower standard of living for the top 15% of society so that the majority of the population can have a small flat (instead of a house), more power from non-natural gas, nuclear, coal, or fossil fuel sources, some food source alternatives… such as a massive cafeteria with food from all over the globe for which each person pays a monthly subscription—AS AN ALTERNATIVE to eating overpriced shit HALF-meals from fast food businesses or buying expensive, poor quality produce from any of America’s supermarkets.

your free market is failing, so stick with the old program and watch it crumble, or accept change. I know why you dumbass Right-wingers react like some spasmodic dogs. I come from the same post-industrial shithole rural area you come from. I know you can’t stop eating hamburgers cuz there’s nothing else around and that if you are active and healthy, none of the diet concerns or health insurance seems to matter. so, preventative activity only applies to buy a gun, regular home and auto maintenance? I know you are all ‘awake.” Your problem is that your imagination and logic were subsumed long ago. you people lost all sense of judgment in the 20th century and are not the men your pretend to be. prove me wrong. change.

Extraordinary writing and priceless commentary.

You’re simply the best Bill Maher.

Even some of my right wing friends thought it was funny and Bill even made John Fund smile.