A fat guy just walked into the ER with a skinny woman.

It's highly relevant. People are simply uneasy because I have criticized Ft. Thomas schools' quarter-million-dollar more-calorie lunch policy. (Where are the tea party fiscal conservatives in this one? Ha ha.)

 

By the way, I view all these "stay-on-topic" calls as simply attempts to silence or censor. It's like setting up a thread on the Bengals and telling posters they can't talk about the Ravens or Steelers.

 

And I view your escapades into tangential issues as obfuscation when your world view has been debunked. And she's still fat and lazy.

Actually, it's very relevant. Ft. Thomas schools' calories-be-darned school lunch policy ties in quite nicely with the thread topic. In both cases, taxpayer dollars are being used to support caloric overload. My under-fire tactic is nothing more than localizing from the general -- hardly moving the discussion in an undesired direction.

1. How are tax dollars being used to support anything in your Ft. Thomas example? They gave up tax dollars. You're confusing yourself.

2. The gist of the thread is to not to bash this lady for being fat or on on welfare. The point is that she receiving $60,000+ per year from the government and then blames the government for being fat because she claims her assistance isn't enough money to join a gym. Yet for the article she poses for a picture in front of your open cabinet showing all the junk food she has. There is nothing in that pick that is healthy. The mindset this lady has should anger everyone that works their butt off to provide for their family. This includes those on welfare and those who aren't. I recognize the vast majority of those receiving welfare aren't cheating the system, they would love to be in a better place in life and not need the hand out. It is what it is and that's life. They should be the ones the most outraged by this lady's story.

 

But in typical TTP fashion you jump in a thread and immediately try and cloud the issue with something completely off topic. The FACT is your comparison of Ft. Thomas opting out of the meal program has ZERO similarity to this lady's story. You have once again proven you have no interest in having an intelligent discussion about any topic. You would rather try to stir up the hornets nest then cry victim when you get stung. It use to be amusing but is tired and played out.

1. How are tax dollars being used to support anything in your Ft. Thomas example? They gave up tax dollars. You're confusing yourself.

2. The gist of the thread is to not to bash this lady for being fat or on on welfare. The point is that she receiving $60,000+ per year from the government and then blames the government for being fat because she claims her assistance isn't enough money to join a gym. Yet for the article she poses for a picture in front of your open cabinet showing all the junk food she has. There is nothing in that pick that is healthy. The mindset this lady has should anger everyone that works their butt off to provide for their family. This includes those on welfare and those who aren't. I recognize the vast majority of those receiving welfare aren't cheating the system, they would love to be in a better place in life and not need the hand out. It is what it is and that's life. They should be the ones the most outraged by this lady's story.

 

But in typical TTP fashion you jump in a thread and immediately try and cloud the issue with something completely off topic. The FACT is your comparison of Ft. Thomas opting out of the meal program has ZERO similarity to this lady's story. You have once again proven you have no interest in having an intelligent discussion about any topic. You would rather try to stir up the hornets nest then cry victim when you get stung. It use to be amusing but is tired and played out.

I love all this revisionist history. Get real. The gist of the thread clearly was to make fun of this woman. If not, then why did someone post a picture of Jabba the Hutt?

So because one person posts a picture, the rest of us are guilty of making fun of this woman because we commented on this thread? Show me where I made fun of her, please.

I love all this revisionist history. Get real. The gist of the thread clearly was to make fun of this woman. If not, then why did someone post a picture of Jabba the Hutt?

 

Because she's a fat slob who blames the government for her personal defects. If she'd take responsibility for herself and do something about it, I would salute her with a picture of Richard Simmons in his underwear.

I personally will not feel sorry for a woman who receives more free money from the government than most of the people I know do in their 40+ hour a week jobs.

Actually, it's very relevant. Ft. Thomas schools' calories-be-darned school lunch policy ties in quite nicely with the thread topic. In both cases, taxpayer dollars are being used to support caloric overload. My under-fire tactic is nothing more than localizing from the general -- hardly moving the discussion in an undesired direction.

 

It's very obvious that you do not care about facts in your attempt to justify another poor policy forced on the taxpayer by this administration. Did you view the link posted showing the options available in the FT lunchrooms?

1. How are tax dollars being used to support anything in your Ft. Thomas example?

The school district is using local revenue -- all generated by local tax dollars -- to fund its higher-calorie, more-edible-lunch program. If the school district had not dropped out of the federal program, this quarter-million-plus could have paid for four or five additional teachers ... or Ft. Thomas property taxes could have been lowered!

It's very obvious that you do not care about facts in your attempt to justify another poor policy forced on the taxpayer by this administration. Did you view the link posted showing the options available in the FT lunchrooms?

Yes, I watched the youtube video that the Highlands students produced. They did a nice job.

One of the housekeepers that works in the ER is fat. His name is DJ. He's a nice guy, and has a really cute 2 year old. He's not much of a sports fan though.

The school district is using local revenue -- all generated by local tax dollars -- to fund its higher-calorie, more-edible-lunch program. If the school district had not dropped out of the federal program, this quarter-million-plus could have paid for four or five additional teachers ... or Ft. Thomas property taxes could have been lowered!

 

So in your scenario they should be spending $500,000 in tax money and as it is now they are only spending $250,000.

So in your scenario they should be spending $500,000 in tax money and as it is now they are only spending $250,000.

Your math is incorrect. I'm still puzzled why the school board decided to scrap the federal program instead of supplementing it with more healthy options for the kids. That would represent a savings of $200,000-plus. This Ft. Thomas decision to go it alone more and more strikes me as purely political. High time to get the tea party involved.

Your math is incorrect. I'm still puzzled why the school board decided to scrap the federal program instead of supplementing it with more healthy options for the kids. That would represent a savings of $200,000-plus. This Ft. Thomas decision to go it alone more and more strikes me as purely political. High time to get the tea party involved.

 

Fed money for food = $250k

Local Tax Money to spend on what ever = $250k

Total = $500k

 

or

 

No fed money = $0k

Local money = $250k

Total = $250k

 

Maybe my calculator is broken.

Hummm...someone turning down government aid because they don't need it and think they can do better. And that's a bad thing why exactly?

 

While it is a very simple post, this is the best post in this entire thread!!! BRAVO