Thread: Michelle Obama booed as she stood with Veteran family and Mrs. Biden

The poll shows an 8% difference between Rep.s and Dems. while the numbers are actually much closer. Partisan Trends - Rasmussen Reports™. And the approval ratings for Mrs.Obama has higher in those areas that are typically more Liberal, regardless of party. and if you research our schools, you will see that they started sliding shortly after the modern Department of Education was created in 79.

What does that have to do with anything? That better educated people don't blame Michelle Obama for quite obvious partisan politics? That more Republicans don't even do so than those who do? That the schools stated sliding due to the huge cuts in the education budgets that Republicans introduced when they assumed power during the Reagan years?

This isn't a "states rights" issue. It is an issue of every single Flrst Lady in modern history taking on such politically harmless bipartisan pet projects. To claim otherwise is just so much partisan nonsense.

Originally Posted by CharlesDavenport

Is it ok for the government to mandate anything, as long as you agree with it?

Is that what I said? Umm, NO, it's not. But here's a little FYI for you...In 1946, the National School Lunch Act was signed by Pres. Truman. The Child Nutrition Act of 1966 made several mandates, including requiring schools to follow the guidelines of the Dietary Guidelines for Children and restricting foods with minimal nutritional value. During the Bush administration, schools participating in the National School Lunch program were required to implement a wellness policy by fall of 2006.
Why aren't you screaming about those things?

Originally Posted by CharlesDavenport

You can say and assume whatever you want. I'm not trying to prove anything to you. It would be a waste of time.

You said "We've seen that Obama is not afraid to be bold with using his powers to reward friends and punish enemies".

I just figured since you stated the above with such authority that you would be able to provide some examples of this punishment.

I think you sa things like this not because they're true but just because you have a deep hatred for Obama which there's nothing wrong with that, just be man enough to admit it.

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

Is that what I said? Umm, NO, it's not. But here's a little FYI for you...In 1946, the National School Lunch Act was signed by Pres. Truman. The Child Nutrition Act of 1966 made several mandates, including requiring schools to follow the guidelines of the Dietary Guidelines for Children and restricting foods with minimal nutritional value. During the Bush administration, schools participating in the National School Lunch program were required to implement a wellness policy by fall of 2006.
Why aren't you screaming about those things?

Because there wasn't an evil Democrat in office at the time.

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

Is that what I said? Umm, NO, it's not. But here's a little FYI for you...In 1946, the National School Lunch Act was signed by Pres. Truman. The Child Nutrition Act of 1966 made several mandates, including requiring schools to follow the guidelines of the Dietary Guidelines for Children and restricting foods with minimal nutritional value. During the Bush administration, schools participating in the National School Lunch program were required to implement a wellness policy by fall of 2006.
Why aren't you screaming about those things?

I'm not screaming about anything. It's one thing to have legislation passed, it's another to have some first lady creating informal mandates. Big difference.

Originally Posted by CharlesDavenport

I'm not screaming about anything. It's one thing to have legislation passed, it's another to have some first lady creating informal mandates. Big difference.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Obama passed legislation on this then you would have no complaints about it.

And what a informal mandate? Is that the same thing as a suggestion?

Originally Posted by CharlesDavenport

I'm not screaming about anything. It's one thing to have legislation passed, it's another to have some first lady creating informal mandates. Big difference.

Let's see...the First Lady championed a program aimed at decreasing childhood obesity, the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 received bipartisan support and was signed by President Obama and you're mad at Michelle about it???? Who'd you get mad at when coke machines started disappearing from schools between 2003 and 2005?

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

Let's see...the First Lady championed a program aimed at decreasing childhood obesity, the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 received bipartisan support and was signed by President Obama and you're mad at Michelle about it???? Who'd you get mad at when coke machines started disappearing from schools between 2003 and 2005?

Back to your position that since you think it's a good thing, it's ok. I'm not talking about legislation that was passed. Thought I was pretty clear about that.

Originally Posted by CharlesDavenport

Back to your position that since you think it's a good thing, it's ok. I'm not talking about legislation that was passed. Thought I was pretty clear about that.

LOL I get it...you just didn't want Michelle championing the cause, no matter how beneficial the cause was!

The First Lady was booed, because she and her husband have gone out of their way, in the name of politics, to denigrate those who disagree with them. Actions have consequences.

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

Most first ladies pick a cause, such as Laura Bush chose literacy, IIRC. Michelle chose juvenile obesity. Both are good causes, IMO.

The problem with that is that the juvenile obesity epidemic is clearly a myth.

Originally Posted by stretch351c

The First Lady was booed, because she and her husband have gone out of their way, in the name of politics, to denigrate those who disagree with them. Actions have consequences.

Then boo her at a political event, not a family-friendly event while she's on the stage with a hero.