states where the most people go hungry

I've gotta say - the whole "a big mac is one of the few bright spots in their miserable lives" is one of the saddest arguments I've ever seen....
 
Dantès said:
Well tell me wise one just what kind of diet is "oatmeal, eggs, protein powder, bananas, lettuce" and how is that balanced in the least. Doesn't one need milk for oatmeal and since when is protein powder cheap? And since when can it be purchased with food stamps? I would love for you to live on $200 a month or $50 dollars a week for food which is what a person on food stamps gets in my state.
Click to expand...

Those are SOME of the healthy, but inexpensive things you can eat. Rice, beans can be added to the list quite easily. No, you do not need milk for oatmeal...

As I showed above, per serving protein powder is cheaper than meats.

I bet you could eat like a king on that slim amount: filet mignon, fresh Alaskan salmon and veal and lamb. Not to mention at least one rack of prime rib per month! With all your expertise you shouldn't have to eat two breakfasts a day and a head of lettuce. Stretch out, spend a little, eat well. You can do it on half that $200 allotment. The idea that all of this costs money is just a myth!
Click to expand...
[/quote]

What are you rambling about? I said a person can eat healthy and inexpensively. I did not say they could afford to eat whatever they wanted. I also never stated anything close to your nonsense about it not costing money.
 
Superfreak said:
Those are SOME of the healthy, but inexpensive things you can eat. Rice, beans can be added to the list quite easily. No, you do not need milk for oatmeal...

As I showed above, per serving protein powder is cheaper than meats.
Click to expand...

What are you rambling about? I said a person can eat healthy and inexpensively. I did not say they could afford to eat whatever they wanted. I also never stated anything close to your nonsense about it not costing money.[/QUOTE]


Whatever you say Mr. Squeers. How many bowls of gruel...er oatmeal do you propose the poor eat every day to reach the required weight? And how much did you say it would cost to eat gruel and protein powder? Any idea what the life expectancy is on such a diet?
 
Dantès said:
This is rich, the man without empathy (apologies to Robert Musil) chastising others for their purported lack of empathy. Just what have you done to educate poor people in how to eat healthy besides post such blather on a message board mostly peopled by the wealthy and privileged? How many poor people do you think have gym memberships and can avail themselves of preventive medical care? I bet you completely support Obama's health care reforms too, don't you? You must, because you care so much about the health of poor people; you must want them to have the best health care money can buy don't you?
Click to expand...

You really have some wacked out preconceived ideas...

1) You do not need a gym membership or any equipment to workout. None.

2) I put on classes twice a week for a bootcamp style fitness class. These are free and in lower middle income neighborhoods to help encourage a healthy lifestyle. We also discuss with the kids and their parents healthy eating habits on a budget.

3) No, I do not think Obama's health care reforms are good. I don't think they are going to change anything for the poor. I think it will drive the costs of health care even higher as it does nothing to address the cause of rising costs. By Obama, I am referring to Barrack. As for Michelle, I admire what she is doing to educate people on healthier eating. I think she is on the right track to actually helping people. Take a look at some of these exchange plans. Tell me how the same people we are talking about with regards to food stamps etc... are suddenly going to have extra money for health care. Correct me if I am wrong, but even the most heavily subsidized people still pay something for their health care.
 
Darla said:
Yeah, chicken breast, 45 mins in the oven. These fools will argue over anything. Maybe they fry it, maybe they bbq it, maybe it takes less time in some sort of foreman grill or something. But if you are baking chicken breasts, you are cooking them for 45 mins, at least.

People have to realize what happened here. Someone came in and kicked Superfreak around and Cawacko and Billy and the rest of them all went into a panic. Superfreak is a God-like creature to the other conservatards. He's a rare creature - a conservatard, who after 6 practice runs, scored a 102 on an IQ test. That's a triple-digiter! So they all look up to him and gaze in wide wonder.

They had to respond with something. "OH yeah, well I can cook chicken in 4 minutes so there!" is as good as anything else they can come up with I guess.

Believe me, they are just dumb enough to eat a chicken breast that's been baked for 9 minutes.
Click to expand...

:indeed:
 
Dantès said:
You have used this craven formulation a couple of other times on this thread. Do you really think that such patronizing and paternalistic chauvinism endears you to others? Do you think that your ignorant formulation is anything less than rude and misogynistic? Why would one deliberately choose to be so banal and superficial? Perhaps they should just eat cake, right Marie?
Click to expand...

You again are new to the board... it is an inside joke... the word was created by Darla...
 
Dantès said:
This is another way you are talking from your blow hole. In the first place when you bake or fry a chicken breast it shrinks in size and weight. That's because like all other meat it is mostly water and when you cook it the water evaporates. Three pounds of chicken breast will absolutely not produce three pounds of cooked chicken breast. I would say that three pounds of raw chicken breasts might produce 4 servings at most of cooked chicken breast. Reducing your estimate by 1/3. If you ever cooked a chicken breast you would know this. That you don't know this shows you are even more privileged than I previously surmised. That you use such estimations in your figures shows either you are incredibly privileged, duplicitous or ignorant? Or some combination of all three. I have no idea which!
Click to expand...

You are a horrible cook then. I eat chicken at least 3-4 times a week. You are 100% incorrect in your above assertions.

Also... why would you ever fry it? The batter costs money and it greatly reduces the 'healthy' aspect of it. Something you would know if you had ever cooked chicken before.
 
Dantès said:
It takes approximately 40-50 minutes to cook two chicken breasts at 325 degrees in an oven! A baked potato for each person would add some time to that. All in all about an hour or more to prepare dinner for three or four! If someone has worked 10-12 hours and has to ride a bus an hour each way they are getting home at 9-10 pm. That is pretty damn late to begin cooking a meal that won't be ready to eat until 10 or 11 pm. But it's so easy for someone who doesn't even know that cooking meat reduces it's total mass, to tell everyone else how easy it is to eat healthy on less than $25 a month? Or how much would it cost to eat oatmeal (or gruel) 3 meals a day Mr. Sqeers, you still haven't said?
Click to expand...

What? 40-50 minutes? LMAO... thanks for confirming that you are a horrible cook. You don't put a chicken breast in the oven for 40-50 minutes. EVER.
 
Dantès said:
Who do you think employs the thousands of lobbyists who populate Washington D.C. and the environs with $50,000 a month retainers, making it the richest economic metropolitan area in America.
Click to expand...

I dunno. Labor unions? Environmentalists? Civil Rights organizations?

I'm not even sure what that point is supposed to mean.

Here's what you need to ask yourself:

Economic powerhouses like China, Brazil, South Korea, Japan, et al., how many new life-saving breakthroughs are they making in the field of pharmaceuticals?

Or countries with great government-run health care systems like Cuba and North Korea?

The answer is basically "none." That's because, for the most part, their pharma industries just reverse-engineer our products and sell non-FDA approved generic knockoffs.

There's only a handful of countries in the world that honor our patents. If the Commerce Department spent a fraction of their efforts defending our pharmaceutical patents, as they do for our software patents for example, the people of the United States would not be bearing such a burden for our companies having to recoup R&D costs, and then profits, on our backs alone. The world would be sharing the burden.

I've given you the outline of the industry, but why am I skeptical that it won't stop you from chanting "Big Pharma! Big Pharma!" ad nauseum?
 
Superfreak said:
No, I do not think Obama's health care reforms are good. I don't think they are going to change anything for the poor. I think it will drive the costs of health care even higher as it does nothing to address the cause of rising costs. By Obama, I am referring to Barrack. As for Michelle, I admire what she is doing to educate people on healthier eating. I think she is on the right track to actually helping people. Take a look at some of these exchange plans. Tell me how the same people we are talking about with regards to food stamps etc... are suddenly going to have extra money for health care. Correct me if I am wrong, but even the most heavily subsidized people still pay something for their health care.
Click to expand...

So you support a French, British or Canadian solution that socializes the costs and pays and employs the doctors in order to control the costs rather than a free market model that charges whatever people who are terrorized at the thought of death are willing top pay to stay alive even one more day! Is that what you are saying? And I think his first name is spelled Barack. I have not supported the health care overhaul because it was a bill written by a health care lobbyist to benefit the health care industry, and help those who already had health care ensure that they wouldn't lose their health care. It will cover about half the people who are not covered now, but it was a horrible bill as most compromises worked out between industry lobbyists generally are.
 
Superfreak said:
You are a horrible cook then. I eat chicken at least 3-4 times a week. You are 100% incorrect in your above assertions.

Also... why would you ever fry it? The batter costs money and it greatly reduces the 'healthy' aspect of it. Something you would know if you had ever cooked chicken before.
Click to expand...

I always bake and never fry but some others do! I have friends who occasionally stir fry chicken with vegetables and they don't use any batter at all. So I don't know what you are talking about with all that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top