There is a college student who must eat every fifteen minutes in order to live. *****

Umm.........
Please give me a link to this.. As every 15 min how would you sleep erm live?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20009051-10391704.html

How about next time not calling me a liar k?

...And you want a girl who has to eat every 15 minutes to have her food be part of the government program?

Clearest, most concise argument I've ever heard you make. Well done.

I disagree with you - I'd rather have a healthy child than a child who has the "freedom to choose" to eat chips and chocolate bars for lunch everyday. But that's me.

> Einstein wrote:

> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20009051-10391704.html

How about next time not calling me a liar k? <

Only saw the picture and I know already that that thing *shouldn't* live.

Anyway, make normal sandwiches. Not peanut butter and jelly, BLT's etc or similar outlandish stuff. Just top some proper whole wheat bread with butter and some cheese or luncheon meat.

And don't eat pancakes for breakfast! Anglo savages!

> Justinian I wrote:

> Part of the reason we have so many unhealthy food is because of farm subsidies. Eliminate those, and the free market will take care of all the fat people.

The free market was responsible for the growth hormones, the MSG and the chemicals in food designed to make us hungrier and addicted to food. That's what free market does.

This is the kind of issue where there's really no strict right or wrong argument.  While in many cases parents are fully capable of providing their children with proper nutrition, there are many cases where parents are completely irresponsible when it comes their child's food intake.  I worked in a restaurant for years, and there were families that would come in and allow their young child (the youngest was 5) to eat 2 full sized adult entrees.  Have you ever heard of a healthy adult eating a full rack of ribs, big ass bowl of macaroni and cheese, loaded fries, and decide they wanted to get a 16 oz. steak with 2 more sides...and then eat all of it?

Sometimes I think parents have a goal of finding the quickest way to give their child diabetes.

> Mister Spock wrote:

> I'm pretty sure there's a right argument here.

It involves government not having anything to [clucking] do with feeding my children.

The problem with shitty parents is shitty parents. You don't solve it by spending hundreds of billions on food police and forcing them on Americans. Those same parents will still encourage physically and psychologically unhealthy lifestyles and habits. Nanny-state style programs like Das Fuhrer's food police just contribute to the physical and psychological harm these children suffer by placing them in a nation where one is eternally treated like a baby throughout their adult life.

BTW, Michelle Obama doesn't care if your foods are GMO and covered in pesticides. Pay the man.

The idea that you have children terrifies me.

> Mister Spock wrote:

> The idea that you want government to control their lunches terrifies me.

If you don't like what's sold to children in school lunchrooms, elect a better schoolboard. Nobody is stopping you. We don't have a problem with school lunches. You can give your kids whatever lunches you want them to have. You can get what's available for purchase at schools changed on a local level. There is no school lunch problem. There is absolutely no justification for saddling our children with more debt in order to finance this garbage.

That you don't take issue with government power extending all the way down to children's lunchrooms horrifies me. Not only are you alright with the waste of money and loss of freedom, but you take no issue with government saying "You're an idiot. We have to do this for you."

You're right, I have zero problem with the government stepping in and telling parents they're idiots and they have to do this for us. 

I wish parents were smart enough to know how to take care of their own children, but the overwhelming amount of obese kids has become disgusting.  Apparently you're a good father and know how to properly nourish your children, which is commendable.  Too many parents aren't.  I never once said this is the best solution, but to say that nothing needs to change is wrong.

"You're right, I have zero problem with the government stepping in and telling parents they're idiots and they have to do this for us."

Why do you need the federal government to do this, when you can already accomplish it on a local level without the bureaucracy, waste, and inflexibility of federal involvement?

Where does that reasoning stop? Where do you draw the line? When you shackle all of society with the costs of "providing" for them and force society to accept such "services," where does that stop?

In my opinion, taking control of feeding people's kids is waaaaaay across the line. But you accept it. What else do you accept? What don't you? Government can force you to buy specific health insurance? Damn options and free market competition providing better services, you accept the government "providing" things and accept that it must forcibly take more of your earnings away from you to finance it? Is there anything you don't think government should do for us all, since it can do it better with regulations making sure it does it right?

Fat people cost us all money. Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to eat certain things until they lose weight. It costs us all that they don't. It's for their own good anyway. Shouldn't government regulate what fat people eat? Isn't it clearly justified?

"I wish parents were smart enough to know how to take care of their own children, but the overwhelming amount of obese kids has become disgusting."

Alright, so you're advocating mandating the government take all those children away from their parents? Because this school lunch nonsense isn't going to help any of those children. They're still eating a majority of their meals elsewhere. And there's not enough time in the school day for enough exercise to burn that many calories. Current PE programs are already a joke and a complete waste of time, harming children's educations.

I wouldn't suggest that "nothing needs to change." But I find it terrifying that your first response is to plead for government involvement, despite the fact that this garbage produces no results and has real costs. Nevermind how ridiculous we look, having food police in our schools. Nevermind that it's unlawful.

I don't know how you judge this to be a "solution" at all. Give a fat kid with crappy parents a tofu snack with squid tentacles and he's just going to eat two more cheeseburgers later. Maybe this is just conjecture, but so is the notion that banning certain foods in school lunchrooms will help children's health.

Clearly, too many American parents cannot control their children's feeding patterns. So someone else must take control.
Do you have any idea how much obese people cost society in their medical care? Just the care for metabolic syndrome alone (clinical presentation: hyper-/dislipidemia, diabetes mellitus type II and hypertension)... They are the medical industry's 2nd favorite moneypig, right after smokers, arguably their favorite.