It is ironic that on the quote above this quote you say:
Bingo. I think in the long run it saves taxpayer money
I think the true number of hungry mouths is fewer than some people think. In one of my classes we talked about "food insecurity" among various populations in the US and it seemed surprisingly high. Upon investigating the actual survey questions giving to families it involved questions like "Have you ever wanted something at the grocery store but been unable to purchase it?" Well to everyone that probably should be the case, because we all can't eat T-bones and lobster every night. My point is that I think TRUE food insecurity is unfortunate and I support programs like SNAP or WIC wholeheartedly to help these people. I don't support the taking advantage of it.
I'm glad you just pissed all over my attempt to be civil and understand your side, as well as ask for you to understand mine. Did you even read my post? Calm down man, I'm not trying to incite argument here
Please provide figures to back your claims. Best as I can tell, of the official military actions the USA has taken, the majority were voted in by democrats. There's a lot of little conflicts here and there, so it's hard to tell based on hard numbers who has initiated more executive actions, but it wouldn't surprise me if the result was similar. So far as the feelings of the American public, Republicans are more concerned with national security, which is not equal to war. Our current wars were initiated by Republicans, but Obama has had, what, 6 effing years to get our troops completely withdrawn and hasn't done so. Based on the voting records though, Democrats have initiated more wars than republicans to answer your first question. Pro-life is obviously a more conservative thing, but not all conservatives fall in that camp- 27% are pro-choice. Stahp painting people with a broad brush, you're practicing the very divisiveness and judgmental attitudes that liberals are supposed to despise.
Uh... Most people I know that work tipped jobs make bank compared to those in the service industry that don't. Tipping exists because it's a win-win-win. They get more money if they provide good service, people get to pay for quality service provided while also paying less for their meals than they would pay if wages were higher, and businesses have lower overhead so they can expand faster and hire more employees.
I obviously loathe the idea of LUCOM, but dude, you're the one who dragged Republican/Democrat BS into this debate, not me. Republicans aren't all the same. Democrats aren't all the same. LUCOM is a neocon institution, not a traditional republican one. Don't paint all Republicans as neocons and bible thumping Christians, that's ignorant as hell.
Exactly, it wouldn't work on such a large scale which is why state and local governments should be more free to devise their own plans which works for them. Here in small-town USA low taxes would work just fine. Urban areas that want sky high taxes, go for that if that's what people want.
Yes, but in countries where those waiting tables and working bars in which they are paid a living wage, tips are not customary. It's supposed to be an either/or. If you're paying them more money AND expecing that people pay a tip, you've just increased the cost of the food substantially, as well as throwing an expectation of extra money for a tip on top of it. This makes less people be able to afford eating out or engaging in whatever other tip-based activity it is in the first place, hurting the business and limiting the number of people that can afford the business' service.
*sarcasm*
democrats and republicans switched between who was liberal and conservative back around the Teddy Roosevelt days (and the Dixiecrats of the south during the civil rights era are their own breed of democrats that identified and voted with republicans e.g. Strom Thurmond) so it's not worth comparing prior to TR's presidency. however there have been wars under democrats. some pretty big wars actually: Kennedy had the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam under Johnson, Truman had the Korean War, FDR had WW2, Woodrow Wilson had WW1. but neoconservatism is definitely vile and reprehensible and we can thank them for Iraq (part 1 and 2) and a whole slew of secret and small scale conflicts around the world
I'll take those small conflicts over like, another Vietnam, Korea, or World War. Would prefer we just packed all our gear up and stayed home for a while, but with China all up in our friends' business in the South China Sea, we gotta represent...
Oh, also, the Persian Gulf War was authorized by a Democratic Congress, btw, not a Republican one. Just thought you should know. Just because Bush was in office doesn't mean it was his war alone.
could be argued that those smaller scale conflicts (like training and equipping Bin Laden in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets) have lead us to the "war on terror" and 9/11. I'd prefer none of the above myself
The messes we're in overseas are largely a result of prior CIA actions, not Republican ones. Believe it or not, the military and national security institutions (which are largely composed of ex-military men and women) of this country aren't overwhelmingly conservative, nor have they ever been.
There is no troll here. We all legit don't like LUCOM. Those feels be real. The only troll is Falwell, who continues to torment the world from his grave.
Fun with no alcohol and sex! I guess your definition of fun is way different than most people...
Well not at the same time
I think making abortion illegal in all cases will make people go thru extreme measures that will jeopardize their lives to have an abortion anyway. I heard it is already happening in TX because there are reports of women crossing the border to go to Mexico to buy cytotec--an unlabeled pill that induces abortion.
email lucom, there will be different rules for the med school and the undergrad and by emailing them you have their answer in writing which is your defense if they waffle later
Jeeeze 8 interviews? What were your stats?
