Positions politically from the "other side" that you are most sympathetic to

:rofl: Bean sprouts and grass no doubt.

So no such thing as a healthy meal that doesn’t include meat?

That is correct. And chicken is iffy.

No, I eat meat, I can afford it,

If you don’t like the detailed proof I provided at your request, I can’t help you. But proof it is, pound for pound, calorie for calorie, junk vs good.

If you have some life hacks that work for you, great. It doesn’t change the fact that I can get junk food cheaper than real (meat, veggies, starch, etc) food, and that’s a huge problem I have with this country.

:rofl: Of course. Enjoy your bacon.

Again, your job was costing a junk food meal, I choose the healthy alternative.

And cost it I did, right along side the cost of a healthy meal. The junk was cheaper, and gave more empty calories. It can also be prepared in under 2 minutes in the microwave. Real food takes more effort.

You don’t get to pick the healthy alternative. That wasn’t the challenge, if you want to do it that way my junk food pick is beluga caviar and crackers

I understand the sentiment in your back and forth here, but the reality is, if you put these conditions on them, you don’t achieve your goal - people will be with our food and shelter in america.

How about if we give it to them, if they can’t abide the no booze or drugs rule, we give them govt. sponsored addiction treatment?

And when they refuse ?

I get to pick whatever junk vs real food I want/eat/purchase/stock. You don’t get to move the goalpost just because you don’t like the facts shown. :man_shrugging:

This isn’t a big deal, to me anyway. Enjoy your brunch.

5png2n

Not going down one of your rabbit holes. Separate private business and government and that will take care of most of the problems. Businesses shouldn’t be writing regulations for other businesses.

Give, give, give, give, give, give, give, give, give, give, give, give, give.

Why do you assume they want treatment for their “addictions”?

1 Like

To the OP, I’d say I am sympathetic to the right’s interest in military might. But I have to qualify that by saying I believe strongly we have over shot the mark by a good degree.

I also share a desire to keep government out of our lives. But I think we disagree about exactly what that means.

Fun thread. Good discussions. Scrolling back to read more.

2nd Ammendment-although I don’t agree with the most extreme right positions on this issue, I can be considered solidly pro 2nd. But even if I wasn’t, it would be moot, because I think the recently heard New York Rifle and Pistol V. Corlett is going to cement constitutional carry across the land. The left would do well to abandon the issue.

China-I agree that China poses an extreme threat to us, as well as the international rules-based democratic order. And our system is badly poised to offer coherent resistance. Both sides need to come together and decide on a united strategy. It simply doesn’t do to change direction every 2-4 years.

Israel-I agree Israel has the right to exist and defend itself.

Illegal immigration-I find this problem to be frustrating in the extreme, and I don’t have any solutions. But again, I think both sides need to come together and agree on some common principles.

1 Like

Nope.

Some do, some don’t.

Just saying, if your goal is to not let any american go without food, then you qualify that by saying ‘unless they drink or drug’, then you are still going to have a lot of americans going without food.

You expressed a frustration with our current health care, and our current educational costs…what’s teh difference between making sure everyone has cancer treatment, and can go to a decent higher education school and making sure everyone has addiction treatment?

BTW, the OP expressed an interest in not dealing into particular topics in this thread. IT was intended more to be an airing of sympathetic issues. Maybe they’d rather debate be done elsewhere?

1 Like