|
|
Post by megop on Feb 16, 2018 6:27:28 GMT
Happy to explain. As more and more brick and mortar entities close within the retail space due to online shopping, doesn't it make a bit of logical sense that this will also begin to happen in food delivery? And when you say the current delivery has none of those costs, they most certainly do. Apply the thought process in say a comparison of Fed Ex vs. USPS. Setting up this structure doesn't necessarily mean it is a totally government run structure. There are existing distribution channels - even a hybrid mix between non-profit/for-profit that could actually work better with less cost. Does that help? ETA: Fraud is not even on my radar with my thought process. Again, further up in this thread I stated if it is a one-size-fits all type thing it will be a dismal fail. My personal stance on the "idea" of this absolutely comes from the perspective of exploring eventual better, more convenient delivery to persons who aren't food safe and face a myriad of issues in food deserts and transportation access. My goal in even talking about this within this thread was to present the idea that we must all think outside the box to find tomorrow's answers. If that is the case then don't you think the private sector, ie Walmart and Amazon will decide to take whatever payment for food that people use at the store online. Heck, they might already. I don't know. If ordering online is the case, why can't people place their food order with the food they want at the grocer that they chose. No different logically than people wanting to pick their own doctor. The GOP has argued over and over about people losing the choice of their doctor, but now want to limit the people wanting to pick their grocer. Creating a separate government entity to select, store and distribute makes no sense. Remember it has taken Amazon years and years to be profitable. www.forbes.com/sites/jonmarkman/2017/05/23/the-amazon-era-no-profits-no-problem/#5c5409a6437a So, I honestly don't think that this box idea would be cheaper than what people can get at Walmart. Very well could be! |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 4:28:59 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 7:59:49 GMT
As was stated below the article, the damage described in the article is caused by the bullet. That same bullet can be used in many other rifles that aren't being championed for a ban. So you ban the AR15 and leave all the ones deemed "acceptable" for people to have and use and you still have the capability of a deranged person to inflict the same damage you thought you legislated away. Now what do we do? So you want to completely ignore your question on how an AR15 is different than a handgun and talk about rifles as you didn't like my factual response. Others may play, not me. Uh, no. Not ignoring anything. Or playing. In response to my question you took the discussion to what the gun does to the human body, I just followed the discussion to where you took it in order to continue on with it. I answered TO your response. To your actual words and linked article. Now you don't like MY factual response? That makes no sense and I don't even know what to do with that.  So I'll just move on. |
|
|
|
Post by bc2ca on Feb 16, 2018 9:38:57 GMT
So you want to completely ignore your question on how an AR15 is different than a handgun and talk about rifles as you didn't like my factual response. Others may play, not me. Uh, no. Not ignoring anything. Or playing. In response to my question you took the discussion to what the gun does to the human body, I just followed the discussion to where you took it in order to continue on with it. I answered TO your response. To your actual words and linked article. Now you don't like MY factual response? That makes no sense and I don't even know what to do with that. So I'll just move on. I think you missed the whole point of the destructive nature of a bullet fired from an AR-15 compared to a handgun which I also answered up thread. That is why an AR-15 is different from a handgun. It is about what a bullet fired from that gun does to the human body. |
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Feb 16, 2018 15:09:07 GMT
So you want to completely ignore your question on how an AR15 is different than a handgun and talk about rifles as you didn't like my factual response. Others may play, not me. Uh, no. Not ignoring anything. Or playing. In response to my question you took the discussion to what the gun does to the human body, I just followed the discussion to where you took it in order to continue on with it. I answered TO your response. To your actual words and linked article. Now you don't like MY factual response? That makes no sense and I don't even know what to do with that. So I'll just move on. You asked: I answered. You changed the subject. If you think your response was a natural progression, I understand better your difficulty in carrying on dialogue on this board. Go ahead and move on, I plan to. |
|
|
|
Post by peatlejuice on Feb 16, 2018 15:16:56 GMT
So you want to completely ignore your question on how an AR15 is different than a handgun and talk about rifles as you didn't like my factual response. Others may play, not me. Uh, no. Not ignoring anything. Or playing. In response to my question you took the discussion to what the gun does to the human body, I just followed the discussion to where you took it in order to continue on with it. I answered TO your response. To your actual words and linked article. Now you don't like MY factual response? That makes no sense and I don't even know what to do with that. So I'll just move on. I know you like to argue semantics to the point of being petty, but in this case, you're just looking ignorant. It doesn't take a lot of critical thinking skills to realize that the point of the article is that larger bullet size + weapon designed to shoot with more velocity and reload speed than most handguns and single action rifles = greater damage and increased odds of death for people. If either variable (bullet or weapon) is removed, the outcome changes (in my opinion, for the better). So ban the bullets or ban the AR-15, I don't care - I just don't want our kids to have to fear being shot while sitting in math class. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 4:28:59 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 22:23:10 GMT
Uh, no. Not ignoring anything. Or playing. In response to my question you took the discussion to what the gun does to the human body, I just followed the discussion to where you took it in order to continue on with it. I answered TO your response. To your actual words and linked article. Now you don't like MY factual response? That makes no sense and I don't even know what to do with that. So I'll just move on. You asked: I answered. You changed the subject. If you think your response was a natural progression, I understand better your difficulty in carrying on dialogue on this board. Go ahead and move on, I plan to. Darcy Pea Collins!!! I most certainly did NOT change the subject! You answered my question with what the gun does to the human body. I responded about what the gun does to the human body. For you to say that's changing the subject, that it's not a natural progression and insult "my ability to carry on a discussion" (in order to what? dismiss a point you don't like? that can NOT be why?) is not something I would have EVER expected from you. I just can't figure out why it IS coming from you. Now if you'd like to abandon your derailment and get  I'd love it if you could answer the question posed in response to the point YOU introduced... The damage described in the article is caused by the bullet. That same bullet can be used in many other rifles that aren't being championed for a ban. So you ban the AR15 and leave all the ones deemed "acceptable" for people to have and use and you still have the capability of a deranged person to inflict the same damage you thought you legislated away. Now what do we do? |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 4:28:59 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 22:31:03 GMT
Uh, no. Not ignoring anything. Or playing. In response to my question you took the discussion to what the gun does to the human body, I just followed the discussion to where you took it in order to continue on with it. I answered TO your response. To your actual words and linked article. Now you don't like MY factual response? That makes no sense and I don't even know what to do with that. So I'll just move on. I know you like to argue semantics to the point of being petty, but in this case, you're just looking ignorant. It doesn't take a lot of critical thinking skills to realize that the point of the article is that larger bullet size + weapon designed to shoot with more velocity and reload speed than most handguns and single action rifles = greater damage and increased odds of death for people. If either variable (bullet or weapon) is removed, the outcome changes (in my opinion, for the better). So ban the bullets or ban the AR-15, I don't care - I just don't want our kids to have to fear being shot while sitting in math class. What's petty is dismissing facts you don't like as semantics and calling me ignorant when it's clear YOU don't know wth YOU are talking about. At 5.56 mm and 60 grains (weight) the bullet for an AR15 is NOT bigger than a bullet for a 9mm handgun which is, wait for it, 9mm. And 147 grains (weight). Also in most cases, people use hollow point pistol rounds, which expand on impact and cause much more damage than an AR15 solid core round. Which is the most used type of AR15 ammo. Yes, the velocity of the bullet would matter at longer ranges. In these school shooting cases as I understand it, they're basically at point blank to 20 feet range which negates the speed advantage of the AR15 round. Both an AR15 and a handgun will kill you just as dead. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 4:28:59 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 22:39:20 GMT
Weren't we told to get off "their thread" when argument erupted?
|
|
gottapeanow
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,828 
|
Post by gottapeanow on Feb 16, 2018 22:42:12 GMT
Weren't we told to get off "their thread" when argument erupted? This. |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 16, 2018 23:28:16 GMT
At 5.56 mm and 60 grains (weight) the bullet for an AR15 is NOT bigger than a bullet for a 9mm handgun which is, wait for it, 9mm. And 147 grains (weight). Also in most cases, people use hollow point pistol rounds, which expand on impact and cause much more damage than an AR15 solid core round. Which is the most used type of AR15 ammo. Yes, the velocity of the bullet would matter at longer ranges. In these school shooting cases as I understand it, they're basically at point blank to 20 feet range which negates the speed advantage of the AR15 round. Both an AR15 and a handgun will kill you just as dead. Thank you. I never knew bullets weight is the gauge, am I saying that right? I think hollow point bullets are illegal here in NJ because of the inflicted damages, are they available else where? Again thanks! |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 4:28:59 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 23:58:13 GMT
At 5.56 mm and 60 grains (weight) the bullet for an AR15 is NOT bigger than a bullet for a 9mm handgun which is, wait for it, 9mm. And 147 grains (weight). Also in most cases, people use hollow point pistol rounds, which expand on impact and cause much more damage than an AR15 solid core round. Which is the most used type of AR15 ammo. Yes, the velocity of the bullet would matter at longer ranges. In these school shooting cases as I understand it, they're basically at point blank to 20 feet range which negates the speed advantage of the AR15 round. Both an AR15 and a handgun will kill you just as dead. Thank you. I never knew bullets weight is the gauge, am I saying that right? I think hollow point bullets are illegal here in NJ because of the inflicted damages, are they available else where? Again thanks! Yes, a few states have banned them, but not all. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 4:28:59 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2018 0:08:33 GMT
Also the fact that handguns can use a 30 round magazine negates the argument that the AR15 has that advantage over handguns. And since handguns conceal much better than an AR15 how many could someone conceal on themselves to up that number in order to reduce the reload time. Which only takes seconds to begin with.
|
|
|
|
Post by bc2ca on Feb 17, 2018 0:14:52 GMT
I know you like to argue semantics to the point of being petty, but in this case, you're just looking ignorant. It doesn't take a lot of critical thinking skills to realize that the point of the article is that larger bullet size + weapon designed to shoot with more velocity and reload speed than most handguns and single action rifles = greater damage and increased odds of death for people. If either variable (bullet or weapon) is removed, the outcome changes (in my opinion, for the better). So ban the bullets or ban the AR-15, I don't care - I just don't want our kids to have to fear being shot while sitting in math class. What's petty is dismissing facts you don't like as semantics and calling me ignorant when it's clear YOU don't know wth YOU are talking about. At 5.56 mm and 60 grains (weight) the bullet for an AR15 is NOT bigger than a bullet for a 9mm handgun which is, wait for it, 9mm. And 147 grains (weight). Also in most cases, people use hollow point pistol rounds, which expand on impact and cause much more damage than an AR15 solid core round. Which is the most used type of AR15 ammo. Yes, the velocity of the bullet would matter at longer ranges. In these school shooting cases as I understand it, they're basically at point blank to 20 feet range which negates the speed advantage of the AR15 round. Both an AR15 and a handgun will kill you just as dead. on the comparative destructive nature of an AR-15 versus a handgun: The AR-15 is the weapon of choice for mass shooters because of it wreaks more destruction and devastation in the same amount of time than a handgun. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 4:28:59 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2018 0:45:36 GMT
What's petty is dismissing facts you don't like as semantics and calling me ignorant when it's clear YOU don't know wth YOU are talking about. At 5.56 mm and 60 grains (weight) the bullet for an AR15 is NOT bigger than a bullet for a 9mm handgun which is, wait for it, 9mm. And 147 grains (weight). Also in most cases, people use hollow point pistol rounds, which expand on impact and cause much more damage than an AR15 solid core round. Which is the most used type of AR15 ammo. Yes, the velocity of the bullet would matter at longer ranges. In these school shooting cases as I understand it, they're basically at point blank to 20 feet range which negates the speed advantage of the AR15 round. Both an AR15 and a handgun will kill you just as dead. on the comparative destructive nature of an AR-15 versus a handgun: The AR-15 is the weapon of choice for mass shooters because of it wreaks more destruction and devastation in the same amount of time than a handgun. That's already been linked here. And responded to. |
|
|
|
Post by bc2ca on Feb 17, 2018 1:21:06 GMT
From a trauma surgeon on the comparative destructive nature of an AR-15 versus a handgun: The AR-15 is the weapon of choice for mass shooters because of it wreaks more destruction and devastation in the same amount of time than a handgun. That's already been linked here. And responded to. I know. I linked it and it wasn't responded to. I just checked in case I missed something, but no, not responded to.  The last time I heard of a mass shooting involving a handgun it was the attack on Gabby Gifford seven years ago. She survived a bullet to the head. The destructive nature of that same bullet fired from an AR-15 would most likely have left her with no head. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 4:28:59 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2018 1:27:47 GMT
That's already been linked here. And responded to. I know. I linked it and it wasn't responded to. I just checked in case I missed something, but no, not responded to. The last time I heard of a mass shooting involving a handgun it was the attack on Gabby Gifford seven years ago. She survived a bullet to the head. The destructive nature of that same bullet fired from an AR-15 would most likely have left her with no head. Someone else linked it before you and I responded to it. Here is my response... The damage described in the article is caused by the bullet. That same bullet can be used in many other rifles that aren't being championed for a ban. So you ban the AR15 and leave all the ones deemed "acceptable" for people to have and use and you still have the capability of a deranged person to inflict the same damage you thought you legislated away. Now what do we do? |
|
|
|
Post by bc2ca on Feb 17, 2018 1:51:11 GMT
I know. I linked it and it wasn't responded to. I just checked in case I missed something, but no, not responded to. The last time I heard of a mass shooting involving a handgun it was the attack on Gabby Gifford seven years ago. She survived a bullet to the head. The destructive nature of that same bullet fired from an AR-15 would most likely have left her with no head. Someone else linked it before you and I responded to it. Here is my response... The damage described in the article is caused by the bullet. That same bullet can be used in many other rifles that aren't being championed for a ban. So you ban the AR15 and leave all the ones deemed "acceptable" for people to have and use and you still have the capability of a deranged person to inflict the same damage you thought you legislated away. Now what do we do? Well, not to be pedantic, but that was your response to a different article linked by Darcy Collins.  And the clear point of both articles that it is not the bullet per se, but the bullet fired from an AR-15 that is far more destructive than a handgun. Which answers your original question: Both weapons shoot one bullet per trigger pull, but one is much more devastating on impact resulting in a higher number of fatalities and life threatening injuries. That is the biggest difference between them. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 4:28:59 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2018 2:38:46 GMT
Someone else linked it before you and I responded to it. Here is my response... The damage described in the article is caused by the bullet. That same bullet can be used in many other rifles that aren't being championed for a ban. So you ban the AR15 and leave all the ones deemed "acceptable" for people to have and use and you still have the capability of a deranged person to inflict the same damage you thought you legislated away. Now what do we do? Well, not to be pedantic, but that was your response to a different article linked by Darcy Collins . And the clear point of both articles that it is not the bullet per se, but the bullet fired from an AR-15 that is far more destructive than a handgun. Which answers your original question: Both weapons shoot one bullet per trigger pull, but one is much more devastating on impact resulting in a higher number of fatalities and life threatening injuries. That is the biggest difference between them. 2 articles about about trauma surgeons telling us AR15s are "designed to kill as efficiently as possible". I answered one, that should cover it. Even you agree. The clear point to my first answer is... Also in most cases, people use hollow point pistol rounds, which expand on impact and cause much more damage than an AR15 solid core round. Which is the most used type of AR15 ammo. Yes, the velocity of the bullet would matter at longer ranges. In these school shooting cases as I understand it, they're basically at point blank to 20 feet range which negates the speed advantage of the AR15 round. Both an AR15 and a handgun will kill you just as dead. |
|
|
|
Post by bc2ca on Feb 17, 2018 2:58:06 GMT
Well, not to be pedantic, but that was your response to a different article linked by Darcy Collins . And the clear point of both articles that it is not the bullet per se, but the bullet fired from an AR-15 that is far more destructive than a handgun. Which answers your original question: Both weapons shoot one bullet per trigger pull, but one is much more devastating on impact resulting in a higher number of fatalities and life threatening injuries. That is the biggest difference between them. 2 articles about about trauma surgeons telling us AR15s are "designed to kill as efficiently as possible". I answered one, that should cover it. Even you agree. The clear point to my first answer is... Also in most cases, people use hollow point pistol rounds, which expand on impact and cause much more damage than an AR15 solid core round. Which is the most used type of AR15 ammo. Yes, the velocity of the bullet would matter at longer ranges. In these school shooting cases as I understand it, they're basically at point blank to 20 feet range which negates the speed advantage of the AR15 round. Both an AR15 and a handgun will kill you just as dead. I respectfully disagree with your assessment and understanding of the articles linked. They are both pretty clear in stating the difference is the bullet fired from an AR-15 is more destructive. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 4:28:59 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2018 3:02:42 GMT
2 articles about about trauma surgeons telling us AR15s are "designed to kill as efficiently as possible". I answered one, that should cover it. Even you agree. The clear point to my first answer is... Also in most cases, people use hollow point pistol rounds, which expand on impact and cause much more damage than an AR15 solid core round. Which is the most used type of AR15 ammo. Yes, the velocity of the bullet would matter at longer ranges. In these school shooting cases as I understand it, they're basically at point blank to 20 feet range which negates the speed advantage of the AR15 round. Both an AR15 and a handgun will kill you just as dead. I respectfully disagree with your assessment and understanding of the articles linked. They are both pretty clear in stating the difference is the bullet fired from an AR-15 is more destructive. Great.  And I stand by what I said. |
|
|
|
Post by peatlejuice on Feb 17, 2018 4:21:46 GMT
Weren't we told to get off "their thread" when argument erupted? Yep, and then you (not all of you, but certainly the more rabid ones like you, Gia, etc.) got all butt hurt and cried about how mean they were. For the record, I'm neither liberal nor conservative (though I do like to argue),but even if I were, it's an open message board, so I'll post on whatever thread I feel like. You'll just have to put me on ignore if that upsets you. I'm not a complete raging asshole, though, so I will also apologize to the normal conservative peas like megop and scrubologist for derailing their thread by getting the rabid all riled up. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 4:28:59 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2018 5:24:20 GMT
Weren't we told to get off "their thread" when argument erupted? Yep, and then you (not all of you, but certainly the more rabid ones like you, Gia, etc.) got all butt hurt and cried about how mean they were. For the record, I'm neither liberal nor conservative (though I do like to argue),but even if I were, it's an open message board, so I'll post on whatever thread I feel like. You'll just have to put me on ignore if that upsets you. I'm not a complete raging asshole, though, so I will also apologize to the normal conservative peas like megop and scrubologist for derailing their thread by getting the rabid all riled up. As one you referred to as "rabid", I think it's cute that you think you got me "all riled up". Ha! Aren't you special. |
|
|
|
Post by compeateropeator on Feb 17, 2018 6:51:17 GMT
I probably shouldn’t comment here as I am not sure that I have read everything as closely as I should have...but that never stopped me before.  I am just trying to understand your insistence that what they said doesn’t answer your question or why it doesn’t fit your narrative. Please educate me. I believe Darcy Collins and bc2ca both answered your original question. But really what you think the answer to your question should be is: school shootings are done at close range and because any gun will kill at close range (dead is dead) there is no need to ban that one gun. Even though it is much more destructive to the wounded (and there are always wounded). |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 4:28:59 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2018 8:55:53 GMT
Weren't we told to get off "their thread" when argument erupted? Yep, and then you (not all of you, but certainly the more rabid ones like you, Gia, etc.) got all butt hurt and cried about how mean they were. For the record, I'm neither liberal nor conservative (though I do like to argue),but even if I were, it's an open message board, so I'll post on whatever thread I feel like. You'll just have to put me on ignore if that upsets you. I'm not a complete raging asshole, though, so I will also apologize to the normal conservative peas like megop and scrubologist for derailing their thread by getting the rabid all riled up. So that's your answer to trying to school me and getting caught not knowing wth you're talking about, to come back and troll? says a lot about you and your reason for being here. I can't speak for anyone else on this board, but I feel pretty safe in saying that trolling behavior is not welcome here. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 4:28:59 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2018 8:58:45 GMT
I probably shouldn’t comment here as I am not sure that I have read everything as closely as I should have...but that never stopped me before. I am just trying to understand your insistence that what they said doesn’t answer your question or why it doesn’t fit your narrative. Please educate me. I believe Darcy Collins and bc2ca both answered your original question. But really what you think the answer to your question should be is: school shootings are done at close range and because any gun will kill at close range (dead is dead) there is no need to ban that one gun. Even though it is much more destructive to the wounded (and there are always wounded). I'm truly sorry, I don't know how to make what I said any clearer. |
|
|
|
Post by compeateropeator on Feb 17, 2018 11:33:18 GMT
I probably shouldn’t comment here as I am not sure that I have read everything as closely as I should have...but that never stopped me before. I am just trying to understand your insistence that what they said doesn’t answer your question or why it doesn’t fit your narrative. Please educate me. I believe Darcy Collins and bc2ca both answered your original question. But really what you think the answer to your question should be is: school shootings are done at close range and because any gun will kill at close range (dead is dead) there is no need to ban that one gun. Even though it is much more destructive to the wounded (and there are always wounded). I'm truly sorry, I don't know how to make what I said any clearer. Thanks for responding. I will read through the posts again, sometimes things take me a couple try’s...hahaha. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 4:28:59 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2018 13:30:25 GMT
Yes, the velocity of the bullet would matter at longer ranges. In these school shooting cases as I understand it, they're basically at point blank to 20 feet range which negates the speed advantage of the AR15 round. Both an AR15 and a handgun will kill you just as dead. Yes, both will kill you just as dead but the difference is in the "physics" of how they are both made and how they are meant to operate. The effectiveness of these weapons comes, first and foremost, from their ability to deliver relatively small sized, high velocity bullets in rapid sequence into a body, inflicting lethal damage The killing potential of a gun is primarily based on the amount of energy imparted by the bullet when it strikes the body. The bullet’s kinetic energy is equal to half of the bullet weight multiplied by the speed of the bullet when fired, squared — in other words, the velocity that a gun can impart on a bullet is the dominant factor in determining its killing potential. The 9mm handgun is generally regarded as an effective weapon; its bullet travels at 1,200 feet per second and delivers a kinetic energy of 400 foot pounds. By comparison, the standard AR-15 bullet travels at 3,251 feet per second and delivers 1300 foot pounds. It's irrelevant ( to a point) that it does more damage, dead is dead. It's the speed and its accuracy in hitting its target that makes it more destructive. This is what Darcy Collins and others are trying to explain to you. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 4:28:59 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2018 4:10:43 GMT
The gun debate is one that has never gone well at the Peas. I wish it hadn't really made it's way into this thread since there are several "mainstream" threads going on, and it has kind of derailed our drama-free haven. I said in the OP that I wasn't going to police this thread because I can't really, but I ask ALL of you to please try to refrain from discussing someone personally or their posting style here. Go bug them on another thread if you feel you must, and let's keep this thread llama-free. Thank you  Now, while I won't get into the traditional gun debate, a friend linked this article on Facebook, and I thought it was so worth sharing. Our world could use more thinking like this! One Teacher's Brilliant Strategy to Stop Future School ShootingsETA: new link at top of page 13 |
|
|
|
Post by mom26 on Feb 18, 2018 5:23:09 GMT
@scrubologist - I'd like very much to read the FB article, but your link loops me back to here. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 4:28:59 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2018 5:39:29 GMT
I'm finding it funny that so many are against Trump's plan that the government picks out some of the food people on assistance eat but never said a word when "someone" picked out what lunches kids ate at school (for ALL kids--not just the free lunch program).
|
|
I am just trying to understand your insistence that what they said doesn’t answer your question or why it doesn’t fit your narrative. Please educate me.
