Being “the adult in the room” doesn’t mean jack shit any more. Go on being the adult in this room while Florida is underwater in the next room.

What is the incentive for the House to pass this? Why did Senate Dems vote for it, knowing the emergency declaration before the vote? The House should pass a different bill with zero DHS funding. 

There was also controversy in 2018 over the same topic. The Republicans wanted to put Sheriff David Clarke in the resolution. No joke.

I hate that specialty pizzas including pineapple also tend to include Canadian bacon, which is gross. I love any other meat on pizza but Canadian bacon.

There’s no point in arguing with these people. They are fine believing social obligations apply to one group but not another. They hide behind words like “ethics” and “beliefs.” That line of thinking is analogous to people using religion to carve out exceptions to social norms and laws, much like Hobby Lobby.

You are so fucking dumb you can’t even use spell-check correctly. 

As long as a vegan who demands vegan food when invited to someone’s place also, when hosting the same people who provided a vegan dish, prepares a meat dish for guests who demand meat, that’s cool. If the vegan does not reciprocate, they are fucking assholes. It’s quite simple and quite fair.

You're correct. He's wrong. 

That’s not my argument asshole. My argument is that vegans cannot expect meat-free meals from meat-eaters if the same vegans refuse to provide meat for meat-eating guests. It’s quite simple. It's quite fair. It’s all about the expectation, if you would actually read my responses.

I never thought I had to explain to someone that I never said anything about carnivores when I never mentioned anything about carnivores.

For fucks sake how many times do I have to say not only meat. Fuck, I’m not dense enough to think every vegetarian meal is made up of only vegetables. “For dinner, here’s a plate of carrots. For dessert, a plate of broccoli.” And you call me dense? Fuck off you elitist prick. If you need to misrepresent what I wrote,…

If you would read my response, you’d see that I put in the caveat that this only applies when one side is demanding accomodations they refuse to supply to others. Which encompasses the majority of your latest response.

What part of my argument do you find illegitimate? If you are unable to respond by pointing out the failure in my argument, STFU.

Still waiting for a coherent response. All I read was "I can't come up with anything good to respond." 

I never said meat only. I said someone who requires or chooses to have meat at every meal. Some people on an Atkins type of diet may only be eating meat, I don’t know. All I can say is if someone wants to eat meat for every meal, I’m not going to question their choice. Just as I’m not going to question someone’s…

So you don’t have a response? Then why did you reply? You can't come up with a good argument against mine?

Whether or not you eat meat is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to your argument and mine. My problem is that you are talking morals about fucking food. Seriously, shove morals right up your ass.

Harris is a cop, but you think that’s irrelevant? You’re saying Bernie’s record shows he should sit this one out, yet you don’t even want Harris’s record discussed? Shouldn’t every candidate be properly vetted? Which parts of every candidate’s record should be hidden from the public? What should we care about vs what…

Why? What is false about the argument? 

It is not a false equivalence. Barring allergies, we all choose what we eat. CHOOSE.