I'm right there with you. But being born at the very end of '81 and a graduate of the class of '00 (The True Millennial Class!), I pretty much identify as Gen X.

redacted.

You're welcome to it... I mean, you're kidding, right?

There is a massive difference between a vegan friend making you, (presumably) an omnivore, a dish with meat and you making a dish without.

I would sort of disagree regarding the intersection between price and quality. There is definitely a noticeable difference in quality between 'disposable fashion' bought at stores like Forever 21, H&M, et. al, and the clothes you would buy at the contemporary departments in the 'better department stores' like…

There is no leap. Look at the quoted language — it implies that all hosts should include a vegetarian option. There is no caveat that you only need to do that if a vegetarian is coming. The language from the author is absolute.

Absolutely. I would even go so far as to argue that Zero Tolerance is (almost) irrational because it doesn't take into account fluid conditions, or aggravating or mitigating circumstances to use.

So I just have a little ol' BA in PoliSci, but:

Quicker than if the negative effects of the habit are being mitigated through public subsidies.

benefits to be contingent on passing a series of drug tests; if they can't pass, they can't [USE PUBLIC FUNDS] to buy food.

Those are assertions with numbers, not math. Moreover, without knowing your source, I assume those are numbers for a general population. You can't ascribe that to any specific locale — your probabilities are going to be wildly different in LA than in Des Moines, Iowa.

Well then! Lets just all stop buying food, start spending all of our time subsistence farming, and then we can finally get back be being the Jeffersonian America that we were intended to be. Eh?

To be fair, I saw that last DVF dress, the beige lace one, for about $100 at TJMaxx the other day.

Technically guy, if we're battling on etiquette, it's rude to not offer a truly vegetarian offer when hosting a fuckin' dinner.

I would assume so.

Palimony isn't the 'splitting of assets.' Because this couple wasn't married (and doesn't live in a community property state), everything is either owned by each person individually, as their sole and separate property, or they may have titled larger assets as some form of co-ownership, but that is also separate…

Like other people noted, they are different 'buckets' of money, given for different things. But, they are also kind of related.

psssst.. that is actually Banana Republic. J. Crew is its own (also mostly overpriced) thing.

I think it is quite arguable that her actions in 'standing by her man,' a politician, reflect poor professional political judgement. What is unforgivable, from a political standpoint, is how poorly and just plain weird Team Weiner, with her partially in control, came across during this. Could she not see? Did she…

In Russia, clothes wear you. ;)