bmdrocks21

Justification for what?

Man, you write so coherently and articulate yourself so beautifully. I love it when you substantiate your accurate claims. Have you ever considered being a journalist?

Yes, having feelings is very bad for society lol

Lol. Bullet-proof is the name of my role? That explains a lot. 

All it says is that I am bullet-proof, I cannot be killed during the night, and I win with town. That was my PM from the beginning.

Bro, it says I am bullet proof and can't be killed during the night. It doesn't name my role.

Mharman didn't say a specific role. He described my abilities. 

Just did.

I am pepperoni. I win with town. 

What did I do?

Just to clear it up, though, are you saying homosexual acts or just feelings?

It really surprises me that people actually debate this topic. It is incredibly hard to win saying it is harmful. 

Will do, boss.

I think you're projecting. 

VTL SupaDudz

Excuse me?

Excuse me?

I second this stance

Or was it? ;)

They were both good. I am a little peeved at Reagan because he provided amnesty to illegals, and that permanently turned California into a blue state.

Also, I agree, Middle Eastern people dying is fine. It isn't fine that Americans are dying to fight them and we are wasting billions on killing those people. Should leave Assad and should have left Hussein to do it for us :P

"I believe that fish and people can coexist peacefully."

-George W Bush

Now, Nixon on the other hand......

Proven best president. I made Virt forfeit  :D

I'm sorry bud, but I'm not with you on this one. He did tax cuts, which is good. 

But overall, sending our troops to die in the Middle East, which he lied to get us into. He said Saddam Hussein helped with 9/11.

The military-industrial complex is disgusting.

The corporate welfare is by no means economically conservative. 

He was a neo-conservative.

I didn't like either Bush very much, but H. W. was much better.

I will have to agree with Wylted. Very suspicious

I'm too busy. I'd just hold it back. I'll try to be more active in the pizza one, though.

VTL Speed

Yeah, I am busy. Just cite why you want me to lynch someone and I'll help out

Lmao. Nice

I feel like appendix would have been a better organ for the joke

How about we be more like Hong Kong instead? (economically speaking)

Ok, so how do we start getting people to talk?

From Mharman?

My PM has no list of teammates. I was told my role and my alliance. That is all. 

I was posting my last round for my firing squad debate. Sorry guys. Lemme check the PM

I'm town.

People don't normally reveal that, do they?

Is the goal to kill scum?

I don't think so. You'll have to realize, I don't know how people are supposed to act yet.

Hmm... you are awfully aggressive. Your excuse to lynch based on newness to the game is an obvious cover

I may have a favorite Republican. His name is Herbert Hoover.... Just kidding :P

Nixon, Eisenhower, and Reagan are my favorite three. Coolidge was good. Theodore Roosevelt was much better than his pinko cousin.

It depends on how high the minimum wage is to determine how many jobs are lost. I agree $7.25 can be afforded by most companies. It is below the equilibrium wage for most jobs, which is why most jobs pay more than the minimum wage. I don't think most companies would offer much less than that because they have a demand for labor. They have to fight against other companies for that worker, so they entice them with higher wages. 

Anyway, I am just very much against federal minimum wages. The cost of living in California is much higher than Kansas, so if they were to both have minimum wages, they shouldn't be the same. 

This is my main problem: industry differences. All companies are required to pay the minimum wage to employees. However, restaurants cannot afford that, but Amazon(or any warehouse) can. Some industries can afford it because the labor is more valuable. 

I like turtles ,=,e

If you also do and/or don't like turtles, then like this post.

Didn't see first message. 

Why are more efficient public schools a bad thing?

There isn't a "problem" with the local private schools not initially having enough room for the public school kids. They will build more schools if necessary. You are also assuming that private schools won't start offering special programs for disabled kids. They want the voucher revenue! 

Also, just saying a competitive free market isn't an ideal solution for necessities doesn't make that statement true. Water is a necessity. Do you want people competing to lower prices and raise quality, or do you want a government monopoly to give you whatever it wants? Do you think there should be one store in every city that provides all food and medicine, or should there be specialization? Why is lowering prices and raising quality a bad thing?

Solving the first problem gets very hairy. It would need to get discussed at great length. Also, are you saying that people that do drugs should have kids? You are insinuating that it isn't a problem.

The second one, just tell parents that you will not give them more money if they keep having kids. This will not totally solve the problem of government dependence for children, but it will aid it.

Is giving out free money free market? No, to put it shortly.

The problem will evolve into just straight up paying people to have kids. They can profit off of $20,000 per year, you can't really profit as well off of food stamps.

Yes, the breakdown of the family unit is a reason for crime. Yes, you stated that financial problems are a reason for divorce. However, I will point out that promiscuity is the actual cause of breaking down the family unit. It has been studied that the more partners a woman has, the more likely they are to get divorced. Millennials have less partners on average than previous generations and their divorce rates are going down.

Cheaper is one of the biggest focuses. I hate getting taxed. We should lessen the burden on people who actually produce for society. However, more competition will lead to better education.

I believe parents should be responsible. They should not drop out of school, they should enter fields that have a demand for labor, work full time, and they shouldn't have kids until they are married. If they follow those and continue to work, they will have time to spend with their kids and neighbors. However, life isn't all about enjoying free time. You have to work. Why do you think it is okay for some people to work super hard and pay most of the taxes just so that these people can relax at home with their kids and not have to work as hard if at all?

You are assuming no one else will choose to send their kid to the public school. There will still be kids that go there because the local private schools couldn't accommodate them until more schools are built. They would just risk losing funding, so they would actually have to improve the quality of their school rather than expect government checks for being the only option for the poor.

Well, the ADA added more competition for the handicap market, problem solved :P

For you first message, no we don't have any prerequisites for having kids. We absolutely should. If you are a single, financially unstable, or are a drug user, you should not have kids. 

I have issues with our current welfare system in which people on welfare can, in most states, continue having kids and taking more from the taxpayer. That is disgusting.

All that will likely happen is drug addicts have kids so they can buy more drugs, then will send their kid to the cheapest school so they can pocket the money. Having kids should not be a way to make money from the government. How about we go with the cheaper option: vouchers. Most private schools are cheaper per student that public schools. Giving kids a better, cheaper education is a better idea than giving parents a monetary incentive to have more children.

I have no idea what I'm getting myself into. I always sucked at Town of Salem. But...sure?

Ahhh...Like Town of Salem, then?

You didn't respond to my last message. Does that mean I win? :D

Might I ask what this Mafia game is?