why did the american govt ban french pies in the congress dinning menu?
341820
A pie made out of a french should taste like shitt. I think congress wouldn't like to eat to much shitt anyway, I mean apart from the one they've already had to swallow from the Bush administration.
836728
do you mean the 'American Revolution'?\n\nwell the first reason is the Quartering Act. the quartering act is an act that made colonists quarter, or house, british soldiers in their homes.\n\nanother reason is the Proclamation (think mispell) of 1763. it prevented colonists from moving wesword past the appalation mountains. it violated their rights as britians.\n\nTHe third reason is the Sugar Act. THe sugar act is simply a tax on sugar, molasses (which is syurp) and other sugar products. this angered the colonists because colonists loved to drink tea with sugar. \n\nThe fourth reason is the Stamp Act. THe stamp act is a replacement for the Sugar Act. I am unshure about when the stamp act was repealed, though. the stamp act is a tax on legal documents, stamps, even playing cards, etc. (pretty much any product that has paper in/on/ or is paper\n\nThe townshed act is another reason. i dont know what it exactly did, but it isnt a tax. i think it was a limit on what the things that colonists can do.\n\nThe Blockade of Boston Harbor is another reason. it was a wall of ships that blocked ships (mainly ships that carryed imports) from coming into the colonists.\n\nthere are many other reasons why, but these are main reasons
312751
Humble pie is not on any repuglicans menu. They are busy eating fillet of sole and drinking $100 a bottle chapaine. Besides they are to stupid to know right from wrong they are still defending him. LOL
160901
Because the military used the wrong kind of ordinance.\n\nInstead of smartbombs and ground troups they should have carpet-bombed with quarter-pounder burgers, iPods, Levi Jeans, glamour magazines and pop CDs.
352545
Define "Allow" :) I would guess that they aren't openly allowing it, more turning a blind eye to it. The problem comes from the fact that both of the industries you mention rely on illegal immigrants for labour, since most Americans don't want the jobs themselves (since the pay is so low and/or the conditions are so bad) Therefore if the legislature starts cracking down on those companies, they could literrally destroy them. Even if they don't levy the enormous fines that would probably be legally required for the companies' infractions, the companies would still be in a position where they simply couldn't afford to hire the staff they needed to keep going. You fancy paying $6 for a burger? Because it could happen if your local burger joint had to start paying Americans to do the jobs currently done by immigrants...
196040
Since the government could not control alcohol manufacturing and distribution under FDR, and saw huge profits to be made, prohibition was repealed. First, beer was legalized, to rousing editions of Happy Days are Here Again" being heard across the land. Payoffs to local officials, including the police, were common. Gambling too follows suit though most of the public opposed it in  their districts. There is a huge amount of money to made, and the goverment policy seems to be "if you can't beat them , join hem."
293674
Article [XVIII].(See Note 16)\nSection 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited. \n\nSection. 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. \n\nSection. 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress. \n\nProposal and Ratification \n\nThe eighteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Sixty-fifth Congress, on the 18th of December, 1917, and was declared, in a proclamation of the Secretary of State, dated the 29th of January, 1919, to have been ratified by the legislatures of 36 of the 48 States. The dates of ratification were: Mississippi, January 8, 1918; Virginia, January 11, 1918; Kentucky, January 14, 1918; North Dakota, January 25, 1918; South Carolina, January 29, 1918; Maryland, February 13, 1918; Montana, February 19, 1918; Texas, March 4, 1918; Delaware, March 18, 1918; South Dakota, March 20, 1918; Massachusetts, April 2, 1918; Arizona, May 24, 1918; Georgia, June 26, 1918; Louisiana, August 3, 1918; Florida, December 3, 1918; Michigan, January 2, 1919; Ohio, January 7, 1919; Oklahoma, January 7, 1919; Idaho, January 8, 1919; Maine, January 8, 1919; West Virginia, January 9, 1919; California, January 13, 1919; Tennessee, January 13, 1919; Washington, January 13, 1919; Arkansas, January 14, 1919; Kansas, January 14, 1919; Alabama, January 15, 1919; Colorado, January 15, 1919; Iowa, January 15, 1919; New Hampshire, January 15, 1919; Oregon, January 15, 1919; Nebraska, January 16, 1919; North Carolina, January 16, 1919; Utah, January 16, 1919; Missouri, January 16, 1919; Wyoming, January 16, 1919. \n\nRatification was completed on January 16, 1919. See Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368, 376 (1921). \n\nThe amendment was subsequently ratified by Minnesota on January 17, 1919; Wisconsin, January 17, 1919; New Mexico, January 20, 1919; Nevada, January 21, 1919; New York, January 29, 1919; Vermont, January 29, 1919; Pennsylvania, February 25, 1919; Connecticut, May 6, 1919; and New Jersey, March 9, 1922. \n\nThe amendment was rejected (and not subsequently ratified) by Rhode Island. \n  LOOKS TO ME LIKE THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT LIQUOR/PROHIBITION.
789945
When you repeal that section of the First Amendment.  You know, the part that says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
810825
Contrary to the popular belief shown in these answers it did not start in the American Congress.  It started in the assembly of France.  Those that sat on the Speakers right were loyal to the Republic and those that sat to the left were seeking to change the government.\n\nThere was no original conection to religion at the start, but there has been an intertwining of personal beleifs since then.
31681
Because it would be thoroughly unfair to force people to pay for things they can't afford.\n\nGet real.  "Allow" connotes freedom, which is all a government should give you.  And that same "allow" is what permits anyone to make whatever they want out of themselves, purchase whatever they want.  You'd have a gripe if you could phrase the question "How can the US FORBID people from buying food or health insurance," but you can't.
1172179
Because America is not interested in democracy. It wants to transfer tax payers money to republican contributing companies, which happen to sell weapons used in WARS
437805
since America is predomiately Christian & America is also incredibly FAT, with what, something like 2/3 of all adults being overweight...I think that answers your question!\n\nas for the stale taste...why do you think they serve them with wine? HAH!
739458
A vote for Jefferson is American as Cherry pie.\n\nCoach
677764
The doctrine that you're speaking of actually says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."  The US Supreme Court expanded on that, realizing that the doctrine in the Constitution had no "teeth" without clarification.  In other words, they expanded it from Congress not being able to make a law *establishing* one (ie. a national religion) to include Congress not being able to make laws favoring a particular religion over another (or over a non-religion).  Who the people vote for is an entirely different matter.  First, the doctrine applies to laws and legislation.  Secondly, it would be utterly unconstitutional to disallow anyone not specifically defined in the Constitution from running for office.  The people of the U.S. have the absolute right to cast their vote for whomever they choose, as long as that person has the requisite citizenship and has attained the mandated age.
601885
Right this is why.... potatoes were a strange food that had never been intoduced before to france, not like now a days when you can have all mannor of strange and wonderful things. Now because it was so unusaual people were a little frightened of them, So they were introduced as being like and apple cause everyone knew what they were and liked them, so it took some of the fear away cause an apple of the earth cant be unnatural!! my french teacher told me that (she was an old french lady too to add to the arthantisity of it all) cause like you i wondered why!! hope this answers your question!
940708
unfree healthcare... hmm i didnt know about the hot pockets and doughnuts.. yea we have very unhealthy foods
229733
Basically what Americans eat