"Very Low Food Security" instead of "Hungry".
Does that sound like a good change to you?
2006-11-16 10:44:19 · 8 answers · asked by Clarkie 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Immigration
Of course! That way I can forget that there are hungry people in my country. I was wondering how they were going to handle this very-low-food-security crisis. Thanks Bush!
2006-11-16 10:52:39 · answer #1 · answered by Atlas 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I read the article and it wasn't Bush who agreed with that, sheesh everyone thinks Bush is the end all of a bad goverment.
Read it again and get the right people, and blame them. Heck Bush couldn't have thought of something with four words in it.
2006-11-16 10:53:42 · answer #2 · answered by redhotboxsoxfan 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I like nutritionally deprieved, but hey whatever floats your boat. If they do indeed have "low food security," does that make it okay to rob the grocery store if they are just trying to feed their families?
2006-11-16 12:13:57 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Pretty lame word revision. Hungry is hungry no matter how they try and make it sound less horrible.
2006-11-16 10:59:55 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
With all sense its called that. Take a look at real hunfer worldwide then take a look at hunger here in the U.S. and thats a very good way of saying hungry here in the States. Nothing compared to Darfur, Mexico, etc.
2006-11-16 10:59:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Had not heard that one.....I guess I better get off of Yahoo Answers and watch the news huh? LOL
2006-11-17 07:03:52 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
bush is an idiot. he can't make up his mind on what he wants to say. he keeps changing stuff. he's a politician, you can't trust them people. no matter what side they are on, there full of malarkey.
2006-11-16 10:56:31 · answer #7 · answered by loretta 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
who cares?
2006-11-16 11:13:15 · answer #8 · answered by chick-a-dee 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋