Answer:
The house today is used for the mega secxs
Explanation:
This is due to the fact that the mao effect is the super killer and mega filler of Patrick Bateman's super effect with cocoa butter cream that elaborates and excentuates the skin tone chicken bone extra chromosome inflammation of the funny bone situation in the house. But fr the house is used for secxs as i said before. The reality of things is not as what it may seem. So you should listen to Feels by Calvin Harris bigos life is not like a box of chocolates, it's like a box of chocolates that has been stuffed up the defender, offender, the gender, and super lover's whole.
Answer:It is fairly clear that the Mexican highlands were far too dry during the much warmer interval that prevailed from 5000 to 1500 BCE for agriculture to supply more than half of a given population’s energy needs. This was not the case along the alluvial lowlands of southern Mesoamerica, and it is no accident that the best evidence for the earliest permanent villages in Mesoamerica comes from the Pacific littoral of Chiapas (Mexico) and Guatemala, although comparable settlements also have been reported from both the Maya lowlands (Belize) and the Veracruz Gulf coast.
The Barra (c. 1800–1500 BCE), Ocós (1500–1200 BCE), and Cuadros (1100–900 BCE) phases of the Pacific coasts of Chiapas and Guatemala are good examples of early village cultures. The Barra phase appears to have been transitional from earlier preagricultural phases and may not have been primarily dependent upon corn farming; but people of the Ocós and Cuadros phases raised a small-eared corn known as nal-tel, which was ground on metates and manos and cooked in globular jars. From the rich lagoons and estuaries in this area, the villagers obtained shellfish, crabs, fish, and turtles. Their villages were small, with perhaps 10 to 12 thatched-roof houses arranged haphazardly.
Explanation:
Answer:
All bills for raising revenue, or appropriating money, shall originate
Explanation:
Answer:
Explanation:hihihihihihihihih
How you answer that question depends much on your political point of view. A 2006 article by Ron Haskins, published by the conservative Brookings Institute, declared the 1996 welfare reforms a success. Haskins pointed to evidence such as a 60% decline in the welfare caseload by 2004 as a result of the 1996 reforms. He also pointed to studies indicating that 60 to 80% of adults leaving welfare are gainfully employed.
Meanwhile, liberal writers such as Peter Edelman and Barbara Ehrenreich, writing in the <em>Washington Post </em>(<span>December 6, 2009), have said that welfare reform failed, because the number of those living in poverty in America rose in the years following welfare reform. The lack of access to welfare contributed to that rise in poverty, they argue. It's harder for people to get cash assistance through Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (which is what welfare was renamed). But dependence on food stamps doubled in the years after Clinton left office.
So "success" or "disaster" will depend on whether viewed through a conservative or liberal lens.</span>
