What happens if you do nothing? What do you do when the families of his future victims find out that he was already known to be on a path to radicalization but they did nothing due to political correctness?
Amazon isn't the equivalent of "consumer reports". They offer retailers a sales platform and they offer consumers a varied market. That's it. You can check the seller reviews or Google, or if it's an expensive item and you want to make sure the warranty claims are valid, you can contact the manufacturer. Amazon couldn't possibly check every item for sale at every retailer. That's like saying a shopping mall should ensure that every item in every store is marked correctly every day. You'd need an absurdly large workforce and the cost of doing so would negate any savings for the consumer. You could bring the seller to court for making false claims, but that's up to you.
Did the EPA prevent the situation in Flint with their water supply? Did the EPA prevent the BP disaster in the Gulf?
I remember after the first blended gas was sold seeing nearly everyone's old lawnmowers out with the trash because it ruined their engines to the point where it wasn't worth trying to repair them. Same thing with diesel and some pickup truck engines, the blended diesel was shown to reduce the life of the engine, but no attention was paid to that. I have a hard time believing that junking all that hardware and replacing it is better for the environment than sticking with what we had. It seems likely that electric vehicles will eventually replace fuel powered engines, so why not encourage that transition rather than screwing the formulation of gas even more? Decisions like this undermine the value of the EPA in the minds of many.
Amazon didn't misrepresent anything. They offer an ecommerce platform to other companies. If the seller misrepresented something, your issue is with them. You could also blame your browser or your ISP, they were also involved with delivering the page to your device. It wouldn't be possible for Amazon to check every item from every seller to the extent necessary to accomplish what you're looking for. As for taking payment, again, that's just a service they provide.
I got caught in the warranty trap once but it was with Amazon directly. They stated that the product was covered by warranty for something they sold and shipped, but the manufacturer denied it because Amazon wasn't an approved seller. Amazon refunded the purchase after I pointed out the problem. That's a little different than your example though because it wasn't a 3rd party seller.
Amazon has nothing to do with what you're describing. It's your responsibility to know the terms of the warranty. You could have contacted the manufacturer prior to purchasing the item. Instead, you went with the lowest cost. If Amazon were to police that, those lowest costs would go up and you wouldn't be buying from Amazon at that point anyway.
No, it's not. Our system doesn't support having parties with significantly overlapping mission statements. If you have three equally popular conservative leaning parties and one somewhat popular left leaning party then the left leaning wins even though there were more people voting for the conservative leaning ones. That doesn't work. We would have to change how we do voting in order to escape this, and that's a tall order for a divided nation.
In the general election, we had a choice between two candidates. Yes, there are third parties and such, but voting for them accomplishes nothing in our system. So if you're against him, you're for her. That is unless you're like half the rioters and decided not to vote at all.
You're referring to Hillary "I don't feel no ways tired" Clinton? "Bring them to heel"? "Super-predators"? Trump, on the other hand, received votes from groups that the left said would never vote for him. Even college educated women voted Trump, against a woman candidate. That has to hurt.
[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
Revolution is part of our system of checks and balances. It may be the last of them and the most dangerous to execute, but it is a part of our system. Denying that is to deny the history of how our nation began. Hillary was a prime example of perverting the ends of government and placing power arbitrarily in the hands of political elites. You may find 2A talk repugnant, but it has its place as a discussion point because ultimately, if enough of the people feel that this government does not serve the public and cannot be repaired, we must revolt. Anything less at that point is surrender.
Your link doesn't relate. It cites one incident with one individual and some various minor events like church fires. Meanwhile, you look to the west coast where mobs of people are marching down the street smashing every window on every shopfront they can find, destroying vehicles, attacking passers-by. They don't compare. They are not at all alike. A church fire is not a riot. One individual assaulted by another in an isolated setting is not a riot. Worse, if the right were truly as violent and revolutionary as many suggest, there would have been mass shootings during riots the likes of which the country hasn't seen since the civil war. That didn't happen, not even remotely close. Some people carried some protest signs suggesting it, but it was protest. Unlike now, with mass destruction of property and violent assaults perpetrated by the angry mobs of protesters.
MS said they're not going to, I posted the announcement here some months back. Devs are still whining about it in the initial request on one of their feedback sites.
The conspiracies are turning out to be true. He was ridiculed for saying Belgium had a security problem with areas of migrants not assimilating. He was ridiculed by many. Then a couple of months later the attack on the airport happened and it traced back to those areas. The physical confrontations at his rally in Chicago, we've seen the videos where a democrat operative admitted to organizing that. The Project Veritas videos show a number of illegal and unseemly things going on "4her". You can say they're not authentic, but the people caught on those videos have either stepped down or were fired. Then there's Podesta's emails, Weiner's.. they expose a lot of dirty laundry. Look at Trey Gowdy's grilling of people called before his committee. He breaks things down into nice simple questions. "When Hillary said this, was that true?" "No, that was not true." And yet folks like you still want to say that Trump is literally Hitler. It's insane. She could direct someone in her campaign to poison him, Wikileaks could out the email asking for it, and you'd still vote for her. Even immigration, she's also talked about building a wall, she's now talking about strict vetting. Both things the rabid left ridiculed Trump for. Guess he was right on those, huh?
The low grade grifter is from Arkansas, and the last poll I saw from there had Trump leading.
Your sarcasm only works if you believe they've changed their ways. Clinton still wants to "bring them to heel" in her own words, calls them super predators. It's relevant today, it's not just a historical reference.
It's the democrats sending operatives to Trump rallies to incite violence. It's the democrats fixing their party primary for the favored candidate. It's the democrat nominee who does everything possible to escape any sort of transparency. It's the democrat nominee that wants to get us into a war with Russia.
Ignorant views. Try telling that to the victims' families. People that wanted a more secure America after 9/11, were they victims of the media or flat-out racists? No, and you're an ass for suggesting as much. I'll let you in on a little known secret.. people want to live. They want their families to live. They want their friends, and coworkers, and neighbors to live. Both the US and Europe as well as nations around the world are seeing attacks waged on them by Islamic extremists, and all the while people like you blame those that don't wish to be victims.
Securing the borders and controlling immigration are primary responsibilities of our federal government. It's not being done well enough. That's why Trump was nominated, and why he stands a good chance to win. That's a big reason why the Brexit happened, along with a number of other issues. That's why France may Frexit soon. That's why nationalist parties throughout Europe are gaining support, and I'm not a fan of most of them.
The ignorant views are from the people allowed to stay in modern countries that fail to embrace the opportunities it offers them. Nobody in those countries secretly loves terrorism. You need help if you seriously think that. People hate terrorism and they're starting to hate their governments that don't do enough to prevent it.
EU nationals by birth, sure, but their lineage is anything but. These aren't long established French or Belgian families who have suddenly decided to become terrorists. They are "migrants" or close to it. The longer this plays out, the more "nationals" they'll have. If they don't win by fighting, they'll win by changing the population from within. The media won't show it, but there's a rise in the acceptance of various nationalist parties throughout Europe. The stage is set for something really nasty to happen. The people are angry, and not without reason.
We'll have to see how the markets play out. Those banks may change their mind depending on the outcome of the upcoming French election. Either way, the Brits knew what they were getting into.
I don't disagree. I'd love to live in a world without borders. The trouble is that it's a double-edged sword cutting off heads. I'm not sure how practical it would be to search some at the border and not others if you're trying to be an open border society.
At least one of the Bataclan terrorists was tied to an individual that entered via Greece disguised as a refugee. Greece admitted to it. The background checks failed because he claimed to be from a place with no functioning government to do the background check with. This will be part of the push for France to Frexit if Le Pen wins. Look at the "jungle" in Calais, that shouldn't be happening.
The rest of your comment sounds like sour grapes. There will be a period of disruption, but it's likely that Britain will emerge stronger for it. It's childish to think that everything would go smoothly on day one. It's also silly to think that the voters were misled on such a serious issue. They had ample time to get informed. It may not matter anyway, if France does Frexit, the EU is finished.
At this point, no one cares what Germany wants. Germany is seeing its own citizens arrested for speaking out while the "migrants" can say anything they want. Merkel will be lucky to retain ownership of her head.
Slashdot Mirror
What happens if you do nothing? What do you do when the families of his future victims find out that he was already known to be on a path to radicalization but they did nothing due to political correctness?
Sales decrease, people lose their jobs, driven to mental health issues..
Amazon isn't the equivalent of "consumer reports". They offer retailers a sales platform and they offer consumers a varied market. That's it. You can check the seller reviews or Google, or if it's an expensive item and you want to make sure the warranty claims are valid, you can contact the manufacturer. Amazon couldn't possibly check every item for sale at every retailer. That's like saying a shopping mall should ensure that every item in every store is marked correctly every day. You'd need an absurdly large workforce and the cost of doing so would negate any savings for the consumer. You could bring the seller to court for making false claims, but that's up to you.
Did the EPA prevent the situation in Flint with their water supply?
Did the EPA prevent the BP disaster in the Gulf?
I remember after the first blended gas was sold seeing nearly everyone's old lawnmowers out with the trash because it ruined their engines to the point where it wasn't worth trying to repair them. Same thing with diesel and some pickup truck engines, the blended diesel was shown to reduce the life of the engine, but no attention was paid to that. I have a hard time believing that junking all that hardware and replacing it is better for the environment than sticking with what we had. It seems likely that electric vehicles will eventually replace fuel powered engines, so why not encourage that transition rather than screwing the formulation of gas even more? Decisions like this undermine the value of the EPA in the minds of many.
Amazon didn't misrepresent anything. They offer an ecommerce platform to other companies. If the seller misrepresented something, your issue is with them. You could also blame your browser or your ISP, they were also involved with delivering the page to your device. It wouldn't be possible for Amazon to check every item from every seller to the extent necessary to accomplish what you're looking for. As for taking payment, again, that's just a service they provide.
I got caught in the warranty trap once but it was with Amazon directly. They stated that the product was covered by warranty for something they sold and shipped, but the manufacturer denied it because Amazon wasn't an approved seller. Amazon refunded the purchase after I pointed out the problem. That's a little different than your example though because it wasn't a 3rd party seller.
If that were true, Trump would not have won.
Writing a bad review on Amazon gets more exposure and may influence others to not purchase a crappy product.
Amazon has nothing to do with what you're describing. It's your responsibility to know the terms of the warranty. You could have contacted the manufacturer prior to purchasing the item. Instead, you went with the lowest cost. If Amazon were to police that, those lowest costs would go up and you wouldn't be buying from Amazon at that point anyway.
No, it's not. Our system doesn't support having parties with significantly overlapping mission statements. If you have three equally popular conservative leaning parties and one somewhat popular left leaning party then the left leaning wins even though there were more people voting for the conservative leaning ones. That doesn't work. We would have to change how we do voting in order to escape this, and that's a tall order for a divided nation.
In the general election, we had a choice between two candidates. Yes, there are third parties and such, but voting for them accomplishes nothing in our system. So if you're against him, you're for her. That is unless you're like half the rioters and decided not to vote at all.
You're referring to Hillary "I don't feel no ways tired" Clinton? "Bring them to heel"? "Super-predators"? Trump, on the other hand, received votes from groups that the left said would never vote for him. Even college educated women voted Trump, against a woman candidate. That has to hurt.
New Hampshire state Constitution:
[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
https://www.nh.gov/constitutio...
Revolution is part of our system of checks and balances. It may be the last of them and the most dangerous to execute, but it is a part of our system. Denying that is to deny the history of how our nation began. Hillary was a prime example of perverting the ends of government and placing power arbitrarily in the hands of political elites. You may find 2A talk repugnant, but it has its place as a discussion point because ultimately, if enough of the people feel that this government does not serve the public and cannot be repaired, we must revolt. Anything less at that point is surrender.
Your link doesn't relate. It cites one incident with one individual and some various minor events like church fires. Meanwhile, you look to the west coast where mobs of people are marching down the street smashing every window on every shopfront they can find, destroying vehicles, attacking passers-by. They don't compare. They are not at all alike. A church fire is not a riot. One individual assaulted by another in an isolated setting is not a riot. Worse, if the right were truly as violent and revolutionary as many suggest, there would have been mass shootings during riots the likes of which the country hasn't seen since the civil war. That didn't happen, not even remotely close. Some people carried some protest signs suggesting it, but it was protest. Unlike now, with mass destruction of property and violent assaults perpetrated by the angry mobs of protesters.
Talk versus the left rioting. You can't see the difference?
MS said they're not going to, I posted the announcement here some months back. Devs are still whining about it in the initial request on one of their feedback sites.
The conspiracies are turning out to be true. He was ridiculed for saying Belgium had a security problem with areas of migrants not assimilating. He was ridiculed by many. Then a couple of months later the attack on the airport happened and it traced back to those areas. The physical confrontations at his rally in Chicago, we've seen the videos where a democrat operative admitted to organizing that. The Project Veritas videos show a number of illegal and unseemly things going on "4her". You can say they're not authentic, but the people caught on those videos have either stepped down or were fired. Then there's Podesta's emails, Weiner's.. they expose a lot of dirty laundry. Look at Trey Gowdy's grilling of people called before his committee. He breaks things down into nice simple questions. "When Hillary said this, was that true?" "No, that was not true." And yet folks like you still want to say that Trump is literally Hitler. It's insane. She could direct someone in her campaign to poison him, Wikileaks could out the email asking for it, and you'd still vote for her. Even immigration, she's also talked about building a wall, she's now talking about strict vetting. Both things the rabid left ridiculed Trump for. Guess he was right on those, huh?
The low grade grifter is from Arkansas, and the last poll I saw from there had Trump leading.
Your sarcasm only works if you believe they've changed their ways. Clinton still wants to "bring them to heel" in her own words, calls them super predators. It's relevant today, it's not just a historical reference.
"What difference does it make now anyway?"
Yes, never look at what the democrats have done.
It's the democrats sending operatives to Trump rallies to incite violence. It's the democrats fixing their party primary for the favored candidate. It's the democrat nominee who does everything possible to escape any sort of transparency. It's the democrat nominee that wants to get us into a war with Russia.
Bankrupt the cable companies? Uhm, what do you think you're streaming over?
"How many terror attacks must be tolerated that were aided by the EU's freedom of movement between member countries?"
THAT WERE AIDED BY.
Learn how to read.
Ignorant views. Try telling that to the victims' families. People that wanted a more secure America after 9/11, were they victims of the media or flat-out racists? No, and you're an ass for suggesting as much. I'll let you in on a little known secret.. people want to live. They want their families to live. They want their friends, and coworkers, and neighbors to live. Both the US and Europe as well as nations around the world are seeing attacks waged on them by Islamic extremists, and all the while people like you blame those that don't wish to be victims.
Securing the borders and controlling immigration are primary responsibilities of our federal government. It's not being done well enough. That's why Trump was nominated, and why he stands a good chance to win. That's a big reason why the Brexit happened, along with a number of other issues. That's why France may Frexit soon. That's why nationalist parties throughout Europe are gaining support, and I'm not a fan of most of them.
The ignorant views are from the people allowed to stay in modern countries that fail to embrace the opportunities it offers them. Nobody in those countries secretly loves terrorism. You need help if you seriously think that. People hate terrorism and they're starting to hate their governments that don't do enough to prevent it.
EU nationals by birth, sure, but their lineage is anything but. These aren't long established French or Belgian families who have suddenly decided to become terrorists. They are "migrants" or close to it. The longer this plays out, the more "nationals" they'll have. If they don't win by fighting, they'll win by changing the population from within. The media won't show it, but there's a rise in the acceptance of various nationalist parties throughout Europe. The stage is set for something really nasty to happen. The people are angry, and not without reason.
We'll have to see how the markets play out. Those banks may change their mind depending on the outcome of the upcoming French election. Either way, the Brits knew what they were getting into.
I don't disagree. I'd love to live in a world without borders. The trouble is that it's a double-edged sword cutting off heads. I'm not sure how practical it would be to search some at the border and not others if you're trying to be an open border society.
At least one of the Bataclan terrorists was tied to an individual that entered via Greece disguised as a refugee. Greece admitted to it. The background checks failed because he claimed to be from a place with no functioning government to do the background check with. This will be part of the push for France to Frexit if Le Pen wins. Look at the "jungle" in Calais, that shouldn't be happening.
The rest of your comment sounds like sour grapes. There will be a period of disruption, but it's likely that Britain will emerge stronger for it. It's childish to think that everything would go smoothly on day one. It's also silly to think that the voters were misled on such a serious issue. They had ample time to get informed. It may not matter anyway, if France does Frexit, the EU is finished.
At this point, no one cares what Germany wants. Germany is seeing its own citizens arrested for speaking out while the "migrants" can say anything they want. Merkel will be lucky to retain ownership of her head.