There is more to it than that. Buying and selling car between commercial entities is highly regulated. For instance, you need a special license to open a new or used car lot, even if that lot is your driveway. Many states even have laws that consider you to be a commercial sales entity if you purchase and sell more then so many cars in a year (5 or 6 in my state).
But you also need special licenses if you want to purchase junk cars, salvaged vehicles and so on. The regulations by the state goes well beyond dealerships getting burned by the manufacturers. Its because the public was harmed- salesman lies about condition of car or the car is a lemon- warranties voided for not being serviced at a specific location or using a specific branded product- selling car with leans on the titles so the new owner ends up getting them repossessed by third parties. There are lots of reasons, even the little old lady who only drove it to church on Sunday stems reasons.
The law should not bind Tesla or any other new manufacturer to a business model GM and Ford designed many decades ago that puts the new entrant at a competitive disadvantage.
It most certainly should bind them. If you don't like the law, get it changed. But any law on the books needs to apply to everyone equally. Every other automobile company has to play by those same rules. think of how much cheaper toyotas would have been if they were mail order back in the day (and they were both cheaper than American cars and got better fuel economy). How about the Yugo, you saw specials of 2 for one for just $9,000.
If you do not like the laws, get them changed. But until then, anyone wanting to join the circus must erect a tent.
You mean they will not let a manufacturer open a car lot in their state? Or is it that they will not allow yhem to act as one without a physical presence the state can regulate?
This seems a lot like Uber and Lift were people want every business regulated then are shocked to find they are subject to regulation if they act like a business or that their favorite business is regulated too.
The states have been regulating comercial car sales new and used for a long time now. In fact, ghey do it for most major purchases. I do not see why anyone should be able to skirt that. Perhaps that is reason enough.
Because they sold the rights to sell those items with restrictions on competition (franchises called dealerships) in various areas of the states and laws have been created to both enforce those rights and restrictions and protect the consumers from the fraudulent acts of unaccountable people.
And actually, they likely can deliver right to your door, they will do it the same way 1800 flowers does business and use a local dealer as the intermediary who actually procures the vehicle and delivers it. I'm not sure how they can get around dealer markup so it will likely cost. I know there are some dealerships that will deliver purchased cars to your front door. Some will even pick up and return vehicles for maintenance and repairs ( I saw both when I was in New Jersey- Ford, Mercedes, and I think it was Audi. there may be more)
From what I can tell, there is no evidence of a conspiracy yet. Just communications with someone who gave an order to start randomly killing people that had not been prepared for or carried out.
So I'm not even sure it's a bono fide conspiracy. Hopefully they find some evidence and clear this up.
By the racist's admission that they don't even have enough reason to charge these men with a crime,
How does that make racism?
they are admitting that they are knowingly holding innocent men.
Not really. Not finding enough evidence does not always equate to innocent. However, incarcerating them without evidence is immoral and I do agree there. I guess a serious question needs to be answered about their threat to society and the people in it.
As a European (living in NA) I get exactly what he says. Over "here" we look at that religious crap the US is doing in some states with regards to the government/education as total BS. I mean, imagine an openly atheist president of the US!? Unthinkable for most Americans. As a European atheist I'd love that.
Why would you expect there to be an openly atheist president in the US? The total number of atheist in the US compromises only about 6% of the population. A president would have to represent at least 50% of the population and the 6% number is less than the number of people who voted for Ross Pero in the 90s when he was one of the most popular independent candidates.
Hell, even in Europe, only 20% or so of the population identify as atheist. Quite a few Europeans would have issues with openly atheist heads of state in European countries as there seems to have been only one.
In my country I've heard some immigrants speak with their children on the playground. they brought home bad marks because they wouldn't answer science questions with the currently best known explanation for some phenomenon as learned in clsss but answered that god made it so. The parent told their children that the teacher was dumb and didn't know anything and should not be trusted. And they certainly weren't ISIS level. They were actually pretty nice people (until I heard that...)
That's utter rubbish. The schools do not use currently best known explanation for some phenomenon in classroom instruction. Most of it is 5-10 years old and vetted before it even hits the school books (k12) and then they stay in circulation a number of years before being replaced. That being said, your immigrants are idiots and I would say so are you.."They were actually pretty nice people (until I heard that...)" Are you really that shallow that nice people become evil people because they do not believe the way you want them to? I'm glad I'm not in Europe if that is the general trend.
Now this was a Koran example but in the US I can totally see how some parent might tell their child to listen on Sunday and forget about what was said in Monday's biology and history classes on evolution. I can't see how they'd forbid math though.
Almost every parent- even the devoutly religious in America wants their kids to do well in school if only because of how much emphasis society places on the earning potential of educated kids. I seriously doubt anyone would be saying ignore biology classes unless the teacher was saying that their religion was fake or something. But that's a different scenario than teaching biology. Most of the people pushing for ID in the classroom seem to be without children of learning age or without children altogether. There are those with kids but the main reason they want ID (intelligent design) discussed in the classroom is only so the biology teacher doesn't end up saying there is no god or your god is fake. Just as a school in the US cannot say you must believe in this god, they also cannot say you cannot believe in that god or ridicule someone who might.
But in the ends, what difference does it make. If Junior gets bad grades in biology, all that means is that Junior will not become a biologists. You do not need to be a biologist to practice law, to roof a house or hang drywall or work in the factor like paw did. The vast majority of people in the US will never need the information outside of a casual understanding of the birds and the bees once they leave school.
The degrees of US/ISIS ideologies 'wrongness' doesn't really matter, it's the fact that they are both rationalizing the acceptance of wrong.
And that's just your opinion but it is based on nonsense so lets explore this nonsense some more. What makes abstinence sex education wrong? Is it the fact that children will have limited exposure to sex and be encouraged not to participate until some magical date in the future? It is wrong because they cannot ever get any other education about sexual protection from anywhere else like the internet, friends, family, or their doctors?
So, now that we got the easy one out of the way, why is it wrong to include additional information in a specific context concerning science? I mean ID co-discussions do not come right out and say science is wrong, they actually say some other people think this may be true. Is it wrong because it encroached on scientific dogma or challenges science in ways it cannot answer other than doing more science and showing where it fails? Is it wrong because even though evolution is a logical process, there really are gaps that are interpretative and expanded from what we know to be true to explain what we have no empirical evidence for? It just seems to me that any honest exploration of intelligent design would lead to more science proving it's limitations.
But mostly you and the AC are wrong because neither of the listed ideas or concepts are outright bans on anything. You do understand that banning someone from ever learning something is a lot different than saying our tax dollars will include extra or only support a specific concept when spent on the public- right?
Science can't hold a candle to someone who can't, or won't, appreciate critical thinking. Faith and religion beheads it.
Unfortunately, it seems that you have beheaded critical thinking. Critical thinking is not rejecting something for the sake of rejecting it, It is not blindly following something either (which I'm suggesting you are doing from this short analysis of your post).
Critical thinking is
the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.
Now, do you see the words belief, reasoning, applying, conceptualizing in there? This means that two identical people can apply critical thinking skills to the very same set of circumstances and come up with two completely separate beliefs about it and both be correct even if they are polar opposites. What's that you say, how can A!=B and A=B at the same time? That's critical thinking for you. Because you can logically look at the wonders of nature and both understand the science behind it and thank god for creating it.
Seriously, we are not the white people. Even if you do have to insist that the Mative American Indians were all peace loving (which they weren't) or they all were wiped out by the white guy (Which they weren't, an awful lot of them integrated with society and became not savage. This is what happened with most the eastern tribes), you cannot seriously be letting a little kid think this shit happened yesterday and she was part of it so she should feel guilty about it. That's beyond cruel and borders child endangerment. When your kid grows up with mental problems, I hope you look back and think about the guilt you unnecessarily put into her only because you wanted to push an fallacious political opinion. It will be your fault for not correcting your wife and setting the record straight. The shit that happened between the Indians and the white people happened generations before any of us were around or even thought of.
I think you both are mistaken, it doesn't matter who you think the one true god is, the statement still holds true and can adequately describe problems within any of those secs.
I would hardly compare the two. In fact, they are not even close if you tried and did so honestly.
I get it, you hate religion and hate religion touching your science. Get over it. If the science is as much as you think it is, it will win if you put the two in a closet and told them to battle it out. So what are you actually afraid of?
Oh, and neither abstinence only and ID discussions in science classes are even close to banning subjects and mental processes altogether. The sky is not falling, stop pretending.
I certainly did not single out any party. I stated fact and that was all. One president used off budget and another put it on budget. No mention of party was made at all despite plenty of oppertunity to do so.
I suspect you know the parties of the names mentioned and are somehow offended by one of them. But that is all you- not me.
I'm saying there is nothing wrong with WSJs track record soley because they are connected to fox news whos track record is largely only tarnished because you disagree with their politics and little more when compared to other sources.
If the story is untrue, point it out. If you ignord it all because of some association with another news source, you are a moron.
And i'm more concerned with on budget verses off budget where one makes it permanent and the other makes them pretend at least to put some thought into it regardless of what party they are.
The problem here is the most of the money is either made or spent off shore from the incorporated nation. These corporations have created subsidiary corporations within other jurisdictions and sell to them at costs of a loss and the subsidiary ends up making the money in the jurisdiction that has low taxes.
And Alternative minimum tax would not be able to get around that because each incorporation is recognized legally as a separate corporation/company even when they are entirely owned by one of them.
Where the confusion happens is in the SEC (and equivalent) filings in which the owned subsidiaries get counted as an asset so it's activities are reported along with the parent corporation's activities. However, it doesn't reflect the obligations in differing nations or jurisdictions. Imagine it like this, you own an apartment building in the US and another in France. You form a corporation in France and place the apartment building there so make accounting and legal compliance easier. You pay property taxes on the properties only in the countries in which they actually are. Well, as long as you do not bring your rental income back to the US, you pay taxes on it only in France and it wouldn't even be counted on your US tax forms. But if I sued you because you got drunk and ran over my cat and you lost everything, those apartments in France would count as one of your assets.
Keep in mind, it's a bit more complicated then that, but that should give the gist of it.
You are a moron. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut. But more importantly, you should never infer guilt by association and discount anything because of preconceived notions that are not even relevant.
Slashdot Mirror
hmm.. Condi does work at drop box. I guess I should open an account.
BTW, Condoleeza Rice is not now and never has been a war criminal. At least to anyone who is not insanely stupid. Stop being a racist.
And put controls back in the video player. WTF is this facebook?
There is more to it than that. Buying and selling car between commercial entities is highly regulated. For instance, you need a special license to open a new or used car lot, even if that lot is your driveway. Many states even have laws that consider you to be a commercial sales entity if you purchase and sell more then so many cars in a year (5 or 6 in my state).
But you also need special licenses if you want to purchase junk cars, salvaged vehicles and so on. The regulations by the state goes well beyond dealerships getting burned by the manufacturers. Its because the public was harmed- salesman lies about condition of car or the car is a lemon- warranties voided for not being serviced at a specific location or using a specific branded product- selling car with leans on the titles so the new owner ends up getting them repossessed by third parties. There are lots of reasons, even the little old lady who only drove it to church on Sunday stems reasons.
It most certainly should bind them. If you don't like the law, get it changed. But any law on the books needs to apply to everyone equally. Every other automobile company has to play by those same rules. think of how much cheaper toyotas would have been if they were mail order back in the day (and they were both cheaper than American cars and got better fuel economy). How about the Yugo, you saw specials of 2 for one for just $9,000.
If you do not like the laws, get them changed. But until then, anyone wanting to join the circus must erect a tent.
So instead of attacking the message, or even the popular attack the messenger, you are attacking the envelope the message was in.
Now that I think about it, brilliant!. But I'm not sure it is as effective as you might think.
You mean they will not let a manufacturer open a car lot in their state? Or is it that they will not allow yhem to act as one without a physical presence the state can regulate?
This seems a lot like Uber and Lift were people want every business regulated then are shocked to find they are subject to regulation if they act like a business or that their favorite business is regulated too.
The states have been regulating comercial car sales new and used for a long time now. In fact, ghey do it for most major purchases. I do not see why anyone should be able to skirt that. Perhaps that is reason enough.
I suggest you read the GPs comment who didn't mention Tesla then take your balogna and put it between a couple slices of bread then eat it.
I never said bar is bound to a dealership. Ford and the rest are because of it though. This is after all, what the GP was griping about.
Because they sold the rights to sell those items with restrictions on competition (franchises called dealerships) in various areas of the states and laws have been created to both enforce those rights and restrictions and protect the consumers from the fraudulent acts of unaccountable people.
And actually, they likely can deliver right to your door, they will do it the same way 1800 flowers does business and use a local dealer as the intermediary who actually procures the vehicle and delivers it. I'm not sure how they can get around dealer markup so it will likely cost. I know there are some dealerships that will deliver purchased cars to your front door. Some will even pick up and return vehicles for maintenance and repairs ( I saw both when I was in New Jersey- Ford, Mercedes, and I think it was Audi. there may be more)
From what I can tell, there is no evidence of a conspiracy yet. Just communications with someone who gave an order to start randomly killing people that had not been prepared for or carried out.
So I'm not even sure it's a bono fide conspiracy. Hopefully they find some evidence and clear this up.
How does that make racism?
Not really. Not finding enough evidence does not always equate to innocent. However, incarcerating them without evidence is immoral and I do agree there. I guess a serious question needs to be answered about their threat to society and the people in it.
Why would you expect there to be an openly atheist president in the US? The total number of atheist in the US compromises only about 6% of the population. A president would have to represent at least 50% of the population and the 6% number is less than the number of people who voted for Ross Pero in the 90s when he was one of the most popular independent candidates.
Hell, even in Europe, only 20% or so of the population identify as atheist. Quite a few Europeans would have issues with openly atheist heads of state in European countries as there seems to have been only one.
That's utter rubbish. The schools do not use currently best known explanation for some phenomenon in classroom instruction. Most of it is 5-10 years old and vetted before it even hits the school books ."They were actually pretty nice people (until I heard that...)" Are you really that shallow that nice people become evil people because they do not believe the way you want them to? I'm glad I'm not in Europe if that is the general trend.
(k12) and then they stay in circulation a number of years before being replaced. That being said, your immigrants are idiots and I would say so are you.
Almost every parent- even the devoutly religious in America wants their kids to do well in school if only because of how much emphasis society places on the earning potential of educated kids. I seriously doubt anyone would be saying ignore biology classes unless the teacher was saying that their religion was fake or something. But that's a different scenario than teaching biology. Most of the people pushing for ID in the classroom seem to be without children of learning age or without children altogether. There are those with kids but the main reason they want ID
(intelligent design) discussed in the classroom is only so the biology teacher doesn't end up saying there is no god or your god is fake. Just as a school in the US cannot say you must believe in this god, they also cannot say you cannot believe in that god or ridicule someone who might.
But in the ends, what difference does it make. If Junior gets bad grades in biology, all that means is that Junior will not become a biologists. You do not need to be a biologist to practice law, to roof a house or hang drywall or work in the factor like paw did. The vast majority of people in the US will never need the information outside of a casual understanding of the birds and the bees once they leave school.
NO, AC and you both are wrong.
And that's just your opinion but it is based on nonsense so lets explore this nonsense some more. What makes abstinence sex education wrong? Is it the fact that children will have limited exposure to sex and be encouraged not to participate until some magical date in the future? It is wrong because they cannot ever get any other education about sexual protection from anywhere else like the internet, friends, family, or their doctors?
So, now that we got the easy one out of the way, why is it wrong to include additional information in a specific context concerning science? I mean ID co-discussions do not come right out and say science is wrong, they actually say some other people think this may be true. Is it wrong because it encroached on scientific dogma or challenges science in ways it cannot answer other than doing more science and showing where it fails? Is it wrong because even though evolution is a logical process, there really are gaps that are interpretative and expanded from what we know to be true to explain what we have no empirical evidence for? It just seems to me that any honest exploration of intelligent design would lead to more science proving it's limitations.
But mostly you and the AC are wrong because neither of the listed ideas or concepts are outright bans on anything. You do understand that banning someone from ever learning something is a lot different than saying our tax dollars will include extra or only support a specific concept when spent on the public- right?
Unfortunately, it seems that you have beheaded critical thinking. Critical thinking is not rejecting something for the sake of rejecting it, It is not blindly following something either (which I'm suggesting you are doing from this short analysis of your post).
Critical thinking is
Now, do you see the words belief, reasoning, applying, conceptualizing in there? This means that two identical people can apply critical thinking skills to the very same set of circumstances and come up with two completely separate beliefs about it and both be correct even if they are polar opposites. What's that you say, how can A!=B and A=B at the same time? That's critical thinking for you. Because you can logically look at the wonders of nature and both understand the science behind it and thank god for creating it.
I can see we will need to fund another MRRD kid.
Seriously, we are not the white people. Even if you do have to insist that the Mative American Indians were all peace loving (which they weren't) or they all were wiped out by the white guy (Which they weren't, an awful lot of them integrated with society and became not savage. This is what happened with most the eastern tribes), you cannot seriously be letting a little kid think this shit happened yesterday and she was part of it so she should feel guilty about it. That's beyond cruel and borders child endangerment. When your kid grows up with mental problems, I hope you look back and think about the guilt you unnecessarily put into her only because you wanted to push an fallacious political opinion. It will be your fault for not correcting your wife and setting the record straight. The shit that happened between the Indians and the white people happened generations before any of us were around or even thought of.
No, it's a religion, it just isn't the religion they think it is or want you to think it is.
I think you both are mistaken, it doesn't matter who you think the one true god is, the statement still holds true and can adequately describe problems within any of those secs.
I would hardly compare the two. In fact, they are not even close if you tried and did so honestly.
I get it, you hate religion and hate religion touching your science. Get over it. If the science is as much as you think it is, it will win if you put the two in a closet and told them to battle it out. So what are you actually afraid of?
Oh, and neither abstinence only and ID discussions in science classes are even close to banning subjects and mental processes altogether. The sky is not falling, stop pretending.
It's perfectly fine. I stand corrected. The sad thing is I skimmed the post 3 times and missed it.
Oh well, its still a point of reference and little more. Certainly not partisan like the anon was attempting to make out.
I certainly did not single out any party. I stated fact and that was all. One president used off budget and another put it on budget. No mention of party was made at all despite plenty of oppertunity to do so.
I suspect you know the parties of the names mentioned and are somehow offended by one of them. But that is all you- not me.
I'm saying there is nothing wrong with WSJs track record soley because they are connected to fox news whos track record is largely only tarnished because you disagree with their politics and little more when compared to other sources.
If the story is untrue, point it out. If you ignord it all because of some association with another news source, you are a moron.
Increases in old spending is new spending.
And i'm more concerned with on budget verses off budget where one makes it permanent and the other makes them pretend at least to put some thought into it regardless of what party they are.
Create a worm hole and communicate through it.
Sheesh.. haven't you ever saw Stargate?
Seriously, I doubt we can even travel light years at present.
The problem here is the most of the money is either made or spent off shore from the incorporated nation. These corporations have created subsidiary corporations within other jurisdictions and sell to them at costs of a loss and the subsidiary ends up making the money in the jurisdiction that has low taxes.
And Alternative minimum tax would not be able to get around that because each incorporation is recognized legally as a separate corporation/company even when they are entirely owned by one of them.
Where the confusion happens is in the SEC (and equivalent) filings in which the owned subsidiaries get counted as an asset so it's activities are reported along with the parent corporation's activities. However, it doesn't reflect the obligations in differing nations or jurisdictions. Imagine it like this, you own an apartment building in the US and another in France. You form a corporation in France and place the apartment building there so make accounting and legal compliance easier. You pay property taxes on the properties only in the countries in which they actually are. Well, as long as you do not bring your rental income back to the US, you pay taxes on it only in France and it wouldn't even be counted on your US tax forms. But if I sued you because you got drunk and ran over my cat and you lost everything, those apartments in France would count as one of your assets.
Keep in mind, it's a bit more complicated then that, but that should give the gist of it.
You are a moron. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut. But more importantly, you should never infer guilt by association and discount anything because of preconceived notions that are not even relevant.
Grow up.