354833 pts · September 24, 2013
That time they knew about faulty ignition switches that were getting people killed and decided not to do anything about it for over 10 years kinda soured me on the brand.
That's because of the aforementioned 500 billion dollars. It wasn't spent on NFTs; it was spent on updates to prevent that scenario.
because pigs don't enforce laws like that
Mhm. So how did this one go so wrong?
Noted, but we're still left wondering, why?
That across the two replies is much clearer, and I'm glad we're on the same page after all.
I have thought about it. There's no reason that a school day needs to start exactly at whatever the law says 8 AM is. If the people of your school district think that kids are safer if it starts at 7 or 9, they can just, you know, do that.
So, not _all_ crew members.
You mean the complexity whereby a majority of voters choose the more right-leaning candidates, forcing the more left-leaning candidates to consider moving their positions more to the _right_ to appeal to the voters? I'm well aware of that complexity, but I'm not sure how that's supposed to help your case.
Now my _guess_, and this is just a guess, is that you are simply trying to make a point about wealthy people generally getting away with things that poor people can't. If that's the case, I think you phrased it poorly, and we can safely disagree about that.
No; sort of (once Epstein was jailed, he could no longer directly sell access); and no, though on rare occasions they do arrest someone after, with the odds being higher if they're poorer and the victim is wealthier. Now that I've answered yours, you answer mine: Do you genuinely believe what you said about that crimes only happening as a result of undereducation and desperation? While you consider it, I remind you that "crime" includes rape, lynching, embezzlement, and bribery.
I'd consider someone with a firearm considerably more dangerous, personally, but yes, I'm not saying that the SWAT team was an inappropriate choice. Rather, I still don't think the state's default response to any lightly armed suspect should be "kill them and sort it out later". As for the last part, I suppose I should admit that the "borrow it" suggestion was slightly tongue-in-cheek because the obviously more sensible solution is for their cops to have those as an option in the first place.
??? Yet they have firearms? Does Germany have its priorities backward?
Then I'm even more confused about why you don't seem to understand the basics.
Fair point. Come to think of it, I wonder how people handle this. I had never heard of oxygen concentrators before.
Of course, one could simply adjust hours of operation, but it's more important to fuck with people than to do the sensible thing.
because they want to play with fancy tech and spill food everywhere when any one thing goes wrong
"only exists" is clearly an exaggeration. People don't rape because they're poor or uneducated. Donald Trump didn't pay to rape children because he couldn't afford his next meal. Donald Trump didn't pay to rape children because he doesn't understand mathematics.
Well, since you asked... Literally, yes. There's a rule against bigotry; there isn't a rule against being a jerk. The rules don't require you to be nice to everyone. The rules page even says, "It's important to keep in mind that not everything that's mean or insulting is hate speech." (Whether the automated moderation system respects any of the rules is questionable.)
(And yes, I'm well aware that firearms don't work that way; I would suggest using some other weapon for this part.)
I don't think that risk really applies if he's running toward a group of armed and armored cops, not innocent bystanders. Sure, there's a risk one of them might get hurt, but I think there's supposed to be some acceptable risk, there. Allowing them to use "I was afraid" as a blanket excuse for executing someone invites... American style policing. They could at least _try_ the taser and bean bags first.
Can you describe what tax benefits you're talking about? At least in the USA, the standard deduction for a couple filing jointly is simply twice that for a single person, so that's no benefit. Does it come from something else, or are you perhaps in a different country?
Oh, I'm sure you're right, but the "amicable" part can't be guaranteed. Even friendships don't always last. I bet there could also be liability risks if one of the parties were involved in a law suit with someone else. Come to think of it, where would this tax benefit even come from? The standard deduction for a pair is simply 2x the standard deduction for a single person.
Easier, at least. But why should you avoid asking about it? Or, to draw an inference, why should the musician be embarrassed by it?
Okay, yeah, there's some small chance that they will have forgotten to write it in the contract, so you should check it and bring that up before the judge if it is indeed absent.
Mhm. But if he just has a knife, I don't think he still qualifies as one of "the most dangerous". Maybe they could borrow a taser from a patrol officer, if they can't carry one around in their enormous vehicles just in case of such an event. I mean, we _do_ generally prefer that the pigs try to arrest suspects, not execute them, right?
So I'm really confused about why you'd even bring this up. This is like basic civics stuff. It should be taught in high school. Did Republicans sabotage the public education system where you live? That is one of their major goals, after all, and this outcome is precisely why. They don't want people who understand politics to vote; they only want their sycophants to vote. They are seeing great success.
There was no option for that on the ballot, and despite what some people might think, abstaining from voting also would not -- and did not -- produce it as an outcome. Someone's getting elected, whether people vote or not. Voting helps you choose which person gets elected. Abstaining leaves it up to those who vote. There is no situation in which a minority of non-voters get to direct national policy. It just doesn't work that way. »»
Yeah, it's pretty bad. I didn't suggest otherwise, in case you have forgotten how to read English. Hope that helps!
Which generation is that?
That time they knew about faulty ignition switches that were getting people killed and decided not to do anything about it for over 10 years kinda soured me on the brand.
That's because of the aforementioned 500 billion dollars. It wasn't spent on NFTs; it was spent on updates to prevent that scenario.
because pigs don't enforce laws like that
Mhm. So how did this one go so wrong?
Noted, but we're still left wondering, why?
That across the two replies is much clearer, and I'm glad we're on the same page after all.
I have thought about it. There's no reason that a school day needs to start exactly at whatever the law says 8 AM is. If the people of your school district think that kids are safer if it starts at 7 or 9, they can just, you know, do that.
So, not _all_ crew members.
You mean the complexity whereby a majority of voters choose the more right-leaning candidates, forcing the more left-leaning candidates to consider moving their positions more to the _right_ to appeal to the voters? I'm well aware of that complexity, but I'm not sure how that's supposed to help your case.
Now my _guess_, and this is just a guess, is that you are simply trying to make a point about wealthy people generally getting away with things that poor people can't. If that's the case, I think you phrased it poorly, and we can safely disagree about that.
No; sort of (once Epstein was jailed, he could no longer directly sell access); and no, though on rare occasions they do arrest someone after, with the odds being higher if they're poorer and the victim is wealthier. Now that I've answered yours, you answer mine: Do you genuinely believe what you said about that crimes only happening as a result of undereducation and desperation? While you consider it, I remind you that "crime" includes rape, lynching, embezzlement, and bribery.
I'd consider someone with a firearm considerably more dangerous, personally, but yes, I'm not saying that the SWAT team was an inappropriate choice. Rather, I still don't think the state's default response to any lightly armed suspect should be "kill them and sort it out later". As for the last part, I suppose I should admit that the "borrow it" suggestion was slightly tongue-in-cheek because the obviously more sensible solution is for their cops to have those as an option in the first place.
??? Yet they have firearms? Does Germany have its priorities backward?
Then I'm even more confused about why you don't seem to understand the basics.
Fair point. Come to think of it, I wonder how people handle this. I had never heard of oxygen concentrators before.
Of course, one could simply adjust hours of operation, but it's more important to fuck with people than to do the sensible thing.
because they want to play with fancy tech and spill food everywhere when any one thing goes wrong
"only exists" is clearly an exaggeration. People don't rape because they're poor or uneducated. Donald Trump didn't pay to rape children because he couldn't afford his next meal. Donald Trump didn't pay to rape children because he doesn't understand mathematics.
Well, since you asked... Literally, yes. There's a rule against bigotry; there isn't a rule against being a jerk. The rules don't require you to be nice to everyone. The rules page even says, "It's important to keep in mind that not everything that's mean or insulting is hate speech." (Whether the automated moderation system respects any of the rules is questionable.)
(And yes, I'm well aware that firearms don't work that way; I would suggest using some other weapon for this part.)
I don't think that risk really applies if he's running toward a group of armed and armored cops, not innocent bystanders. Sure, there's a risk one of them might get hurt, but I think there's supposed to be some acceptable risk, there. Allowing them to use "I was afraid" as a blanket excuse for executing someone invites... American style policing. They could at least _try_ the taser and bean bags first.
Can you describe what tax benefits you're talking about? At least in the USA, the standard deduction for a couple filing jointly is simply twice that for a single person, so that's no benefit. Does it come from something else, or are you perhaps in a different country?
Oh, I'm sure you're right, but the "amicable" part can't be guaranteed. Even friendships don't always last. I bet there could also be liability risks if one of the parties were involved in a law suit with someone else. Come to think of it, where would this tax benefit even come from? The standard deduction for a pair is simply 2x the standard deduction for a single person.
Easier, at least. But why should you avoid asking about it? Or, to draw an inference, why should the musician be embarrassed by it?
Okay, yeah, there's some small chance that they will have forgotten to write it in the contract, so you should check it and bring that up before the judge if it is indeed absent.
Mhm. But if he just has a knife, I don't think he still qualifies as one of "the most dangerous". Maybe they could borrow a taser from a patrol officer, if they can't carry one around in their enormous vehicles just in case of such an event. I mean, we _do_ generally prefer that the pigs try to arrest suspects, not execute them, right?
So I'm really confused about why you'd even bring this up. This is like basic civics stuff. It should be taught in high school. Did Republicans sabotage the public education system where you live? That is one of their major goals, after all, and this outcome is precisely why. They don't want people who understand politics to vote; they only want their sycophants to vote. They are seeing great success.
There was no option for that on the ballot, and despite what some people might think, abstaining from voting also would not -- and did not -- produce it as an outcome. Someone's getting elected, whether people vote or not. Voting helps you choose which person gets elected. Abstaining leaves it up to those who vote. There is no situation in which a minority of non-voters get to direct national policy. It just doesn't work that way. »»
Yeah, it's pretty bad. I didn't suggest otherwise, in case you have forgotten how to read English. Hope that helps!
Which generation is that?