you are allowed to have your preference but saying having fun is "a lack of return on investment" is insane when all this guy does is play Destiny and The Division grinding for marginally better gear.
"THIS GAME IS SIMPLY FUN TO PLAY WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS?"
People...
Apparently he demands his Skinner box mechanics.
RAGE. "This game doesn't use psychology to manipulate me into playing for longer than healthy." "It's only fun and has reasonable stopping points." RAGE
Reminds me of how JC Pennys abandoned deceptive sales practice like having something cost $10 instead of $9.99 and performed terribly as a result.
No, it wasn't that, it was just price it $9.99 instead of $14.99 with perpetual 33% off sales.
It was kind-of both: they took the .99 scheme off, got rid of the 'sales' stickers and then did a few other consumer & staff friendly things as well (change store return policy, changed coupon policies, etc).
Then they almost died because consumer culture really is so awful that it can't handle consumer friendly practices anymore.
haha, that is adorably naive of them
didn't anybody at JC Pennys think "wait, could it be that everyone is actually on to something with doing this kind of thing?"
or did they think that but just went "Nah, it's just that everyone's assholes for no reason"
The stores were doing poorly so they put the guy who developed the Apple stores in charge. It turns out different people shop at JC Penny!
+3
Options
y2jake215certified Flat Birther theoristthe Last Good Boy onlineRegistered Userregular
lol get gut etc
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
The third amendment is also fucking useless in a modern context
It was ALMOST useful when the police kicked some people out of their house to use it as a base of operations and ate their food and broke their stuff, and they sued on third amendment grounds
but oh no the guys wearing tactical gear holding M4s driving an APC aren't "soldiers" so, again, I'm not a judge so I couldn't possibly understand (even though it seems crystal clear to me to violate the spirit of the amendment)
well, to be fair, their equipment looking alike doesn't mean anything at all. Civilians are civilians. It's clear cut.
i would say it's clearly against the original intent to have the gov't engage in quartering / taking like that, but if you stuck to that interpretation you would probably have to oppose a bunch of other gov't takings that are more palatable so
How do you figure?
In what way does "the cops can't move into your house because they like the position to spy on suspects" translate into "you have to oppose a bunch of other gov't takings"
Our fourth amendment bans unreasonable search and seizure, are you opposed to that as well, that it puts an unreasonable burden on the government to have to have a court say it's okay to take your stuff?
No, I'm saying that an interpretation covering civilian government officials as well as the military, would then have to cover everything. There's little to no line between police and other government officials, nothing compared to the civilian/military line.
EDIT: And I think you are completely misunderstanding my position here? I haven't said word one about being opposed to the amendment. We're talking about an interpretation of it. The fourth amendment covers any and all kinds of seizures.
The third amendment is also fucking useless in a modern context
It was ALMOST useful when the police kicked some people out of their house to use it as a base of operations and ate their food and broke their stuff, and they sued on third amendment grounds
but oh no the guys wearing tactical gear holding M4s driving an APC aren't "soldiers" so, again, I'm not a judge so I couldn't possibly understand (even though it seems crystal clear to me to violate the spirit of the amendment)
well, to be fair, their equipment looking alike doesn't mean anything at all. Civilians are civilians. It's clear cut.
i would say it's clearly against the original intent to have the gov't engage in quartering / taking like that, but if you stuck to that interpretation you would probably have to oppose a bunch of other gov't takings that are more palatable so
How do you figure?
In what way does "the cops can't move into your house because they like the position to spy on suspects" translate into "you have to oppose a bunch of other gov't takings"
Our fourth amendment bans unreasonable search and seizure, are you opposed to that as well, that it puts an unreasonable burden on the government to have to have a court say it's okay to take your stuff?
No, I'm saying that an interpretation covering civilian government officials as well as the military, would then have to cover everything. There's little to no line between police and other government officials, nothing compared to the civilian/military line.
What do you mean by "everything"? That it would also prevent the government from forcibly evicting you from your house and letting its employees stay there even if they were postal workers?
I'm okay with that as well, the intent of the amendment seems pretty clear to me
It does not apply if the government is actually seizing the property with a warrant or via eminent domain
override367 on
+1
Options
Orphanerivers of redthat run to seaRegistered Userregular
edited May 2016
My favorite thing about overwatch is still being reinhardt in a map where there's one choke entrance to the objective and just always charge-camping the doorway, autokilling any squishy who hasn't cottoned on to what you're doing yet
you are allowed to have your preference but saying having fun is "a lack of return on investment" is insane when all this guy does is play Destiny and The Division grinding for marginally better gear.
"THIS GAME IS SIMPLY FUN TO PLAY WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS?"
People...
Apparently he demands his Skinner box mechanics.
RAGE. "This game doesn't use psychology to manipulate me into playing for longer than healthy." "It's only fun and has reasonable stopping points." RAGE
Reminds me of how JC Pennys abandoned deceptive sales practice like having something cost $10 instead of $9.99 and performed terribly as a result.
No, it wasn't that, it was just price it $9.99 instead of $14.99 with perpetual 33% off sales.
It was kind-of both: they took the .99 scheme off, got rid of the 'sales' stickers and then did a few other consumer & staff friendly things as well (change store return policy, changed coupon policies, etc).
Then they almost died because consumer culture really is so awful that it can't handle consumer friendly practices anymore.
A company that was not nearly cynical enough. That is weird as heck.
...It should also be said that the JC Penny problems, while certainly coinciding with the consumer friendly change in attitude, also came at a time when the whole retail world was experiencing Amazon shock - and the store was already dealing with financial problems on top of that (thus the change in management).
Intuition does pretty strongly suggest that the consumer-friendly practices did a lot of the damage, because lol consumer culture, but it's also possible that this was largely coincidental & most of the harm was done by people choosing to switch from B&M to online shopping.
Overwatch is fun but if you aren't into FPS game then you will be frustrated. Game has a decently high level of play right out of the gate.
Yeah. It was pretty ridiculous how good people were on day 1. So many beta players.
Also, my best characters aren't the ones I expected to be, and it took me a bit to figure that out. Pharah is so amazing. Every minute of Quake and UT channeled into my rocket launcher.
0
Options
Donkey KongPutting Nintendo out of business with AI nipsRegistered Userregular
you are allowed to have your preference but saying having fun is "a lack of return on investment" is insane when all this guy does is play Destiny and The Division grinding for marginally better gear.
"THIS GAME IS SIMPLY FUN TO PLAY WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS?"
People...
Apparently he demands his Skinner box mechanics.
RAGE. "This game doesn't use psychology to manipulate me into playing for longer than healthy." "It's only fun and has reasonable stopping points." RAGE
Reminds me of how JC Pennys abandoned deceptive sales practice like having something cost $10 instead of $9.99 and performed terribly as a result.
No, it wasn't that, it was just price it $9.99 instead of $14.99 with perpetual 33% off sales.
It was kind-of both: they took the .99 scheme off, got rid of the 'sales' stickers and then did a few other consumer & staff friendly things as well (change store return policy, changed coupon policies, etc).
Then they almost died because consumer culture really is so awful that it can't handle consumer friendly practices anymore.
haha, that is adorably naive of them
didn't anybody at JC Pennys think "wait, could it be that everyone is actually on to something with doing this kind of thing?"
or did they think that but just went "Nah, it's just that everyone's assholes for no reason"
It makes me pretty sad. In theory I'd love a store with round number pricing and no stupid discount math obscuring the actual prices. It makes sense from a marketing point of view. People like it when restaurants do it, it makes the place seem more honest. Just didn't seem to work.
Also "because everyone else is doing it" is not a great reason. Times change, customers change. Being the first to lead a shift often has big rewards.
Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
+3
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
It makes me pretty sad. In theory I'd love a store with round number pricing and no stupid discount math obscuring the actual prices. It makes sense from a marketing point of view. People like it when restaurants do it, it makes the place seem more honest. Just didn't seem to work.
Also "because everyone else is doing it" is not a great reason. Times change, customers change. Being the first to lead a shift often has big rewards.
I am pretty sure the stupid part of my brain gets excited at X% off even when I know it is just some MSRP that nobody uses and the price is is pretty much the same as everywhere else.
Free shipping on orders over X dollars just breaks my brain and will get me to buy stupid shit.
The third amendment is also fucking useless in a modern context
It was ALMOST useful when the police kicked some people out of their house to use it as a base of operations and ate their food and broke their stuff, and they sued on third amendment grounds
but oh no the guys wearing tactical gear holding M4s driving an APC aren't "soldiers" so, again, I'm not a judge so I couldn't possibly understand (even though it seems crystal clear to me to violate the spirit of the amendment)
well, to be fair, their equipment looking alike doesn't mean anything at all. Civilians are civilians. It's clear cut.
It really isn't, police are a legally distinct entity from civilians with the right to do violence on the state's behalf
That didn't exist when the third amendment was written and one of the reasons the King's soldiers quartered homes was enforcing the King's laws
When America's first president wanted to go after tax evaders he sent in the US Army because we had no police force
They are civilians with police powers. As much as american police likes to talk about the general public as "civilians", everything not under military authority and military law is civilian, which includes the police.
To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.
Exactly. One of the most important ideas behind the concept of police is that it makes it possible to prohibit the use of the military against the public, very common in either strict explicit law a la germany or in strong unwritten principle a la norway
The third amendment is also fucking useless in a modern context
It was ALMOST useful when the police kicked some people out of their house to use it as a base of operations and ate their food and broke their stuff, and they sued on third amendment grounds
but oh no the guys wearing tactical gear holding M4s driving an APC aren't "soldiers" so, again, I'm not a judge so I couldn't possibly understand (even though it seems crystal clear to me to violate the spirit of the amendment)
well, to be fair, their equipment looking alike doesn't mean anything at all. Civilians are civilians. It's clear cut.
i would say it's clearly against the original intent to have the gov't engage in quartering / taking like that, but if you stuck to that interpretation you would probably have to oppose a bunch of other gov't takings that are more palatable so
How do you figure?
In what way does "the cops can't move into your house because they like the position to spy on suspects" translate into "you have to oppose a bunch of other gov't takings"
Our fourth amendment bans unreasonable search and seizure, are you opposed to that as well, that it puts an unreasonable burden on the government to have to have a court say it's okay to take your stuff?
No, I'm saying that an interpretation covering civilian government officials as well as the military, would then have to cover everything. There's little to no line between police and other government officials, nothing compared to the civilian/military line.
What do you mean by "everything"? That it would also prevent the government from forcibly evicting you from your house and letting its employees stay there even if they were postal workers?
I'm okay with that as well, the intent of the amendment seems pretty clear to me
It does not apply if the government is actually seizing the property with a warrant or via eminent domain
Yeah. Especially in light of the 9th/10th, the 3rd amendment should apply to any and all compulsory government quartering. Military, police, postal workers, Department of Agriculture water specialists.
I am pretty sure the stupid part of my brain gets excited at X% off even when I know it is just some MSRP that nobody uses and the price is is pretty much the same as everywhere else.
Free shipping on orders over X dollars just breaks my brain and will get me to buy stupid shit.
I'm just the opposite on shipping. I see it as an affront and will just leave the website and decide I don't need the thing at all until it becomes available on Amazon prime.
Places that charge for shipping usually take a week to ship anything too, which is even worse.
Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
I am pretty sure the stupid part of my brain gets excited at X% off even when I know it is just some MSRP that nobody uses and the price is is pretty much the same as everywhere else.
Free shipping on orders over X dollars just breaks my brain and will get me to buy stupid shit.
People (including myself) are just kind of derp about shopping.
What's one of the first things I do when I go into a store? Go look at what's on 'sale'. Even though I know it's a trick and have worked in retail my whole life - I still do it because 'OOOH SALE!'
With Love and Courage
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
It doesn't bother me too much because the judge in that same case ruled that the cops living in their house when they didn't do anything wrong violated the fourth amendment, so at least the precedent is still a good one
Tax added to the price on the thing you're buying when you're at the register seems terrible. Is the reason the differing sales tax rates of individual states?
Aldi have changed their bacon packaging to contain 14 strips of bacon instead of 12
On the one hand, more bacon
On the other, much more important hand, it's fucked up my bacon sandwich system of 3 rashers if I'm cooking for 4 and 4 if I'm cooking for 3
Should have made the rashers bigger or the pack cheaper
On the other, even better hand, you now have 2 extra strips of bacon to chow down quickly as a snack whilst making the sandwiches.
Total win.
I can't fit 14 strips onto my grill
The last two strips are relegated to being added to evening meals
[Muffled sounds of gorilla violence]
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Finding out that WalMart has its own special versions of consumer electronics with letters added to the end has changed the way I shop for consumer electronics.
Whereas I would purchase certain things from WalMart before, I now never purchase anything from them.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
The third amendment is also fucking useless in a modern context
It was ALMOST useful when the police kicked some people out of their house to use it as a base of operations and ate their food and broke their stuff, and they sued on third amendment grounds
but oh no the guys wearing tactical gear holding M4s driving an APC aren't "soldiers" so, again, I'm not a judge so I couldn't possibly understand (even though it seems crystal clear to me to violate the spirit of the amendment)
well, to be fair, their equipment looking alike doesn't mean anything at all. Civilians are civilians. It's clear cut.
i would say it's clearly against the original intent to have the gov't engage in quartering / taking like that, but if you stuck to that interpretation you would probably have to oppose a bunch of other gov't takings that are more palatable so
How do you figure?
In what way does "the cops can't move into your house because they like the position to spy on suspects" translate into "you have to oppose a bunch of other gov't takings"
Our fourth amendment bans unreasonable search and seizure, are you opposed to that as well, that it puts an unreasonable burden on the government to have to have a court say it's okay to take your stuff?
No, I'm saying that an interpretation covering civilian government officials as well as the military, would then have to cover everything. There's little to no line between police and other government officials, nothing compared to the civilian/military line.
What do you mean by "everything"? That it would also prevent the government from forcibly evicting you from your house and letting its employees stay there even if they were postal workers?
I'm okay with that as well, the intent of the amendment seems pretty clear to me
It does not apply if the government is actually seizing the property with a warrant or via eminent domain
Yes, but I've got a gut feeling that there might be cases that would apply that neither of us have thought of where it would be a problem. Maybe some FEMA stuff.
Anyway, I am just not a fan of assigning interpretations of the intent behind a legal text so much value that it can be used to broaden the law beyond what is written. As a general principle.
Tax added to the price on the thing you're buying when you're at the register seems terrible. Is the reason the differing sales tax rates of individual states?
Basically. Chains that charge the same price everywhere (think Apple Store) don't want a bunch of ugly, non market tested prices posted everywhere. Sure they could eat the tax themselves in regions where it's higher but why do that when you can just be sleazy until it becomes acceptable?
Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
The third amendment is also fucking useless in a modern context
It was ALMOST useful when the police kicked some people out of their house to use it as a base of operations and ate their food and broke their stuff, and they sued on third amendment grounds
but oh no the guys wearing tactical gear holding M4s driving an APC aren't "soldiers" so, again, I'm not a judge so I couldn't possibly understand (even though it seems crystal clear to me to violate the spirit of the amendment)
well, to be fair, their equipment looking alike doesn't mean anything at all. Civilians are civilians. It's clear cut.
i would say it's clearly against the original intent to have the gov't engage in quartering / taking like that, but if you stuck to that interpretation you would probably have to oppose a bunch of other gov't takings that are more palatable so
How do you figure?
In what way does "the cops can't move into your house because they like the position to spy on suspects" translate into "you have to oppose a bunch of other gov't takings"
Our fourth amendment bans unreasonable search and seizure, are you opposed to that as well, that it puts an unreasonable burden on the government to have to have a court say it's okay to take your stuff?
No, I'm saying that an interpretation covering civilian government officials as well as the military, would then have to cover everything. There's little to no line between police and other government officials, nothing compared to the civilian/military line.
What do you mean by "everything"? That it would also prevent the government from forcibly evicting you from your house and letting its employees stay there even if they were postal workers?
I'm okay with that as well, the intent of the amendment seems pretty clear to me
It does not apply if the government is actually seizing the property with a warrant or via eminent domain
Yes, but I've got a gut feeling that there might be cases that would apply that neither of us have thought of where it would be a problem. Maybe some FEMA stuff.
Anyway, I am just not a fan of assigning interpretations of the intent behind a legal text so much value that it can be used to broaden the law beyond what is written. As a general principle.
FEMA stuff would violate first and fourth amendment protections in those cases where my interpretation applies (and FEMA works hand in hand with actual honest to goodness uniformed military forces during disasters), but if we get in a situation where FEMA needs to stay in your house because they don't have the resources to either pay someone for a place or set up their own command post, we're so far in the shit the constitution doesn't matter
I'll put it another way, the outrages that got the third put into place occurred before and during America's revolution, and if King George had access to an enormous police force, he would have used that instead of his military before it turned into an actual war, and instead of soldiers it would probably clearly indicate any agent of the state empowered with the ability to use violence on the state's behalf
If you're a strict constructionalist sure the intent doesn't matter, but if you're a strict constructionalist the government doesn't have any authority to make drugs illegal
I had a good period where I let sales lead me to buy many many clothes
Each time j crew factory sent me a sale email id be like hmmm shitttt
Now I have too much clothes and wasted too much money
But I stopped that habit by saying no buying clothes without getting rid of clothes and truly evaluating the need for it
Whew
poo
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I read a book called "Cheap" that talked about pricing and the explosion of cheap, disposable products and it went over the psychology of pricing fairly extensively.
Basically, things are still $14.99 instead of $15 or $14 because it works.
I legit would be in favor of law that says prices gotta be in whole dollar amounts (with maybe an exception for cheap items - perhaps they could be sold in 50 cent increments)
also I want a law saying you gotta include tax in prices
Finding out that WalMart has its own special versions of consumer electronics with letters added to the end has changed the way I shop for consumer electronics.
Whereas I would purchase certain things from WalMart before, I now never purchase anything from them.
Walmart has the cheapest energy drinks and I'm an idiot so
0
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Tax added to the price on the thing you're buying when you're at the register seems terrible. Is the reason the differing sales tax rates of individual states?
yes. Sales tax changes not just with states, but with county, cities and districts, and can change mid year. It's easier to update the tax information on 5 items in the POS system than 20,000 individual SKUs. Also it is culturally acceptable and it allows prices to be listed lower than the out the door price.
+1
Options
21stCenturyCall me Pixel, or Pix for short![They/Them]Registered Userregular
The only thing I buy at walmart are pre-packed/paper goods/cleaning supplies.
Anything else is a shitshoot in quality. Everything else is amazon. Best buy if I need it today, and they'll price match. If they don't price match, fuck you.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Speaking of legal stuff, two reindeer farmers faced with possibly losing the right to ever own reindeer - and unlike the elderly fishing man earlier, this is their entire livelihood - has their legal defence complaining that the police have not been "objective"
which is a weird complaint, if you think about it. Like, do you recall who pays the guys on the opposite side of the courtroom?
The dude in the tall chair, that's the guy who should be objective, and he ain't police, so
Anyway the case is about them allegedly having stabbed 25 reindeer to death and attempting to pass it off as predator attacks. Which get reimbursed by the state, so it's sort of like insurance fraud.
Except most insurance fraud doesn't involve extremely serious charges of animal cruelty, which is the reason they're facing being banned from every owning reindeer again.
Posts
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
No, I'm saying that an interpretation covering civilian government officials as well as the military, would then have to cover everything. There's little to no line between police and other government officials, nothing compared to the civilian/military line.
EDIT: And I think you are completely misunderstanding my position here? I haven't said word one about being opposed to the amendment. We're talking about an interpretation of it. The fourth amendment covers any and all kinds of seizures.
play roadhog?
What do you mean by "everything"? That it would also prevent the government from forcibly evicting you from your house and letting its employees stay there even if they were postal workers?
I'm okay with that as well, the intent of the amendment seems pretty clear to me
It does not apply if the government is actually seizing the property with a warrant or via eminent domain
...It should also be said that the JC Penny problems, while certainly coinciding with the consumer friendly change in attitude, also came at a time when the whole retail world was experiencing Amazon shock - and the store was already dealing with financial problems on top of that (thus the change in management).
Intuition does pretty strongly suggest that the consumer-friendly practices did a lot of the damage, because lol consumer culture, but it's also possible that this was largely coincidental & most of the harm was done by people choosing to switch from B&M to online shopping.
Yeah. It was pretty ridiculous how good people were on day 1. So many beta players.
Also, my best characters aren't the ones I expected to be, and it took me a bit to figure that out. Pharah is so amazing. Every minute of Quake and UT channeled into my rocket launcher.
It makes me pretty sad. In theory I'd love a store with round number pricing and no stupid discount math obscuring the actual prices. It makes sense from a marketing point of view. People like it when restaurants do it, it makes the place seem more honest. Just didn't seem to work.
Also "because everyone else is doing it" is not a great reason. Times change, customers change. Being the first to lead a shift often has big rewards.
We can't have nice things
Free shipping on orders over X dollars just breaks my brain and will get me to buy stupid shit.
Exactly. One of the most important ideas behind the concept of police is that it makes it possible to prohibit the use of the military against the public, very common in either strict explicit law a la germany or in strong unwritten principle a la norway
apparently nobody actually bought the game who wasn't in beta
Yeah. Especially in light of the 9th/10th, the 3rd amendment should apply to any and all compulsory government quartering. Military, police, postal workers, Department of Agriculture water specialists.
I'm just the opposite on shipping. I see it as an affront and will just leave the website and decide I don't need the thing at all until it becomes available on Amazon prime.
Places that charge for shipping usually take a week to ship anything too, which is even worse.
On the one hand, more bacon
On the other, much more important hand, it's fucked up my bacon sandwich system of 3 rashers if I'm cooking for 4 and 4 if I'm cooking for 3
Should have made the rashers bigger or the pack cheaper
It's the next day where I feel like I am half asleep
My body forgot the memo to wake up
Maybe it's because it got a taste of sleep last night and just needs more
People (including myself) are just kind of derp about shopping.
What's one of the first things I do when I go into a store? Go look at what's on 'sale'. Even though I know it's a trick and have worked in retail my whole life - I still do it because 'OOOH SALE!'
On the other, even better hand, you now have 2 extra strips of bacon to chow down quickly as a snack whilst making the sandwiches.
Total win.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I can't fit 14 strips onto my grill
The last two strips are relegated to being added to evening meals
Whereas I would purchase certain things from WalMart before, I now never purchase anything from them.
You can if you believe in yourself.
The extra 2 strips were inside you all along.
Yes, but I've got a gut feeling that there might be cases that would apply that neither of us have thought of where it would be a problem. Maybe some FEMA stuff.
Anyway, I am just not a fan of assigning interpretations of the intent behind a legal text so much value that it can be used to broaden the law beyond what is written. As a general principle.
Well, they are now
I made a six-rasher bacon sandwich for brunch because it's my day off
Basically. Chains that charge the same price everywhere (think Apple Store) don't want a bunch of ugly, non market tested prices posted everywhere. Sure they could eat the tax themselves in regions where it's higher but why do that when you can just be sleazy until it becomes acceptable?
FEMA stuff would violate first and fourth amendment protections in those cases where my interpretation applies (and FEMA works hand in hand with actual honest to goodness uniformed military forces during disasters), but if we get in a situation where FEMA needs to stay in your house because they don't have the resources to either pay someone for a place or set up their own command post, we're so far in the shit the constitution doesn't matter
I'll put it another way, the outrages that got the third put into place occurred before and during America's revolution, and if King George had access to an enormous police force, he would have used that instead of his military before it turned into an actual war, and instead of soldiers it would probably clearly indicate any agent of the state empowered with the ability to use violence on the state's behalf
If you're a strict constructionalist sure the intent doesn't matter, but if you're a strict constructionalist the government doesn't have any authority to make drugs illegal
Each time j crew factory sent me a sale email id be like hmmm shitttt
Now I have too much clothes and wasted too much money
But I stopped that habit by saying no buying clothes without getting rid of clothes and truly evaluating the need for it
Whew
Basically, things are still $14.99 instead of $15 or $14 because it works.
I legit would be in favor of law that says prices gotta be in whole dollar amounts (with maybe an exception for cheap items - perhaps they could be sold in 50 cent increments)
also I want a law saying you gotta include tax in prices
@jungleroomx
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
Torbjorn potg
Ragdolling ineffectually while the turret does the actual work
Anything else is a shitshoot in quality. Everything else is amazon. Best buy if I need it today, and they'll price match. If they don't price match, fuck you.
which is a weird complaint, if you think about it. Like, do you recall who pays the guys on the opposite side of the courtroom?
The dude in the tall chair, that's the guy who should be objective, and he ain't police, so
Anyway the case is about them allegedly having stabbed 25 reindeer to death and attempting to pass it off as predator attacks. Which get reimbursed by the state, so it's sort of like insurance fraud.
Except most insurance fraud doesn't involve extremely serious charges of animal cruelty, which is the reason they're facing being banned from every owning reindeer again.