I don't know if a CDL is a qualifier or not but almost all non commercial insurance policies have a disclaimer stating they will not cover any commercial use of the vehicle. Pizza delivery drivers run into this all the time. They either need a special rider policy for their car or pretend the 20 pizzas in the back are there because he forgot to put them in the fridge.

Texas isn't the only state that has laws like this one either. The roots of it is in federal law. Generally anything with a gross vehicle weight rating above 10k lbs is considered a commercial vehicle under federal rules and any hauling any household goods for hire seems to be covered too. But federal jurisdiction is limited to interstate commerce. Intrastate commerce is left to the states.

Those facts don't disagree with anything I have said. Again, the problem you are facing is that not enough people care about whatever it is that you care about or have different opinions on the outcome / position.

It's even more likely that even people who do care - care about something else even more and don't mind whatever if it in any way pushes what they do care about. Look at the TEA parties for instance. They are breaking up the establishment strong holds and are vilified by both sides and most of the citizens who want to end what you are crying about. It shows that most people just don't care as much or about the same things you do. It shows your in the minority and making excuses for why you lost.

No, it's well documented excuses for why less popular people lost elections or attempts to oust senators.

I have yet to see any fact on the subject that isn't basically an opinion going on a pity party.

If it's a democrat, it likely wouldn't matter unless his last name is Weiner and the press won't let it go. It's the republicans who will demand someone fall on their sword for misdeeds. The dems seem to think it makes them "regular people" or something and don't bother so much.

Not really.

If the people were really upset, they would remove the senator. The problem is most people either don't pay enough attention to care or don't hold the same opinions as you do.

It's not just Google. Seriously dude, when every other person or translation says you are wrong, it is likely that you are the one who is wrong.

Perhaps your 7 years it took to pass high school Spanish class should have been 8?

According to Google translate and the two other translations services i found, the literal translation to that is American not USAian. Perhaps those translators know something the GPdoesn't like proper names.

And that brings us back to my original question.

Are you trolling or just that stupid? It's hard to tell considering you couldn't even get American correct in your post.

Lol.. i see you have absolutely nothing of substance to offer so you will continue to attack the messenger instead of the message.

Here is a hint. Its not a strawman by definition or application. You throwing the word about doesn't make it so either.

Lol.. i guess you failed then. Robbing a bank because your upset that you got a speeding ticket does nothing to the ticket nor advance any claim that the ticket was inappropriately issued. Attacking the messenger instead of the message changes nothing in that respect. It just deflects the question. It's like a politician being asked about an opponent position on economic stability and replying that he picks his nose.

If that were true, it sounds like nobody would want to work for CVS. maybe it is true but it's the fault of the employees for staying. No one forced them to work there.

I see, you can ignore the point by attacking the messenger. Brilliant debate tactics. You should become a politician.

Yes, in a war, when one side fights against the other side, people die. Were is the problem outside war existing? As I already said, there was huge amounts of restraint employed compared to normal business as usual for war at or near the time.

In this thread, a person did in fact make this statement:

Sorry but assault, vandalism, arson, destruction of public property, looting, etc are not Constitutionally protected activities no matter what the reason.

And whoever said that was completely correct. The Boston tea party was not constitutional either despite the constitution not even conceived at the time. But it was justified because it was a direct assault on tyranny and oppression in the defense of liberty.

No statement claiming that they are always Constitutionally protected activities was made to my knowledge. That they are never Constitutionally protected no matter what the reason was made. True, you could argue that it's not in the US Constitution, but there were state Constitutions cited that rejected the notion.

Neither state being the one the looting and burning of a CVS and senior center happened in- and that is even if you do stretch the wording to justify legal violence. Also, neither targeted centers had anything to do with the government. It's like shooting your neighbor because you want the mayor to resign.

It was the first-level reply, so perhaps you missed it, but that claim is why the discussion is not about whether or not any given incident is justified or unjustified, but whether any at all can be. There's no need to concern ourselves with proving the justification of every incident, that some incidents are not justified is recognized. The burden is on the assertion that no incidents are justified. If you can't follow that, then it seems to me you're the one who wants to ignore what's really the subject of discussion, and isn't bothering to pay attention to what has been said throughout the scope of it.

Again, what you quoted mentions constitutional protections- not justifications. Can violence be justified, sure it can. Does the US constitution or any other justify it? Not under the first amendment and as far as I can tell, only in the defense of the country or state against invasion. But more importantly, what happened in Baltimore is nothing comparable to the Boston Tea Party.

Again, whatever happened to that CVS, even if a totally unjustified tragedy, does not prove every other instance was not justified, and you seem to accept that others are justifiable.

I'm not sure what you are trying to claim here. If you think past situations justify this situation, you would be wrong. That would be like you killing your neighbor in his back yard because someone shot an intruder in their house 5 years ago. They are different situations and while one is justified, it cannot be used to justify the other. If you think burning hundred of cars belonging to private citizens or drug stores or senior centers is justified because of the Boston tea party, you would be incorrect.

As far as I can tell, there is nobody arguing that absolutely no incidents are unjustified, but there is somebody who did argue that absolutely no incidents were justified. That there was no acceptable reason.

From what I can tell in this thread and by what you laid reference to already, the term is not justified but constitutional. They are not interchangeable and those who burned or looted were not within their constitutional rights.

Then they went around and said "Oh wait, here's a reason I do find acceptable." when the Boston Tea Party was mentioned which means they really ought to consider admitting they didn't hold their opinion for long.

Maybe you are confused. The Boston Tea Party was an attack on government not civilians or private corporations. The East India Tea company was not a private company either. It was being supported by the British government and had newly created privileges that locked all competition out along with a tax placed on the tea to specifically benefit them.

Again, where is the connection to government acts that justify these actions. If there is none, it surely is not comparable to the Boston Tea Party.

I cannot imagine the people in power like the people looting and setting infrastructure and private property on fire. I guess it meets both versions of the definition then.