You may be unaware but there are people who live outside of the US, I happen to be one of them.

I think you also have anger issues since nothing I said implied or stated any bigotry, just an understanding that it's a bad idea to try and regulate behavior. If a person wants to not provide service for someone else I say go ahead because it's not societies job to make you a good person. As long as the government isn't involved with artificially propping you up and creating barriers against competition, if you treat any group of people unfairly the laws of supply and demand will eventually lead to someone else moving in to take up that slack; especially in today's internet age where Amazon or similar companies can get you almost anything next day.

That's not to say there can't be some laws about how your business operates, but when it comes to choosing clientele that should be left up to the owner and let the people in the community decide if they want to patronize their establishment or not.

I happen to have a little more faith that in general, communities can fix their own problems if left to themselves but I'm sure your way works well too, since nothing bad has ever happened when big brother decides to put their nose in peoples business.

A lot, if not most, of the segregation in the south was due to government intervention, not business decisions. Jim Crow laws dictated the layouts of restaurants, public transport, washroom access etc..

In general, businesses go where the money is and as soon as any segment of society has disposable income either existing businesses will adjust to cater to that new clientele or new businesses will open to provide the demanded service.

I would say go ahead. Refuse to service whoever you want for whatever reason you want, it's your right and should remain your right whether you run a business or not.

Unless you are using the government to restrict others from competing against you, if you choose to be intolerant of any group then someone will most likely come along to provide a similar service to those you exclude. If enough people find your actions offensive than your new competitor will most likely run you out of business. That's the way things are suppose to work. The markets will usually find an answer unless the government steps in to prevent them.

I used to buy all my hard drives and occasional RAM upgrades at FS and BB because of their price match policy. While they won't price match real computer stores directly (because real computer stores don't sell retail versions) occasionally one would have a sale where their prices were comparable or even better and then I'd go to whichever ones didn't have the sale and get their 110% price match.

Because of their astronomical markups, when one would actually sell something for real market prices, it wasn't unusual to have a price match that would result in an extra $10 - $15 in your pocket compared to a real computer store.

The check out line of Loblaws (Canadian grocery store chain) has better and cheaper HDMI cables than FS and BB and even they are overpriced @ $5 each but if you absolutely need an HDMI cable and a box of mini-wheats and don't feel like making two trips then you go with what's available. At FS and BB prices for cables, I absolutely would make a second trip to another store.

I shopped at both (since the FS and BB closest to me are full sized stores 30 feet from each other) and always got them to price match. They don't price match open box or liquidation items (which most other price match policies don't either) but for everything else I never had an issue.

I routinely got them to price match each other since they often staggered their sales so an item on sale at FS one week would be on sale at BB the next. Besides the extra 10% off the price match gave, it saved me having to run around town to the location where a sale item was in stock.

The US Constitution gives the power to ratify international agreements and make them law to the US Senate alone. The State Dept. and the US President are only able to create temporary agreements with no lasting legal authority. That was the gist of the open letter.

The main reason some contests are only available in Quebec is that they are special 'Quebec only' versions of contests that already exist in the rest of the country but other provinces didn't require extra hoops to be jumped through and more importantly, extra fees to be paid to get licensed. That is not a good thing since it creates a barrier that a lot of smaller contest holders just won't bother with. Quebec residents usually lose out more than they gain from these extra requirements.

And 99% of the reason such regulations exist is Quebec likes to pretend at being their own country. So while Quebec has ALWAYS been the #1 recipient of equalization payments from the federal government (receiving over half of all money paid since they began in the 50's) they still like to duplicate federal services and add unneeded regulations just to show they have the power within their borders.

my kingdom for a mod point!

They will have no shortage of advertisers for a Top Gear like show with Clarkson at the head.

Car manufacturers may be the primary goto guys for ad space but when a show is watched by 350 million people and pulls in a profit of 40-50 million pounds/year (not that whatever show he starts up, if he does will necessarily pull those numbers) everyone from cell phone companies to children's toys will be clamoring to buy available commercial slots.

Even a lot of car companies don't view negative reviews on Top Gear as a bad thing. Some use it as a challenge to do better next time and others are just happy to have their cars seen.

Manufactures like Ferrari, Maclaren, Pagani aren't really going to be spending money on 30 second commercials for a car show anyway but Ford, GM, Honda, Kia etc will and for them having their 8 thousand dollar family car reviewed poorly against a F40 isn't a real showstopper.

They talk about how much gas super cars use all the time, even sometimes mentioning that they are only capable of x laps before refueling. It's usually just a interesting tidbit they throw in while talking back and forth because it's not a major testing hurdle. Besides track tests watch any of their road trips and it will almost certainly be mentioned if one of their cars requires fueling more often than the others and that's when it only takes less than 5 minutes to refuel and get going again, as opposed to 3.5+ hours for a Tesla (at the time) so it's a MUCH bigger deal if your Tesla run out of juice.

It becomes a focus of the review simply because it is a major weakness in the design which is true for all pure EVs. If they had a battery swap option then it probably wouldn't have even been brought up except for a one liner about "we had the swap the batteries ever x laps".

I think this was a contract year for all the Top gear presenters so he would have been free to leave anyway, this just gives him the ability to do so without any bad feelings from his fans.

True Clarkson fans won't be surprised he over reacted and hit a producer and got himself fired , he's gotten close enough to that several times in the past, but they may have seen it as a betrayal if he just announced out of the blue that he was leaving the show to do something else. As long as the producer that was hit wasn't seriously hurt, which all reports say he wasn't, then fans will write off almost any action by Clarkson as Jeremy being Jeremy.

I'm not saying this was all planned out in advance but I do think this was one of the best outcomes for Clarkson if he was looking to leave TG.

Clarkson was the one to report the assault so if anyone was looking for an excuse out of re-upping a contract it was probably Clarkson. This way he can leave without carrying any of the baggage simply quitting the show would have given him.

Jeremy will be fine. He knows that every other channel has been trying for years to poach him away from the BBC and once he sold his interest in the show to the BBC a year or so ago his income was no longer tied to how well Top Gear itself did.

There have been several FOIA requests made for her emails over the years essentially none have really been fulfilled. People and the press have been complaining about it for a long time, it was just that once it came up during a relatively high profile case it became big news.

Wrong on so many levels. Bill is on record stating he does not use email and he's only ever sent 2 in his life, while President.

This server was set up and registered by Hillary as she was going through the process of being named SoS.