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.

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.

NO, AC and you both are wrong.

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.

An oversimplification. The US, UK, and allies variously broke many cipher systems throughout WWII. Still the US benefitted from this.

What if the Germans were using, say, Windows, Android phones, SSL, Gmail, Yahoo, and Skype, instead of Enigma machines?

I presume you wouldn't say it was "wrong" of the United States to crack the German and Japanese codes in WWII...

...so when US adversaries (and lets just caveat this by saying people YOU, personally, agree are legitimate US adversaries) don't use their own "codes", but instead share the same systems, networks, services, devices, cloud providers, operating systems, encryption schemes, and so on, that Americans and much of the rest of the world uses, would you suggest that they should be off limits?

This isn't so much a law enforcement question as a question of how to do SIGINT in the modern digital world, but given the above, and given that intelligence requires secrecy in order to be effective, how would you suggest the United States go after legitimate targets? Or should we not be able to, because that power "might" be able to be abused -- as can any/all government powers, by definition?

This simplistic view that the only purpose of the government in a free and democratic society must be to somehow subjugate, spy on, and violate the rights of its citizens is insane, while actual totalitarian and non-free states, to say nothing of myriad terrorist and other groups, press their advantage. And why wouldn't they? The US and its ever-imperfect system of law is not the great villain in the world.

Take a step back and get some perspective. And this is not a rhetorical question: if someone can tell me their solution for how we should be able to target technologies that are fundamentally shared with innocent Americans and foreigners everywhere while still keeping such sources, methods, capabilities, and techniques secret, I'm all ears. And if you believe the second a technology is shared it should become magically off-limits because power might be abused, you are insane -- or, more to the point, you believe you have some moral high ground which, ironically, would actually result in severe disadvantages for the system of free society you would claim to support.

Property ownership starts with self ownership. To earn money one has to spend his own time and effort, one has to use his own health and life, the time not spent enjoying but working. Property is thus extension of our own bodies and time given to us to spend on this planet.

To deny people ownership of the fruits of their labour is to deny people self ownership and it is disgusting. Noone should be born into slavery.

Your hands and your head and legs and the rest of it belongs to you. The collective does not own you and it cannot own what you produce. You can trade with others for what they produce or give it away, but that is your choice, your life. Your body your choice, yes?

Well, not according to you. You would steal from those who produce but how is it different from taking their body away? Taking 1 of every 2 chairs away from a chair maker is somehow different from taking away 50% of his life on the planet? It is not. That 50% of life is gone from him and nobody can fix that.

Your ideology is also insane in another regard. If somebody can produce chairs and another person cannot you want to take away from the one who can. What if there are people with no eyes? Let us then make it 'fare' for them and take everybody's eyes out. Some people are missing limbs, lets hack everybody's arms and legs off. There were people who died...... let us just murder everybody to make it fair for those who are dead but also for all of those who never lived at all.

Your ideas are horrendous if someone takes 1 minute to examine them, they lead to slavery and murder while providing superficial justification for the feeble minded.

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.