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.

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.

No, it's a religion, it just isn't the religion they think it is or want you to think it is.

I think you both are mistaken, it doesn't matter who you think the one true god is, the statement still holds true and can adequately describe problems within any of those secs.

I would hardly compare the two. In fact, they are not even close if you tried and did so honestly.

I get it, you hate religion and hate religion touching your science. Get over it. If the science is as much as you think it is, it will win if you put the two in a closet and told them to battle it out. So what are you actually afraid of?

Oh, and neither abstinence only and ID discussions in science classes are even close to banning subjects and mental processes altogether. The sky is not falling, stop pretending.

It's perfectly fine. I stand corrected. The sad thing is I skimmed the post 3 times and missed it.

Oh well, its still a point of reference and little more. Certainly not partisan like the anon was attempting to make out.

I certainly did not single out any party. I stated fact and that was all. One president used off budget and another put it on budget. No mention of party was made at all despite plenty of oppertunity to do so.

I suspect you know the parties of the names mentioned and are somehow offended by one of them. But that is all you- not me.

I'm saying there is nothing wrong with WSJs track record soley because they are connected to fox news whos track record is largely only tarnished because you disagree with their politics and little more when compared to other sources.

If the story is untrue, point it out. If you ignord it all because of some association with another news source, you are a moron.