Grandma is on her own
Well, "America" originates from Italian explorer Amerigo Vespucci so, while United States is pretty blah, America has origins that go back 500 years.
are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues
There is no federal statute mandating that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services
Goods or services ≠ debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.
A retail store, a restaurant etc. can refuse currency from a customer but a loan/lien holder, a public utility company, a government entity or an HOA must all accept any legal tender.
You're confusing two separate situations.
I like small cars. I have a 2019 Kona and I love the size but I looked at the newer ones because I'm tempted by hybrid or EV. They the newer ones bigger so I decided to just hold onto my current car for a couple more years and then I'll look at a Telo.
This is definitely worth mentioning but it's also good to note that it was a loan not a bailout and Ford has repaid it.
Ford also received a $9.2B loan for EV battery factory projects from the government.
Thanks!
I'm glad you're starting to use a thesaurus. You're about to experience a whole new world of language! Maybe now you won't struggle with the tougher words.
What rational reason is there to remove them before the court case is complete?
If you remove them and then lose the case challenging the law you'd just have to build them again.
I cannot in any sane logical line of reasoning
Ah, I guess I was thrown by this since it didn't require insanity or illogical reasoning to come up with "stupidity".
I like this because it highlights how it's not an all-or-none question. There are plenty of countries with low firearm deaths that allow some guns but restrict others.
I'll keep driving legally
Wrong again. It's like it's intentional.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/traffic/article297574763.html
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/traffic/article292904584.html
https://tampabayfloridalawyers.com/florida-turn-signal-laws
https://www.theticketclinic.com/blog/turn-signal-laws
https://codes.findlaw.com/fl/title-xxiii-motor-vehicles/fl-st-sect-316-155
Buddy you picked one (one) sentence from my original comment, decided that was the only relevant bit of information, and then blabbered on about what it means to move the goalposts.
I'm not your buddy. As I said, I don't care about your opinion, which the rest of your original comment I responded to was. I addressed the question you asked which has basis in fact. What good did the moon landing do for the average man? Lots of good.
The reason I pointed out you copy/pasting the definition is because you clearly wanted it to look like you came up with that yourself. You didn’t put it in quotes and you didn’t add a link (unlike your other comments where you either provided a source or put a statement in quotes).
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were the head of the MLA (that's the Modern Language Association, I'll let you click the link to work out why I referenced it). Let me cite something else for you:
You aren’t consistent, it makes you a bad writer.
Or maybe I start with casual language because this is a message board and then get real specific with my language when dealing with people like you. Either way, that's your opinion and, as established, I don't care about your opinion.
Wrong.
“You are required to use your turn signal anytime you are changing direction in your vehicle,” he said.
2.71Tb/515 series for TV, 6.28Tb/1176 titles in Movies.
Almost everything in MKV because that's what I prefer.
I use Plex so it's organized according to their requirements.
Everything is stored with a redundant backup on a Synology NAS with 6/9 HDD bays filled, totaling 48Tb in total storage space.
I run two servers (one on the Synology, one on a NUC-type Asus box) along with all my other systems.
Oh, and I have dual antenna tuners connected as well for live TV, DVR and playback.
Are you not “moving the goalposts” by focusing solely on me making fun of your language and the definition of the phrase instead of the original discussion? You are dismissing my claims and demanding I talk about how smart you tried to make yourself sound.
Do you need the definition provided again? I'm responding to the insult you started your last reply with. I addressed the parts that I had something to say about. I don't really care what your opinion on the moon landing is. Certainly not enough to argue with you about it; just your garbage question.
And the reason I pointed out your language is because it sounds so different than your first comment that it’s obvious that you took it from somewhere else
My first post which was a quote and two links? I'm sorry you struggle to use longer words but not everybody does.
(you literally copy/pasted Wikipedia’s definition of “moving the goalposts” you aren’t slick lol)
I did. Do you get mad when people provide a definition from a Dictionary too?
Why not switch to a different platform? The screenshot in the post looks like eBay and I'm pretty sure you can disable the offers option there.
Bro it doesn’t make you sound smart to use words like “fallacy” and “tacitly” 💔
I'm sorry I have a vocabulary? You should let people know you struggle with big words.
I don’t need “moving the goalpost” defined to me.
You clearly do since you didn't recognize when you did it.
Trooper Steve was asked by a viewer named Lisa, “Are turn signals required in Florida? I see them not being used all the time -- and never being enforced.”
Trooper Steve started by saying that the answer to first part is plain and simple.
“You are required to use your turn signal anytime you are changing direction in your vehicle,” he said. “Florida Statue 316.155 talks very specifically about when you are supposed to indicate a turn or change of lane.”
I don’t see how I could’ve “moved the goalpost” any more than you are doing right now.
This right here is moving the goalpost:
I also struggle to see how the scientific achievements required going to the moon (Besides learning about earth/moon origin). The other achievements like wireless tools and head seats did not require a moon landing.
Where in my comment that consisted of quoting your question and providing two links that answer that question did I address any of this?
Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed (the links provided to address the specific quotation from you) and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded ("how the scientific achievements required going to the moon").
Who’s to say the technology would’ve been made w/out the moon landing?
I assume you meant wouldn't have been made without the moon landing? Either way, this is tacitly acknowledges the technological improvements made as a result which would be "good for the average man".
See how this is a pointless argument we’re both making?
I'm not arguing with you. You asked the question and I provided links with answers to counter the allusion you were attempting to make that it didn't do "the average man" any good.
As I already stated, what you seem to want to debate is whether it should have happened and your about 60 years late for that discussion. I have no interest in arguing that with you or anyone because it happened and that's not going to change.
And btw the first question isn’t an argument or my main idea. It’s a question added for emphasis.
Yea, and it's a poor question, which is why I addressed it specifically. The moon landing and the space race leading up to it led to numerous advances and improvements for everyone, including "the average man" (sexist language by the way).
Using that question for emphasis is disingenuous and attempts to minimize all of the advancement that occurred as a byproduct.
Here's a thought, maybe instead of blindly following the original commenters idea and repeatedly posting the same thing, refine the idea to account for people the "fringe" case mentioned?
Maybe, in addition to the multiple house ownership and residence status conditions add one that factors in income/earnings (including any capital gains) and if you exceed a threshold then additional home taxes apply?
Maybe scale the additional taxes based on income/earnings so everyone is taxed but done so appropriately for their situation?
Or maybe adopt a system like some other countries have where the first house you own isn't taxed but additional homes are, then adjust other taxes in accordance? Under this system 5 families sharing a hunting cabin is not only easier for them but more economic and efficient than five families owning five separate cabins.
You'll never please everybody but laws and regulations should take into account all those they effect and serve the greatest number reasonably possible.
I thought it was a serious suggestion but your solution is impractical and authoritarian.You're not who I replied to so none of what you said applies to my original comment.