GreyEyedGhost

I stand corrected. She certainly could have determined this was illegal. But as far as I know, it is still illegal for someone to order prohibited items online, and it seems the military could stop a lot of those things on their side if they enforced the laws with their employees, as well.

Why is it her obligation to not fulfill these orders? Why is it not something that is handled between the military and their employee? She isn’t sending random flyers, someone stationed there, who should have been told isn’t allowed at that posting, ordered it nonetheless. If I break the rules by bringing a lighter onto my work premises (fire hazard restrictions), my boss doesn’t call Zippo, he talks to me. It would be a bigger deal if I had one shipped there, but they still wouldn’t be calling Zippo.

From the article:

The United States Postal Service and the DOD work together through the Military Postal Service Agency (MPSA), managed by the Army, to provide worldwide mail services (APO/FPO/DPO) for service members. These address formats don’t reveal the country, just the person and military unit.

Bennett had no idea her business’s products were going to a country where they would be illegal.

So how exactly is it her fault if someone buys something they will have shipped somewhere, she has no idea where it’s going, and the MSPA redirects it there? How does she even know where it’s going? Certainly, the buyer should have known, as should the MSPS.

Imagine being able to kill a coworker you don’t like and someone else goes to jail for it. I’m not saying the cop who pulled the trigger did it on purpose, but this is literally precedent if you wanted to.

Your inhibitions are also, to a degree, part of what make you who you want to be. Not excusing him, certainly not defending him, but sometimes a little inhibition is a good thing.

This is what kills me about people complaining about inheritance tax. Oh, you’re worried you’ll only be able to give each child $15M? Plus $19k/year before you die? I wish my kids had to struggle with only $15M when I die.

All good.

Yeah, common usage in English “what a coincidence” often means “I don’t think it was a coincidence.” Don’t be surprised if people take it less than literally.

I think it would be so funny if someone spray painted pieces of shit (real or fake) and distributed them, possibly for throwing, at one of his events. He’s so fixated on gold crap, I don’t think he’d be able to ignore it.

As someone of German heritage I’m a little offended that you’re bringing that into it. Neither Hitler nor Trump did what they did because they’re German. The potential to be shitty is part of everyone.

Bad coincidence, though.

I had the misfortune of renting a couple cars recently.

As a renter Toyota still required me to set up an account to do anything besides basically radio on the central console. Certainly no maps or phone connections.

Ford gave full functionality, but would block one of the info screens if the seat belt was unbuckled, even if you were parked. Want to see your average efficiency at the end of a trip? Make sure your buckled in for that info. Make sure your passengers are, too. This vehicle didn’t seem to have a built-in map, which seems dumb, but the phone could be connected and I suppose android auto would pass the info across. I didn’t need the functionality that much, and after a couple days the phone connection went crazy and started connecting and disconnecting so I removed my phone from the list.

Neither car was impressing me too much on the entertainment functionality and if it was my vehicle I may have put in the effort to resolve these, but not for something I was only using for a few days. From the performance side, I was happier with the Toyota Corolla. Part of that is I prefer sedans and the free upgrade to the Ford Escape wasn’t something I really wanted (not the poorer fuel efficiency, either).

So yeah, Ford sucks.

There goes 2 hours I had absolutely no intention of spending there.

It’s time for other states to look at it, for groups in those states to use Alaska and Maine as working examples of the benefits, and for Alaska and Maine to start working on an Amendment to change how the president is elected.

But none of that changes the fact that how or if you vote for president will have any bearing on the voting system or cause it to change.

Grass fed is better for the environment…if you are feeding them native grasses that aren’t watered, mowed, or fertilized on land that isn’t suitable for much else in such a way as to not absolutely destroy that environment. Now, how are we going to raise the other cows we’re eating, because I suspect being able to raise 10% this way would be a shockingly high estimate.

This is probably something that would have to be fixed at the state level before going federal. Either way, until FPTP is replaced, pretending that isn’t the system in place isn’t going to change it.

Worked in Canada…

It’s like you’re trying to do the breast stroke during a hurdles match. The system is broken and only two parties are viable. Who you vote for president won’t change that, but could have had one genocide instead of two plus all the internal strife. Fix the two-party problem, then demand better of your presidential candidates. The alternative has only worked about 3 times in the history of the United States.

Ive thought of it. Probably going to do sunglasses first, t’hough. Or rather second, after my single vision safety glasses.

Yeah, but that isn’t a one-time cost, either. That’s a recurring cost, typically on a biannual basis, and usually much higher than the monthly subscription. That said, being able to walk out with something that is going to reliably work for the next couple years definitely has its benefits. Ive just never considered something with a definite lifespan and a requirement to replace as a one-time cost. Kind of like the difference between paying property taxes monthly or yearly - I’m still paying and it isn’t going to stop.

21 years with the same frames?