It would cost thousands in labor to set up temporary tax rates based on alcohol content. Most systems have tax rates which apply to product categories, not alcohol content. Liquor store pos systems in the US, at least in my state, typically don’t even store the abv in the price book, which would make this taxation virtually impossible to comply with.
So discussion of jury nullification is ok as a general topic. If someone mentions JN in the context of a crime that has not yet been committed then that’s not ok. If the crime has already been committed then that’s ok. If the crime is not violent in nature then we can discuss JN, and if we are just having a general conversation about JN that’s ok too.
Specifically, the concern is that talking about JN in the context of some hypothetical violent crime that has not yet been committed could be interpreted as advocating for violence.
This sounds pretty stupid so far, but my question is then, why wrap the ToS around specifically jury nullification? Why not just reiterate the ‘no advocating for violence’ policy.
If someone is advocating for violence, then adding on some point about jury nullification is irrelevant, they are already breaking the rule.
Someone had their Chomsky-o’s for breakfast this morning.
Unless you use Mac or windows
To quote something I made up and say all the time, “It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose.”
This was super funny, this person has a great career ahead of her. Very Tim and Eric style obscure indie comedy, I loved it.
Getting high and playing video games?
This just in, something that only exists as a sci-fi trope which has never been demonstrated to be even remotely possible is not on the verge of spontaneously emerging from something that is completely unrelated and comparatively unremarkable.
Glad you are on the right page. Rest assured that if the right woman is to come along, 99.9% chance is that it will come about naturally. You won’t need to think about it and you won’t need to pursue it.
Do nothing / don’t show any romantic interest.
Get to know her better as a friend. If she becomes interested or is interested in anything more, believe me you will know.
Seriously, just forget about any romantic possibility. If she is interested then she will make it happen… otherwise you will just ruin your son’s friendship for no reason.
Because your example sentence uses the word ‘went’ rather than ‘was’, you need a comma because those are two separate I dependent clauses.
You and Dave were together and then Dave leaves you and goes driving by himself… me and Dave, then Dave went.
If you used ‘was’ then those would not be independent clauses and therefore a comma would not be used. It was me and Dave and Dave was driving.
Edit: also, why the downvote, we are having a conversation here ??
I don’t believe that’s accurate.
There are only two things in the list, pig & whistle.
They want more space between pig and &.
They also want more space between & and whistle.
If we were listing three areas where they want additional space we would need at least one comma, and I would argue for the Oxford comma as well, however we are only listing two areas where we want more space and so no comma is needed.
Sure it’s nearly unreadable, but I think the punctuation is correct.
They refer to the same and twice.
Red
Didn’t think about gender
Didn’t think about what they looked like
Ball was baseball sized
It was a square wooden table
Bonus, I imagined the ball rolling across the table and then falling off the table and bouncing a few times on the floor.
I didn’t choose any answers after reading the questions, but didn’t have an answers for the person.
My girlfriend ):
There are appliance disposal companies who will recover any refrigerant and haul away any piece of large equipment for scrap. It would probably cost about $500 to get rid of a redbox.
If it’s bolted to the concrete or wired directly maybe another $500.
Cost of doing business in my opinion.
Context?
But, let me guess, the billionaires don’t want them to.
Crazy, they’re basically saying, ‘we know this is impossible so just do your best, as long as you remit everything you collect then it doesn’t really matter what/how you collect’.
This is very unfair to the small business because inevitably there will be some customers who will be pissed off when the store doesn’t collect properly, and small business won’t even come close to doing it correctly.
Making temporary short term massive changes to taxation is a very dumb idea. Canada must be drinking uncle Sam’s koolaid to be acting this foolish.