If they didn’t figure it out the first time around they never will. Only true thing this guy has said is that he could literally shoot someone in the face in the middle of Times Square and he wouldn’t lose supporters.
UmeU
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.
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.
I feel like it’s more than that…
When I switched to electric 7 or 8 years ago, I really didn’t like it. It was super uncomfortable and tickled my mouth.
I just powered through it because I was told that I would get used to it.
Indeed I did get used to it and quickly began to feel that I had never actually properly brushed my teeth before going electric.
Part of what helps is the little extra pulse every 30 seconds and auto shut off after two minutes. Really keeps you on track with 30 seconds in each quadrant of your mouth.
Two minutes is a long time so having the timer built into the toothbrush is super helpful.
Only concern to note is that applying too much pressure and/or using the maximum vibration setting can be bad for your gums and cause recession.
Be very gentle with the electric toothbrush so that you do not cause any excessive gum recession.
Once you get used to electric, a conventional toothbrush will seem archaic.
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.
And they will have to file an insurance claim due to the lost sales revenue once he’s gone.