Gotta love when old jokes get new life

Central is in Berkeley, not Toms River. But yeah, horrific.

An hour south of AC is Delaware. But yeah, ocean city is nice.

The

You see nothing wrong with what she did?

I see no reason for us to legally ban self-service. Give businesses and consumers that freedom. It's not like cars and stations are exploding across the country. Maybe it made more sense years ago, but stations are generally safe. It's an archaic and unnecessary law. But my position has nothing to do with costs.

The savings you predict only makes sense if the stations are trying to set the lowest possible price. Businesses aim to set the highest price while still maintaining demand. So I can't see these savings happening in any meaningful way.

What you said may happen, but it would only be a short-term fluctuation. The stations would adjust accordingly and then prices would creep back up because they would ultimately adjust according to demand (which ain't going nowhere anytime soon).

So if we do this, okay, station A lowers its prices because it has a sudden surplus. Station B loses some customers (it doesn't lose all of its customers because some people are loyal to brands or maybe they enjoy the shorter line for a few cents more). Maybe Station B gets some of Station's A's customers who want the service. Maybe Station B eventually gives in and lowers prices to be more competitive and everything is close to uniform again. (But none of these details really matter in the grand scheme because both stations know their customers will pay more if they push prices up, so they both gradually creep back to where they would have been all along.)

Demand is the ultimate factor here and all the stations will tinker with their prices to extract the maximum price out of you. So maybe you'll save a bit in the short term, but they'll get you right where they want you while providing fewer local jobs and offering you less service.

In not so many words, I agree with you, but I don't agree for the same reasons

Why would it be cheaper?

(To clarify: I do think we should be able to pump our own gas. Just don't see how that would be any cheaper.)

Finally, somebody on the internet understands POV!

I am not knowledgeable on the topic so I do not have a strong opinion. That's why I get exhausted by people who are equally uninformed yet exponentially more determined.

I was reading a couple of threads on Facebook when it first happened and there had been no time for any evidence to be gathered let alone communicated. The whole thread was full of comments like "it's obvious to everybody" and "do your research" and a lot of use of the word "they" to blame vague conspiratorial forces. A smattering of Let's Go Branden and King Murphy nabs as well.

The few people I saw asking for evidence were ridiculed or sent articles that didn't have evidence. In fact, one article recognized that ther whale death problem predates the windfarm activity.

I dove into the topic because I was concerned and wanted to know what info was out there. I found nothing convincing. I'm still open minded to learning more but I found it interesting that such passionate folks had so little info to share.

It sure seems like a conclusion looking for evidence.

I do find it but weird how the very same blocs of people who tend to scoff at anything remotely related to environmentalism have decided to make this their battle. It is difficult to take them seriously when they reject decades of scientific research of other environmental issues.

Hyper localized schools is how New Jersey achieved creating one of the most segregated school systems in the country. The high taxes tied to each district creates a paywall that disadvantages poor people and people of color who have been historically excluded from "nicer" towns and the accompanying schools.

If you really want to see consolidation, be prepared to be greeted with a lot of "not in my back yard" squealing when people realize that "those kids" will now be mingling with "my kids."

There's no way to consolidate without facing this problem. If you were to consolidate 6 districts into 1, with 2 of those districts being much poorer towns, how do you think the 4 wealthier towns would react? If they were to attempt to create a system that favored one town over the other, they would easily lose civil rights law suits for discrimination. Do you really think Ocean and Wall would want to deal with Neptune and Asbury? Do you see Robbinsville, Hamilton, Trenton, Lawrence, and Princeton working well together?

Don't get me wrong, I think consolidation is a good idea... I just think it's so unlikely that it's safe to say impossible. People who live on the right side of the tracks enjoy our segregated school system and they wouldn't want to give it up.

Does the coat come with sidewalks and street lights? Because my neighborhood has neither.

You have all the answers, so I breathlessly await your inevitable reply because we both know, there's no way a visionary like you won't have a brilliant answer.

Quality rationale. Your logic is so disarming, I whole heartedly agree with you. Your unimpeachable vision is truly the stuff of legend.

I hope my sarcam is as potent as the stench of your shitty discourse and your "rationale."

Nobody hear is crying about unfairness. I do like to brainstorm ideas that could improve the quality of life for the average person. And then there is you, the foolish loser who thinks society cannot be improved.

Why is that the dumbest rationale ever? You offered zero rationale so your point is unclear.

Does your scarf come with sunlight? Mine didn't. The sun is down by the time most of us get out work.

Cops are neither lawyers nor legislators. Many of them do not accurately understand many of the laws they're supposed to enforce. Just because they say something doesn't make it so.

"Oh this? This isn't stolen cash. It is missing cash that happened to find."

That's their fucking problem not yours. They dont have to agree with you. Who cares what they think? They don't make the laws and they aren't judges. Although they often think they're both.

I do wish that the article would have explored what, if any, danger there is regarding possible restrictions. Is that a legitimate threat? That would be useful information to include because it would allow readers to weigh the urgency.

This isn't an issue of referendum vs. legislation. It is an issue of timing and resources (well, at least according to Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and Democratic leadership).

The article explains that initiating a referendum would have been difficult and not guarenteed due to Republican opposition.

That leaves going the legislation route, which would come with complications (timing, resources). It's not like they can just gather and vote today and it would be done. It's an intensive process that needs to be done right.

On top of that, the article also cites the more pressing need for access vs. passing this legislation. In other words, having a right is useless if access is restricted (similar to voter disenfranchisement in states that aggressively restrict access to voting).

Mr. Zimmerman, that you?

What's Reddit?