"Must"? You mean, something bad will happen to them if they get dropped off, or take the bus, or walk? They "must"? Who's forcing them? Whoever it is, he's violating those employees' rights.
and some of them are being fired for having a gun in their trunk. Those are the facts izzy.
That's perfectly within the property owner's rights. You don't have, and never did have, the right to bring a weapon onto my private property against my will. That you can't grasp this elementary fact is certainly troubling.
America doesn't need roads? -- You're getting weird again. - We're nearly finished.
"America" needs roads? You're anthropomorphizing again. "America" the piece of land has no needs, because it's inanimate. So what sentient being is doing this needing? You seem to think that America is itself an individual with needs. I deny the existence of this individual. People have needs. Many people will say they "need" roads--but not me: where I live, we travel by dogsled. Yet, amazingly, you are comfortable extorting money from me, who doesn't "need" any roads, and handing it over to other people, who want roads, and you justify it by claiming that "America" has a "need" for those roads.
Once again, you're confused.
And your individual neighbor may have the right to object, Constitutionally, about how you burn or bury your garbage izzy. -- Think about it.
He may, for example if my handling of garbage sends smoke or stink onto his private property. If I refrain from violating his private property rights with smoke, stink, etc., then he has no grounds to object. For example, he can object that I'm not being "environmentally friendly" all he wants, and it don't mean squat.
But you appear to be claiming that this statement of yours justifies forcing me to pay for garbage collection I don't want. This is the heart of the problem: you don't actually believe in private property. You believe that some cases justify your violating your neighbor's property rights, for example if you don't like his rules about guns on his land, or if you don't like his method of handling garbage.
No, I took an oath to protect & defend the Constitution 51 years ago izzy, one I still honor. -- Obviously, you do not.
Ignoring your ad hominem--what else is new--I repeat, then that "we the people" passed Jim Crow laws. That makes them okie-dokie to you. Unless you retract your ridiculous claim that a law must be legitimate whenever "we the people" pass that law.
I've been a building contractor for 45 years izzy. -- So find someone else to post your BS lectures to about contracts
Then you're either lying about your experience, or you're lying when you dispute what I say. Assuming you're an honest businesman, you know that you've done lots of things not specifically listed in the contract, because they were part of doing your job in a workmanlike manner.
If you're a dishonest contractor--there's certainly no shortage of those--then you have done the opposite: you've failed to clean up the site when you finished, because the contract didn't say you had to; you've painted without proper surface preparation, because the contract said you'd "paint", but didn't detail the surface preparation required; you nailed cleats to the roof, straight through the shingles, because it was easier and the contract didn't specify roof jacks... and if all of that is true, then I know your real name, because you recently "painted" my house.
Meanwhile, here's some reading to educate yourself on implied and oral contracts. You'll find it agrees with my summary, though my summary was clearer.
"Must"? You mean, something bad will happen to them if they get dropped off, or take the bus, or walk?
This BS started at a paper mill in the sticks in Oklahoma izzy. You either got to work by driving, parked in the company lot [sans gun] or didn't work; -- but of course, a wise guy brady type like you could care less about our RKBA's.
and some of the employees are being fired for having a gun in their trunk. Those are the facts izzy.
That's perfectly within the property owner's rights. You don't have, and never did have, the right to bring a weapon onto my private property against my will. That you can't grasp this elementary fact is certainly troubling.
Thank you Ms Brady.
America doesn't need roads? -- You're getting weird again. - We're nearly finished.
"America" needs roads? You're anthropomorphizing again. "America" the piece of land has no needs, because it's inanimate. So what sentient being is doing this needing? You seem to think that America is itself an individual with needs. I deny the existence of this individual. People have needs. Many people will say they "need" roads--but not me: where I live, we travel by dogsled. Yet, amazingly, you are comfortable extorting money from me, who doesn't "need" any roads, and handing it over to other people, who want roads, and you justify it by claiming that "America" has a "need" for those roads. Once again, you're confused.
Ho hum.. You're got a pitifully limited 'line' of sarcastic patter izzy. Find some new ways of showing FR your idiocy.
And your individual neighbor may have the right to object, Constitutionally, about how you burn or bury your garbage izzy. -- Think about it.
He may, for example if my handling of garbage sends smoke or stink onto his private property.
Exactly my point izzy.
If I refrain from violating his private property rights with smoke, stink, etc., then he has no grounds to object. For example, he can object that I'm not being "environmentally friendly" all he wants, and it don't mean squat. But you appear to be claiming that this statement of yours justifies forcing me to pay for garbage collection I don't want. This is the heart of the problem: you don't actually believe in private property.
Absurd "yo momma" conclusion.
You believe that some cases justify your violating your neighbor's property rights, for example if you don't like his rules about guns on his land, or if you don't like his method of handling garbage.
Another absurd "yo momma" conclusion.
No, I took an oath to protect & defend the Constitution 51 years ago izzy, one I still honor. -- Obviously, you do not.
Ignoring your ad hominem--what else is new--
In our dialog here you've consistently scorned our Constitutional rule of law my boy. --- Obviously you do not honor many of its principles; -- thus there is no ad homiem in saying so.
I repeat, then that "we the people" passed Jim Crow laws. That makes them okie-dokie to you. Unless you retract your ridiculous claim that a law must be legitimate whenever "we the people" pass that law.
Yet another absurd, [and boring] "yo momma" type conclusion.
I've been a building contractor for 45 years izzy. -- So find someone else to post your BS lectures to about contracts.
Then you're either lying about your experience, or you're lying when you dispute what I say.
Absurd "yo momma" conclusion, that borders on personal insult.
Assuming you're an honest businesman, you know that you've done lots of things not specifically listed in the contract, because they were part of doing your job in a workmanlike manner. If you're a dishonest contractor--there's certainly no shortage of those--then you have done the opposite: you've failed to clean up the site when you finished, because the contract didn't say you had to; you've painted without proper surface preparation, because the contract said you'd "paint", but didn't detail the surface preparation required; you nailed cleats to the roof, straight through the shingles, because it was easier and the contract didn't specify roof jacks... and if all of that is true, then I know your real name, because you recently "painted" my house. Meanwhile, here's some reading to educate yourself on implied and oral contracts. You'll find it agrees with my summary, though my summary was clearer.
Dream on izzy. You really do think you're some sort of superior 'summarizer', don't you? Get help with such delusions.