First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply Bill would prohibit bulletproof glass at Philadelphia stores
23740 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 12/7/17 , edited 12/7/17
" Democratic councilwoman says the safety measure relied on in low-income neighborhoods hurts shoppers' feelings. "
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbav5u3c8NM

A Democratic congress woman wants to prevent small businesses and non-profits from putting up bullet proof glass in low income neighborhoods because "We want to make sure there isn't this sort of indignity, in my opinion, to serving food through a plexiglass only in certain neighborhoods". Her replacement for this is more security cameras and more guards being employed.

Personally I'd prefer the plexiglass windows to putting Cameras and guards everywhere that are watching you. Not only will it put employees at risk and force business owners to raise the cost of their goods in poor neighborhoods to pay for added security.

Do you think this is reasonable or do you think it is offensive towards the people in the areas? Should we keep the plexiglass installed for the safety of the employees? Is it worth raising the cost of goods in low income areas?




Asian Americans are really against this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9Tm1LO-rIY
Vahvi 
8919 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 /❓/ ⚤ / Nearby
Offline
Posted 12/7/17 , edited 12/7/17
Low quality cameras that can't even display a bare face with enough detail other than to make out their height and ethnicity over life saving bullet proof glass? Guards aside, I'll take the one that protects me from perforation.
runec 
41006 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/7/17 , edited 12/7/17
The context obviously omitted from Ruji's post is:

The bill is targeting loophole businesses that are using a food license to sell liquor without actually being restaurants. Thus letting them sell booze as a convenience store without having to obtain a regular liquor license. Basically, these businesses are using business licenses intended for restaurants in order to skirt the law and sell liquor out of a corner store.

In other words, they can keep their glass and stop selling liquor. Or they can keep selling liquor and comply with all of the requirements to get a legal standard liquor license ( No glass, customer seating, public restrooms, etc ).

Finally, the provision regarding the glass has already since been amended and no longer mandates the removal of the glass. The bill now gives 3 years to study the usage of the glass and come up with a solution to the overall problem.

But hey, don't let context or reality get in the way of a good political shitpost.

16171 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 12/7/17 , edited 12/8/17

runec wrote:

The context obviously omitted from Ruji's post is:

The bill is targeting loophole businesses that are using a food license to sell liquor without actually being restaurants. Thus letting them sell booze as a convenience store without having to obtain a regular liquor license. Basically, these businesses are using business licenses intended for restaurants in order to skirt the law and sell liquor out of a corner store.

In other words, they can keep their glass and stop selling liquor. Or they can keep selling liquor and comply with all of the requirements to get a legal standard liquor license ( No glass, customer seating, public restrooms, etc ).

Finally, the provision regarding the glass has already since been amended and no longer mandates the removal of the glass. The bill now gives 3 years to study the usage of the glass and come up with a solution to the overall problem.

But hey, don't let context or reality get in the way of a good political shitpost.



Ruji is on a roll tonight.
qwueri 
24892 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Offline
Posted 12/7/17 , edited 12/8/17

sundin13 wrote:

Ruji is on a roll tonight.


It's like a forum game of 'find the actual context'.
23740 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 12/7/17 , edited 12/8/17

runec wrote:

The context obviously omitted from Ruji's post is:

The bill is targeting loophole businesses that are using a food license to sell liquor without actually being restaurants. Thus letting them sell booze as a convenience store without having to obtain a regular liquor license. Basically, these businesses are using business licenses intended for restaurants in order to skirt the law and sell liquor out of a corner store.

In other words, they can keep their glass and stop selling liquor. Or they can keep selling liquor and comply with all of the requirements to get a legal standard liquor license ( No glass, customer seating, public restrooms, etc ).

Finally, the provision regarding the glass has already since been amended and no longer mandates the removal of the glass. The bill now gives 3 years to study the usage of the glass and come up with a solution to the overall problem.

But hey, don't let context or reality get in the way of a good political shitpost.



You just said there that they are being forced to choose between having bullet proof glass and not having bullet proof glass. Why not let both have bullet proof glass? Problem solved and no need to do a 3 year study on anything.

Why do you need a 3 year study to learn that bullet proof glass protects employees. This is why I say the government has TOO much money. A single digit child could tell you that bullet proof glass protects people.
runec 
41006 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/7/17 , edited 12/8/17

Rujikin wrote:
You just said there that they are being forced to choose between having bullet proof glass and not having bullet proof glass. Why not let both have bullet proof glass? Problem solved and no need to do a 3 year study on anything.


I said they were being forced to choose between using the proper business license for their business and continuing to exploit a legal loophole that lets them sell booze out of a hole in the wall. -.-

12147 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 12/7/17 , edited 12/8/17

Rujikin wrote:


runec wrote:

The context obviously omitted from Ruji's post is:

The bill is targeting loophole businesses that are using a food license to sell liquor without actually being restaurants. Thus letting them sell booze as a convenience store without having to obtain a regular liquor license. Basically, these businesses are using business licenses intended for restaurants in order to skirt the law and sell liquor out of a corner store.

In other words, they can keep their glass and stop selling liquor. Or they can keep selling liquor and comply with all of the requirements to get a legal standard liquor license ( No glass, customer seating, public restrooms, etc ).

Finally, the provision regarding the glass has already since been amended and no longer mandates the removal of the glass. The bill now gives 3 years to study the usage of the glass and come up with a solution to the overall problem.

But hey, don't let context or reality get in the way of a good political shitpost.



You just said there that they are being forced to choose between having bullet proof glass and not having bullet proof glass. Why not let both have bullet proof glass? Problem solved and no need to do a 3 year study on anything.

Why do you need a 3 year study to learn that bullet proof glass protects employees. This is why I say the government has TOO much money. A single digit child could tell you that bullet proof glass protects people.


Nowhere in his post does he say that. If you're going to pretend other people are saying things they arent at least be willing to put the effort in not to quote what they actually said verbatim in the same post. I can't believe you act surprised when people call you a liar after you keep trying to pull shit like this.
48765 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 12/7/17 , edited 12/8/17
Yay it's Ruji spam forum post night!
519 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Morioh, Japan
Offline
Posted 12/7/17 , edited 12/8/17

qwueri wrote:


sundin13 wrote:

Ruji is on a roll tonight.


It's like a forum game of 'find the actual context'.


There is so much spin and so many strawmen that I'm surprised there isn't a yellow brick road on this website.
28837 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M / So. Cal
Offline
Posted 12/7/17 , edited 12/8/17
I suggest you travel to Philadelphia, shoot her, and prove to her the value of bullet proof resistant glass; he says in a sarcastic tone
mxdan 
12223 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 12/7/17 , edited 12/7/17
1989 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / PA, USA
Offline
Posted 12/8/17 , edited 12/8/17
Regarding the actual forum topic:

I've already used this word tonight, but I'm going to say it again; "subterfuge." Chicanery is clearly being employed, and I'm less than amused with the prospect. I have questions for both sides, mostly to whoever is/are behind the bill, and I really can't trust anyone unless I can properly pinpoint their motives. "Shenanigans are afoot, ya hear?"



On to the side-commentary:

You've been doing this for, what, 2+ years now? You guys waltz into each others' threads with the intention of ragging on each other, and drag personal grievances into most anything. Armed to the teeth with preconceptions, y'all seem to jump at shadows half the time. At this point, I'm fairly certain that most of your issues lie with the differences in what all grabs your attention the most when you find out about something, which greatly influences how forum topics are presented (writing style, really). When it's something like that, there's no "right" side, and no resolution. I want to lock you guys in a bar together and make you play drinking games. Whoever passes out first wins.
runec 
41006 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/8/17 , edited 12/8/17

Cardamom_Ginger wrote:
On to the side-commentary:

You've been doing this for, what, 2+ years now? You guys waltz into each others' threads with the intention of ragging on each other, and drag personal grievances into most anything. Armed to the teeth with preconceptions, y'all seem to jump at shadows half the time. At this point, I'm fairly certain that most of your issues lie with the differences in what all grabs your attention the most when you find out about something, which greatly influences how forum topics are presented (writing style, really). When it's something like that, there's no "right" side, and no resolution. I want to lock you guys in a bar together and make you play drinking games. Whoever passes out first wins.


Counterpoint: None of us start as many threads as Ruji does let alone the sheer amount of obvious bait / shitpost threads he does.

A lack of critical thinking is not merely a difference in what grabs attention. Nor is trolling and duplicity a writing style.
1989 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / PA, USA
Offline
Posted 12/8/17 , edited 12/8/17

runec wrote:

Counterpoint: None of us start as many threads as Ruji does let alone the sheer amount of obvious bait / shitpost threads he does.

A lack of critical thinking is not merely a difference in what grabs attention. Nor is trolling and duplicity a writing style.


That's the problem; you almost certainly assume that it's "trolling and dublicity," or something. It doesn't have to be. Besides, a "lack of critical thinking" implies that it's not intentional, which is fairly counter-intuitive to earlier suppositions of it all being bait. Not that any of that takes away from the soap opera going on. Anyway; I'm criticizing you all, including Ruji. I've watched you guys go at it for some time now (I "ghost" too much). Ruji isn't the only one guilty of spamming threads and starting shit. Plus, not many of us bother to make our own threads, even prior to the forum move. You see a bunch of Ruji threads, because he's one of the few consistent ones right now.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.