Those exist here, too. The US is a very big place (your whole country is the size of a small state) with a ton of truck stops, there's bound to be crappy ones especially in the middle of nowhere.
Not sure that's a truck stop in the photo, though. Looks like a fast food/gas pit stop for general travelers.
I drove from UK through Germany. There were soo many rest stops, well equipped with toilets, seating, plenty of parking, sometimes ev charging - I was gobsmacked.
You say that like everyone likes them. Trust me I've been up and down the western states, the franchises or the worst places to stop at, always smell weird. Regardless I'm pretty sure what they're talking about is actually a privately owned chain in the south, fuck if I know I'm from California.
We have a document called the Bill Of Rights. It's the first ten amendments to our Constitution. During the constitutional convention, the Constitution wouldn't pass without these ten extra provisions guaranteeing rights to individuals and lower tiers of government. The First Amendment includes the rights of free speech, free press, peaceful assembly, practice of religion and petition. The second protects the right to bear arms. The fifth protects the rights of the accused. From which amendment does congress get the power to enact intellectual property law?
It's a trick question. That's not in an amendment, it's in Article 1. Copyrights, patents and in this case trademarks are more foundational to society than even free speech.
I do prefer franchise or chain rest stops on a long trip, because they have an established reputation. The business owner defends their trademarks largely as a marketing exercise, to prevent competition from stealing their sales by putting the same name on the shelf. The customer wants those trademarks defended because they are powerful tools for accountability. A business does a bad job, avoid their products and services.
I've never gotten food poisoning from a burger chain, I have gotten food poisoning from a "proper" restaurant with a chef. I've never gotten contaminated gas from a Sheetz, I have gotten contaminated gas from Ma And Pa's Kountry Kitchen. If I'm gonna drive across this nation again, I'd rather fill the car with Buccee's gas and eat nothing but McNuggets on the way because that way I'm sure neither the car nor myself will be on the side of a Mojave highway spewing unidentifiable fluids.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
We can support gun control without resorting to language games.
That clearly states that it's the right to bear arms that shall not be infringed.
Versions ratified by the states variously lacked the commas that make it weird to a modern reading, and the right to weapons is one of the historical rights they complained of being restricted in the declaration of independence.
It's sufficient to just say that we'll accept restrictions on the second amendment in line with the restrictions on every other enumerated right.
Ah, this retarded argument again. With the exception of ignorant hippies, I've only ever seen that nonsense brought up as a reason to disarm black people. So which are you? Idiot or racist?
You obviously don't because you're interpreting it wrong.
Constitutional scholars interpret "A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state" as a prefatory clause, with "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" as the operating clause. The first is there to explain why the second is there, not to limit its scope.
You know the first time this whole militia crap came up? Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1856. "But if we give negroes citizenship, that means they'll be allowed to have guns!" Which minority group do you personally want it to be safer for white men to systematically brutalize? Black people? Women? Gay people? Trans people? Jews? Muslims?
You Americans should see the truck stops in the Netherlands. You can have proper food and bathrooms/showers actually look nice.
Those exist here, too. The US is a very big place (your whole country is the size of a small state) with a ton of truck stops, there's bound to be crappy ones especially in the middle of nowhere.
Not sure that's a truck stop in the photo, though. Looks like a fast food/gas pit stop for general travelers.
I drove from UK through Germany. There were soo many rest stops, well equipped with toilets, seating, plenty of parking, sometimes ev charging - I was gobsmacked.
You guys got Buccee's too?
You guys really do love your franchises, don't you?
You do understand those are not necessary for a good roadtrip, right?
You say that like everyone likes them. Trust me I've been up and down the western states, the franchises or the worst places to stop at, always smell weird. Regardless I'm pretty sure what they're talking about is actually a privately owned chain in the south, fuck if I know I'm from California.
Let me tell you something about America:
We have a document called the Bill Of Rights. It's the first ten amendments to our Constitution. During the constitutional convention, the Constitution wouldn't pass without these ten extra provisions guaranteeing rights to individuals and lower tiers of government. The First Amendment includes the rights of free speech, free press, peaceful assembly, practice of religion and petition. The second protects the right to bear arms. The fifth protects the rights of the accused. From which amendment does congress get the power to enact intellectual property law?
It's a trick question. That's not in an amendment, it's in Article 1. Copyrights, patents and in this case trademarks are more foundational to society than even free speech.
I do prefer franchise or chain rest stops on a long trip, because they have an established reputation. The business owner defends their trademarks largely as a marketing exercise, to prevent competition from stealing their sales by putting the same name on the shelf. The customer wants those trademarks defended because they are powerful tools for accountability. A business does a bad job, avoid their products and services.
I've never gotten food poisoning from a burger chain, I have gotten food poisoning from a "proper" restaurant with a chef. I've never gotten contaminated gas from a Sheetz, I have gotten contaminated gas from Ma And Pa's Kountry Kitchen. If I'm gonna drive across this nation again, I'd rather fill the car with Buccee's gas and eat nothing but McNuggets on the way because that way I'm sure neither the car nor myself will be on the side of a Mojave highway spewing unidentifiable fluids.
Clap Clap Clap
Good one, Billy! Show it to them commies!
No it doesn't actually... If you read the whole thing.
We can support gun control without resorting to language games.
That clearly states that it's the right to bear arms that shall not be infringed. Versions ratified by the states variously lacked the commas that make it weird to a modern reading, and the right to weapons is one of the historical rights they complained of being restricted in the declaration of independence.
It's sufficient to just say that we'll accept restrictions on the second amendment in line with the restrictions on every other enumerated right.
A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
--the whole thing.
And what are you doing as a well regulated militia, necessary for the security of a free state?
You owning a shotgun while sitting on your couch isn't well regulated, or security.
Ah, this retarded argument again. With the exception of ignorant hippies, I've only ever seen that nonsense brought up as a reason to disarm black people. So which are you? Idiot or racist?
Just someone who doesn't even live in your country but apparently knows more about your constitution than you do.
You obviously don't because you're interpreting it wrong.
Constitutional scholars interpret "A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state" as a prefatory clause, with "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" as the operating clause. The first is there to explain why the second is there, not to limit its scope.
You know the first time this whole militia crap came up? Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1856. "But if we give negroes citizenship, that means they'll be allowed to have guns!" Which minority group do you personally want it to be safer for white men to systematically brutalize? Black people? Women? Gay people? Trans people? Jews? Muslims?