Public School Education System Thread

[TheOneX]

Walgreen's do not shut down due to online competition. There is no online competition in their industry.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

@TheOneX
The only thing I ever bought from Wallgreens was athletic tape. Last year I bought a shitload of it for cheap on the ol' internet.

@therestofyousheeple
But, if you liberty lovers want to go full nanny-state because some Breitbart try-hard wrote a low-info op-ed blaming a ten year old law (that applies to all CA) for the consequences of SFs uniquely terrible COVID policy - be my guest.

[DBTrek]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

There he goes with the nanny-state/Brietbart stuff again.
Deranged, man.
Next he'll start blathering about Proud Boys and armed insurrections I guess.

I had him pegged for a guy who could read and digest and argument instead of clinging to his first erroneous assumptions and sticking with them in spite of all contrary evidence.
Apparently I judged him wrong.

[Martin Hash]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

There he goes with the nanny-state/Brietbart stuff again.
Deranged, man.
Next he'll start blathering about Proud Boys and armed insurrections I guess.

I had him pegged for a guy who could read and digest and argument instead of clinging to his first erroneous assumptions and sticking with them in spite of all contrary evidence.
Apparently I judged him wrong.

It's his form of trolling.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

For the record: that was the first time I directly referenced the Breitbart article that first brought the Grand Theft threshold to the board's attention.

San Francisco has beclowned itself in more ways than I can count over the past year, and it has seemed hell-bent on driving out retailers. I maintain it is unlikely that lowering the Grand Theft threshold to make more non-violent, small-dollar crimes felonies will solve any of SFs retail problems.

Retailers are having a very difficult time surviving. Business Insider calls it a 'retail apocalypse.'
(https://www.businessinsider.com/stores- ... ist-2021-3)
The CA Grand Theft threshold can hardly be blamed for the consistent trend of struggling brick and mortar retailers.

But, there are already carve-outs from the general 950$ rule. If SF thinks it desperately needs Wallgreens, her voters are welcome to try for more carve-outs in an attempt to entice Wallgreens back. I doubt it will work, since I don't think the Grand Theft threshold is the main problem.

The Proud Boys probably aren't responsible either - but you never know. Those rascals are hard to pin down.

[Martin Hash]

How many times do you get to ignore the fact that the argument is NOT about felony vs. misdemeanor (it's the NON-enforcement that encourages shoplifting) before I ban you for straw-manning?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

How many times do you get to ignore the fact that the argument is NOT about felony vs. misdemeanor (it's the NON-enforcement that encourages shoplifting) before I ban you for straw-manning?

I am not the one that brought up the 950$ Grand Theft threshold. Nor did I try to tie that law to store closures. That is the position I am arguing against.

You say I am straw-manning, I say y'all trying to motte-and-bailey me by pretending nobody was actually arguing that the Grand Theft threshold was the problem.

Anyone arguing that lack of enforcement in SF is the problem has no argument from me.

I will accept this as an admission that I effectively made my case, and the Grand Theft threshold isn't the reason SF Walgreens are closing.

Another stunning victory for Hanarchy!

[The Conservative]

How many times do you get to ignore the fact that the argument is NOT about felony vs. misdemeanor (it's the NON-enforcement that encourages shoplifting) before I ban you for straw-manning?

The reason for that is racism... don't want black people to be seen as the ones committing the most crimes, now do we?

[Martin Hash]

How many times do you get to ignore the fact that the argument is NOT about felony vs. misdemeanor (it's the NON-enforcement that encourages shoplifting) before I ban you for straw-manning?

I am not the one that brought up the 950$ Grand Theft threshold. Nor did I try to tie that law to store closures. That is the position I am arguing against.

You say I am straw-manning, I say y'all trying to motte-and-bailey me by pretending nobody was actually arguing that the Grand Theft threshold was the problem.

Anyone arguing that lack of enforcement in SF is the problem has no argument from me.

I will accept this as an admission that I effectively made my case, and the Grand Theft threshold isn't the reason SF Walgreens are closing.

Another stunning victory for Hanarchy!

I agree that changing from felony to misdemeanor has no impact. R U saying that was DB’s position?

[SuburbanFarmer]

How many times do you get to ignore the fact that the argument is NOT about felony vs. misdemeanor (it's the NON-enforcement that encourages shoplifting) before I ban you for straw-manning?

I am not the one that brought up the 950$ Grand Theft threshold. Nor did I try to tie that law to store closures. That is the position I am arguing against.

You say I am straw-manning, I say y'all trying to motte-and-bailey me by pretending nobody was actually arguing that the Grand Theft threshold was the problem.

Anyone arguing that lack of enforcement in SF is the problem has no argument from me.

I will accept this as an admission that I effectively made my case, and the Grand Theft threshold isn't the reason SF Walgreens are closing.

Another stunning victory for Hanarchy!

I agree that changing from felony to misdemeanor has no impact. R U saying that was DB’s position?

Certainly looked that way.