Comments by "afcgeo" (@afcgeo882) on "Feli from Germany"
channel.
-
98
-
70
-
51
-
45
-
23
-
23
-
20
-
12
-
10
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
In the United States, Credit Card agreements require lending banks (credit card bank) to forgive fraudulent transactions and return the money to the customer when a legitimate complaint is filed and investigated. They purchase insurance for such things and consider it a simple cost of doing business. They also have much stronger anti-theft protocols than you think, including algorithms that look into your purchasing history, amounts and locations. When it comes to debit cards/checks, there are a lot fewer protections from fraud. If someone hacks your debit card and you don't report it within a few days, you may very well lose whatever amount you were taken for. They will shut down further debits and issue you a new card, but the money that's lost may be lost. The same with checks. Unless they track down the thief and find definitive evidence of fraud, you likely won't see that money back. That is why Americans are more prone to using credit cards than debit cards/checks. At the same time, technology implementation is much more difficult in the United States due to so many states having different laws for commerce, federal laws for interstate commerce, a HUGE amount of independent businesses and the overall attitude of the government not getting involved in business until it absolutely has to. Mandating a form of payment is not an option, like it may be in smaller countries. You cannot make a small business owner invest in particular technology. Checks didn't need any technology. They are paper. That said, businesses are moving to more technological systems on their own and you will RARELY see checks used in places like grocery stores anymore.
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Ideal serving temperature depends on the specific beer type and method of preparation. Thus, Ales are traditionally consumed at room temperature (they are brewed hot). Lagers are traditionally served just above freezing temperatures and are brewed cold. Other types of beers fall somewhere in the middle. Some of the issue is flavor and alcohol content, but much of it has to do with effervescence as well. As your beer gets warmer, it loses its natural gasses and that makes some beers less enjoyable. Ales are generally flat compared to lagers and Pilsners, Helles, Kolschs and wheat beers.
Here are some examples of ideal storage/serving temperatures:
35–40°F (2–4°C): Mass market light lagers.
40–45°F (4–7°C): Czech and German Pilsners, Munich Helles, wheat beers, and Kölsch.
45–50°F (7–10°C): IPAs, American pale ales, porters, and most stouts.
50–55°F (10–13°C): Belgian ales, sour ales, Bocks, English bitters and milds, Scottish ales
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jongordon7914 Except you seem to lack basic IQ. Just because people before you are mispronouncing a word, doesn’t mean the followers of them are all of a sudden pronouncing it properly. Also, just because I watch YT videos doesn’t mean I get educated by them or reference them in collegiate discussions (I do not.) Your ad-hominem attacks when you run out of subject matter are noted, and sadly aren’t surprising.
The English language word “Dutch” comes from a mispronunciation of the German word “Deutsche”. FULL STOP. PERIOD.
The English dictionaries of the 1700s refer to “Dutch” as to “of the Netherlands”, after they became an independent state in 1648. It is only in the Americas that “Dutch” is used in references to Germans past that point, and even to today.
You should look up this thing called “etymology.” It’s a real science, not a YT video.
So to recap: Germans spoke Deutsche long before the unification of Germany and the English language word “Dutch” had already been used to refer to the Netherlands exclusively, except in the Americas, where people kept confusing “Deutsch” for “Dutch.” So while even in England “Dutch” stood for Netherlandish or German back up until the 1600s, after that it discerned between the Netherlands and German regions you “politely” call fiefdoms, even though the 1700s is FAR from feudalism.
Those are historical FACTS, contrary to your opinion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@quintrankid8045 Only 13 states have criminal libel laws that are actually enforced: Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, Montana, New Hampshire, and North Dakota. Yes, they’re all rural, Republican states and that’s no coincidence. The ACLU is working hard to have these laws repealed. Look up “Frese v. MacDonald” (2018). The argument of the ACLU in New Hampshire is the vagueness of the statute, not its intent or enforcement. As a whole, the intent isn’t considered to be unconstitutional.
However, many states have VERY specific statutes that would very rarely be used. For example, in Illinois someone can be prosecuted for publishing false and derogatory statements about a bank’s financial well-being. In Kentucky, their libel/slander statute protects only judges.
Apparently 10-20 cases a year are prosecuted for criminal defamation around the country. The general concept is that the defamation must be contrary to facts known to the offender and malicious in nature in order to be prosecuted.
1
-
1
-
@quintrankid8045 Actually, if you dig deeper, you’ll see that case wasn’t Mr Frese’s first offense under the statute, and he had a prior conviction from pleading guilty for same. The issue in New Hampshire, and they’re being sued by the ACLU, is that their statute isn’t specific enough. Nothing in the Constitution allows unfettered free speech. In fact, there are many types of restricted expression: fraud, obscenity, child pornography, incitement of lawless action, perjury, violation of intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial advertising. Defamation is also still a tort, which has to withstand the test of Constitutionality (and has). So the issue is not of it as a general legal matter, but rather of overly broad application through statute wording. That application and wording may be viewed as an overall encroachment onto protected free speech.
In Gertz v Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) the Supreme Court has said that “there is no Constitutional value in false statements of fact.” The SCOTUS has established four specific areas where free speech is not protected:
First, when false statements of fact are said with a “sufficiently culpable mental state”. This can be persecuted by civil or criminal means. Second, knowingly making a false statement can be punished (this is where defamation falls). Third, negligent false statements of fact may be torts. And lastly, some implicit statements of fact, with a false factual connotation, can also fall under the torts category.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ZipplyZane Again, it is NOT in the Constitution and courts’ interpretations in US Supreme Court rulings extend certain very specific protections that they believe may apply, but as the overturning of the Roe v Wade decision has proved, those rulings don’t actually provide any concrete protections.
The Fourteenth Amendment abolished slavery and grants equal protection under the law, but it does not require laws to be written to give equal rights. This is how, for example, despite the 14th Amendment having been ratified in 1868, women could not vote until the 19th Amendment was passed in 1920, legal race segregation existed until 1968, and marriage wasn’t available to gay people until 2015. In fact, MOST civil rights protections that exist in the US today came into existence since 1968, and by codification, not the Constitution. That’s literally over 100 years after the 14th. Amendment was passed.
Stop yapping. You have NO clue of what you’re talking about. You didn’t learn ANYTHING in high school.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1