That sucks, we really need to build out better infrastructure, or at the very least allow competition on the existing copper.

Edit: oh and fios is all fiber optic, not phone lines (not sure if you meant "phone lines" literally in your comment, but figured I'd clarify anyway)

$39.99 grand total for 300/300 fios for me. They haven't tried to change the price at all.

Yeah I have the tendency to drag things out to allow others the space to make fools of themselves...

It's probably neither helpful nor healthy, but I sure enjoy it.

I'm not even trying to argue, I'm pulling teeth just trying to get them to explain themselves

Yep, insurance companies don't really care about anything aside from your check clearing. You don't even have to own the vehicle to get insurance on it.

The way I'm reading it, it affirms that local governments can basically do whatever they want. What's the list of requirements the SC is putting on local gov?

So what did you intend to communicate by posting this link?

> DL, Insurance, Inspection and Vin Check all come before Registration.

Can't you do DL and registration all at the same time? Then you only need one trip to the DMV.

Update insurance immediately.

VIN check as soon as they're able.

License and registration at DMV.

> cherry picking the article, that not what it says.

It's a supreme court ruling not an article, and those are direct quotes. It is literally what it says.

> Page 9, section C.

The part that summarizes survey results? I am not sure what relevance the status quo before the ruling has on anything.

But even in that section, it agrees with what I quoted and how I summarized it:

> local governments that fly third-party flags frequently reject requests to do so

[...]

> For example, in response to the Black Lives Matter movement, one city received a request to display the “Thin Blue Line” flag, but the city declined the request due to the flag’s association with opposition to the Black Lives Matter and racial justice movements.

> At a minimum, the Court should confirm that a local government does not establish a government-created forum for private speech by deciding to fly the flag of a foreign country, a private organization, or a movement on its initiative without any formal request. It cannot be disputed that a local government may decide by itself to fly the flag of a foreign country to welcome a foreign dignitary or celebrate the heritage of a portion of the community without creating a forum.

[...]

> Thus, for example, local governments may decide to fly only flags of foreign countries, flags of local non-profit and charitable groups, or flags of local non-profit institutions and sports teams without transforming their flagpoles into public fora.

That ruling affirms a town's right to fly something like the Pride Flag, and confirms that flying one flag doesn't require them to then fly all flags. Is that what you intended to support by posting the link?

> Same sex = no bueno

I might be misunderstanding what you're saying.

Are you saying that gay people are bad?

Wait so now your criteria is that a flag must have a popular vote to be able to fly? So then we're back to you wanting the American and Rhode Island flags taken down.

So you criteria is that a flag must be protected by either federal or state decree in order to be allowed to fly on state land?

You failed to answer my question. Why are you working so hard to conceal your actual opinions?

> One flag is federally protected. the other is not.

So then are you opposed to the RI flag being flown because it's not federally protected? Then may I suggest you lobby our government and it gets put to a vote, you know... like a democracy...

>We all are AMERICANS

We all have SEXUAL ORIENTATIONS too, so I'm not really following the line you're trying to draw in the sand.

I am not asking you personally to erect it. You can merely get out of the way of the people that do. If you don't feel you have the spare braincells to simultaneously perform your job and respect other human beings, then I will not require you to try.

Nobody said it would. I'm saying that you're claiming to be persecuted in a way that you aren't, which is evidence of having a victim complex.

Why? It's all just virtue signaling, which it sounds like you're opposed to.

Or are you only opposed to signaling certain virtues?

> I just feel it would have to be a very big flag pole if "Everyone" wanted to start flying their respective flags.

TBF, that sounds super cool. Let's do it, make sure that everyone's immutable traits are represented and respected.

You want to ban American flags from being flown on state lands?

> so who has the complex?

You, still you.

You don't see the difference between your imagined persecution, and the actual violence against queer people?

> I see an issue of forcing it on others

Forcing what exactly on others? Forcing them to confront the fact that people with immutable characteristics exist in the world? What do you think it says about a person if if ruins their day to think that gay people exist and deserve respect?

> nazis [...] WOUld it then be acceptable, if they wanted to fly their flag on state property...?

Well no, for a couple reasons. Being a nazi isn't an immutable characteristic, so it fails there. It's also a political choice, so it fails there as well.

If it helps, here's where I would draw the line on other flags:

• Pride flag: yes

• RI Queer PAC flag: no

• Autism Awareness flag: yes

• Flag for the organization "Autism Speaks": no

• Remember to vote flag (if there were one): yes

• Vote Democrat flag: no

• Gold ribbon cancer awareness flag: yes

• Komen for the Cure trademarked pink ribbon flag: no

They are extremist if their ideas are much further left than the mainline party, yes. That's what the term means. Someone who wants literal communism would indeed be an extremist.

> immediately name call

I think your victim complex is showing...you're all over this thread but no one is calling you names.

> try silence my opinion

How are they doing that?

Is that really the main concern for people like you, that you don't want to have to think that someone might be attracted to someone else?

Do you get grossed out when you see a man and woman holding hands on the street, and wish they would keep their sexual preferences to themselves? Or is it only certain types of orientations you think are bad?