That’s only true if you make under $15.

It did change. I said what I said, and it had nothing to do with people being in my your house. I then clarified that no less than three times. If you missed that context, it’s on you.

Too busy trying to convince me I’m actually two people to read my comment and see the change?

And that context can never change? u/LetMeSleepNoEleven declares the context parameters for all future comments? No one can post to a public forum under you if they don’t follow your rules? Of course not.

I know you never said they shouldn’t sleep in your yard, which is why I specifically mentioned “on your property” to make that abundantly clear, which you also had an issue with.

Yes, and? Are we not allowed to deviate from what you and the other commenters were discussing? The conversation can’t flow from that topic?

You were clearly not caring about anyone else’s security or liability other than your own, so I addressed that with a better example.

My response, which I quoted, was in the context of them living on your property. That was clear from the response.

No I didn’t.

I quoted part of your comment and asked you a follow up question related to that quoted piece. In my response I directly stated “on your property” not anything to do with in your house. See my original response to you,

> I’m fully aware you understand that my security is at risk if random people live in my house but Walmart’s security is not at risk if they live next to the parking lot.

>Why would you have security and liability issues from allowing a group to live on your property, but Walmart would not? Walmart is absolutely at risk if people are living on their property, and they continue to allow them to do so.

I have never suggested they live in your house, nor have I suggested that is equivalent. I simply asked why you cared about your liability while ignoring the liability on the Walmart property.

I still have no idea why you think the person you keep linking is me, is your tin foil hat too tight? Or is it just easier to blame that instead of addressing what I said?

Crazy thought, ever considered that I was referring to myself as I?

As in, reminding you that I wasn’t the one who suggested they live in your house.

>I didn’t suggest they live inside your home.

What did I say that made you reach that conclusion?

I have no idea who that person is, nor why you would think I’m admitting to be that person.

Go re-read my comment and let me know.

I didn’t suggest they live inside your home.

I simply said that the property owner has liability, and that it’s weird you’re worried about your security/liability, but expect them to be someone else’s security/liability.

This is literally NIMBY; not in my backyard.

>Because they were not actually in the house with the Walmart workers while the Walmart workers slept. WTF?

What part of my comment is contingent of them living inside the building? There is liability from allowing groups of people to set up structures on your property, both indoors and outdoors.

You would have liability if this was in your backyard.

>What land?

I love the idea of using tax dollars to buy office buildings that are unused because of the flip to remote work to be used for temporary assistive housing to help people transition into being homed. Not on Walmart’s landlords dime though beyond their share of tax dollars.

(Deleted and re-sybmitted since I replied to the wrong comment)

>I’m fully aware you understand that my security is at risk if random people live in my house but Walmart’s security is not at risk if they live next to the parking lot.

Why would you have security and liability issues from allowing a group to live on your property, but Walmart would not? Walmart is absolutely at risk if people are living on their property, and they continue to allow them to do so.

What happens if someone gets into a fight? Overdoses? Trips and falls into the river? Propane stove catches a tent on fire? Someone trips over a tent?

We absolutely have an issue with homelessness, but that’s a problem for society not a problem for a particular commercial business.

>3rd time I’ll ask: what land do you propose?

No one is answering this, because it’s not a relevant question for Walmart to answer. It’s a question for society and their governments to answer.

>I’m fully aware you understand that my security is at risk if random people live in my house but Walmart’s security is not at risk if they live next to the parking lot.

Why would you have security and liability issues from allowing this, but Walmart would not? Walmart is absolutely at risk if people are living on their property, and they continue to allow them to do so.

What happens if someone gets into a fight? Overdoses? Trips and falls into the river? Propane stove catches a tent on fire? Someone trips over a tent?

We absolutely have an issue with homelessness, but that’s a problem for society not a problem for a particular commercial business.

>3rd time I’ll ask: what land do you propose?

No one is answering this, because it’s not a relevant question for Walmart to answer. It’s a question for society and their governments to answer.

Why would the homeless camp be a smokescreen? What benefit would that be?

I see two options,

A: The trees were removed to deter the homeless from returning by removing the woods they were hiding the camp in.

B: The homeless were removed to make way for the trees to be removed and work to be done in this area.

I don’t see any way the homeless camp benefits Walmart or the property owner.

One example I can think of is I believe the cape is going from 8 lanes to 12 across the canal.

They only do smaller tanks.

I think I got mine at a gas supplier when I had one. I think it was Airgas.

Edit: oops re-read the post, sorry OP

I know the Boy Scouts pick up our tree for a donation, maybe contact them and see if they can give you guys the trees since I assume disposal costs them money. Win win for everyone.

Arrive early.

I would bring the expired ID along with the paper license. Can’t hurt.

>Idk man. It was a safe move on my part, I would have been visible the entire time in his mirrors.

It obviously wasn’t a safe move considering it damaged your vehicle.

The issue isn’t about being visible to the driver. The issue is being far enough back so snow, salt, and other debris, which obviously will be coming from the plow truck, won’t strike your vehicle.

>I If 3 car lengths is tailgating, apparently I'm even more of an asshole than I expected.

On a normal day? Completely fine following distance.

On a snowy day behind a vehicle that is actively plowing snow? Way too close.

You need to drive for the current conditions of the roadway. It’s usually recommended to stay 500ft back from any emergency or maintenance vehicle, and it sounds like you were back about 10% of that.

Definitely doesn’t make you an asshole tho.

And if you got to the emergency room and don’t get admitted, some insurance plans do not cover that cost like they would a hospital admission.

Mine calls it non-emergent use of the emergency room.

You must not have looked very closely.

The guy is an absolute douche, almost seemed proud to be inhumane.

Good riddance.

Or, crazy idea, don’t drink and drive.

I don’t think either of those first two claims are true.

I’m fairly confident they can use the money and they can definitely eventually use it, and I know for a fact the threshold isn’t $100.

Even if I’m wrong and you’re right, Walmart is still better off now than before the cards were purchased and kept.

>I literally have hundreds in wal mart gift cards from family members and refuse to step foot in one.

Which gives them the full value of the gift card, rather than just the profit on the items you would purchase. Assuming these were prepaid gift cards your referencing.

Did you really just make a second account to defend yourself?

You know new accounts are tagged on some clients.