WhoSaidWhat

Registered bored user

whosaidwhat wrote:
broizfam There is that pesky part of our legal system that states that one is "innocent until proven guilty". Prove that a person was refused service due to their skin color, religious beliefs, etc. Its not always easy to do. Sometimes, yes, its glaring and obvious, but not always. Either way, if they clearly state that they may refuse your business, I don't really think that anyone refused would have a legal leg to stand on, especially if the business doesn't clearly state a reason for the refusal.
whosaidwhat wrote:
My question is why did she fall in the first place? Faulty safety equipment? Improper operation? Her own stupidity? Her fellow passenger? 
whosaidwhat wrote:
Love Simon's Cat, because its all true!
whosaidwhat wrote:
thunderbear While you do have a point, the Founding Fathers (or at least the way the Supreme Court interprets them) intended for what I stated: the government cannot impose a religion upon its citizens, nor can it impose restrictions upon its citizens based upon their religious beliefs. There have been rulings that say that the government does, indeed, have at least some sway over religious matters.
whosaidwhat wrote:
squrlz4ever Damn, thats about the most spot-on description of 5cats tactics I have ever seen!
whosaidwhat wrote:
squrlz4ever Why did you say that Pelosi never said, "We have to pass the bill to figure out what's in it", then directly quote her as having said, "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it"? They are essentially the same thing! Yes, I know, she also said, "away from the fog of the controversy", but what does that actually add to it? Whatever you add to the end of the statement, she is still saying that it has to be passed to find out what is in it! How is this not spin? In the article you linked to earlier, Pelosi does the typical politician thing to do; speak a lot, without saying a thing. She used a lot of talking points that tell how wonderful the bill will be, without actually saying anything about its make-up, or how it will work. How is this transparent? Again, I'm not political, nor do I adhere to a particular party (they are both corrupt as hell), I just read things the way I see them. If you put cake frosting on a dog turd, and call it a wedding cake, it doesn't change the fact that it is a dog turd. You can call it a "special cake" (still a turd), "odd cake" (still a turd), or even "specially frosted heaven cake" (still a turd), but it never changes the fact that it is still a turd! Now, if Pelosi has ever issued a retraction or apology stating that she mis-spoke (she hasn't to my knowledge), it would be a different story, but she hasn't, so its still a shining, iced dog turd, and its still the same lack of transparency that the Dems are crying about with the GOP health bill. Honestly, how many different ways can you really interpret "you have to pass this to find out whats in it"? There is precedent for this type of thing from our glorious government. Would you like examples?
whosaidwhat wrote:
Who knew that there was so much involved in making the humble table tennis ball?
whosaidwhat wrote:
Too many people don't understand the concept of "separation of church and state". This simply means that the government cannot impose a specific religion upon their citizens. It does not mean that there can be no religious-related laws or decrees by the government, just that they cannot tell you how to, or not to, worship.
whosaidwhat wrote:
Gerry1of1 I'm not saying that this is right, just that I've seen it. I don't know if they still do, or even if they're still in business, but their used to be a restaurant outside of Perry FL with a sign on the door that said, very bluntly, "No Niggers". The last I knew of it was in the late 90s. 
whosaidwhat wrote:
broizfam I have seen many, many private businesses with signs stating that they "reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". Perfectly legal. maybe not strictly ethical, but legal. 
whosaidwhat wrote:
stifler You made me laugh with your "gynecologist" comment!
whosaidwhat wrote:
monkwarrior Too, true. That, and how someone treats a person who can do absolutely nothing for them.
whosaidwhat wrote:
squrlz4ever You're not alone. So far, I've gotten exactly one of these "name the movie" posts. The one I got is the only one that I've ever seen. Then again, I don't really care about "popular opinion"; I dance to the beat of a different drum.
whosaidwhat wrote:
Whats really sad it the fact that people just don't learn about Pit Bulls. They are MENTALLY UNSTABLE! These dogs have been bred for one reason, and one reason only: to fight, often to the death. There have been so many cases of Pits who were "lovable and docile" for years, suddenly attacking their owners, or others, with no provocation. One minute, little Jimmy (or Janie) is sitting their watching TV, while the lovable family Pit is playing on the floor; the next, the poor kid is being mauled. Yes, I know that there have been many Pits who were lovable, loving, loyal companions until the end, but there have been enough that went south to make them (in my opinion) a dangerous breed. It has been proven again and again throughout history that when you interbreed an animal over generations to get a specific trait (like viciousness), you can't expect that trait to disappear simply because you "gave the animal love". When will people learn that a bred killer is NOT SUITABLE as a family pet?
whosaidwhat wrote:
stifler Whats really sad is that there are TONS of books (officially sanctioned by Lucas, no less) written on the Star Wars universe. Books that span both before and long after the films, including several about Han's origins. Why are these idiots trying to write new stories, instead of using what already exists, and would be considered "canon". Maybe, just MAYBE, they will actually follow an existing story line this time, but I somehow doubt it.
whosaidwhat wrote:
captkangaroo Yeah, I freely admit that I'm pretty fucked up in the head...
whosaidwhat wrote:
squrlz4ever I read what you linked to. I don't really follow politics, and don't label myself either a liberal, or a conservative. I just try to look at whats going on with a bit of common sense. Her statements can be spun in a few different ways. To me, it smacks of trying to hide something. Stating that "the public wouldn't understand it" is so wrong its not even funny. This country's government is SUPPOSED to be of the people, BY THE PEOPLE, and for the people. How can a "representative" truly vote the way their constituents want them to (which is what they are SUPPOSED TO be doing), when their constituents don't understand whats being voted on? Hows that for a "lack of transparency"? 
whosaidwhat wrote:
5cats Oh, it gets better. Consider that Dems are up in arms about a "lack of transparency" for the Repubs health care bill. Then, consider the whole "you will have to sign it to see whats in it" fiasco from Obamacare. Now, who has a lack of transparency again?
whosaidwhat wrote:
Yeah, thats a bad idea. Water is HEAVY!!
whosaidwhat wrote:
#4. Sorry, but a tattoo is NOT a valid DNR. I happen to be a volly firefighter and medic. If you cannot produce a piece of paper with the DNR info on it, I WILL be attempting to resuscitate your loved one. At some point this may change, but a tattoo is currently not accepted as a legal document.
whosaidwhat wrote:
Its pretty telling that three of the top 5 shots were made by Canadians. They do have some truly bad ass snipers!
whosaidwhat wrote:
captkangaroo My opinions and wishes are indeed sometimes at odds with what is best for society. For either case (the one in this post, or my wife's niece), you are correct, in that the offender was serving their time, which is the court-mandated punishment, and that should (legally and ethically, at least) be the end of it. My personal opinion, however, is that these monsters get what they deserve when the general prison population metes out its own form of "justice" on them. Savvy?
whosaidwhat wrote:
5cats Only when it sexualizes adolescent children.
whosaidwhat wrote:
captkangaroo While you are not incorrect, what happened here is fairly common. Most child molesters do not fair well in prison; the other inmates often dish out their own "justice" when they find out that a child molester is in their midst. Its just too bad that the father of my wife's niece didn't get this treatment when he was in prison for repeatedly molesting and raping his own teen-aged daughter (the niece mentioned).