Let me tell you something: the whole "suing everyone macarena" in United States appears so ridiculous to many other countries that it makes up for good laughs at dinner time, in front of a burning hot expresso.
So does the Iraq war.. yet I don't hear people saying how we need to stop that. Odd.
I'll respond to your other points sometime later. I just found it hilarious that you're going "Look at Europe!!!" when the general sentiment is "Europe? Ewwww SOCIALISTS!!"
Pasta isn't the issue here. You don't drink the water you use to make pasta. Heaters aren't the issue here, you don't eat heaters. Spare me the anecdotes; they're the weakest argument in the world.
You're all missing the point of the McDonalds case. Coffee is designed to be consumed. Yes, it's a hot liquid, but it is still designed for human consumption. Liquid that can cause third degree burns within 5 seconds is not suitable for human consumption. This is what McDonalds was selling, and they were well aware of this. It was an unsafe product, with a history of being unsafe, and the corporation took no actions to correct it until the lawsuit.
Again, if this was so simple, why was the lawsuit successful?
We have differing opinions in this case, and the court disagrees with you as well.
It's not "plain and simple" otherwise we wouldn't be here bitching about it, and if it was so "plain and simple" the lawsuit would never have succeeded in the first place, no?
Do you know what 3rd degree burns are? They are serious burns and do not normally result from hot fluids designed for consumption. They are also extremely painful. Had she only received 1st degree burns, I doubt the suit would have been successful.
Well dude, going with what you said, do you realize the only reason that terrorism has an effect on the economy is because people are afraid?
I agree that fear is a part, but I'm talking more about successful terrorist attacks. The collapse of two gigantic office buildings in downtown NYC was a huge negative impact on the economy. Now, it's likely that such a large attack will not be successful again, but if it is, there will be another impact on the economy, which, sadly, will be partially driven by fear. That's what I'm referring to when I talk about metrics other than the loss of life. I use the same argument when people say 'Well only 3,000 died in 9/11 many more die from ______ (insert auto accidents, lung cancer, etc.)"
You're kind of missing the big picture. While human lives are important, they aren't the only metric of measuring threats. A threat to the country is not the same as a threat to a person. Personally, I have 0 fear of terrorism for the same reason you mention: statistically, I will not be a victim of terrorism. However, I understand that terrorism can have a profound effect on the nation's economy and overall sanity, and that is important.
I do agree that there are bigger issues than terrorism, mainly fiscal sanity and health care, but I think you were missing the whole picture in your analysis as you trivialized the effect of terrorism by focusing only on loss of life.
I like how your list takes the following form: " 1. 2.
Oh and by the way, 3, and anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid."
Where does it end? Where can we joke about bombs? Or, if we can't joke about bombs in line, what about knifes, can I joke about them? Or shoes? Or matches? Or nail files? Or darts? Or knitting needles?
I'm serious. I like to pass the time by making fun of things and I don't want to be whisked away because I happened to say the wrong thing in the "Land of the Free".
I am sick and tired of the left making that statement.
Yeah, I hate when people repeat facts.
What we do about it is up to debate, but so far I haven't seen anyone, including yourself, dispute the fact: Only 5% of containers are being inspected.
I'm saying that scanning *all* containers from now until the end of time is impossible and that destroying and keeping the terrorists and the reason they exist is a lot easier.
I seriously have no idea how you arrived at this conclusion. We know exactly where shipping containers come into the country. It would cost money, people, and time, but it is 100% viable to scan all containers coming into the country. It is ludicrous to think we are going to simply eliminate terrorism, something we cannot even agree on a definition for.
How you can say that it is easier to eliminate or mitigate a nebulous concept vs. implementing a relatively straightforward security procedure is beyond me.
First, sports tapes/DVDs, of whole games, are not that popular. In fact, I can't think of one that exists. Most sports tapes/DVDs are essentially highlight packages, something that would take a lot of effort to make with a TIVO, if it is even possible without hacks, etc.
100% correct. I stayed with 0.8 for a long time because of this, and I'm sorry that I upgraded last week. My config still isn't back to the way it was, and now Firefox doesn't even start correctly. About 60% of the time, it just locks on startup.
What some people are implying is that Kerry, through his wife, through Heinz, is personally outsourcing American jobs. That's simply a joke.
People don't talk as if Cheney runs Haliburton. The idea is that Cheney uses his position as VP to benefit Haliburton. The reason he does this is because he still has deferred payment from Haliburton, and has Haliburton stock options. When Haliburton does well, Dick Cheney directly benefits. To put together the dots for you, the idea is that Dick Cheney is using his position as Vice President for personal financial gain.
If Kerry started awarding 2 billion dollar no-bid contracts to Heinz, or some other similar move that would benefit him or his wife personally, you can bet there would be a stink. To date, there's no evidence of this, circumstantial or otherwise. Try again.
Not only that.. let's say you're 35 and you get "retrained". You're 35, fresh out of college, you already have a family, and now you must compete with the 22 year olds looking for their first job. You both have no experience in the field. Who do you think will work for less? Who do you think will get hired?
Once a precedent is on the books, my understanding is that it's binding in the US, no?
Nah. Precedent is only a strong suggestion. I think it was the Texas sodomy law where the USSC had ruled it constitutional back in the 70s and unconstitutional 2 years ago. The court basically said 'times have changed, the other court was wrong.' Could have the wrong case, but precedent is overturned every once in a while.
Also, with regards to appellate courts (brought up by sibling post), while the Xth circuit court does not have to consider rulings by the Yth circuit court, the circuit courts and USSC take great pains to avoid conflicting rulings.
Just as an addendum, it is highly likely that the Republicans will retain control of Congress this election, so to carry out the parent's strategy, one would be inclined to vote for Kerry.
Did they? It's very hard to figure out from your description. Where exactly were the signs? How far off the road? In almost all jurisdictions, you do not own the land up to the roadway. The city/county/state/feds prefer to keep a bit for themselves, so that when they're working on the road they don't have to go around and get permission from thousands of people, or so that when they plow the roads, they aren't dumping all the snow onto someone else's land, etc. The "Right-of-way" for a road almost always extends beyond the boundary of the actual pavement.
Granted, if they were putting these signs out in the middle of one of your fields, your point is perfectly valid.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me tell you something: the whole "suing everyone macarena" in United States appears so ridiculous to many other countries that it makes up for good laughs at dinner time, in front of a burning hot expresso.
So does the Iraq war.. yet I don't hear people saying how we need to stop that. Odd.
I'll respond to your other points sometime later. I just found it hilarious that you're going "Look at Europe!!!" when the general sentiment is "Europe? Ewwww SOCIALISTS!!"
Pasta isn't the issue here. You don't drink the water you use to make pasta. Heaters aren't the issue here, you don't eat heaters. Spare me the anecdotes; they're the weakest argument in the world.
You're all missing the point of the McDonalds case. Coffee is designed to be consumed. Yes, it's a hot liquid, but it is still designed for human consumption. Liquid that can cause third degree burns within 5 seconds is not suitable for human consumption. This is what McDonalds was selling, and they were well aware of this. It was an unsafe product, with a history of being unsafe, and the corporation took no actions to correct it until the lawsuit.
Again, if this was so simple, why was the lawsuit successful?
We have differing opinions in this case, and the court disagrees with you as well.
It's not "plain and simple" otherwise we wouldn't be here bitching about it, and if it was so "plain and simple" the lawsuit would never have succeeded in the first place, no?
Do you know what 3rd degree burns are? They are serious burns and do not normally result from hot fluids designed for consumption. They are also extremely painful. Had she only received 1st degree burns, I doubt the suit would have been successful.
Well dude, going with what you said, do you realize the only reason that terrorism has an effect on the economy is because people are afraid?
I agree that fear is a part, but I'm talking more about successful terrorist attacks. The collapse of two gigantic office buildings in downtown NYC was a huge negative impact on the economy. Now, it's likely that such a large attack will not be successful again, but if it is, there will be another impact on the economy, which, sadly, will be partially driven by fear. That's what I'm referring to when I talk about metrics other than the loss of life. I use the same argument when people say 'Well only 3,000 died in 9/11 many more die from ______ (insert auto accidents, lung cancer, etc.)"
You're kind of missing the big picture. While human lives are important, they aren't the only metric of measuring threats. A threat to the country is not the same as a threat to a person. Personally, I have 0 fear of terrorism for the same reason you mention: statistically, I will not be a victim of terrorism. However, I understand that terrorism can have a profound effect on the nation's economy and overall sanity, and that is important.
I do agree that there are bigger issues than terrorism, mainly fiscal sanity and health care, but I think you were missing the whole picture in your analysis as you trivialized the effect of terrorism by focusing only on loss of life.
You must have missed the part where it said 'I now have a permanent record on file with the FBI'.
It always goes beyond a 'simple chat'.
I like how your list takes the following form:
"
1.
2.
Oh and by the way, 3, and anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid."
Where does it end? Where can we joke about bombs? Or, if we can't joke about bombs in line, what about knifes, can I joke about them? Or shoes? Or matches? Or nail files? Or darts? Or knitting needles?
I'm serious. I like to pass the time by making fun of things and I don't want to be whisked away because I happened to say the wrong thing in the "Land of the Free".
Why are people so fucking afraid of TALK?
Bush is on the record as initially against DHS. However, I had never heard that DHS was in the works pre-9/11. Do you have a cite?
I am sick and tired of the left making that statement.
Yeah, I hate when people repeat facts.
What we do about it is up to debate, but so far I haven't seen anyone, including yourself, dispute the fact: Only 5% of containers are being inspected.
I'm saying that scanning *all* containers from now until the end of time is impossible and that destroying and keeping the terrorists and the reason they exist is a lot easier.
I seriously have no idea how you arrived at this conclusion. We know exactly where shipping containers come into the country. It would cost money, people, and time, but it is 100% viable to scan all containers coming into the country. It is ludicrous to think we are going to simply eliminate terrorism, something we cannot even agree on a definition for.
How you can say that it is easier to eliminate or mitigate a nebulous concept vs. implementing a relatively straightforward security procedure is beyond me.
Apparently now, there is evidence that russians were at the facility with transport vehicles prior to invasion.
If by evidence you mean Drudge and the Washington Times, I laugh at you.
Seriously. How does it help the Russians to move the stuff for Saddam?
If ads are any indication, Slashdot is an anti-linux site...
First, sports tapes/DVDs, of whole games, are not that popular. In fact, I can't think of one that exists. Most sports tapes/DVDs are essentially highlight packages, something that would take a lot of effort to make with a TIVO, if it is even possible without hacks, etc.
100% correct. I stayed with 0.8 for a long time because of this, and I'm sorry that I upgraded last week. My config still isn't back to the way it was, and now Firefox doesn't even start correctly. About 60% of the time, it just locks on startup.
I'm sorry, but the issue is very different.
What some people are implying is that Kerry, through his wife, through Heinz, is personally outsourcing American jobs. That's simply a joke.
People don't talk as if Cheney runs Haliburton. The idea is that Cheney uses his position as VP to benefit Haliburton. The reason he does this is because he still has deferred payment from Haliburton, and has Haliburton stock options. When Haliburton does well, Dick Cheney directly benefits. To put together the dots for you, the idea is that Dick Cheney is using his position as Vice President for personal financial gain.
If Kerry started awarding 2 billion dollar no-bid contracts to Heinz, or some other similar move that would benefit him or his wife personally, you can bet there would be a stink. To date, there's no evidence of this, circumstantial or otherwise. Try again.
Not only that.. let's say you're 35 and you get "retrained". You're 35, fresh out of college, you already have a family, and now you must compete with the 22 year olds looking for their first job. You both have no experience in the field. Who do you think will work for less? Who do you think will get hired?
Repeat after me: Teresa Heinz Kerry does not control Heinz Corporation. She owns 4% of the stock.
Teresa Heinz Kerry does not control Heinz Corporation. She owns 4% of the stock.
Actually, back in 84, during a debate Mondale straight up said "I'm the only one on this stage who will admit that I'll raise your taxes."
1984 was the biggest blowout in US presidential election history.
at least they try to think instead of just doing what will get them re-elected.
While federal judges are not elected, there are many parts of the country where local judges are elected positions.
Once a precedent is on the books, my understanding is that it's binding in the US, no?
Nah. Precedent is only a strong suggestion. I think it was the Texas sodomy law where the USSC had ruled it constitutional back in the 70s and unconstitutional 2 years ago. The court basically said 'times have changed, the other court was wrong.' Could have the wrong case, but precedent is overturned every once in a while.
Also, with regards to appellate courts (brought up by sibling post), while the Xth circuit court does not have to consider rulings by the Yth circuit court, the circuit courts and USSC take great pains to avoid conflicting rulings.
Just as an addendum, it is highly likely that the Republicans will retain control of Congress this election, so to carry out the parent's strategy, one would be inclined to vote for Kerry.
Gore sucked (clipper chip anyone? he was its primary cheerleader).
That's the best you could come up with? Pretty weak.
such as the Dixie Chix's blasts of hatred aimed at America
Try again, troll.
'"Just so you know," says singer Natalie Maines, "we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas' From: this Guardian article.
They knew what they were doing was wrong
Did they? It's very hard to figure out from your description. Where exactly were the signs? How far off the road? In almost all jurisdictions, you do not own the land up to the roadway. The city/county/state/feds prefer to keep a bit for themselves, so that when they're working on the road they don't have to go around and get permission from thousands of people, or so that when they plow the roads, they aren't dumping all the snow onto someone else's land, etc. The "Right-of-way" for a road almost always extends beyond the boundary of the actual pavement.
Granted, if they were putting these signs out in the middle of one of your fields, your point is perfectly valid.