Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What the Fark???

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: What the Fark???

    Originally posted by St. Clown View Post
    Wouldn't the specific naming of these various groups make this into a bill of attainder and therefore violate the US Constitution?
    Yes. You don't expect legislators to actually read the Constitution do you?
    Jordan Kawaguchi for Hobey!!
    Originally posted by Quizmire
    mns, this is why i love you.

    Originally posted by Markt
    MNS - forking genius.

    Originally posted by asterisk hat
    MNS - sometimes you gotta answer your true calling. I think yours is being a pimp.

    Originally posted by hockeybando
    I am a fan of MNS.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by joecct View Post
      And one more...

      PC Run Amok on the left coast....
      http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...atus-for-disc/
      Yes, how terrible to go after the tax-exempt status of groups that discriminate. What are they thinking?

      Comment


      • Re: What the Fark???

        Originally posted by Priceless View Post
        Yes, how terrible to go after the tax-exempt status of groups that discriminate. What are they thinking?
        How does Little League discriminate?
        CCT '77 & '78
        4 kids
        5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
        1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

        ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
        - Benjamin Franklin

        Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

        I want to live forever. So far, so good.

        Comment


        • Re: What the Fark???

          Originally posted by joecct View Post
          How does Little League discriminate?
          Do they allow openly gay adults to be members?

          Comment


          • Re: What the Fark???

            Originally posted by Priceless View Post
            Yes, how terrible to go after the tax-exempt status of groups that discriminate. What are they thinking?
            What?? are you saying that the NAACP discriminates? who knew?

            and AARP? they discriminate too? how shameful, only allowing people over 50 to join! that is blatant age discrimination!
            "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

            "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

            "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

            "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

            Comment


            • Re: What the Fark???

              Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
              What?? are you saying that the NAACP discriminates? who knew?

              and AARP? they discriminate too? how shameful, only allowing people over 50 to join! that is blatant age discrimination!
              As far as I am concerned, if you are a non-profit and filing for tax-exempt status (a special privilege from the government) then you shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. Period.

              Comment


              • Re: What the Fark???

                Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
                and AARP? they discriminate too? how shameful, only allowing people over 50 to join! that is blatant age discrimination!
                I know you jest, but I think it's absolute horseshiat that the senior living community exemption to the FHA, which was clearly meant to apply to nursing homes and assisted living facilities, allows the creation of what are essentially senior only towns and suburbs. Fark that.

                Comment


                • Re: What the Fark???

                  Originally posted by unofan View Post
                  I know you jest, but I think it's absolute horseshiat that the senior living community exemption to the FHA, which was clearly meant to apply to nursing homes and assisted living facilities, allows the creation of what are essentially senior only towns and suburbs. Fark that.
                  Wait until you're seventy and you have those dang kids on your lawn.
                  bueller: Why is the sunset good? Why are boobs good? Why does Positrack work? Why does Ferris lose on the road and play dead at home?

                  It just happens.


                  nmupiccdiva: I'm sorry I missed you this weekend! I thought I saw you at the football game, but I didn't want to go up to a complete stranger and ask "are you Monster?" and have it not be you!

                  leswp1: you need the Monster to fix you

                  Life is active, find Balance!massage therapy Ann Arbor

                  Comment


                  • Re: What the Fark???

                    Cross-posted from the SCOTUS thread:

                    New Jersey Appellate Court rules that a person who sends a text to a person while the latter person is driving a car might in some cases be held liable in civil court for damage caused by the driver.

                    I can't find a link to the story I read in the printed paper, but I did find several other sources, including USA Today:

                    TRENTON, N.J. — If you text a driver in New Jersey who gets in a crash, you could be held liable, according to a state appeals court panel.

                    Drivers still are obligated to obey traffic laws, not text or read messages while driving. But if a text's sender knows that the recipient will view it while driving, the sender could face civil damages, the court panel ruled Tuesday.
                    The ruling goes on to state that the person sending the text has to be "reasonably aware" that the recipient is likely to be driving at the time the text is sent, and the person in this particular case cited escaped liability, but still, the precedent has now been set.
                    "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

                    "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

                    "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

                    "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

                    Comment


                    • Re: What the Fark???

                      Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
                      Cross-posted from the SCOTUS thread:

                      New Jersey Appellate Court rules that a person who sends a text to a person while the latter person is driving a car might in some cases be held liable in civil court for damage caused by the driver.

                      I can't find a link to the story I read in the printed paper, but I did find several other sources, including USA Today:



                      The ruling goes on to state that the person sending the text has to be "reasonably aware" that the recipient is likely to be driving at the time the text is sent, and the person in this particular case cited escaped liability, but still, the precedent has now been set.
                      I also posted in the other thread.

                      I don't think it's out of the question someone can, and should be held liable in a situation like this.

                      If you were in the car itself, and you intentionally did something to distract the driver, I don't think anyone would dispute the fact that you should be jointly liable. If the facts are there, (you knew, or should have known that the receiver was driving a car and reading the texts while driving), the question is probably going to go to the jury.
                      That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

                      Comment


                      • Re: What the Fark???

                        Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
                        I also posted in the other thread.

                        I don't think it's out of the question someone can, and should be held liable in a situation like this.

                        If you were in the car itself, and you intentionally did something to distract the driver, I don't think anyone would dispute the fact that you should be jointly liable. If the facts are there, (you knew, or should have known that the receiver was driving a car and reading the texts while driving), the question is probably going to go to the jury.
                        I agree.

                        I don't have a source in front of me, but my recollection is that the court said a person could be held liable if they texted to a person they knew or should have known that the recipient was driving, and as is typical, the website (CNN?) sensationalized the headline. If I recall correctly, it was a denial of summary judgment of a finding of liability, so nobody has been found liable yet, and I don't think Fresh Fish's statement that "precedent has been set" is entirely accurate either; it sounds more like dicta than precedent to me. I doubt that the mere fact that you texted a person that happened to be driving would be sufficient to find liability. It'd take something more like texting to a person who you see driving, or responding to a text "I'm on the freeway driving 70". In fact that brings up an interesting question -- suppose you responded to that text with "You shouldn't be texting while you're driving"?

                        Comment


                        • Re: What the Fark???

                          Originally posted by Priceless View Post
                          As far as I am concerned, if you are a non-profit and filing for tax-exempt status (a special privilege from the government) then you shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. Period.
                          I agree if you're talking about discriminating against gays, or a race or a sex, etc, but not age. How can anyone object to non-profit organizations specificly designed to educate, develop and help kids? Seriously, why would anyone say that the Little League needs to admit adults? Pure stupidity.
                          Having a clear conscience just means you have a bad memory or you had a boring weekend.

                          RIP - Kirby

                          Comment


                          • Re: What the Fark???

                            I sure hope they strictly take context into account. I've texted my roommate many times while I knew he was driving, because I wanted to let him know something, but not distract him with a phone call. My intention was he could get back to me when he had the chance, not that he respond right away while he's driving.

                            I can see it a bit more if you intentionally continue a conversation with someone you know is driving, but still, it's the driver's responsibility to ignore a distraction while they're driving. And a jingle/vibration is no where near the same level as waving your hands in a driver's face. Someone in a car can actually prevent the driver from paying full attention to the road, it's at the driver's discretion to read or respond to a text. If they do, they're actively choosing to be distracted.

                            Comment


                            • Re: What the Fark???

                              On the driving/texting thing....The driver has to be responsible for their actions. There is no way the person texting them should be liable. It is the driver's and only the driver's decision to pick up the phone and read or send a text. This is like saying that the teenager wearing a sandwich board advertising for Little Ceasar's at an intersection is liable if some idiot gets distracted reading the board and rear-ends the car ahead of him.
                              Having a clear conscience just means you have a bad memory or you had a boring weekend.

                              RIP - Kirby

                              Comment


                              • Re: What the Fark???

                                Originally posted by CLS View Post
                                I don't think Fresh Fish's statement that "precedent has been set" is entirely accurate either; it sounds more like dicta than precedent to me. I doubt that the mere fact that you texted a person that happened to be driving would be sufficient to find liability. It'd take something more like texting to a person who you see driving, or responding to a text "I'm on the freeway driving 70".
                                The newspaper article which I read in paper form (which I could not find online and so I used a substitute) was a bit more clear: in New Jersey, since it was an appellate court ruling, it will serve as precedent in that state. And the conclusion was exactly as you stated: while the court ruled that if you texted a person when you knew that person was driving, you could be held liable; however, it then went on to rule that, given the facts of the particular case at hand, the person sending the text could not have known that the recipient was driving at the time, and so the liability claim against her was dismissed.

                                The appellate court had the option merely to dismiss the liability claim against the texter by saying there was no way she could have known (based on the evidence presented) that the recipient was driving. The fact that the court went out of its way first to establish a potential claim, before then dismissing the particular case, is the element of the story that really stood out.
                                "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

                                "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

                                "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

                                "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X