What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

What the Fark???

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: What the Fark???

Occasionally we are virtually "required" to go out after work for dining and drinks. One reliable morning-after "cure" for me has always been greasy food, and a McDonalds breakfast burrito or two works well for that.

So I've typically stopped by the one on 6th near 48th on the way to the office from GCT. The "dollar menu" version costs $1.49 there. The other day I went to the one on Broadway near 51st instead, and they wanted $1.99 :eek: for the exact same burrito that costs $1.49 three blocks away. what the f*?
 
Re: What the Fark???

FreshFish said:
Occasionally we are virtually "required" to go out after work for dining and drinks. One reliable morning-after "cure" for me has always been greasy food, and a McDonalds breakfast burrito or two works well for that.

So I've typically stopped by the one on 6th near 48th on the way to the office from GCT. The "dollar menu" version costs $1.49 there. The other day I went to the one on Broadway near 51st instead, and they wanted $1.99 :eek: for the exact same burrito that costs $1.49 three blocks away. what the f*?
Click to expand...

Price and Participation may vary....
 
Re: What the Fark???

FreshFish said:
Occasionally we are virtually "required" to go out after work for dining and drinks. One reliable morning-after "cure" for me has always been greasy food, and a McDonalds breakfast burrito or two works well for that.

So I've typically stopped by the one on 6th near 48th on the way to the office from GCT. The "dollar menu" version costs $1.49 there. The other day I went to the one on Broadway near 51st instead, and they wanted $1.99 :eek: for the exact same burrito that costs $1.49 three blocks away. what the f*?
Click to expand...
That happens all the time. I bet you'll find that those two restaurants are franchised by two different people or groups. My brother does work for some of the local McD's, putting together their refrigerators, freezers, and air conditioners. He said that - at least around here - you will see the same price points on the menu for places under the same management, but that prices will differ between ownership groups. Of course, you'll also find different pricing between Target stores only a few miles apart. In economics, it's a sign of a monopolistic competition market (not to be confused with a true or pure monopoly).
 
Re: What the Fark???

My usual combo at Taco Bell is something like $8.40 or so at the place a couple blocks from where I live. This past weekend I watched my brother's place in the next town over, went to TB there, and it was $6.99. Everything else I knew the price of looked to be the same, except for that.
 
Re: What the Fark???

from today's Boston Globe..
Cardinals fan John Coulter was ejected from the exhibition game against the Cowboys Aug. 17 after his 15-year-old son was seen holding a cup of beer.

Coulter explained that he simply asked his son to hold the beer while Coulter took a picture. But two undercover officers with the Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control approached him, told Coulter that what he had done is a Class 1 misdemeanor, and said he could have been arrested for it.

Instead, father and son were escorted from the game.
Click to expand...
 
Re: What the Fark???

joecct said:
from today's Boston Globe..
Click to expand...
They were fortunate. Nobody should be forced to watch an entire Cowboys exhibition game.:D

Seriously, I can see another side to this. It isn't really necessary to have someone hold your beer. If there's no cupholder available, just put it under your seat. The stadium security crew is looking at tens of thousands of spectators (well maybe not at a Cowboys exhibition; sorry can't resist taking shots at the Jerryboys :)) and it might be difficult to make judgements about whether the man and the boy are father and son. And a fifteen year old holding a beer is not like an eight year old holding a beer. I personally think it's stupid when I'm asked for my ID -- I was 21 when Lyndon Johnson was President -- but rather than protest, I just pull out my ID and my AARP membership card.
 
Re: What the Fark???

Agree with CLS... I can see the other side of this and how it has to be interpreted...
 
Re: What the Fark???

joecct said:
And one more...

PC Run Amok on the left coast....
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/26/california-bill-targets-tax-exempt-status-for-disc/
Click to expand...


Article said:
Mr. Lara has said the Boy Scouts of America has a discriminatory policy because it won’t allow gay adults to be members. Other groups named in the bill are Bobby Sox, Campfire Inc., 4-H Clubs, Future Farmers of America, Future Homemakers of America, Boys’ Clubs, Girls’ Clubs, Pop Warner football and several soccer organizations.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the specific naming of these various groups make this into a bill of attainder and therefore violate the US Constitution?
 
Re: What the Fark???

Priceless said:
Yes, how terrible to go after the tax-exempt status of groups that discriminate. What are they thinking?
Click to expand...

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!
 
Re: What the Fark???

FreshFish said:
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
Re: What the Fark???

FreshFish said:
and AARP? they discriminate too? how shameful, only allowing people over 50 to join! that is blatant age discrimination!
Click to expand...

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.
 
Re: What the Fark???

unofan said:
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.
Click to expand...
Wait until you're seventy and you have those dang kids on your lawn. ;)
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Re: What the Fark???

FreshFish said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top