slothrop

this thread is the last straw for me. I will never return to this forum. My 26 year old brother died of cancer and was hospitalized for 5 months in sceaming agony. So f*ck you to all who made light of Mrs. Edwards situation. I have a sense of humor - but some things are just not funny.

Carr plays INdy and Green plays New Orleans. Also, Carr has the better reciever corps. Green's WR corp's are terrible. Green has been hot and in a great offense, as has Carr, so I see this as a tough choice.

Wedding planning "prepares" you for marriage. Let me explain. Your fiance comes home and says, "sweety, what set of china do you like, the gold leaf trim or the amish motif?" You answer, "well, I think the gold-leaf trim looks great." BLAMO! You get blasted for your lack of taste, sensativity, and/or tact. THe next day, (after you have endured piercing looks and silence since the last incident) the fiance comes to you and asks whether the napkins should match the bride maids dresses or should they match the bride's dress. You are about to blurt out your sincere opinion, but you stop and check yourself like Pavlov's dog and respond, "dear, I respect your opinion and taste and have confidence in your choice, I am happy with WHAT EVER YOU THINK!" At that moment you have discovered the essence and secret of marital bliss. ENJOY!

Green is playing New orleans and Carr is playing INdy. While the matchup says to play Carr, Green has been hot for three weeks and Holmes won't be taking as many scoring opportunities away from the passing game.

another report of his death and now another denial of his death. I am reminded of the words of Austin Powers in the second movie, where after an asassin is shot, stabbed, hit with an RPG, and dropped out of a building, he said "Why won't you die!"

he had an observation?

I remember (it sounds like we are talking about him like he is dead) driving home from UB North campus after studying for 12 hours for the Bar Exam and turning Riter and White's show on. It was great comic relief. I especially remember them talking about foods that they could eat for a week without throwing up (or something like that). It may have been the psychosis caused by studying, but I thought it was quite funny.

i have been on that show - from my experience peter anderson is a great guy

Kind of supports what Kerry and others have been saying - Bush took his eyes off Bin LAden and devoted most of our Military resources to the unnecessary war in Iraq. The consequence? Exactly what the quote says above from a former Republican staffer under Reagan. How Bush is even considered a viable option is beyond my comprehension.

promissory estoppel would not apply and there are two reasons: 1) Most significantly, if promissory estoppel would apply, it would obliterate the employment at will doctrine. NO court would ever allow that. 2) Specific to this case, even if promissory estoppel could be asserted it would not apply here. For promissory estoppel to apply you must show that there was i) a promise made with no consideration (it is a consideration substitute); ii) the promisee detrimentally relied on the promise; and iii) the promisee was damaged. The problem here is that the "promise" was for consideration (you work and I pay you) so contract principals would apply (but these are trumped by employment at will). Even if the promise was not for consideration the promise was not to provide employment for a specific duration as would happen in an employment contract. Thus, the employer only "promised" to hire her - but they did not promise for any specific duration. Therfore, it can not be argued that any promise was broken (or for that matter that there was a breach of an oral contract.) Bottom line: if this is a state, like NY, where employment at will is operative, she is screwed.

As I understood the scenerio, the employer did not reneg on an offer - rather an offer was made, she accepted, and she worked for two weeks. Therefore, because she was an employee the doctrine of employment at will would allow the employer to fire her for any reason whatsoever (except for race, age, religion, etc, etc).

The employment at will doctine was not created legislatively, it is an invention of the common law eminating from common law contract and master/servant principals. IT is an old concept.

When people say we don't need unions any more - the above scenerio describes one of the biggest reasons they are wrong. A union contract protects an employee so that they can only be fired with cause and if they are fired they would be entitled to a hearing. The employment at will doctrine simply does not makes sense because it analyzes the employer/employee relationship as a contract matter where both parties are of equal power and influence. The wacky rationale is that the employer is allowed to fire the employee and the employee is free to leave at any time - therefore it is an equal bargain! LOL! However, if a working joe/jane leaves a company, 999 times out of 1000, he will not ruin the company. However, when a company fires joe/jane, joe/jane is greatly harmed both economically and socially. Sounds equal to me! American law screws workers in the worst way. Don't get me started on this topic. GO BILLS!

I am a lawyer and just to confirm what others had said if it is NYS or any other state that embraces the "employee at will" doctrine and your wife did not have an employment contract with a "for cause" clause, your wife has no claim. However, if there is evidence that she was fired as a result of her race, religion, sex, age, medical condition, etc then she may have a claim under the Civil Rights Act, ADA, or ADEA. That is her only hope for any recovery.

I see the paid chairperson of the Travis Henry fanclub is posting on our board. Are you frickin' serious!

at least he ain't yella!

why are you thinking of Moore's underwear?

Yes, it was stupid strategic move - and I am thankful for it.

Moore Give College Students Clean Underwear and Ramen Noodles for Pledging to Vote Republics want prosecutors to charge Moore with bribing college students to vote! First, they sound petty and stupid. More importantly, they are playing into the stunt by giving Moore free press! Thank god for stupid Republicans (and clean underwear).

round-by-round scorecard I liked how he subtracted a point from Iffle for one of her gaffes.

So we are back to the favorite right-wing mantra of "if your poor its your fault because your lazy!" What bunk. Tell that to millions of single parents who are working two or three jobs in the "new service economy" where wages are far lower, they get no medical coverage, and you can forget retirement. These folks are working their tails off just to survive, much less thrive! Go tell that mom she is lazy and see how many testicles you come back with!

The best quote: "they poured letters all over our table - it was pretty bad." Appartenly Bush's campaign workers speak like he does. As "W" would say, they were just "good people working hard." Damned letters! Pisses me off everytime!

The answer lies in the current state of Constitutional law. Equal protection cases are divided into three tiers: Strict scrutiny (race, national origin), Intermediate scrutiny (gender), and rational scrutiny( everything else, including econoimc regulations). Under strict scrutiny, the government never wins - the test is too tough. While under rational scutiny the government always wins! In the case FCC v. Beach Communications, INc., 508 U.S. 307 (1993) the Court stated "Equal protection is not a license for courts to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices. In areas of social and econimc policy, a statutory classifciation that neither proceeds along suspect lines (race, national orgin, gender) nor infringes fundemental constitutional rights must be upheld against equal protection challenge if there is any reasonably conceivable set of facts that could provide a rational basis for the calssification." I hope this helps.

I never said it was "perfectly acceptable." They violated serious journalistic standards and I believe Rather and the producers responsible should be fired. But, I think Fox's gaff is worse, because they MADE IT UP ON PURPOSE. CBS were just stupid and incompetant - FOX was/is conspiratorial in that they did something intentional. It is the difference between negligent and intentional acts.

Fox News Made - Up Story My favorite quote from the story: "The item was based on a reporters partial script that had been written in jest and should not have been posted or broadcast. Foxnews.com also regrets that error, which occurred because of fatigue and bad judgment, not malice." Not malice? Really? Ok, then what was the "joke" about? Who did it benefit. I really believe that Dan Rather thought the documents were real, and Rather is/was right that the main point of his story was still TRUE! Here, Fox just made it up! They were not fooled, they were not "lazy" in checking sources or documentary evidence. They just made it up!