Jump to content

HereComesTheReignAgain

Community Member
  • Posts

    3,416
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by HereComesTheReignAgain

  1. Why? Why didn't her church, friends, parents, teacher, grade school, high school, kntting circle? It's bull sh-- that people think that a company who gave you a job, offered insurence, etc... should be on the hook anytime something bad happens to you.

     

    They are in business to make money, not be your personal lifetime provider.

     

    Wal-Mart should now be given credit for GIVING this woman a few hundred thousand dollars for medical expenses since they had no obligation to do so. How many of the whiney anti-Wal-Mart crowd sent this woman money to pay for her medical expenses? If every self-rightous "I never shop at evil Wal-Mart" internet poster sent her a dollar, she would be set for life. Hopefully this woman can now pay for the care she needs.

  2. Of course my understanding of the law was that it only applied to handguns and that something like a shotgun wasn't covered so you can keep it assembled which was the point of my comment entirely.

     

     

    I could be wrong, but I believe handguns are totally banned and rifles or shotguns have to be stored unloaded and dissasembled.

  3. The wages are "high enough" because Wal-Mart tells the employee that they can get gov't aid to augment the difference... Like in the Tenn case...

     

    I do agree, the employees are probably dumb.

     

     

    The difference in what...The difference between what their skill level is worth and what some idiot thinks Wal-Mart should pay them? If they are working for so much less than what their skills are worth, start a business and pay them more. I wonder how many WM bashers own businesses and pay their employees above what the market demands.

  4. Not sure if this will take you directly there (CNN Videos) but if not find your way there and watch the one about Wal-Mart suing this lady.

     

    Granted, they have a legal right to do so. But "right" and "what's right" are two different things.

     

    And the really frustrating thing is that these are the sort of good people who probably (until now) spent a good portion of their income at Wal-Mart.

     

    This sort of thing just tears at my heart. I guess because my brother has been through a similar hell...and you won't find a guy who works harder to take care of his family. It's for people like this that we need some sort of control on access to reasonable healthcare ... in America, people should be able to get help BEFORE they become destitute...to keep them from getting there.

     

     

    You anti-Walmarters are a riot. Almost any insurance policy will have clauses that require reimbursement if you recieve payment from a guilty party for the damages incurred. If you get a payment for a stolen car and then get your car back do you get to keep the insurance $ and your car? The victim sued for medical expenses that were paid by the insurance company. She should have sued for more $ if her medical needs were not being met. It is extremely unfortunate that she is now in need of services that she cannot afford, but your anger should be directed at the person or company responsible for her condition.

     

    I saw a great episode of Penn and Teller Bullsh!t on Wal-Mart haters. The series is well done and amusing.

  5. I used to be completely against guns, but I figure that the bad guys will always illegally get around the laws and have guns. In an ideal world, nobody would have a use for one, but the world gets less ideal every day

     

     

    As long as there is someone else out there with a gun, I will always have one to defend myself.

  6. .....and good riddance.

    The porcine Reynolds represented a very badly gerrymandered district spreading from Amherst to Rachacha, and during Republican rule was the number three man in congress as head of the NRCC, but after the Foley scandal (where he was running for his life against Jack Davis) and the takeover of congress by democrats Reynolds' stock plummeted. Some say, and I'm one of them, that it was the divine intervention of the October Surprise of 10/13/06 that saved his pork butt last time, but he had no chance of winning this time around what with the NRCC accounting scandal breathing down his neck.

    The tidal wave is beginning and it is only Spring.

    http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/reynol...2008-03-20.html

     

     

    Hopefully we can get another NY Dem that has a history of cheating and spending our money on hotel rooms or hookers!

    It's sad and amusing that you feel a change of parties will help. Democrat or Republican, this state seems destined to be run poorly.

  7. I am done trying to argue law with zealots. I just told you the issues. Feel free to make irrational arguments all you like. I quoted the one above because it made me chuckle. Did you eat paint chips as a child?

     

     

    You're right, I'm not smart because I don't go on websites bragging about being a lawyer. I guess the comparison to the 1st amendment only applies when it supports your point of view. When all else fails insult someone...was that a lesson in Internet Law 101?

  8. It is not a "complete ban." As justice Breyer said at the oral argument (paraphrasing) "this law does not restrict DC residents from owning a rifle or musket, does it?"

     

    The law only bans handguns. Thus, it is not a complete restriction on the "right" to bear arms.

     

     

    Great argument with the "musket". Does the 1st amendment only apply to words that were common at the time it was written?

  9. ugh!

     

    ok, I am a lawyer and am not going to give a Constitutional Law lecture. However, take speech for example. The government can restrict speech - but their ability to do so depends on what type of speech they are restricting, how narrowly tailored the restriction is, and how important the state interest is. This is what is called strict, intermediate, and rational scrutiny (other lawyers may use different terms). For example, political speech receives strict scrutiny - the state must have a compelling interest to achieve a necessary end. Most restrictions fail under strict scrutiny. However, business speech (i.e. advertisements) receives rational scrutiny, meaning a law will be upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Most restrictions are upheld under rational scrutiny.

     

    The issue before the Court is which level of scrutiny will be applied to the D.C. law. As far as I know, this is a case of first impression for the Court, thus the importance.

     

    To answer your question - your rights are never absolute. Thus the phrase "you can't shout fire in a crowded theater."

     

    Since you brought up the comparison to free speech, I wonder how it would go over if DC only allowed free speech in your own home and only in incomplete sentences?

  10. because shotguns don't prevent home invasions...only handguns do...

     

     

    I'll bet you cannot assemble your shotgun, load it and position yourself to defend your home in the time it takes a criminal to break through your door or window. I would never consider a dissasembled gun proper protection from criminals and apparently neither do the multitude of criminals in DC!

  11. Golden Retriever 7

    German Shorthair Pointer 6

     

    The GSP just got diagnosed with addisons disease. He stopped eating and lost 10 of his 60 pounds in a couple weeks. They are giving him a shot every month and he seems to be getting back to normal. He is also on steroids. (I'm thinking of contacting the Pats* trainers to find the best deals) Anyone have any experience with this? Should I expect a relatively normal dog with treatment?

  12. I turn on the tube last night, and theres a little message up on my TV screen from DirecTV.

     

    "There was a hardware/software problem with your DVR receiver. DirecTV was able to fix the problem, but we had to re-format your DVR, resulting in the loss of all saved programs and all scheduled future programs."

     

    And sure enough, all my saved stuff is gone, all my scheduled stuff erased, so it was basically like starting from scratch. I know theres no chance in hell of getting my stuff back, but anyone ever had this happen to them before, and is there anything i can do, or do to prevent it from happening again?

     

     

    I would give DTV a call and ask for a credit. They are pretty good about things like that. I don't think I have paid full price for service in the 7 years I have had DTV. It's always a good idea to call and ask nicely for a deal every few months.

     

    I would be pretty annoyed if I lost everything on my DVR.

×
×
  • Create New...