Jump to content

Fingon

Community Member
  • Posts

    4,414
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Fingon

  1. Good for Fairley. Say what you will about legality, but at least he's (probably) not killing his body with opiates passed out by the team MDs. NFL players are in constant pain during and after their careers.
  2. Well duh. Rick Santorum, anyone? Religious extremists are, sadly, one of the largest demographics in the GOP. We don't need studies to tell us the brain power of those who completely abandon logic and reason for zealotry.
  3. If the Yellowstone supervolcano erupts there will be a hell of a lot more than ash fall. More like complete devastation of the US and altered global weather for decades.
  4. Apparently, there is an eyewitness who says that Martin attacked Zimmerman.
  5. Alcohol will kill you, while LSD won't. In fact, there are very few, if any, documentable side effects of LSD.
  6. Don't bet on Chinese currency. Their economy is based on cheap manufacturing, but all that disappears as the standard of living rises. The Chinese bubble will burst sooner or later.
  7. You can come up with whatever hypotheticals that you like, but the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter on constitutionality, and that is the test they came up with.
  8. It may inhibit free practice of religion, but the law's primary purpose isn't to force the Catholic church to provide contraception. It's merely a consequence of the law. Which means that it passes the Lemon test.
  9. The Supreme Court has ruled that a law may encroach upon religious freedom if it meets the 3 criteria: 1) the government action must have a secular purpose; 2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion; 3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion. I don't see where this law violates any of those rules. It's clearly constitutional for the same reason that marijuana is still illegal for Rastafarians.
  10. "their version of religion"? Facts and reason are the antithesis of religion. It's been proven that birth control saves taxpayer money, which has nothing to do with religion. If these institutions don't like it, they can feel free to give up the numerous benefits afforded to them by the government. This decision wasn't made because of a religious belief that all women should have access to contraception, but because it's logical.
  11. Birth control should be a mandatory part of every single insurance plan in America. We need to vastly reduce the cost of our social programs, and this is one of the best ways to do it. Unwanted children are a huge burden on our system, and contraception ends up saving taxpayers countless dollars. As far as religious institutions go? Religious institutions should be able to opt out, but that should come with losing all aid from the federal government and losing tax-exempt status.
  12. The Packers haven't signed a UFA since Duke Preston in 2009. Great teams build through the draft.
  13. Many of the founding fathers had religious "affiliations" but were deists. Paine, Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton, Franklin, and Madison all were deists or subscribed to deist philosophies.
  14. So Parents can have their child's foreskin chopped off, but they can't let them get a tattoo?
  15. Turns out pot smokers, on average, are smarter than non-users at age 50. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/04/us-drugs-idUSTRE8030AE20120104
  16. Great game. It will be an incredible upset if it doesn't win GOTY.
  17. No it doesn't. A store like Wal-mart or Best Buy can't significantly raise their prices without being undercut by internet merchants. Besides, I seriously doubt they are catching many shoplifters by checking paying customer's bags. It's not a huge hassle, but I don't agree with the practice, so I'm not going to comply. Simple as that.
  18. This has nothing to do with what I think. It's the law. They can create whatever procedures that they like, but physically stopping someone from leaving your store is both illegal and a tort. Shopkeepers can only stop you if they witness you stealing. Only a complete douchebag would stand there and argue that they have the right to not show their receipt (which is true). Me? I just say "no thanks" and keep on walking. The only person making a big deal about it is the employee, and why should I care?
  19. Stopping someone from leaving when they refuse to show you their receipt is false imprisonment. There are dozens of cases where juries have awarded 5 or 6 figure sums to those held by department stores for suspected shoplifting. What are you talking about? Half your post doesn't even make sense. Sign a warrant for kidnapping? Huh? False imprisonment is rarely a criminal matter. "Tresspassed" off the property for life? I think it's clear you have no understanding of the situation. Wal-mart routinely pays out huge settlements for people detained for suspected shoplifting. If they follow you to your car, guess what? They can't do **** to stop you. If they won't let you leave you have an iron-clad false imprisonment/harassment case. The fact is that they can only legally detain you if someone witnesses you stealing. If they stop you and you didn't steal? Well, it might be time to think about buying a bigger home.
  20. It's called false imprisonment and it costs stores a lot of money.
  21. No, you don't have to stop when they ask to see your receipt. In fact, if they do stop you you have a pretty good unlawful detainment case. That's why they won't physically try to stop you. Department stores have been successfully sued many times for detaining customers that they thought were shoplifting but weren't. The only way they can stop you from leaving is if they witness you stealing or its on tape. The consumerist reports on this kind of thing all the time.
  22. Not really. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are all inherently intolerant. They only rise above barbarism when you selectively follow their teachings.
  23. Guys, you better stop making fun of Tebow. God doesn't take kindly to people insulting his prophets. He might have bears eat your children.
  24. Yep, that Pittsburgh game was ridiculous. KW had 10 tackles and 2 sacks.
  25. I don't expect to see him much at all this year. Andra Davis was technically a starter, but he barely played. Our defense is going to be in nickel 75% of the time. Not to mention they have Bryan Scott play the hybrid S/LB role on passing downs.
×
×
  • Create New...