Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats

HCGLNS

HCGLNS

Holy shit, how can some one be that stupid? Is it arrogance that nobody will care because he's #1 or ignorance of the ability to make multiple private accounts for things?
 
Celt Z

Celt Z

figmentPez said:
JD Vance mad derogatory remarks about "childless cat ladies" and is now backpedaling:
View attachment 48997
Click to expand...
I know this is Vance and his party pathetically trying to take swipes at Harris, but conservatives always make women their scapegoats. From the mythical "welfare queen" to Murphy Brown/single moms to "cat ladies", they have to try to tear us down to build themselves up. This is was happens when your base is insecure men who need to hide behind each other, and women who are told their worth lies in what these men think of them. Just a pathetic mess all around.
 
Ravenpoe

Ravenpoe

figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
Ravenpoe said:
While it's fun to laugh at this, in context of the case I actually agree with the court's decision. "Boneless" is a preparation style, and when eating any meat product (or at least meat made from animals with bones) one should reasonably know that mistakes can happen and a bone piece could be found.

Also chew your fucking food.
Click to expand...
That should be something a jury decides, not judges. "Mistakes happen" is not a blanket excuse for any and all food handling errors.
 
Ravenpoe

Ravenpoe

figmentPez said:
That should be something a jury decides, not judges. "Mistakes happen" is not a blanket excuse for any and all food handling errors.
Click to expand...
A jury would decide whether the restaurant was negligent and thus liable. But before it arrives to a jury, a judge (panel of judges, actually) decide whether the case has merit. That's what their decision was, whether the title of boneless can be considered reasonable to think it could never have bones.
 
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
Ravenpoe said:
A jury would decide whether the restaurant was negligent and thus liable. But before it arrives to a jury, a judge (panel of judges, actually) decide whether the case has merit. That's what their decision was, whether the title of boneless can be considered reasonable to think it could never have bones.
Click to expand...
If I buy a boneless chicken breast, I expect it to lack bones. In my 44 years on earth, I have yet to encounter a nugget, patty, boneless breast, or other deboned piece of chicken that had a bone in it. It's a reasonable expectation that something calling itself boneless will not have any bones. I know it's a physical possibility, but it's such an incredibly rare thing that I have never given it a thought. I suspect most people haven't. If I'm eating something that calls itself boneless, I'm not checking for bones.
 
Ravenpoe

Ravenpoe

figmentPez said:
If I buy a boneless chicken breast, I expect it to lack bones. In my 44 years on earth, I have yet to encounter a nugget, patty, boneless breast, or other deboned piece of chicken that had a bone in it. It's a reasonable expectation that something calling itself boneless will not have any bones. I know it's a physical possibility, but it's such an incredibly rare thing that I have never given it a thought. I suspect most people haven't. If I'm eating something that calls itself boneless, I'm not checking for bones.
Click to expand...
I have definitely found bones in boneless cuts of meat, as well as processed and ground meats. Chicken patties, ground beef, etc.

Pitted olives sometimes still have a pit in them. If you eat a pitted olive, and break a tooth on a pit, you can't sue the place you bought it from.

And seedless watermelons are just a lie, straight up.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

Ravenpoe said:
While it's fun to laugh at this, in context of the case I actually agree with the court's decision. "Boneless" is a preparation style, and when eating any meat product (or at least meat made from animals with bones) one should reasonably know that mistakes can happen and a bone piece could be found.
Click to expand...
I'm agreeing with you. I don't want to agree with you, but I'm agreeing with you because of course it's like that. "May contain pits" and all that. Additionally, it's almost like I believe you to be someone with knowledge of the subject, or something.

--Patrick
 
Tinwhistler

Tinwhistler

Ravenpoe said:
I have definitely found bones in boneless cuts of meat, as well as processed and ground meats. Chicken patties, ground beef, etc.

Pitted olives sometimes still have a pit in them. If you eat a pitted olive, and break a tooth on a pit, you can't sue the place you bought it from.

And seedless watermelons are just a lie, straight up.
Click to expand...
Likewise. And fried catfish. No matter how de-boned it may be, there's always gonna be that one piece that has that little fish bone in it.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
The way the suit was being brought, it would only have had merit if the bone was put there on purpose. That's a different animal than, say, finding a bone fragment in your bologna, which has happened to me as well, despite bones also being not supposed to be in bologna.
 
Shakey

Shakey


Biden is expected to call for the changes to the court during remarks later in the day at the LBJ Presidential Library in Austin, Texas. He is expected to offer his support to a system in which the president would appoint a justice every two years to spend 18 years in active service of the Supreme Court.

Additionally, he is expected to call on Congress to pass binding, enforceable conduct and ethics rules that require justices on the high court to disclose gifts, refrain from public political activity, and recuse themselves from cases in which they or their spouses have financial or other conflicts of interest.

Biden is also expected to call for a constitutional amendment that would limit the broad immunity presidents now enjoy following a recent Supreme Court decision.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately I doubt anything will come of it.
 
Tress

Tress

If Harris was ahead in the polls by 10 points, Republicans would pass that Constitutional amendment in a heartbeat. But they don’t want power limited until they can be sure it won’t be their candidate potentially abusing it.
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
Not sure how I feel about this. We need to have better laws about online predators but I fear this law - like many others before it - would have unintended consequences.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Dave said:
Not sure how I feel about this. We need to have better laws about online predators but I fear this law - like many others before it - would have unintended consequences.
Click to expand...
One of the cosponsors of the bill literally said it was to protect children from "the transgender culture."

This bill means technically, you, and perhaps even I, since I assist in an administrative capacity, might be on the hook if anyone under 18 visits certain threads on this site.

It basically requires us to lock down membership and literally check IDs before letting people in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top