the government
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
lol @ "Chipotle experience"
Great, now filthy people will have a better chance at reaching, coughing, or sneezing over the counter. But we could always just put the employees in an aquarium.
Why didn't those suffering from dwarfism or visual impairment have a problem enjoying their "Chipotle experience?"
The worst part about the "Chipotle experience" is ordering, anyway. And the worst part about law school was reading California cases. I don't know about you Californians...
Great, now filthy people will have a better chance at reaching, coughing, or sneezing over the counter. But we could always just put the employees in an aquarium.
Why didn't those suffering from dwarfism or visual impairment have a problem enjoying their "Chipotle experience?"
The worst part about the "Chipotle experience" is ordering, anyway. And the worst part about law school was reading California cases. I don't know about you Californians...
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,208
Likes: 1
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 4,605
Likes: 4
From: Irvine, California
Originally Posted by NuncoStr8,Jul 29 2010, 11:48 AM
So "government" now includes courts of law? What are you suggesting the court of appeals do - ignore the law and call you up for your opinion on every case?
If Chipotle didn't disregard the law, they wouldn't be wasting taxpayer dollars in appeals court. Funny how you blame "government" instead of dumbshit franchise owners. I could give a shit about Chipotle finances. Let them go broke - if a company can't make a profit while abiding by the laws of the land, they don't deserve to be in business. Everybody else manages to pull it off.
If Chipotle didn't disregard the law, they wouldn't be wasting taxpayer dollars in appeals court. Funny how you blame "government" instead of dumbshit franchise owners. I could give a shit about Chipotle finances. Let them go broke - if a company can't make a profit while abiding by the laws of the land, they don't deserve to be in business. Everybody else manages to pull it off.
Nunco's rant sounds very hateful with no sound reasoning. Kind of like an old man shaking his fist at those meddling kids. There are a lot of laws that could seem like it overlaps or contradicts other laws, or even be illegal. Who's interpretation is right? All are up for interpretation, such is our judicial system and our endless appeals system.
For instance, if the law states that a motorist needs to travel at a reasonable speed given the conditions of his environment during the time of travel, you could say you think 75mph is a good speed for an early morning Sunday drive on a freeway with minimal traffic. A police officer may differ and say 65mph is safe. What's reasonable? Who's right? Definitely not the speed limit, since that's only a suggested speed.
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 23,911
Likes: 4
From: Benicia, CA
Originally Posted by AlX Boi,Jul 29 2010, 11:09 PM
I'm glad our more well-rounded intellectuals have cleared this lil snafu.
Nunco's rant sounds very hateful with no sound reasoning. Kind of like an old man shaking his fist at those meddling kids. There are a lot of laws could seem like it overlaps, supercedes, or even contradicts other laws. Who's interpretation is right? All are up for interpretation, such is our judicial system and our endless appeals system.
For instance, if the law states that a motorist needs to travel at a reasonable speed given the conditions of his environment during the time of travel, you could say you think 75mph is a good speed for an early morning Sunday morning on a freeway with minimal traffic. A police officer may differ and say 65mph is safe. What's reasonable? Who's right?
Nunco's rant sounds very hateful with no sound reasoning. Kind of like an old man shaking his fist at those meddling kids. There are a lot of laws could seem like it overlaps, supercedes, or even contradicts other laws. Who's interpretation is right? All are up for interpretation, such is our judicial system and our endless appeals system.
For instance, if the law states that a motorist needs to travel at a reasonable speed given the conditions of his environment during the time of travel, you could say you think 75mph is a good speed for an early morning Sunday morning on a freeway with minimal traffic. A police officer may differ and say 65mph is safe. What's reasonable? Who's right?
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,467
Likes: 0
From: Montclair,CA
Solution. Spray paint all of the glass black, now no one can see the food! Then put signs up saying because of some stupid sue happy disabled people able bodied people are no longer able to see the food being prepared. Thanks for choosing Chipotle
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,670
Likes: 0
From: Bay Area
Originally Posted by magician,Jul 29 2010, 02:18 PM
On the Level III CFA exam if they ask for one reason and you give them three, they look only at the first; if it's wrong, you lose, even if the other two are correct.
The allusion to city building codes was a nice touch, however.
The allusion to city building codes was a nice touch, however.
Because I did more work than was asked
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 7,401
Likes: 1,104
From: Napa
The administrator at Arlington Cemetery is in hot water for not having soldiers resting where they are supposed to be. He says they spent 8 million dollars on a computer program and it failed. I think he (and the government) failed. Wouldn't a $100 off-the-shelf database software and a $500 Dell computer be able to track a soldiers name with a plot number?
I think our government is permanently out to lunch.
I think our government is permanently out to lunch.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post