I don’t know if it’s the last thing, but it’s definitely not the first thing. I’m pretty sure I’d take the food to the manager and demand a refund. I might take a picture of it before returning it. At least that way I can share what I just returned and got a refund for :-P
April 19, 2015 at 11:55am
So either is real and she’s an idiot (since she’s been fired) or it’s fake and she wasn’t given a chance to explain why she did this (I mean to her employer and the sheriff, the Internet doesn’t deserve an explanation).
Here’s a question though: why is it illegal to kill a stray? If you take them to a shelter, they kill them after a certain amount of time anyway, so why is it illegal for you and not for them?
Being a vet, wouldn't she have a tranq. gun. Just neuter him, release. Don't vets have a "First, harm no animal" oath like physicians?
April 18, 2015 at 1:55pm
This is as bad as seeing those word phone numbers with the numbers right below them. As if you can’t see the letters when you’re dialing.
April 18, 2015 at 1:52pm
Math is hard :-P
April 18, 2015 at 1:51pm
I’ve found that it’s the kids with no siblings that have the biggest parties. Almost like mom and dad are trying to make up for something :-/
April 18, 2015 at 1:50pm
I’m going with both, but mostly the parents. Kids act like their parents. Act entitled and your kids will think they’re entitled too. Even if the school is giving awards for everything, if that’s not happening at home, then the kids won’t grow up thinking they’re owed something.
April 18, 2015 at 1:44pm
People will just end up giving the kid a gift card. That way mom and dad can spend it however they wish and the giver doesn’t have to worry about a gift receipt.
At least that’s what I’d do.
 April 15, 2015 at 3:49pm
“It doesn’t make sense to me that you’d have the same solution to every issue.”
You mean like the free market? Privatization? As little govt as possible?
Yes, that is my solution to every issue because govt invariably wants to grow and keeping people that aren’t in govt close and connected to an issue means it’ll get solved faster than asking for yet another law.
He's talking about conservative or liberal JediKnight. Liberals don't believe in as little govt as possible and neither do conservatives.
 April 15, 2015 at 1:08pm
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
 April 13, 2015 at 8:30pm
Whooping cough is treated with antibiotics if you don’t vaccinate. If you do vaccinate, then there’s nothing to treat because you’re…vaccinated.
That’s like saying chickenpox will just go away on its own. Yes, it will, if you don’t vaccinate. If you do vaccinate, then you’re far more likely to simply not get it.
 April 13, 2015 at 8:28pm
I’d agree with that for chickenpox. As far as whooping cough goes, I don’t think so. You want the kids to go through weeks of that kind of thing just because you think they’ll build a better immunity by getting sick? It makes no difference how they become immune, as long as they do become immune. By waiting for them to get sick, you’re taking a chance of catching something really deadly like polio.
Again, I agree about letting a kid get sick when it comes to chickenpox or the flu, but not with other more violent and deadly diseases.
 April 13, 2015 at 3:20pm
So don’t say it or just don’t say “under God”. Let me know when someone tries to force you to say either the pledge or “under God” and I’ll be right there defending your right to remain silent.
Since it is Christians that insist on turning our pledge into a statement of beliefs, Maybe Atheists should shout out "Under NO God" instead?
@jmo............good idea...... let me know how that works out for you
 April 13, 2015 at 3:19pm
The inclusion was an attack on Communists, back at a time when we acknowledged the evils of communism and that it was trying to infiltrate our government. It’s to bad most are no longer willing to even acknowledge the existence of evil, let alone the fact that the communists weren’t really defeated. They just changed their tactics a little.
April 13, 2015 at 2:33am
Minutes after it started? Must’ve been the hunting scene at the beginning. There’s no scene that early in the movie that has anything to do with the Iraq war, govt policy, or anything else like that. It’s all about faith, family, and raising your kids right at that point.
If that drives someone to tears, maybe they need to reevaluate what they find important in life.
 April 12, 2015 at 10:01pm
“Cleveland Police Chief Calvin Williams said investigators are trying to determine where the gun came from.”
So wait, there was an adult home, by the chiefs own admission, and they’re trying to determine where the gun came from? As though the gun loaded itself and set itself down within reach of a 3 year old? How about trying to determine why the adult left the children unsupervised in an area with a loaded firearm? How about trying to determine why the adult had an unsecured loaded firearm where a child could reach it? How about those questions instead of blaming the inanimate object.
And while I’m at it, the gun didn’t “go off”. The trigger was pulled by the 3 year old. Call it an accidental discharge if you want, but don’t say the gun “just went off”. Guns don’t just “go off” by themselves. It’s no wonder people are so afraid of guns. Between the bs the MSM spouts and this kind of talk from a chief of police, you’d think guns were walking around just waiting for someone to happen by so they could “go off”.
April 12, 2015 at 9:52pm
I’m confused. You say that millenials want the federal government out of state issues and then you cite a dailykos (which is a horrible source by the way) article where Cruz says that Federal judges (which, by definition, don’t rule on state issues) should be stripped of the ability to rule on “marriage equality” which is a state issue. Seems pretty consistent to me. Let the states decide the definition of marriage one by one. Since it’s not an enumerated power, it’s a State issue.
Yeah, the author was all over the place and didn't make any sense at all here.
Also I would point out that the courts are specifically set up by Congress, Article III Section 1, and that Congress has the power to make exceptions to the Court's jurisdiction in Article III Section 2.
Its odd for the author to claim Cruz is infringing on states' right on social issues by blocking the federal courts from meddling in states' rights on social issues. And that by using Congress's constitutional powers in a constitutional manner that Cruz is advocating for the constitution to be violated.
Maybe the author shouldn't drink and write at the same time?
 April 10, 2015 at 3:04pm
I’m pretty sure that the property owner doesn’t own the airspace above the property or at least, not all of it. Considering that “airspace” starts just above the ground (like 1 inch) and goes up to orbit, he can’t claim that you can’t fly in that “airspace”.
Beyond that, I’d just check the rental agreement. He probably can’t legally kick you out without giving some kind of notice. 24 hours? 48 hours? 30 days? I don’t know, but I’m sure it’s listed in the rental agreement.
This just sounds like another overbearing person that has a problem with “drones” but has absolutely no problem with kites, model airplanes, or even model helicopters. The difference between those and a drone? A drone is easier to fly. The difference in everyones mind? ZOMG! It’s a drone! He’s spying on everyone!
Nope, the property owner has every right to restrict the airspace.
"Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos (Latin for "whoever's is the soil, it is theirs all the way to Heaven and all the way to Hell") often appearing without et ad inferos 'and to hell', is a principle of property law, stating that property holders have rights not only to the plot of land itself, but also to the air above and (in the broader formulation) the ground below.
In modern law, this principle is still accepted in limited form, and the rights are divided into air rights above and subsurface rights below. Property holders generally have a right to the space immediately above and below the ground – preventing overhanging parts of neighboring buildings – but do not have rights to control flights far above their property, or subway construction below. In dense urban areas, air rights may be transferable (see transferable development rights) to allow construction of new buildings over existing buildings." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_est_solum_eius_est_usque_ad_coelum_et_ad_inferos
So no, you cannot fly your drone where ever you want to. More than lkely one or two jerk drone operators caused problems and the land lord solved it. Dont like it? Buy you own beach.
April 10, 2015 at 2:55pm
“Do people not know you are required to leave your vehicle if ordered to by an officer?”
Do you not see that it’s not his vehicle? Do you not understand that? Do you not realized that the licensed driver wasn’t the one being ordered out of the vehicle? Do you get that yet? They were ordering a passenger out of the vehicle, not the driver.
It doesn't matter if it's not his vehicle. Once the officer smells pot the occupants of the vehicle are all now subject to investigation.
April 10, 2015 at 2:52pm
Other than the pig comment, you’re spot on.
 April 10, 2015 at 2:52pm
Sorry to tell ya, but if I’m not the driver, I’m not getting out of that car unless the driver tells me to. And if I do, I am not submitting to any kind of search without a warrant.
The DRIVER is the only one that can be ordered to do anything regarding that car because the DRIVER is the one that is LICENSED by the state. Why in the hell they wanted the PASSENGER out first is beyond me.
I bet if you were the passenger, you’d happily hand over your ID to the officer (which is something else he/she has no legal right to do) all in the name of “cooperation”.