User Profile: MoDem

MoDem

Member Since: September 30, 2011

Comments

123
  • [1] July 2, 2014 at 4:57pm

    Monk, I finished serving tables about 8 years ago. At that time when we ran the reports for that night the only thing I could flub would be my cash tips. Credit/Cash sales and Credit Card tips were pumped out of a computer and the business reports those. It wouldn’t surprise me that the Government has gone the extra step and imputed a tip on the reported cash sales. I always appreciated the days I got the check and found that my base salary didn’t cover the taxes on my reported tip. On the back of the check was an “You owe $____”.

  • [14] June 27, 2014 at 4:25pm

    She’s done a lot of goofy R-rated comedies. Like “The Legend of Ricky Bobby” which you probably wouldn’t like. A good family friendly film she did is “Enchanted”. It’s cute, still funny, and the kids can watch it with you.

    Responses (1) +
  • [3] June 25, 2014 at 11:20am

    Umm, already invented. A few years ago. But now, the stuff they steal can’t be used against you at a trial.

  • [2] June 25, 2014 at 11:17am

    No, that would fall under this case also.

    Responses (1) +
  • [8] June 24, 2014 at 9:24pm

    Relax guy, she’s 4. What do you want her to say? A long soliloquy about the downfall of our society perhaps? How about speak wistfully of days gone buy and how they’ll never be as good as they once were.

  • [-3] May 16, 2014 at 11:12am

    Why do we have laws if we just ignore them when there is a cute kid involved?

    Responses (1) +
  • May 14, 2014 at 5:21pm

    I think the Bunsen burner and the potassium chlorate in your carry on might get you in more trouble. :)

  • [1] May 6, 2014 at 9:58am

    If your in prison its most likely because you are a convicted felon. Convicted felons can’t vote.

  • April 15, 2014 at 9:13am

    Bundy has no legal right to use the public land for private gain. However, the BLM’s actions here were insanely stupid. Judge Napalitano was correct, BLM has court rulings saying that Bundy owes 1.1 million in grazing fees… they should have taken a civil judgment against Bundy for the amount, put a lien on his property, then execute the lien and put Bundy’s land up for sale. I imagine if BLM would have done that Bundy would have come to the table instead of just thumbing his nose.

    However, after hearing the statements of one of the militia men, (that former Arizona sheriff), who said that if a fight broke out they were going to put unarmed people in the front lines as human shields for publicity, all I can say is screw that guy and I will never be on the side of any argument that would align itself with such cowardly tactics.

    In short, everyone is wrong. We just have to decide who is wronger.

    Responses (1) +
  • April 10, 2014 at 3:02pm

    Addie: I had longer responses but The Blaze website is causing my browser to reload every so often thereby wiping out my comment. In the end, your anology is faulty because Interstate Highway use is permissive, you have to obey speed limits, weight limits, traffic laws, have a driver’s license, have the car licensed and have insurance. without those acts you no longer have permission to use the roadway and you can be arrested for trying. also, if you commit to many infractions on this permissive use, your license can be suspended and you would no longer have the permission to drive at all!

  • April 10, 2014 at 2:15pm

    Mrs. Girl (great handle by the way), I will admit that I do not generally look at larger issues. I look at the issue in front of me and decide based on the facts I am presented with.

    This causes me to miss connections but also allows me to take each story on its own facts rather than having the conclusions of the other possibly related issues influence my opinion on the issue in front of me.

    I am not educated on the history of the federal take over of state’s lands enough to form opinions on that.

    All I do know is that this land was never in this rancher’s “chain of title”. Whether it was federal/state/local government land is irrelevant to the issue of whether this man has the right to use the land for his cattle. What is relevant is that in no event was it his and use of land is not sufficient to gain a right to it when it is owned by a government entity.

    We can question whether it is wise for the government to not allow people to use this land for cattle grazing for the sake of the desert tortoise, but we cannot question that this person has no right to the continued use of the land. It was always permissive use, that permission has been withdrawn, therefore he has to leave.

    Enjoy the rest of your day. And remember, its only 10 days from Easter and you can start doing the things you gave up for Lent. So, happy thoughts!

  • April 10, 2014 at 12:07pm

    Law professor had the best quote in this story. “You don’t get to use public land for personal gain, otherwise I would drill for oil in Yosemeti national park.” Hilarious. The land is not his, he has no right to it, you don’t get a right to trespass by trespassing for a really long time. And no one better say “adverse possession” because federal/state/local government land is immune from adverse possession claims.

    Responses (4) +
  • April 2, 2014 at 10:18am

    I could really go without The Blaze bragging about how they got it out first. Reporting on something 8 months after it happened (April – December) instead of 10 months (April – Feb.) is not something to brag about.

  • April 1, 2014 at 10:14am

    The last statement is incorrect in the article. If jail time is an option, you have a constitutional right to a jury trial. If there is no jail time as a possible punishment, then you do not have a constitutional right to jury trial nor do you have a right to a public defender.

    The option here are: 1. Mr. Witaschek waived his right to a jury trial at some point (hopefully he had an attorney and wouldn’t have done this); or 2. The prosecutor stated that they were not seeking jail time thus taking the right to a jury trial out of the picture.

    Given this case it seems more likely that the option 2 is what happened. If a prosecutor’s office was trying to shield itself from a civil lawsuit, it needed a conviction for something. By waiving jail time and getting it to a judge tried matter as opposed to a jury trial it gives the prosecutor a better chance at a conviction depending on the judge.

    Responses (1) +
  • February 13, 2014 at 12:48pm

    Legal Difference: Congressional attendance is voluntary and if a Congressman doesn’t want to be a part of the prayer, they can come in afterwards. School attendance, while technically voluntary, in practice is effectively mandatory. Also, when you are in school, you can’t leave the classroom if you don’t like the subject matter. Not saying what’s right and what’s wrong, just saying that the comparison of Congressional Prayer and School Prayer is not “apples to apples”.

    Responses (1) +
  • February 4, 2014 at 4:45pm

    Hey Blaze, just finished my first day of high school journalism. They taught me that every story should satisfy the following questions “Who, What, Where, When, Why”. You barely have a “Who”, “What” is satisfactory, No “Where”, No “When”, and barely a “Why”. Maybe tidy this up a bit, if you get the police report you could fill in the rest with minimal effort.

  • January 23, 2014 at 10:41am

    Nice name. One of my favorite SNL skits.

  • January 17, 2014 at 4:54pm

    Grandma, I’m not entirely sure the punishment for careless and imprudent driving is death. I’ll have to double check that.

  • January 17, 2014 at 4:45pm

    Not so fast soybomb. A search on google showed that the average birth between twins is 17 minutes which would lead to that the probability of twins being born on different days to be 17/1440. So the odds of this event happening would be [(1/365*1423/1440)*(1/365)] = 1423/191,844,000 or 1/134,816.58. Whew, I’m done. If I’m wrong, I no longer care. Have a good weekend everyone!

  • January 17, 2014 at 2:49pm

    Tzion, you are correct on calculating the likelihood of two subsequent events occurring on the same date as the original event. But I think the small probability that twins could have born on different days would alter the overall probability of this particular event occurring. So your both right and both wrong. Yay!

    Responses (7) +
123