Andy9o8

FWIW - If anybody asked me to give him (or publicly post) practical advice on how one might sue (or prosecute) one skydiver who'd been in an accident with another skydiver, chances are well over 90% I'd take a pass.

Prominent Scottish celebrities are weighing in.

Agreed. And I disagree with Judge O'Scannlain's partial dissent, criticizing the applicability of the exclusionary rule to this case. Long story short, both the rhetoric and the reasoning it uses (like revealing, IMO, personal bias against the defendant because he's a "convicted pornographer", and parroting the classic standard talking points of opponents to the exclusionary rule) fits in with the opinions I've read and heard from other ideologically conservative judges and lawyers who just plain don't like the exclusionary rule, and are ideologically pro-prosecution. As one can see from his Wikipedia biography, he is ideologically very conservative, and apparently very pro-police and pro-prosecution. While his partial dissenting opinion certainly preaches to the pro-prosecution choir, I really doubt its "persuasive authority" will sway many moderate jurists in future cases.

Oh, for God's sake. Just give him a banana and be done with it.

History has proven that that means "never".

Wait, when is it not?

Toddler? Be sure to have life insurance.

That's how the issue stikes my gut, too - bad enough that they can't be arsed to provide a company-logo polo shirt without charge to struggling minimum-wagers (like so, so many other employers do), but they seem to be using it as an opportunity to profiteer out of the wages of these folks. They sat down with their company lawyers, carefully discussed the legal difference between "uniforms" and "dress code", and this is what they came up with. They know fully well that struggling Wally employees will feel financially motivated to buy these items from Wally just to defray the 10% cost, because for those folks, every little penny counts. Perfectly legal, but morally kind of stinky. Sorry, but WalMart's poor employee-relations reputation precedes it, so they get a little less benefit of the doubt in my mind. **PS - I acknowledge that plenty of other employers, including some retailers, have "just plain dress codes" for their employees. But here, it's not like WalMart has always done that - it's a new plan, designed not just to evolve with the times, but also specifically (IMHO) to profiteer off the employees, and that's what I think makes the moral difference compared to other employers. Seriously, if I was one of their main competitors - say, Target - I'd rush to offer, say, a 25% discount on those specific items for customers who have proof of their current employment with WalMart. You know in Wendy's thread where I fantasize about leading BOA execs to the guillotine when the revolution comes? WalMart's executives will be waiting on deck.

Yep, just as I thought: beyond grunting and throwing bananas, no real point of any value.

Fine, now do you have a response to Arvoitus's post #8?

How is a speach like a shoting? Answer that and you'll have the answer to your riddle.

Plagiarize Let no-one else's work evade your eyes Remember why the good Lord made your eyes So do not shade your eyes Yes Plagiarize Plagiarize Plagiarize! ...Although remember to always call it "research". -Tom Lehrer

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/walmart-workers-unhappy-about-new--dress-code-191739053.html

Pfft. The real problem is the Brits just can't take getting slapped, John.

I take pride in having contributed to the pointlessness.

Yeah, quite a few. I was presuming that's what happened to Wendy. I always eyeball those things closely when I get gas. http://www.gobankingrates.com/credit-cards/5-tried-true-strategies-protecting-credit-card-gas-pump/

You mean like how GW Bush followed the lead of John McCain, Joe Biden and John Kallend in holding his breath for a year while his children were deployed to fight in Iraq. Oh, wait, never mind, no he didn't. His war; other people's children to fight it.

Ah, yes. Texas already is; might as well throw Colorado into the mix.

We also recently had a(nother) Really Big Bank give us good customer service, when the waitress who took our card (in that case it was a debit card) to pay for food at a restaurant (you know: "I'll be right back with this") ran our card to pay for someone else's meal, too. (Maybe it was a hurried mistake, but, you know, maybe it wasn't.) Good thing I check our accounts online daily, where I noticed not just our $45 meal, but a separate charge for $90 for the same place, same date. Anyhow, the instant I saw it I went into the nearest branch office, and they not only took a "fraud report" but replaced the cash immediately. Bastards, how dare they do the right thing! For the record, I still think they're fuckers and deserve to be led to the guillotines. This has made us leery about letting the card out of our sight at restaurants, the way it's usually done. (And I hear you re: gas stations.) For the longest time, we've carried little cash and have used plastic to pay for practically everything, everywhere. Like you, I'm thinking about reverting back to the 1970's (when rock & roll achieved perfection) and just hauling cash around everywhere to pay for stuff. Oh, ps - I haven't shopped in Home Depot in about 9 months. On 9/2/14 I used my card at HD to make a $4 purchase of a little thingy. When did the govt inform HD of the hack into their card-payment system?- 9/2/14.

You realize you're making my point, right?

Isn't your libs & agw thread co-opting rush's libs & agw thread? Tsk tsk.

Assuming all you say is correct, the headlong scramble of the lemmings to the cliff would seem to validate a long-standing historical fact: the Brits excel at really, really pissing off the people they govern.

That'll be a rare bit if it does. They'll welch on the agreement. Which will send them off-kilter.

That'll be a rare bit if it does.