Only in...

[adciv]

Just wait until the entire appeals process is finished. So far, it has been ruled both ways.

[collegestudent22]

But that isn't the point. The point is that NO court along the line should be able to give a ruling such as this without some legal basis (preferably in the Constitution). There isn't one here. In no law, either by Congress or in the Constitution, is permission given to the Courts to tell people how to run their business without some legal reasoning. This court has made a mockery of the system, but there is no way for the people to remove them.

[adciv]

The court system relies on the final verdict being the right one. What the intermediary ones along the way are not. And there is 'some basis' to it in this. Whether you or I like it is irrelevant. Oh, and there IS a way to remove judges. However, they first need to do something that would be removable. Making decisions that are later overturned is not something that makes them removable.

[Dr. Tower]

But that isn't the point. The point is that NO court along the line should be able to give a ruling such as this without some legal basis (preferably in the Constitution). There isn't one here. In no law, either by Congress or in the Constitution, is permission given to the Courts to tell people how to run their business without some legal reasoning. This court has made a mockery of the system, but there is no way for the people to remove them.

Well, actually the court ruling was that the law that would tell the people how to run their business shouldn't be overturned. It wasn't the court telling the business themselves that they couldn't test their beef, just that a law passed that kept them from testing their beef should was valid. It's a fine distinction, but one you seem to be overlooking. Damn activist judges letting laws stay on the books as written!

Aside from the technicality, I think that the law is sheer stupidity. A company wants to test its product to ensure quality and then promote its product based on that test. Sounds like a good idea to me.

[The Cid]

Only in Boston...

[adciv]

Depends. If you assume white, then no. If you assume black, then yes, you racist nazi. /Politically Correct Speak

[collegestudent22]

How is nazi politically correct speech?

Because he is calling you racist, because you assumed black was their skin color. Although, if that was truly politically speech, it would be "African-American", despite the fact that 90% of black people have to go back 5 generations or more to have an ancestor in Africa.

[adciv]

How is nazi politically correct spech?

In this case, I am using what has become a US colloquialism, not the abbreviation for the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Basically, in 'Policitally Correct' speech (or at least how it's made fun of) anytime someone does, says or thinks something objectionable, they are called a nazi. Somewhat along the lines of people who do not believe in man caused global warming being called flat-earthers or holocaust deniers.

[Deacon]

The Cid. Sir. This is how your article started. The first line. Oh my god.

A dog eating a watermelon helped cause a Boston man to repeatedly stab himself to prove to his brother he wasn't afraid of pain, police say.

Where do we even start picking that sentence apart, breaking it down into bite-size chunks around which we stand any chance whatsoever of wrapping our minds?

[adciv]

Because he is calling you racist, because you assumed black was their skin color.

No, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of Political Correctness. That of someone being racist only if the group targeted is not white.

First things first: Did I write that I thought the people in the article were black? NO. You simply assumed that I assumed that they were black. That shows that you are the racist since you read watermelon and immediatly think blacks.

Alternatively, the fact that you brought up race makes him assume that he thought you thought of the most well known minority group in the US.

From all this, I can safely say, that the guy was a white person, albeit with a red neck since he was so insane as to stab himself. He was probably part of the big redneck relocation program which was started in 1995 by the US

See here: http://www.usa.gov/people/housing/redne ... areas.html

Oops! We can't find the file.

[Terrene]

What if he was ASIAN.

[Terrene]

What if they were from INDIA.

[The Cid]

Funny, my guess would be they're both white Americans of Irish descent, with thick South Boston accents. Betcha one of 'em was even nicknamed Sully or Murph and they talk like DiCaprio in The Departed.

Here's my reasoning: for starters, this happened in Boston, MA. When a dumb act occurs in Boston, you can be pretty well assured it's either some alcoholics from Southie or some college students. Since a dorm room was not mentioned, it's the former. Further, the barricading. My guess is that most people would just RUN, but alcohol has its way of distorting the mind. I shouldn't assign a race to drunkenness, but in all fairness I DO kind of live here and all...

Just trust me. This was a couple of white guys of Irish descent living in Southie, and the moment was sponsored by Guinness. You may have to take a leap of faith to believe anything I say, I know, but trust the Bostonian on this one. Only a couple of white dudes from Southie would be capable of something this outrageously pointless.

[Terrene]

What if they were ALBINOS.

[ampersand]

Stop, it Terrene, you're killing me!