ON EDIT: Apparently, Sparks (which is owned by SAB Miller) doesn't use caffeine in its recipe anymore. Which means that Sparks is abundantly safe for me to drink.
Last Edit: Nov 17, 2010 19:17:20 GMT -5 by AustinHoya03
Careful from whom you order your your next Jager bomb.
Could be an undercover FDA agent.
Yes, alcohol and caffeine are a really stupid combination. At least that's my opinion. I seem to notice a hell of a lot of people enjoying that very combination on most weekends. But lo and behold! There they are the very next weekend, not dead or anything!
Also, Ray LaHood* is a idiot as well. I have no problem with fining, ticketing or otherwise imposing punishments on people who use their cell phones while driving, because they are not just endangering themselves, but everyone around them.
Crusade against that by all means. Add points to the tickets/fines. Make the penalties stiffer. And launch education campaigns. And a Saturday morning cartoon. Anything you want.
But installing cell phone jammers in automobiles has got to be the most utterly and completely moronic idea since.....well, since someone decided that whiskey and coffee went really well together.
Not to mention that it is ridiculously infeasible.
(*Ray LaHood is a Republican, in case anyone was wondering or didn't know. I wish he wasn't.)
"You'd be crazy NOT to!" -- Donagh Gilhooly, bartender and wisest of men
Careful from whom you order your your next Jager bomb.
Could be an undercover FDA agent.
Yes, alcohol and caffeine are a really stupid combination. At least that's my opinion. I seem to notice a hell of a lot of people enjoying that very combination on most weekends. But lo and behold! There they are the very next weekend, not dead or anything!
Also, Ray LaHood* is a idiot as well. I have no problem with fining, ticketing or otherwise imposing punishments on people who use their cell phones while driving, because they are not just endangering themselves, but everyone around them.
Crusade against that by all means. Add points to the tickets/fines. Make the penalties stiffer. And launch education campaigns. And a Saturday morning cartoon. Anything you want.
But installing cell phone jammers in automobiles has got to be the most utterly and completely moronic idea since.....well, since someone decided that whiskey and coffee went really well together.
Not to mention that it is ridiculously infeasible.
(*Ray LaHood is a Republican, in case anyone was wondering or didn't know. I wish he wasn't.)
The sh!tstorm that has ensued here in NYC against Four Loko is utterly absurd. It has gotten to the point where nbc4 documented a state congressman getting drunk off four loko with a doctor monitoring his heart rate and blood pressure. He got wasted and proceeded to puke but the reporter assured us that he, "felt much better after a bottle of water and a slice of pizza"
Post by hoyainspirit on Nov 18, 2010 10:08:18 GMT -5
I've seen young people drinking Four Loco, but I had no idea what it was prior to this brouhaha. Thought it was beer. Think I'll try it (once) before they take the caffeine out of it.
Who Dat! Oh please let me be, I have to be, schizophrenic me!
Careful from whom you order your your next Jager bomb.
Could be an undercover FDA agent.
Yes, alcohol and caffeine are a really stupid combination. At least that's my opinion. I seem to notice a hell of a lot of people enjoying that very combination on most weekends. But lo and behold! There they are the very next weekend, not dead or anything!
Also, Ray LaHood* is a idiot as well. I have no problem with fining, ticketing or otherwise imposing punishments on people who use their cell phones while driving, because they are not just endangering themselves, but everyone around them.
Crusade against that by all means. Add points to the tickets/fines. Make the penalties stiffer. And launch education campaigns. And a Saturday morning cartoon. Anything you want.
But installing cell phone jammers in automobiles has got to be the most utterly and completely moronic idea since.....well, since someone decided that whiskey and coffee went really well together.
Not to mention that it is ridiculously infeasible.
(*Ray LaHood is a Republican, in case anyone was wondering or didn't know. I wish he wasn't.)
The sh!tstorm that has ensued here in NYC against Four Loko is utterly absurd. It has gotten to the point where nbc4 documented a state congressman getting drunk off four loko with a doctor monitoring his heart rate and blood pressure. He got wasted and proceeded to puke but the reporter assured us that he, "felt much better after a bottle of water and a slice of pizza"
i wish i was making this stuff up.
NY state congressman: officially the best job in the country.
"I was wondering what was keeping this thread alive. That it is a discussion of what they call a famous defensive system and how and why hifi was banned from various football boards is not surprising in the least." -jgalt
I have no problem with fining, ticketing or otherwise imposing punishments on people who use their cell phones while driving, because they are not just endangering themselves, but everyone around them.
In this month's installment of "I'm more Tea Party than You," punishing people who text while driving is in fact a "governmental overreach" per Governor/Candidate Rick Perry.
"If the anticircumcision activists (they prefer the term “intactivists”) have their way, cities across the country may be voting on whether to criminalize a practice that is common in many American hospitals."
Last Edit: Jun 22, 2011 23:39:59 GMT -5 by AustinHoya03
As a predominantly libertarian, I suppose some might expect that I would agree with Perry, but it's just plain dumb.
You don't want to wear a seatbelt? Fine. No motorcycle helmet? Your choice, Gary Busey.
But using these devices in cars, you are endangering others. Severely. And it's not a theory, it's a fact. Libertarianism does not extend to dramatically endangering public safety (and no, secondhand smoke doesn't fall into the same category).
A little disappointed in the governor there.
As for the San Francisco thing, well that's just plain nutbar. Or am I being redundant?
"You'd be crazy NOT to!" -- Donagh Gilhooly, bartender and wisest of men
It would be difficult for me to be "disappointed" in Rick Perry. I learned he was a Neanderthal when he asked for a rain dance/rain prayer to solve the drought issue in Texas. So the bar was pretty low. And yet this superstitious mouth-breather doesn't disappoint. Texting while driving is literally more dangerous than drunk driving.
And this from someone who doesn't think the government has any right to ban or regulate prostitution among other things.... so I've also got libertarian bona fides.
On that note... if you think pornography should be illegal....I'm not going to waste my time talking to you on this point.
That said.... If you agree porn should remain legal....can you explain why it should be illegal for adult A to pay adult B to have consensual sex in the privacy of their own home while it is perfectly legal for adult A to pay adult B to have sex with adult C (and D, E, F, G, etc at the same time), film it, and distribute it for profit? That to me is the definition of obscene. The fact that the legalization of heroin and cocaine is a less controversial issue in America than legalization of prostitution is an amazing testement to the endurance of the puritanical fear of sex in this great country of ours. And please spare me the backwards logic of keeping it illegal because of sex trade/human trafficking/STD issues that only exist because the practice has been shoved into the black market in the first place. That would be like banning cars because of drunk driving...or texting if you will....ahhhh...full circle.
I have no problem with fining, ticketing or otherwise imposing punishments on people who use their cell phones while driving, because they are not just endangering themselves, but everyone around them.
In this month's installment of "I'm more Tea Party than You," punishing people who text while driving is in fact a "governmental overreach" per Governor/Candidate Rick Perry.
"If the anticircumcision activists (they prefer the term “intactivists”) have their way, cities across the country may be voting on whether to criminalize a practice that is common in many American hospitals."
The first thing is that cities and towns across the country won't be voting on this. California's constitution goes much more for direct democracy than other states (Virginia is on the other end of the spectrum, which is why Arlington couldn't just ban smoking until the Virginia legislature passed a law on it).
I find the circumcision debate fascinatingly bizarre. The biggest problem I have with it is that one of its supporters has made a comic book which is very clearly anti-Semitic.
There are at least some people, however, who seem like they're doing it because they feel that it's traumatic for the kids (some of the websites and justifications are like stepping into the Twilight Zone, as 28-year old Bobby says how he was traumatized by something that happened in the first month of his life. And people have stupid ideas about childrens' health all the time.
But I'm curious if it's legitimate to ban it. Most circumcisions don't involve Jews, and so, idiot comics writer aside, this isn't against one religion or culture. There are limits to what can be done to children in the name of religion - notably female genital mutilation (while not practiced by all Muslims, those who do cite it as a religious obligation). If the majority believes that this is damaging to children, can they vote to ban it?
It would be difficult for me to be "disappointed" in Rick Perry. I learned he was a Neanderthal when he asked for a rain dance/rain prayer to solve the drought issue in Texas. So the bar was pretty low. And yet this superstitious mouth-breather doesn't disappoint. Texting while driving is literally more dangerous than drunk driving.
On the bright side, shortly after the Perry-led rain prayer, it actually rained. That re-establishes his credibility in my book. Besides, it's logical for rain dances to bring rain right, there's at least a theoretically logical connection there.
I love England almost as much as my own country, but seriously, WTF are you idiots playing at?
Yes, the guy is an idiot. Yes, his tweet was appalling. I disagree with none of that. But still....WTF?
And no, First Amendment or not, I really don't believe we're as far away from that here as people might think.
On a lighter note: Hmmm...I wonder how many Hoyatalkers would be up for arrest? I'm fairly certain I would. In fact, I'm fairly certain most of us would.
I totally agree Boz. I was appalled today to learn that you can be arrested in the UK not for threats, not even for racist speech (which sans-threats should absolutely be protected).....not even that...you can be arrested for merely rude and obviously harmless speech. (Albeit VERY rude rising to the despicable.) If rude speech isn't protected than nothing really is...it is just a matter of time and cultural fashion. Truly shocking ramifications follow from the state's ability to arrest and charge citizens for rude speech which couldn't at all be deemed threatening.
I don't agree with you that we are close to that here though. Americans tend to like their lower numbered amendments. First amendment rights tend to be strongly enforced 99% of the time by all kinds of courts. I also don't often see even attempts to curb speech south of the 49th parallel. Something like this (arresting someone for an offensive tweet) would strike even the most left-winged American as a gross violation of the most basic free speech principles. I mean...right? Lefties....?
I was thinking about Chik-fil-A, but it seems as though most, if not all, have stepped back from actually trying to impose any government sanctioned bans or anything like that.
Maybe I overreacted a bit.
It happens.
"You'd be crazy NOT to!" -- Donagh Gilhooly, bartender and wisest of men
Hey I understand, the fact that it is happening in the land of the magna carta is nothing short of astonishing. What's worse is the utter lack of outrage. We have rather too much outrage over here, maybe we could lend them some.
