This seems to be what killed the case for the commission. Experts are saying it's thus a narrow ruling, I hope that's the case.
| Red Mosquito http://forums.theskyiscrape.com/ |
|
| The Supreme Court http://forums.theskyiscrape.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=15 |
Page 29 of 192 |
| Author: | Norris [ Tue May 15, 2018 5:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Supreme Court |
Simple Torture wrote: cutuphalfdead wrote: Simple Torture wrote: Simple Torture wrote: Bi_3 wrote: cutuphalfdead wrote: It's gonna be great when I can sit at Fenway Park, open up an app, and place a legal prop bet mid game. Lukin -> Not for You 3:1 Parlay that with the over on number of covers played and there's your kids' college funds. How high would the over/under on covers have to be for you to stay away? If it were 6.5 I would still put action on it. Is Crazy Mary a cover? I have long argued that it shouldn't be counted as one, but most setlist trackers do. I wonder what the bookmakers will say. |
|
| Author: | Simple Torture [ Tue May 15, 2018 5:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Supreme Court |
cutuphalfdead wrote: Simple Torture wrote: cutuphalfdead wrote: Simple Torture wrote: Simple Torture wrote: Bi_3 wrote: cutuphalfdead wrote: It's gonna be great when I can sit at Fenway Park, open up an app, and place a legal prop bet mid game. Lukin -> Not for You 3:1 Parlay that with the over on number of covers played and there's your kids' college funds. How high would the over/under on covers have to be for you to stay away? If it were 6.5 I would still put action on it. Is Crazy Mary a cover? I have long argued that it shouldn't be counted as one, but most setlist trackers do. I wonder what the bookmakers will say. Other scenarios: Are songs from Ed's solo albums covers? (my take: no) Are tags covers if it's not the complete song? (no) Are tags covers if they play the whole song? I.e., The Star Spangled on YL (maybe?) |
|
| Author: | Norris [ Tue May 15, 2018 5:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Supreme Court |
Simple Torture wrote: cutuphalfdead wrote: Simple Torture wrote: cutuphalfdead wrote: Simple Torture wrote: Simple Torture wrote: Bi_3 wrote: cutuphalfdead wrote: It's gonna be great when I can sit at Fenway Park, open up an app, and place a legal prop bet mid game. Lukin -> Not for You 3:1 Parlay that with the over on number of covers played and there's your kids' college funds. How high would the over/under on covers have to be for you to stay away? If it were 6.5 I would still put action on it. Is Crazy Mary a cover? I have long argued that it shouldn't be counted as one, but most setlist trackers do. I wonder what the bookmakers will say. Other scenarios: Are songs from Ed's solo albums covers? (my take: no) Are tags covers if it's not the complete song? (no) Are tags covers if they play the whole song? I.e., The Star Spangled on YL (maybe?) In that case, at 6.5 I'm taking the under. |
|
| Author: | Simple Torture [ Tue May 15, 2018 5:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Supreme Court |
cutuphalfdead wrote: Simple Torture wrote: cutuphalfdead wrote: Simple Torture wrote: cutuphalfdead wrote: Simple Torture wrote: Simple Torture wrote: Bi_3 wrote: cutuphalfdead wrote: It's gonna be great when I can sit at Fenway Park, open up an app, and place a legal prop bet mid game. Lukin -> Not for You 3:1 Parlay that with the over on number of covers played and there's your kids' college funds. How high would the over/under on covers have to be for you to stay away? If it were 6.5 I would still put action on it. Is Crazy Mary a cover? I have long argued that it shouldn't be counted as one, but most setlist trackers do. I wonder what the bookmakers will say. Other scenarios: Are songs from Ed's solo albums covers? (my take: no) Are tags covers if it's not the complete song? (no) Are tags covers if they play the whole song? I.e., The Star Spangled on YL (maybe?) In that case, at 6.5 I'm taking the under. Last four stadium shows have included this many cover songs: Wrigley 2 - 7 Wrigley 1 - 7 Boston 2 - 4 Boston 1 - 6 Remind me to make a book for these come the summer time. |
|
| Author: | Green Habit [ Tue May 15, 2018 5:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Supreme Court |
I once went to a show (Missoula 2005) with zero covers. How rare is that? |
|
| Author: | Monkey_Driven [ Tue May 15, 2018 7:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Supreme Court |
Green Habit wrote: I once went to a show (Missoula 2005) with zero covers. How rare is that? Pretty rare. |
|
| Author: | washing machine [ Wed May 16, 2018 7:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Supreme Court |
What are the actual odds though? |
|
| Author: | Biff Pocoroba [ Wed May 16, 2018 8:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Supreme Court |
Never tell me the odds. Sorry, wrong thread. |
|
| Author: | wease [ Thu May 17, 2018 1:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Supreme Court |
Simple Torture wrote: cutuphalfdead wrote: Simple Torture wrote: Simple Torture wrote: Bi_3 wrote: cutuphalfdead wrote: It's gonna be great when I can sit at Fenway Park, open up an app, and place a legal prop bet mid game. Lukin -> Not for You 3:1 Parlay that with the over on number of covers played and there's your kids' college funds. How high would the over/under on covers have to be for you to stay away? If it were 6.5 I would still put action on it. Is Crazy Mary a cover? I have long argued that it shouldn't be counted as one, but most setlist trackers do. Agreed. Pearl Jam’s version came out first. |
|
| Author: | Green Habit [ Mon June 04, 2018 2:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Supreme Court |
Masterpiece Cakeshop opinion is out: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 1_j4el.pdf |
|
| Author: | --- [ Mon June 04, 2018 2:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Supreme Court |
Green Habit wrote: Ginsburg is almost beyond parody at this point. |
|
| Author: | run2death [ Mon June 04, 2018 2:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Supreme Court |
I'd rather be a devout baker and expert Christian than an expert baker and devout Christian. |
|
| Author: | Green Habit [ Mon June 04, 2018 2:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Supreme Court |
This seems to be what killed the case for the commission. Experts are saying it's thus a narrow ruling, I hope that's the case.
|
|
| Author: | Bi_3 [ Mon June 04, 2018 3:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Supreme Court |
Green Habit wrote: This seems to be what killed the case for the commission. Experts are saying it's thus a narrow ruling, I hope that's the case. Geez. Make a damn decision you p***ies. Does a private business have a right to decline a commercial transaction based on sincerely held religious beliefs? WHY IS THAT SO HARD?!?!?!? |
|
| Author: | --- [ Mon June 04, 2018 3:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Supreme Court |
Bi_3 wrote: Green Habit wrote: This seems to be what killed the case for the commission. Experts are saying it's thus a narrow ruling, I hope that's the case. Geez. Make a damn decision you p***ies. Does a private business have a right to decline a commercial transaction based on sincerely held religious beliefs? WHY IS THAT SO HARD?!?!?!? This seems easy. Failure to acknowledge and protect exactly that right - to refuse to engage in a particular behavior (in this case is situated in a commercial context), regardless of its (a)political or (a)religious motivation - amounts to compelling behavior. This seems like a dangerous precedent to set. |
|
| Author: | Bi_3 [ Mon June 04, 2018 4:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Supreme Court |
--- wrote: Bi_3 wrote: Green Habit wrote: This seems to be what killed the case for the commission. Experts are saying it's thus a narrow ruling, I hope that's the case. Geez. Make a damn decision you p***ies. Does a private business have a right to decline a commercial transaction based on sincerely held religious beliefs? WHY IS THAT SO HARD?!?!?!? This seems easy. Failure to acknowledge and protect exactly that right - to refuse to engage in a particular behavior (in this case is situated in a commercial context), regardless of its (a)political or (a)religious motivation - amounts to compelling behavior. This seems like a dangerous precedent to set. We already compel behavior to eliminate (or pretend to eliminate) discrimination against protected classes. I don't think it's that easy. |
|
| Author: | Green Habit [ Tue June 05, 2018 12:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Supreme Court |
Smart legal scholars are suggesting that today's ruling should make the case against Trump's travel ban even stronger. http://reason.com/volokh/2018/06/04/how ... ecision-st https://takecareblog.com/blog/masterpie ... -entry-ban |
|
| Author: | Norris [ Tue June 05, 2018 2:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Supreme Court |
Do we know what the cake was supposed to look like? Like, how gay was it? |
|
| Author: | 96583UP [ Tue June 05, 2018 2:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Supreme Court |
it was the shape of a man's ass shitting out rainbow-colored c*m on the floor of a san francisco bath house |
|
| Author: | Simple Torture [ Tue June 05, 2018 2:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Supreme Court |
96583UP wrote: it was the shape of a man's ass shitting out rainbow-colored c*m on the floor of a san francisco bath house So in Obama's America, a 3/10? |
|
| Page 29 of 192 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|