• Blog Entries

    • By TK in ES Coverage
         0
      The Bill Callahan era began here at the Hard Rock Stadium in Miami. For the first quarter it was really,really bad football being played by both teams. 
      The Redskins were determined to establish the Run game. The First Quarter all they established was that they still couldn’t run. Or pass. Or do much of anything. 
       
      It wasn’t until the 2nd Quarter that Peterson was able to start ripping the worst Run D in the League for chunks of 18 & 24 yards. The Skins managed to score a TD with a 25 yard pass to Scary Terry McLaurin. 
       
      The Dolphins would open the Second Half only managing five plays before the Redskins would get the ball punted back to them. They would run a balanced run/pass attack of six plays for 70 yards in 1:25 ending in McLaurin’s second touchdown of the day. The Defense would then get a turnover allowing the Offense to get to Field Goal range and add another 3 points to make the score 17-3. 
       
      To open the Fourth Quarter, Hopkins would miss a 55 yard Field Goal, leaving the score at 17-3.  After being sacked five times, the Dolphins would pull their own switcharoo at QB and go to Ryan “Neckbeard” Fitzpatrick which resulted in a touchdown drive for them, making it 17-10. They went for & recovered the Onside Kick. They also managed to not score any points after that. The Dolphins would find theirselves with ball at the 2:00 Warning. Fitzpatrick would take them on a 9 play 75 yard touchdown drive with six seconds remaining on the clock. Miami went for the win with the 2 Point Conversion and failed. The Redskins would recover the onside kick by Miami and Keenum took a knee to get the Redskins their first win of the season. 
Springfield

WaPo: Weight discrimination is rampant. Yet in most places it’s still legal.

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Mooka said:

 

You know fully well people don't take care of themselves.

 

Its not difficult to grasp. 


As you note, you see it every day. 

And it boils down to my original reply.

 

RE: Lazy

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mooka said:

 

You know fully well people don't take care of themselves.

 

 

 

If you were fully well, why wouldn’t you take care of yourself? 

9 hours ago, purbeast said:

You can get fully cooked rotiserie chickens at any grocery store for $5 and that is more than enough to feed a family of like 2, 3, possibly 4 people.  Then get a can of beans or some veggies you can heat up in like 3 minutes on a stove top.  That is far cheaper than getting fast food or something for a family of the equivalent.

 

"Not having time to cook" is nothing but an excuse.  I cook pork a few times during the week and it takes 3-4 minutes to cook on a skillet.

 

And if you don't even want to bother with that, you can bake chicken in an oven. Sure it takes like an hour to actually cook, but it's effortless.  You just put it in a casserole dish with some seasoning on it and let it cook, turning it once.

 

It just boils down to people are inherently lazy as ****.  I see it every day.  Hell even at the gym I see lazy asses who can't be bothered to put their weights back.  We're just a society of lazy fat ****s.

 

I find it amusing that you see all these fat people worrying about dressing fancy and spending money on fancy clothes, but the one thing they have the most control over with their looks is their weight, which in turn is also their health, and yet they completely want to ignore it.

 

Chicken every day & fancy fat folks taking over the streets, what a world. 

 

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, volsmet said:

 

If you were fully well, why wouldn’t you take care of yourself? 

 

Chicken every day & fancy fat folks taking over the streets, what a world. 

 

LOL that's just an example.  You can get pork chops pretty cheap too.  Same with ground turkey and make some tacos out of em.  

 

But ... that takes more effort than sitting in a drive through on your fatass for 15 minutes waiting for food.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, purbeast said:

LOL that's just an example.  You can get pork chops pretty cheap too.  Same with ground turkey and make some tacos out of em.  

 

But ... that takes more effort than sitting in a drive through on your fatass for 15 minutes waiting for food.

 

What kind of beast animal uses turkey for Tacos.

 

 

tenor.gif?itemid=12158104

 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Now if you’re really serious about weight loss you’d ditch the shells & get beef with plenty of fat in it. No sugars, plenty of fat, don’t overdo the protein, keep the insulin in check. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, volsmet said:

 

What kind of beast animal uses turkey for Tacos.

 

 

Yeah, that's just....

 

 

 

....fowl....

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, PokerPacker said:

WALK?  What is this, the dark ages?

I was trying to get ahead of the "cars cost money" arguement. 

 

45 minutes ago, Destino said:

urban folks are big on walking these days and down on cars.  I've heard people complaining, on several occasions, that urban areas should stop accommodating drivers entirely so that they can finally create truly pedestrian friendly spaces.  Roads are ugly, take up space, and kill the planet.  I assume these people imagine the stores they wish to surround with gardens and adorable walkways will be stocked via helicopter. 

What is this 1950? No one uses helicopters anymore......drones.....*eye roll*

19 minutes ago, volsmet said:

 

What kind of beast animal uses turkey for Tacos.

 

 

tenor.gif?itemid=12158104

 

According to @TheGreatBuzz, one that likes black eyes.....learned that lesson the 1st time. 70/30 ground chuck only now. 🙂

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

According to @TheGreatBuzz, one that likes black eyes.....learned that lesson the 1st time. 70/30 ground chuck only now. 🙂

For some reason I read that as "black guys" and was about to call you.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

What is this 1950? No one uses helicopters anymore......drones.....*eye roll*

The skies over the DC area tell a different story.  We got helicopters circling around like buzzards at all hours of the day. 

 

Besides, drones make the embassy staffers nervous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

For some reason I read that as "black guys" and was about to call you.

Freud would like to speak to you...

  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the first thing we need to face is the fact that, as evidenced by the nonesense shown over the last 5 pages, NO ONE has any damn clue what is healthy and what isn't. Hell, nutritional science barely has an idea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Vilandil Tasardur said:

I think the first thing we need to face is the fact that, as evidenced by the nonesense shown over the last 5 pages, NO ONE has any damn clue what is healthy and what isn't. Hell, nutritional science barely has an idea. 

 

My naked body would convince you otherwise. 

 

Pm sent.

 

  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I assume a starting point for determining whether someone has been discriminated against on the basis of weight would be define what it means to be overweight.  Any thoughts?  Here's a few hypotheticals to ponder.

 

(1) Employer "A" terminates the employment of employee "B" and in doing so makes it known that B was terminated because she was "too fat."  B is a woman that is 5'5" tall and weights 120 lbs and employed as an in-house IT consultant.  Would she have a claim for wrongful termination if weight is a protected class.

 

(2) A terminates B indicating that B is too fat.  B is a woman that is 5'2" tall and 135 lbs with a relatively muscular build, and less body fat than the woman in hypothetical #1.  She is also employed in an in-house IT position.  Does she have a claim for wrongful termination?

 

(3) A terminates B indicating that B is too fat.  B is a woman that is 5'2" tall and weights 200 lbs.  B does not view herself as fat, and does not file a claim for wrongful termination because she thinks her employer is just a jerk.  However, when terminating B, fellow employee C overhears A calling B fat.  C is an employee that is 5'7" tall and 110 lbs, but views herself as being fat.  Does employee C have a claim for hostile work environment against her employer based on her own view that she is fat (i.e. identifying as "fat?")

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

One problem is how do you differentiate between a job behind a desk and a job where your physical attractiveness matters directly? 

 

Actually, are there full-time jobs like a model or are they all contractors? How about a stripper? Is that a real job or are they all contractors too?

 

 

Edited by Mooka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, kfrankie said:

So, I assume a starting point for determining whether someone has been discriminated against on the basis of weight would be define what it means to be overweight.  Any thoughts?  Here's a few hypotheticals to ponder.

 

(1) Employer "A" terminates the employment of employee "B" and in doing so makes it known that B was terminated because she was "too fat."  B is a woman that is 5'5" tall and weights 120 lbs and employed as an in-house IT consultant.  Would she have a claim for wrongful termination if weight is a protected class.

 

(2) A terminates B indicating that B is too fat.  B is a woman that is 5'2" tall and 135 lbs with a relatively muscular build, and less body fat than the woman in hypothetical #1.  She is also employed in an in-house IT position.  Does she have a claim for wrongful termination?

 

(3) A terminates B indicating that B is too fat.  B is a woman that is 5'2" tall and weights 200 lbs.  B does not view herself as fat, and does not file a claim for wrongful termination because she thinks her employer is just a jerk.  However, when terminating B, fellow employee C overhears A calling B fat.  C is an employee that is 5'7" tall and 110 lbs, but views herself as being fat.  Does employee C have a claim for hostile work environment against her employer based on her own view that she is fat (i.e. identifying as "fat?")

 

I'm confused are you suggesting 120-135lbs at 5'2"-5'5" is "too fat"?!?!

Edited by thegreaterbuzzette
Context

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Mooka said:

One problem is how do you differentiate between a job behind a desk and a job where your physical attractiveness matters directly? 

 

Actually, are there full-time jobs like a model or are they all contractors? How about a stripper? Is that a real job or are they all contractors too?

 

 

 

An employer can "discriminate" on certain bases in the event that a particular trait is considered a bona-fide employment qualification.  For instance, there was a well publicized Federal Court opinion a while back supporting Hooters' refusal to hire male waitresses because being a woman was considered a bona-fide qualification relating to what Hooters sells (sex, not just wings).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

I'm confused are you suggesting 120-135lbs at 5'2"-5'5" is "too fat"?!?!

 

No.  I'm suggesting that certain people may have extreme opinions on how "fat" is defined.  More than simply height and weight go into it, so that the 5'2" 135 lb. woman might actually not be as "fat" as the 5'5" 120 lb. woman.  Most people would say that neither are actually fat at all.  So does intent matter of the employer matter, i.e. if any employer fires someone because he believes the person is "fat," while the majority of society does not view the person as fat, should the employee still be protected? And the opposite may be true as well in the context of the "Employee C" sitting next to the "fat" one that is fired.  If employee C is 5'7" and 110lbs, but views herself subjectively as fat, and overhears the firing of her "fat" colleague, could she have a hostile workplace claim even though society does not view her as fat?  If you self-identify as fat do you gain protection under the law? 

 

Edit:  Actually, I changed my mnd.  I'm suggesting that all of the women i described in the hypothetical are fat, especially the 5'7" 110 pounder.

Edited by kfrankie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Mooka said:

One problem is how do you differentiate between a job behind a desk and a job where your physical attractiveness matters directly? 

 

Actually, are there full-time jobs like a model or are they all contractors? How about a stripper? Is that a real job or are they all contractors too?

 

 

 

If you're a contractor then you're working on a contract basis for someone else.  There is no "employer," but the party that hired you could wrongfully terminate your contract which would expose that party to damages.  Normally contracts cannot simply be terminated on a whim. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

I'm confused are you suggesting 120-135lbs at 5'2"-5'5" is "too fat"?!?!

 

I'm pretty sure Great Buzz did. 🧐

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, kfrankie said:

  Normally contracts cannot simply be terminated on a whim. 

 

Most individuals I have contracted with can.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, twa said:

 

I'm pretty sure Great Buzz did. 🧐

 

 

I know @TheGreatBuzz well enough to know that if a 5'5" 120 lb chick walked up to him, he'd tell them to grow some curves and wouldn't bat an eye.

 

He likes a real women, not 12 year old lost boys. 

Edited by thegreaterbuzzette
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2019 at 3:45 PM, Renegade7 said:

+1 on cheap and easy meals need to be healthier

 

McDonald's tried to. The customers rejected it. 

 

23 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

For some reason I read that as "black guys" and was about to call you.

 

Hahaha. I initially had the same read. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

 

He likes a real women, not 12 year old lost boys. 

 

Paging @Predicto.  I agree with your husband.  My wife is 5', and about 105 lbs. Thing is though...she has curves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.