Just tried this restaurant for the first time. Great food, good prices, and exceptional customer service. We will definitely be repeat customers.
All Reviews »
Robert Wyman, there are indeed plenty of issues with our legal system. People with money can (literally) get away with murder, like the teen who used affluenza as his defense against homicide by car. People who are poor, minority, or both, however, can be and frequently are locked up for life or executed, regardless of their innocence or the relative triviality of their offense (e.g., the war on drugs). There is an organization named HALT (which, if memory serves, originally stood for Help Abolish Legal Tyranny) that advocates and educates on issues of judicial abuse and access like correcting systemic biases against minorities, disciplining instances of attorney malfeasance, requiring the use of plain language instead of legalese, allowing paralegals to practice, etc.
Doug Bruce is another case entirely. He is a wealthy person who is constantly in court, either fighting to impose his political beliefs on others or trying to get away with not complying with regulations as a landlord, etc. His legal troubles can be summed up as matters of choice, and when people go to to court on a matter of personal choice (especially when the issue serves not a socially beneficial purpose like ending segregation but their own agenda and aggrandizement), they can jolly well pay their own damn fees and not foist them off on the taxpayer. That Bruce tries to attach the first set of issues to his own situation has the merit of being consistent with his character and modus operendi, but nothing else. My initial note was intended to highlight the irony, if not the hypocrisy, of Bruce the TABOR advocate trying to shift his personal legal costs to the taxpayer.
Oh Doug Bruce, if the defendant doesn't pay the costs associated with legal proceedings and trials, then those costs shift to the taxpayer. Shame on you for trying to increase our taxes by shifting the costs off scofflaws. Just stop doing things that get you in trouble with the law in the first place; then you won't have to pay either.
As the subject of a sentence, it would be "Egg and I" (as in, "the Egg and I went to dinner); if an object or following a preposition, it would be "Egg and me" (respectively, "You took the Egg and me to dinner" and "Give dinner to the Egg and me"). As the name of a restaurant, presumably the subject mode would be preferable (as in "The Egg and I gave our name to this restaurant" or "The name of this restaurant is The Egg and I"). Okay, well, you asked!
Great food, but last time we went, it took over an hour to get our entree, by which time we were full and couldn't eat it. We very politely tried to tell the manager about the delay; his response was that we could just take the food home with us. Then he tried to blame our server, even though we indicated that the server had been great. After this wholly insufficient response to our unhappy customer experience, we will not be back anytime soon.
Tired of hearing pundits proclaim that OWS has no message. So here's a slogan: "Don't let us eat cake; let us have our daily bread!"
When I start to see the Republicans resisting instead of embracing and pandering to the worst extremists on the right-wing fringe, then I will be able to differentiate them from Norquist and libertarians. Until then, not-smartestman, not so much.
Ah, the delightful Republican vision of society: "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short," the state of needing to be armed for "the war of every man against every man." Gee, I had thought they wanted to return us to the 19th century; now I understand they want to return us to the pre-Enlightenment era. Wonderful--not!
All Comments »
All content © Copyright 2017, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation