Orangeburst
Attention all Planets of the Solar Federation
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2008
- Messages
- 47,292
- Likes
- 108,152
Shaq spent most of his time on stage playfully threatening the audience — “I’m coming out there!” — and encouraging chaos.
“I don’t see no mosh pits in the back,” he said at one point.
He frequently asked if anyone wanted to join him onstage, which at first seemed like offhand banter, but people began to trickle onstage greeting the self-proclaimed "world's biggest DJ."
The crowd ate it up, following every demand and singing along whey they heard samples from Cardi B’s "Bodak Yellow," Nirvana’s "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and even The White Stripes’ "Seven Nation Army."
As his set drew to a close around 3:30 a.m., Shaq told the crowd to shine cell phone lights before making good on his frequent warning of the night — "don't make me come down there" — by joining the front row
Sounds perfect.There IS one I love, as a matter of fact. Check out Colorado Sake Company on weekends for local and national touring comedians in a cool, outdoor, urban lounge setting (OK... they fancied up their alley)
Woke up excited to watch us...we don't even play today?! What the crap?
And yet we play at 2 pm on a Monday?? Smdh so much for watching us in the WS. We either play late on a saturday, when people are busy going out, or mid workday. Terrible.
/rant
They're gonna lie straight to our faces and tell us marijuana isn't a peformance enhancer?!?
The 100 meter record will never be broken now!
View attachment 557632
I disagree about dropping from employment screens. Drug use is not a protected class and companies should have the right to their own requirements. Hell, many companies are requiring nicotine tests for employment, as they will not hire smokers.Needs to be done nationwide and dropped from employment screens too. Too many states have ok'd it. The Olympics needs to follow suit. It's not an enhancer unless competitive munchies becomes a thing.
For insurance purposes? Would be a good business case for obesity and alcohol too. But that's just my guess - surely they don't think on-the-job use would harm work? Or maybe they find smokers are just constantly wasting time on the job...aka "smoke breaks"?I disagree about dropping from employment screens. Drug use is not a protected class and companies should have the right to their own requirements. Hell, many companies are requiring nicotine tests for employment, as they will not hire smokers.
That's the beautiful thing about rights, they're most powerful when someone else's don't go through your or my "I see" statements. "I see" it that in most cases, companies should have the right to their hiring demands, and the market will generally respond. If refusing to hire cigarette smokers puts them at a disadvantage to their competitors, there you go. If refusing people who imbibe in alcohol puts them at a disadvantage, there you go.For insurance purposes? Would be a good business case for obesity and alcohol too. But that's just my guess - surely they don't think on-the-job use would harm work? Or maybe they find smokers are just constantly wasting time on the job...aka "smoke breaks"?
The issue for me is the hypocrisy. Institute screenings for those that have drank alcohol in the last 30 days and we'll see how serious people are about their moral high grounds around different substances. Otherwise I see no difference.
I disagree about dropping from employment screens. Drug use is not a protected class and companies should have the right to their own requirements. Hell, many companies are requiring nicotine tests for employment, as they will not hire smokers.
So, companies are bursting into random people's homes and stealing their body fluids to test? Or people are willingly entering into a process that tells them beforehand what will happen?It's invasive and disproportionately applies to lower and working class jobs. Further, often there's zero reason for them. Why should we stick with something that started in the 90s and has only made the testers wealthy while doing very little for anyone else? Americans claim to be about freedom but we allow a ridiculous invasion of privacy to happen as a term of employment when it has nothing to do with the actual work without protest.
So, companies are bursting into random people's homes and stealing their body fluids to test? Or people are willingly entering into a process that tells them beforehand what will happen?
We disagree in the definition of "invasion".
And I hate to tell you this, but there are a lot of things that disproportionally affect poor and working class.
Why should we stick with them? Not ending the rights of one group to create artificial rights for another. Poor people do not have the RIGHT to demand someone hire them or give them money.
I am sure Voltello was saving him for Stanford. Come on, now. He threw who he thought would give him the best chance to win.