Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Also I disagree on Trump destroying the world. He's no career politician, but he's a money grabbing, power hungry narcissistic tyrant. He's also made a lot of anti-immigrant/anti-muslim comments that are outright racist and nigh threatening. That and a lot of the base group he appeals to are verbally and physically violent.

and yet it is Sanders supporters doing all the violence? how many Trump Supporters do you see out there destroying property, starting fights and so on? how many Sanders supporters do you see doing that? you are saying the base group he appeals too are verbally and physically violent, and yet it is not his supporters showing that, but Sanders supporters.

Its like watching the Communists vs. the Fascists in 1933.

Glen Beck is a shill and an idiot.


And that's coming from a right-winger.

Asterios wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Also I disagree on Trump destroying the world. He's no career politician, but he's a money grabbing, power hungry narcissistic tyrant. He's also made a lot of anti-immigrant/anti-muslim comments that are outright racist and nigh threatening. That and a lot of the base group he appeals to are verbally and physically violent.

and yet it is Sanders supporters doing all the violence? how many Trump Supporters do you see out there destroying property, starting fights and so on? how many Sanders supporters do you see doing that? you are saying the base group he appeals too are verbally and physically violent, and yet it is not his supporters showing that, but Sanders supporters.

Do you have sources on those Sanders attacks? I know there were a lot of violence attacks/property destruction coming from the BLM group, but I don't remember them being directly linked to Sanders. Consequently:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/10/trump-protester-sucker-punched-at-north-carolina-rally-videos-show/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-supporter-tony-pettway-charged-assault-tucson-rally-attack/

Here's one of protestors attacking a Donald Trump rally.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/25/donald-trump-albuquerque-protests-2016-election

No offense, but Trump supporters were assaulting protesters way back in December and January. Can you really be that surprised if Democratic supporters started attacking back in kind? Note: I'm not defending either group, I'm merely trying to show that Trump supporters violence predated violence by any Democratic supports.

 jreilly89 wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Also I disagree on Trump destroying the world. He's no career politician, but he's a money grabbing, power hungry narcissistic tyrant. He's also made a lot of anti-immigrant/anti-muslim comments that are outright racist and nigh threatening. That and a lot of the base group he appeals to are verbally and physically violent.

and yet it is Sanders supporters doing all the violence? how many Trump Supporters do you see out there destroying property, starting fights and so on? how many Sanders supporters do you see doing that? you are saying the base group he appeals too are verbally and physically violent, and yet it is not his supporters showing that, but Sanders supporters.

Do you have sources on those Sanders attacks? I know there were a lot of violence attacks/property destruction coming from the BLM group, but I don't remember them being directly linked to Sanders. Consequently:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/10/trump-protester-sucker-punched-at-north-carolina-rally-videos-show/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-supporter-tony-pettway-charged-assault-tucson-rally-attack/

Here's one of protestors attacking a Donald Trump rally.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/25/donald-trump-albuquerque-protests-2016-election

No offense, but Trump supporters were assaulting protesters way back in December and January. Can you really be that surprised if Democratic supporters started attacking back in kind? Note: I'm not defending either group, I'm merely trying to show that Trump supporters violence predated violence by any Democratic supports.

when I see protestors on TV burning the American flag and waving Mexican flags while throwing bottles at police and such and waving Dump Trump/feel the Bern signs, yeah they are sanders supporters. this is in California, furthermore always see these same protesters at Trump and Clinton Campaigns, but not Sander's campaigns. now we have a Sanders rally and a Trump rally going off in the Sacramento area here soon so we shall see what happens.

I was more shocked about Brad Thor being in trouble. He's a fairly high-profile novelist. I would expect him to be more careful with his words.

Also, I heard the reason Beck is in trouble is because he said something along the lines of, "I agree, but..."

How many times has Trump actually sued someone though.

Other than threatening it 24/7, I don't think I have heard any coverage about him actually suing anyone.

 d-usa wrote:
How many times has Trump actually sued someone though.

Other than threatening it 24/7, I don't think I have heard any coverage about him actually suing anyone.

oh I'm sure he has sued someone, but not as many times as he has threatened too, but welcome to America the sue happy country, heck someone is suing McDonalds saying their drive thrus are not friendly towards blind people.

Asterios wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
How many times has Trump actually sued someone though.

Other than threatening it 24/7, I don't think I have heard any coverage about him actually suing anyone.

oh I'm sure he has sued someone, but not as many times as he has threatened too, but welcome to America the sue happy country, heck someone is suing McDonalds saying their drive thrus are not friendly towards blind people.

Actually, someone is suing McDonalds because their policy prohibits blind people from being able to do business there, but welcome to America, the misinformed country.

*The actual lawsuit: during certain business hours McDonalds is serving food, but the lobby is actually closed and you are unable to walk into the store to make a purchase. During these hours, the only way you can make a purchase is by using the Drive-Thru window. During the time that the doors are locked and the Drive-Thru window is the only point-of-purchase available, blind people are prohibited from doing business there because McDonalds has a policy to only serve people in cars and not allowing anyone to walk up to the window to place an order. So the lawsuit states, correctly, that even though McDonalds is open for business, their "cars only" policy is not accommodating to people with disabilities who cannot drive a car since there is no alternative means to make a purchase other than driving a car.

**Maybe if McDonalds had more than 30 minutes of orientation they could cover ADA requirements. It's really their own fault.

 d-usa wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
How many times has Trump actually sued someone though.

Other than threatening it 24/7, I don't think I have heard any coverage about him actually suing anyone.

oh I'm sure he has sued someone, but not as many times as he has threatened too, but welcome to America the sue happy country, heck someone is suing McDonalds saying their drive thrus are not friendly towards blind people.

Actually, someone is suing McDonalds because their policy prohibits blind people from being able to do business there, but welcome to America, the misinformed country.

*The actual lawsuit: during certain business hours McDonalds is serving food, but the lobby is actually closed and you are unable to walk into the store to make a purchase. During these hours, the only way you can make a purchase is by using the Drive-Thru window. During the time that the doors are locked and the Drive-Thru window is the only point-of-purchase available, blind people are prohibited from doing business there because McDonalds has a policy to only serve people in cars and not allowing anyone to walk up to the window to place an order. So the lawsuit states, correctly, that even though McDonalds is open for business, their "cars only" policy is not accommodating to people with disabilities who cannot drive a car since there is no alternative means to make a purchase other than driving a car.

**Maybe if McDonalds had more than 30 minutes of orientation they could cover ADA requirements. It's really their own fault.

actually its two-fold, the dine-in area is not open that late because lets face it, its dangerous, plain and simple, as to drive thru's, I cannot speak for that particular McDonald's but they do have menus for the blind to use in Brail and you cannot walk up to a drive thru since that is well dangerous in and of itself.

 d-usa wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
How many times has Trump actually sued someone though.

Other than threatening it 24/7, I don't think I have heard any coverage about him actually suing anyone.

oh I'm sure he has sued someone, but not as many times as he has threatened too, but welcome to America the sue happy country, heck someone is suing McDonalds saying their drive thrus are not friendly towards blind people.

Actually, someone is suing McDonalds because their policy prohibits blind people from being able to do business there, but welcome to America, the misinformed country.

*The actual lawsuit: during certain business hours McDonalds is serving food, but the lobby is actually closed and you are unable to walk into the store to make a purchase. During these hours, the only way you can make a purchase is by using the Drive-Thru window. During the time that the doors are locked and the Drive-Thru window is the only point-of-purchase available, blind people are prohibited from doing business there because McDonalds has a policy to only serve people in cars and not allowing anyone to walk up to the window to place an order. So the lawsuit states, correctly, that even though McDonalds is open for business, their "cars only" policy is not accommodating to people with disabilities who cannot drive a car since there is no alternative means to make a purchase other than driving a car.

**Maybe if McDonalds had more than 30 minutes of orientation they could cover ADA requirements. It's really their own fault.

Drive thrus have always been descriminatory against customers not driving cars, whether they are disabled or not. There are plenty of eateries that are only drive through and have no other order windows or dining area at all and are open for business. That lawsuit seems frivolous in the extreme.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
How many times has Trump actually sued someone though.

Other than threatening it 24/7, I don't think I have heard any coverage about him actually suing anyone.

oh I'm sure he has sued someone, but not as many times as he has threatened too, but welcome to America the sue happy country, heck someone is suing McDonalds saying their drive thrus are not friendly towards blind people.

Actually, someone is suing McDonalds because their policy prohibits blind people from being able to do business there, but welcome to America, the misinformed country.

*The actual lawsuit: during certain business hours McDonalds is serving food, but the lobby is actually closed and you are unable to walk into the store to make a purchase. During these hours, the only way you can make a purchase is by using the Drive-Thru window. During the time that the doors are locked and the Drive-Thru window is the only point-of-purchase available, blind people are prohibited from doing business there because McDonalds has a policy to only serve people in cars and not allowing anyone to walk up to the window to place an order. So the lawsuit states, correctly, that even though McDonalds is open for business, their "cars only" policy is not accommodating to people with disabilities who cannot drive a car since there is no alternative means to make a purchase other than driving a car.

**Maybe if McDonalds had more than 30 minutes of orientation they could cover ADA requirements. It's really their own fault.

Drive thrus have always been descriminatory against customers not driving cars, whether they are disabled or not. There are plenty of eateries that are only drive through and have no other order windows or dining area at all and are open for business. That lawsuit seems frivolous in the extreme.

reminds me of this place called the Squeeze in in Sacramento a very small eatery, hence the name since you had to squeeze in to order(we are talking a little bit bigger then a walk in closet total space, they were sued for not being ADA compliant even though they were grandfathered in under the law, and the person who brought suit makes a living going around to places and finding any small thing to bring suit against them.

I don't know any establishment with a drive through window that allows walk ups. I imagine McD's is the target because of their size and the deepness of their wallet.

 Ahtman wrote:
I don't know any establishment with a drive through window that allows walk ups. I imagine McD's is the target because of their size and the deepness of their wallet.

It's actually a safety hazard too...

I'm sure that liability insurance mandates this policies to prevent cars from running over the "walk up" patrons at the drive thru lanes.

 whembly wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
I don't know any establishment with a drive through window that allows walk ups. I imagine McD's is the target because of their size and the deepness of their wallet.

It's actually a safety hazard too...

I'm sure that liability insurance mandates this policies to prevent cars from running over the "walk up" patrons at the drive thru lanes.

The same drive thru lanes that already have the same cars driving through the actual parking lot where people are already walking?

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
I don't know any establishment with a drive through window that allows walk ups. I imagine McD's is the target because of their size and the deepness of their wallet.

It's actually a safety hazard too...

I'm sure that liability insurance mandates this policies to prevent cars from running over the "walk up" patrons at the drive thru lanes.

The same drive thru lanes that already have the same cars driving through the actual parking lot where people are already walking?

much easier to see someone walking thru a parking lot then to see someone walking thru a drive thru, in fact most accidents involved at a fast food place usually occur at the drive thru, not to mention most of the late night robberies. now if they opened up the dining room that would drastically change since thieves and criminals would go in and rob those places at night, and for you to assume that, that is safer is just an observation of your mentality. there is a reason the lobbies are closed at fast food places after a certain time, it is called safety, there is a reason drive thrus are not open to walk up pedestrians it is safety.

Everybody going into the store has to walk through the drive thru lane to get there. It's impossible to enter it without walking through the drive thru lane. But the lane is so dangerous to pedestrians that the liability factor keeps you from letting them walk through it, unless they are waking through it to get to your store.

I'm glad that cars are gun free zones though and prevent robberies.

From working at fast food, and receiving extensive non-30 minute training, there are certainly factors for not wanting to serve walk-up customers:

- they mess up the work flow: orders get entered as they are given at the menu board, they get made in that order as people pull up, they get paid and handed out in that order. The sensor that starts that whole process doesn't activate for people outside of vehicles, so if they walk up they will be at the end of the list as far as the workflow is concerned even though they are at the front of the list as far as waiting is concerned.
- the work flow issue kills your measures. Fast food places get reamed on their times. Every thing is measured: time to answer, time to ring them up, time to deliver the food, time the car first pulls up at the menu until it pulls away from the window. One person on foot will tank your time for every vehicle that is in line behind it because the whole assembly line system breaks down.
- safety for the store is pretty far down the list, because the guy sticking a gun in your window can do so from his car, and he will point the gun at you on foot even if you won't take his order. Unless we want to pretend that gun-free zones only work when the guy remembers "they won't sell me nuggets because I'm not in a car".
- the liability excuse is laughable since people walk through and in the drive thru lane hundreds and thousands of times daily.

So the #1 reason is "this makes business harder" in a system that is build around assembly line workflow, and the question is does this justify not accommodating people who cannot drive.

Which is far from a frivolous lawsuit.

 d-usa wrote:
Everybody going into the store has to walk through the drive thru lane to get there. It's impossible to enter it without walking through the drive thru lane. But the lane is so dangerous to pedestrians that the liability factor keeps you from letting them walk through it, unless they are waking through it to get to your store.

I'm glad that cars are gun free zones though and prevent robberies.

From working at fast food, and receiving extensive non-30 minute training, there are certainly factors for not wanting to serve walk-up customers:

- they mess up the work flow: orders get entered as they are given at the menu board, they get made in that order as people pull up, they get paid and handed out in that order. The sensor that starts that whole process doesn't activate for people outside of vehicles, so if they walk up they will be at the end of the list as far as the workflow is concerned even though they are at the front of the list as far as waiting is concerned.
- the work flow issue kills your measures. Fast food places get reamed on their times. Every thing is measured: time to answer, time to ring them up, time to deliver the food, time the car first pulls up at the menu until it pulls away from the window. One person on foot will tank your time for every vehicle that is in line behind it because the whole assembly line system breaks down.
- safety for the store is pretty far down the list, because the guy sticking a gun in your window can do so from his car, and he will point the gun at you on foot even if you won't take his order. Unless we want to pretend that gun-free zones only work when the guy remembers "they won't sell me nuggets because I'm not in a car".
- the liability excuse is laughable since people walk through and in the drive thru lane hundreds and thousands of times daily.

So the #1 reason is "this makes business harder" in a system that is build around assembly line workflow, and the question is does this justify not accommodating people who cannot drive.

Which is far from a frivolous lawsuit.

or maybe they can get a driver instead of walking thru town where it is harder for people to see pedestrians? which with them being blind does make it more dangerous.

It's not McDonalds who says blind people can't drive.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's not McDonalds who says blind people can't drive.

That's the most discriminatory thing I've ever read. Blind people have rights!

I would seriously have to control myself from trying to beat the gak out the guy in that white truck.

I think the idea of walk up people not being allowed stems from having a person in between two cars for an extended period of time. I'm sure there are numerous fender benders from people pushing forward to get their meal (their fries have GOT to have crack in them) too much. Such a fender bender would seriously hurt a pedestrian instead of scratch a bumper. Plus the drive thrus that have sharp blind corners.

Asterios wrote:

or maybe they can get a driver instead of walking thru town

That's not how the ADA works. If it did work that way we would just tell all the people in wheelchairs to get someone to carry them around instead of building ramps and stuff.

 d-usa wrote:

Asterios wrote:

or maybe they can get a driver instead of walking thru town

That's not how the ADA works. If it did work that way we would just tell all the people in wheelchairs to get someone to carry them around instead of building ramps and stuff.

well then by your statement the guy should sue the DMV for not allowing him to drive? Furthermore just to blow a big hole in your theory, discrimination is discriminating against one group of people, problem is McDonald's drive thru policy does not discriminate against just the blind, no one can walk up to their drive thru windows. what you are saying is like movie theaters discriminate against the blind or the deaf , in fact your attacks on me are nothing more then a trollish behavior coming from a troll like you, welcome to my ignore list.

Asterios wrote:
well then by your statement the guy should sue the DMV for not allowing him to drive? Furthermore just to blow a big hole in your theory, discrimination is discriminating against one group of people, problem is McDonald's drive thru policy does not discriminate against just the blind, no one can walk up to their drive thru windows. what you are saying is like movie theaters discriminate against the blind or the deaf , in fact your attacks on me are nothing more then a trollish behavior coming from a troll like you, welcome to my ignore list.

Again, that's really NOT how the ADA works. But this is WAY off-topic.

How many times has Trump actually sued someone though.

Other than threatening it 24/7, I don't think I have heard any coverage about him actually suing anyone.

Recent article: he's been involved in something like 3500 lawsuits, including 1900 where he or one of his companies is the plaintiff.

 Janthkin wrote:

Asterios wrote:
well then by your statement the guy should sue the DMV for not allowing him to drive? Furthermore just to blow a big hole in your theory, discrimination is discriminating against one group of people, problem is McDonald's drive thru policy does not discriminate against just the blind, no one can walk up to their drive thru windows. what you are saying is like movie theaters discriminate against the blind or the deaf , in fact your attacks on me are nothing more then a trollish behavior coming from a troll like you, welcome to my ignore list.

Again, that's really NOT how the ADA works. But this is WAY off-topic.

yes and no, could see this being discussed by Beck (I think?) and you are wrong since the ADA is to avoid discrimination

The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, State and local government, public accommodations, commercial facilities, transportation, and telecommunications. It also applies to the United States Congress.

, thereby how does the drive thrus discriminate against the blind when even seeing people cannot walk up to the drive thru window? so tell me where is the discrimination there? if I want to go to McDonald's late at night and if I don't have a car i will still have to get someone to drive me there.

 d-usa wrote:

Asterios wrote:

or maybe they can get a driver instead of walking thru town

That's not how the ADA works. If it did work that way we would just tell all the people in wheelchairs to get someone to carry them around instead of building ramps and stuff.

Drive thrus are descriminatory by nature, that's the whole idea of them in the first place, they're on ordering method that is only available to people in cars. Drive thrus descriminate against anyone not in a car, whether they are blind or not. If it is illegal to have drive thrus without simultaneously offering walk up service than no businesses would be allowed to ever be drive thru operations only, whether it's McDonalds or Starbucks or a bank or whatever. There's no "reasonable accomodation" that can be done to make a drive thru accessible to a blind person because blind people aren't allowed to legally drive a car. I don't think the ADA is going to require that the federal govt shut down any business that is drive thru only because blind people can't drive cars.

Wait, drive thrus are discriminatory? did I miss something here?

This is a lot like the old ATM issue. Advocates were getting onto banks because blind people couldn't use ATMs and so were not being granted the same access to 24 hour banking. Braille was only a partial fix as most visually impaired individuals can't read braille (I think the number is south of 20%). The solution that they came up with was pretty clever- the headphone jack with sensor so that sensitive info wouldn't display on the screen when that mode was engaged.

There is discrimination here- the fact that it may be indirect is not a convincing argument. The question will really be whether McDonald's can make a "reasonable accommodation". Given that this test is usually based on the resources available to the business, I don't know if that cuts in McD's favor. However, I wonder if McD's has considered that something like a separate walk up window may open up more potential revenue. Heck, you could even largely automate it much like an ATM....

 jmurph wrote:
This is a lot like the old ATM issue. Advocates were getting onto banks because blind people couldn't use ATMs and so were not being granted the same access to 24 hour banking. Braille was only a partial fix as most visually impaired individuals can't read braille (I think the number is south of 20%). The solution that they came up with was pretty clever- the headphone jack with sensor so that sensitive info wouldn't display on the screen when that mode was engaged.

There is discrimination here- the fact that it may be indirect is not a convincing argument. The question will really be whether McDonald's can make a "reasonable accommodation". Given that this test is usually based on the resources available to the business, I don't know if that cuts in McD's favor. However, I wonder if McD's has considered that something like a separate walk up window may open up more potential revenue. Heck, you could even largely automate it much like an ATM....

actually back in the 80's a few businesses did try walk-up windows, the issue that arose was too many people got mugged using them, so businesses stopped doing them since they were being sued by the victims for not providing adequate security.