Anybody catch this?
#41
(11-25-2012, 11:58 AM)GoCometsGo Wrote: My dogs started licking their asses. I started humping the neighbor's leg.

Wow! The neighbors dog just took a dump in my front yard! Twitch
Reply
#42
(11-25-2012, 12:03 PM)cletus1 Wrote:
(11-25-2012, 11:58 AM)GoCometsGo Wrote: My dogs started licking their asses. I started humping the neighbor's leg.

Wow! The neighbors dog just took a dump in my front yard! Twitch

Do you know what I call a dog that does that? Well trained. Big Grin
Reply
#43
(11-25-2012, 12:05 PM)GoCometsGo Wrote:
(11-25-2012, 12:03 PM)cletus1 Wrote:
(11-25-2012, 11:58 AM)GoCometsGo Wrote: My dogs started licking their asses. I started humping the neighbor's leg.

Wow! The neighbors dog just took a dump in my front yard! Twitch

Do you know what I call a dog that does that? Well trained. Big Grin

Would it be appropriate to give my neighbor back what their do left in my yard? I'm thinking not because I will eventually get another dog.Smiling
Reply
#44
Grow a plant in it and then give him some of the vegetables, and he'll never know it. Smiling
Reply
#45
(11-25-2012, 12:17 PM)PonderThis Wrote: Grow a plant in it and then give him some of the vegetables, and he'll never know it. Smiling

I was just joking. I am dog tolerant. I don't really even mind phony service dogs. I cant say the same for their owners.
Reply
#46
(11-25-2012, 12:17 PM)PonderThis Wrote: Grow a plant in it and then give him some of the vegetables, and he'll never know it. Smiling

Big Grin
Reply
#47
Those owners might need those dogs more than you know.
Reply
#48
(11-25-2012, 12:12 PM)cletus1 Wrote:
(11-25-2012, 12:05 PM)GoCometsGo Wrote:
(11-25-2012, 12:03 PM)cletus1 Wrote:
(11-25-2012, 11:58 AM)GoCometsGo Wrote: My dogs started licking their asses. I started humping the neighbor's leg.

Wow! The neighbors dog just took a dump in my front yard! Twitch

Do you know what I call a dog that does that? Well trained. Big Grin

Would it be appropriate to give my neighbor back what their do left in my yard? I'm thinking not because I will eventually get another dog.Smiling

We actually, by mutual consent, share our yard with our neighbors. We have a common fence that all of our dogs are contained by. Their dogs are out more and one of their dogs is quite large. I should say WAS quite large because he died a couple of months ago. In any event, we certainly got the lion's share of the crap in our yard and I sometimes contemplated just tossing the poop in their general direction. In the end, we, (and by 'we' I mean my wife), just picked up all of the poop on our side and they picked up the poop on their side.

Recently they replaced the dead dog with a little rat dog that they got from the animal shelter. So the other morning I was headed for work and it was still dark. I catch the neighbor kid behind my pickup with their new dog and the dog was on a leash.

At this point I don't know for sure who led whom to our side of the yard.
Reply
#49
(11-25-2012, 12:23 PM)GoCometsGo Wrote:
(11-25-2012, 12:12 PM)cletus1 Wrote:
(11-25-2012, 12:05 PM)GoCometsGo Wrote:
(11-25-2012, 12:03 PM)cletus1 Wrote:
(11-25-2012, 11:58 AM)GoCometsGo Wrote: My dogs started licking their asses. I started humping the neighbor's leg.

Wow! The neighbors dog just took a dump in my front yard! Twitch

Do you know what I call a dog that does that? Well trained. Big Grin

Would it be appropriate to give my neighbor back what their do left in my yard? I'm thinking not because I will eventually get another dog.Smiling

We actually, by mutual consent, share our yard with our neighbors. We have a common fence that all of our dogs are contained by. Their dogs are out more and one of their dogs is quite large. I should say WAS quite large because he died a couple of months ago. In any event, we certainly got the lion's share of the crap in our yard and I sometimes contemplated just tossing the poop in their general direction. In the end, we, (and by 'we' I mean my wife), just picked up all of the poop on our side and they picked up the poop on their side.

Recently they replaced the dead dog with a little rat dog that they got from the animal shelter. So the other morning I was headed for work and it was still dark. I catch the neighbor kid behind my pickup with their new dog and the dog was on a leash.

At this point I don't know for sure who led whom to our side of the yard.
Big Grin You are too tolerant.Smiling My tolerance is tested with shoes.
Reply
#50
(11-25-2012, 12:27 PM)cletus1 Wrote:
(11-25-2012, 12:23 PM)GoCometsGo Wrote:
(11-25-2012, 12:12 PM)cletus1 Wrote:
(11-25-2012, 12:05 PM)GoCometsGo Wrote:
(11-25-2012, 12:03 PM)cletus1 Wrote: Wow! The neighbors dog just took a dump in my front yard! Twitch

Do you know what I call a dog that does that? Well trained. Big Grin

Would it be appropriate to give my neighbor back what their do left in my yard? I'm thinking not because I will eventually get another dog.Smiling

We actually, by mutual consent, share our yard with our neighbors. We have a common fence that all of our dogs are contained by. Their dogs are out more and one of their dogs is quite large. I should say WAS quite large because he died a couple of months ago. In any event, we certainly got the lion's share of the crap in our yard and I sometimes contemplated just tossing the poop in their general direction. In the end, we, (and by 'we' I mean my wife), just picked up all of the poop on our side and they picked up the poop on their side.

Recently they replaced the dead dog with a little rat dog that they got from the animal shelter. So the other morning I was headed for work and it was still dark. I catch the neighbor kid behind my pickup with their new dog and the dog was on a leash.

At this point I don't know for sure who led whom to our side of the yard.
Big Grin You are too tolerant.Smiling My tolerance is tested with shoes.

You didn't ask how their other dog died. Ninja
Reply
#51
(11-25-2012, 11:58 AM)GoCometsGo Wrote: My dogs started licking their asses. I started humping the neighbor's leg.

Better than the other way around. Big Grin
Reply
#52
(11-25-2012, 12:37 PM)Valuesize Wrote:
(11-25-2012, 11:58 AM)GoCometsGo Wrote: My dogs started licking their asses. I started humping the neighbor's leg.

Better than the other way around. Big Grin

Depends how cute the neighbor is.
Reply
#53
The definition of disability:

The ADA Restoration Act was signed into law September 25, 2008. It went into effect January 1, 2009. The main purpose of the ADARA of 2008 is to correct interpretations of the ADA by the SCOTUS and reassert Congress' original intent, particularly with regard to the definition of "disability,"

Sec. 12102. Definition of disability

As used in this chapter:

(1) Disability

The term "disability" means, with respect to an individual

(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual;

(B) a record of such an impairment; or

© being regarded as having such an impairment.

(2) Major Life Activities

(A) In general

For purposes of paragraph (1), major life activities include, but are not limited to, caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working.

A person has to meet the requirements of "disabled" as outlined above. In the case of a psychiatric issue, simple "depression" would not qualify becuase it would not impact a major life activity. A "depressed" person can still see, hear, eat, sleep, walk, stand, lift, bend, etc, even though they may not "feel" like doing it. So a person who says "I need Fluffums to go with me because I feel so much better if shes there" does not qualify for 2 reasons: 1. the person does not meet the legal definition of "disabled", and 2. the dog is not trained to do anything to mitigate a disability. "Grocery shopping" is not a major life activity. Not being able to see while grocery shopping is. "Getting out of the house" is not a major life activity. Not being able to hear when out (or in, for that matter) of the house is. Most of the frauds and fakers use the "I feel less anxious when Binkums is with me" excuse to drag their pets everywhere, but are doing so in an unlawful manner. If the businesses used the ADA in the proper manner, they would be able to keep the pets out and not worry about adverse consequences.
The ADA has protections built into the law for both the businesses and the persons with a disability. All the businesses have to do is ask the proper questions and they are protected. Marti did not ask the proper questions in the video. In fact, she went way beyond what is legally allowed and will have to answer for it eventually.
Reply
#54
(11-25-2012, 05:32 PM)Smithcat Wrote: The definition of disability:

The ADA Restoration Act was signed into law September 25, 2008. It went into effect January 1, 2009. The main purpose of the ADARA of 2008 is to correct interpretations of the ADA by the SCOTUS and reassert Congress' original intent, particularly with regard to the definition of "disability,"

Sec. 12102. Definition of disability

As used in this chapter:

(1) Disability

The term "disability" means, with respect to an individual

(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual;

(B) a record of such an impairment; or

© being regarded as having such an impairment.

(2) Major Life Activities

(A) In general

For purposes of paragraph (1), major life activities include, but are not limited to, caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working.

A person has to meet the requirements of "disabled" as outlined above. In the case of a psychiatric issue, simple "depression" would not qualify becuase it would not impact a major life activity. A "depressed" person can still see, hear, eat, sleep, walk, stand, lift, bend, etc, even though they may not "feel" like doing it. So a person who says "I need Fluffums to go with me because I feel so much better if shes there" does not qualify for 2 reasons: 1. the person does not meet the legal definition of "disabled", and 2. the dog is not trained to do anything to mitigate a disability. "Grocery shopping" is not a major life activity. Not being able to see while grocery shopping is. "Getting out of the house" is not a major life activity. Not being able to hear when out (or in, for that matter) of the house is. Most of the frauds and fakers use the "I feel less anxious when Binkums is with me" excuse to drag their pets everywhere, but are doing so in an unlawful manner. If the businesses used the ADA in the proper manner, they would be able to keep the pets out and not worry about adverse consequences.
The ADA has protections built into the law for both the businesses and the persons with a disability. All the businesses have to do is ask the proper questions and they are protected. Marti did not ask the proper questions in the video. In fact, she went way beyond what is legally allowed and will have to answer for it eventually.

However, I think the argument has boiled down to whether the person toting the dog has to be honest about their disability given that no proof or documentation of any kind is required. Absent some form of verification, virtually anyone can pack their dog around. Keeping in mind that those that would knowingly flaunt the system are also likely to be dishonest about it.
Reply
#55
(11-25-2012, 12:03 PM)cletus1 Wrote: Wow! The neighbors dog just took a dump in my front yard! Twitch

[Image: 152nme1.jpg]
Reply
#56
(11-25-2012, 05:48 PM)GoCometsGo Wrote:
(11-25-2012, 05:32 PM)Smithcat Wrote: The definition of disability:

The ADA Restoration Act was signed into law September 25, 2008. It went into effect January 1, 2009. The main purpose of the ADARA of 2008 is to correct interpretations of the ADA by the SCOTUS and reassert Congress' original intent, particularly with regard to the definition of "disability,"

Sec. 12102. Definition of disability

As used in this chapter:

(1) Disability

The term "disability" means, with respect to an individual

(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual;

(B) a record of such an impairment; or

© being regarded as having such an impairment.

(2) Major Life Activities

(A) In general

For purposes of paragraph (1), major life activities include, but are not limited to, caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working.

A person has to meet the requirements of "disabled" as outlined above. In the case of a psychiatric issue, simple "depression" would not qualify becuase it would not impact a major life activity. A "depressed" person can still see, hear, eat, sleep, walk, stand, lift, bend, etc, even though they may not "feel" like doing it. So a person who says "I need Fluffums to go with me because I feel so much better if shes there" does not qualify for 2 reasons: 1. the person does not meet the legal definition of "disabled", and 2. the dog is not trained to do anything to mitigate a disability. "Grocery shopping" is not a major life activity. Not being able to see while grocery shopping is. "Getting out of the house" is not a major life activity. Not being able to hear when out (or in, for that matter) of the house is. Most of the frauds and fakers use the "I feel less anxious when Binkums is with me" excuse to drag their pets everywhere, but are doing so in an unlawful manner. If the businesses used the ADA in the proper manner, they would be able to keep the pets out and not worry about adverse consequences.
The ADA has protections built into the law for both the businesses and the persons with a disability. All the businesses have to do is ask the proper questions and they are protected. Marti did not ask the proper questions in the video. In fact, she went way beyond what is legally allowed and will have to answer for it eventually.

However, I think the argument has boiled down to whether the person toting the dog has to be honest about their disability given that no proof or documentation of any kind is required. Absent some form of verification, virtually anyone can pack their dog around. Keeping in mind that those that would knowingly flaunt the system are also likely to be dishonest about it.

That's certainly something to discuss and attempt to change for the future, but the fact of the matter is that under current law, she was way out of bounds.
Reply
#57
(11-25-2012, 05:48 PM)GoCometsGo Wrote: However, I think the argument has boiled down to whether the person toting the dog has to be honest about their disability given that no proof or documentation of any kind is required. Absent some form of verification, virtually anyone can pack their dog around. Keeping in mind that those that would knowingly flaunt the system are also likely to be dishonest about it.

Indeed. The ADA is built upon the premise of being least invasive to the person with a disability, and that a person with a disability will be honest about actually NEEDING the accommodation. It does operate on the "honor system". So much for good intentions.

The problem with "verification" is thus:
No other free citizen has to show any form of "ID" every time they enter a store, walk down the street, go into the public venue, or for any other activity. By forcing the disabled handlers of service dogs to produce some sort of "verification" every time they are out and about with their service dog, this places them in a different class, no longer able to freely go about their business unless they have the proper "paperwork".
And who gets to ask for such "verification"? The greeter at the front of the store? A manager? The cashier? The kid who stocks the shelves? Must it be produced to anyone affiliated with the business at anytime? Or only when initially entering? What happens if they do not have their "official service dog ID" with them for whatever reason? Are they denied initial access? Will they be escorted out of the venue if already present?
Will a new govt agency have to be created to administer an ID program? Who pays for that? What will the fees be? Is there a renewal period? Yearly? Every 5 years? Are the fees the same for a renewal as opposed to an initial issuance? Would this not overburden the budgets of a segment of the population that already experiences greater levels of poverty and unemployment than their non-disabled counterparts? Who verifies the persons disability? A doctor or some faceless bureaucrat?
There are many more factors to be considered, but you get the idea.
Not trying to be difficult, but the logistics of managing any type of official service dog ID which will be universally accepted as valid is a prospect that even the govt would have difficulty implementing and maintaining. It is not the same as applying for a drivers license or disabled parking placard, because one is dealing with many seperate issues: the actual disability and what that entails, the training of the service dog, the tasks and work needed to mitigate the disability, how the dog is handled and behaves in the public venue, liability insurance, and others.
While it seems that "flashing an ID" would be an easy fix, at this time it is just not feasable to have an ID program in place when the total number of legitimate service dogs in the US is estimated to be less than 16,000. It would create more problems than it solves, and is extensively intrusive to the service dog user.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)