Comments by "upabittoolate" (@upabittoolate) on "Pool Reps Defend Their Position For Not Allowing Blacks" video.

  1. i guess you're not as familiar with codespeak as some of us are. i'm POSITIVE about the size of the pool(s) & their material ability to hire more guards. they had an online brochure. believe me, it's a HUGE set of pools. besides, the fact that the other kids leaped out of the water speaks for itself. nevertheless, there was a breach of contract. what's more, when those other kids left, capacity became LESS of an issue. c'mon mate. think about it.
    1
  2. i say anticipatory because i'm sure the $1950 was covering more than 1 trip to the pool. the fundamental comes in when they sue for damages (assuming they will). the club has a right to deny access but they don't have a right to enter into a contract, written or implied, then bait & switch. there's a range of litigation that's feasible here. why? because the supervisor said they "didn't want the complexion of their pool to change". do you know a jury that wouldn't rule in their favor? i don't.
    1
  3. if girard college, a much slammer facility w/500 kids of its own, can withstand having 65 more kids there's no excuse for the huntingdon valley club. i understand a little bit about it being attached to a country club & them trying to maintain that country club atmosphere. BUT they shouldn't have signed a contract only to back out of it. having faced racism, malicious & benign, i can offer you context: it's here & it's pervasive. fear of "changing complexion" is not code. that's overt bigotry
    1
  4. i'm no lawyer but i think return of consideration, even if done on the up & up, doesn't necessarily void the contract for both parties. i think proof positive will be when damages are paid.
    1
  5. i didn't need to be there. i've seen pics of the facility, hrs of operation, amenities, etc. they had an online brochure. before they took down their site, i googled it. i'm a lifeguard part time. an expert? no. but i've some insight & the context is already there. insight/context be damned, they broke a contract here. the reasoning for that breach is about as sturdy as the 1st pig's house. i'm the last guy to scream "racism!" but this is obvious. must i've fought in 'nam to know it happened?
    1
  6. you assure because of what? you're a veteran litigation lawyer? at 25, i doubt that. again, litigation goes before juries ALL THE TIME. people sue for damages in breaches ALL THE TIME. they were not compensated for their day. the deposit, the balance AND a prorata payment should have been spotted for the day the were there. there's travel cost. there's also (arguably) punitive damages. is it severe trauma? no. but i don't see a judge tossing it either.
    1
  7. he's right. you're not being paid to think.
    1
  8. then find another channel pulsar.
    1
  9. either way, the racism here is overt
    1
  10. like i said. i'm all about fairness. i was the 1st guy to say that rep. king may have been taking a ron paul type stance on the michael jackson award plaque thing. BOY was i wrong. hell i got flak from black people for saying "dr paul ain't a racist". BOY do i hope i was right. i caddied at ravisloe cc (in homewood, il) for 3yrs. i saw 2 black golfers my entire time there. the valley swim club isn't the cc but a similar philosophy applies for both. believe me, this was clear cut racism.
    1
  11. according to wiki (yeah like it's a good reference. lol) this qualifies as an anticipatory breach AND a fundamental breach.
    1
  12. i'm all about fairness. but they broke the agreement. i wish you could see the club pics so you could understand why your argument of neutrality, while extremely well intentioned, isn't realistic. maybe they were hacked. maybe they took it down for "reconstruction". maybe it's all jammed up from angry webheads. but believe me, they could withstand 65 kids for a few hours. we're talking about a 60-80lb kid. we're talking about a facility that has trained guards & fibrilators o'plenty. no excuses.
    1
  13. get 'em occ. i saw that shit too. i'm not sure if people are consciously making those implications or if they're o'reilly racists & really don't know what they're saying. either way, thanks for picking up on that. i was about to come out my shit.
    1
  14. i had a girlfriend help me study for the boards. that doesn't mean she can make asurances about diagnostic procedures in medicine. if a carpenter's breach slows down another part of a project & money is lost, that's a damage suit (but not punitive). nevertheless, you get the gist: anything can happen once the judge sits down. "punitive damage" is interpreted in a myriad of ways too. trial sets precedents not vice versa. wouldn't you agree? reading rainbow was 1 of my favorite shows too. nice
    1
  15. that's fruit of a poison tree reasoning. "white children" could mean 2 white kids & 40 black kids. we still know that the behavior was in spite of black kids. either way, by saying there's a concern about the "complexion of the pool", they left a huge opening.
    1
  16. who implied that ownership made them racist? i said the BEHAVIOR was racist. who said that skin got people kicked out? i said that unless white kids are being ejected too, it's racism. i NEVER said that race was a determinant factor. i said that the people at the pool ALLOWED race to be the determinant factor.
    1
  17. racist
    1
  18. if you're gonna troll, don't just break right out with it. you gotta get someone on the line first THEN hook them. my friend, there's an art to it. btw, the HIV virus can't survive outside a host for longer than a few minutes. chlorine kills it.
    1
  19. there is a loss. a day at the pool. there are damages. punitive damages. people have sued for damages & won in breach suits wtf are you talking about? the camp evidently didn't have much choice or, better yet, its leader was weak. civil suits often do go before juries all the time. again, wtf are you talking about?
    1
  20. it sounds like you didn't read it either. bernice deusler cited concerns of capacity, safety & noise. all they had do was hire another lifeguard. why wasn't noise a factor with the white kids? better yet, why did they take the contract if capacity was an issue? the spokesperson (the pool director's wife) actually DID make it worse by intimating the black & hispanic kids threatened the overall safety of the situation.
    1
  21. they're innocent of any racist accusations. i can dig that. but they are clearly guilty of contractual breach. nevertheless, the racial implications are there & they are well defined. many times i've been inappropriately frisked by cops in the name of safety. in truth, i'm a large, black man. the motives were obvious but it was done under the guise of "standard procedure". what about that family that had gay parents who were denied family rates? see? wording doesn't absolve guilt.
    1
  22. it's true. they reserve the right. BUT they signed a contract then breached the contract. they have that right too. but that comes at the cost of a lawsuit (which they'll lose) & bad publicity (when they're getting plenty of thanks to cenk & people like him). this is like me reserving a table at an exclusive restaurant, being dissed by the host, making me pay for a meal that i didn't eat (because you needed a credit card number to reserve that table) THEN reimbursing me 5 days after the fact.
    1
  23. run of the mill IDIOT!
    1
  24. yes another lifeguard WILL address the issue. it's not like we're talking about evacuating a 4 walled room. it's a swimming pool at a swimming CLUB. they're big enough to accommodate 65, 8yo kids. either way, it's incumbent on them to honor the contract they signed. the don't try to explain away the noise thing. it's not like the kids are swimming at night in a bedroom community, it's shorties in a fucking daycamp.
    1
  25. the club has 2 slides, 3 pools, 2 kiddie pools & 3 jacuzzis. if "safety" was an issue, they'd just hire another lifeguard. but as per "safety" no white kids were asked to leave. wassup wit dat?
    1