Oh, please, you're all missing the point. Do you really think Steve Wynn cares what you think of him and what you're misinterpreting as some morality decision?

This is a lability issue-most likely Waits was on duty, working as an employee-either directly or indirectly-with Wynn Properties. If any employee is running around and/or driving wasted while on duty, of course Wynn has to can him!

Can you imagine the liability problems if in the future, this clown Waits was involved in DUI with bodily harm? Every ambulance chaser in town would name the business as a defendant and the fact that Wynn Properties could be shown to employ someone they knew had prior on the job issues won't be a big help in trying to deny liability!

Quit flattering yourselves-notwithstanding he general bad pr, which is fleeting, anyway-this has nothing to do with what Steve Wynn wants you to think of him; it's all about the money.

Boftx; Even I wouldn't even bother to read to the bottom of my post-way too lengthy-but also way too much fun to compose.

As much as I hate to jump on the public school (post 1953!) bashing bandwagon, it is hilarious to observe-at least based on the indignant responses-a readership that certainly didn't get the benefit of critical thinking analysis attendant to a Westchester public school education. (Needless to say, I wouldn't dare broach the laughable possibility of any posters having had an east coast private school experience-unless Dad had to donate the new roof-because let's face it, a sadder grasp of irony has probably never been exhibited in the history of human readership as on this thread.)

Here's a thought, though! Try reading the posts from readers of the London Times or even The Guardian (for you lefties). Even the most uneducated poster from that Tory (look it up) rag, the Daily Mail, can comprehend irony and communicate same in ways that-well, never mind.

Anyway, it was fun, but off to bed! Morning meeting with the Queen Bee tomorrow, and plus-without sounding arrogant (I'm grateful for what my hard work, education, and dedication has brought me), someone's gotta be footing the bill when the AZ law gets shot down by the Ninth Circus!

Really, BestBet?! You mean the creator of 'The Family Guy', Seth Myers on SNL, a variety of college dropouts/drug addicts that make a living singing songs and/or regurgitating words that other people write for them onto the silver screen, not to mention virtually every pundit featured on the MSM, is WRONG about the AZ law?!

Are you telling me-with a straight face, mind you-that a law that allows law enforcement to not only REQUEST legitimate documentation from a person after a lawful stop, but then allows that same law enforcement officer to arrest that person on a "reasonable, articulable suspicion" of being an illegal, is NOT akin to life in Nazi Germany?

I'm shocked, just shocked-if only because that would mean that domestic policy experts like
Michael Moore and Gloria Estefan are WRONG when they claim that the Arizona law is akin to
Nazism! I suppose the fact that under the AZ law, the worst that would happen is a one way ticket
back to Mexico, whereas, in Nazi Germany, not having proper docs meant a one way ticket to
Dachau, but why quibble over facts, especially when no-one ine the media bothers to point out that minor discrepancy?

So, I will continue to reiterate my outrage over the cruel, cruel AZ law. Imagine, being able to catch
an illegal as a result of a lawful stop. Now that's a Nazi state if I ever saw one, and, as long as the
always objective Sun, Hollywood celebs, the MSM, and all those highly articulate protestors
demanding "their rights" (because remember-no person is "illegal"!!), I will maintain my argument
that this outrageous law can only undermine the notion of our Founding Fathers that the United
States is nothing more than an international flophouse.

And, really, however did we manage for the past two hundred years or so, without these hard working Mexican illegals? What with all the technological advances their country has provided over the centuries, it's a miracle we in the U.S managed to survive as long as we did without them! Just look at how east Las Vegas has flourished into an elegant, crime-free "Summerlin East", with all the attendant educational and cultural standards if you don't believe me!

So, down with the racial profiling law that will enable Nazi-style thuggery that
sends illegals homes! It's cruel to enforce a law-and, as Obama says, people will get hassled by the Nazis if they try to go out for ice cream with their kid!

If this were NOT true, the always objective Sun would have pointed out his statement, along with many others, as a blatant lie. But they did not, and since The Sun would NEVER have an amnesty agenda, I will always believe what they and the aforementioned other anti "anti-immigrant" fighters tell me. Cause if they say so, it must be true!

(This is just getting to be too fun, and I'm almost late for a date, so remember, people-down with the Nazi AZ law, and Se Si Puede!!!!)

Excuse me, "Get a Life", but I am only parrottingbwhat that constitutional law expert, Linda Rondstat, said about a law that allows a law enforcement officer to ask about a person's immigration status if they are unable to provide legitimate proof of identification after a lawful stop.

And what about all those protestors in San Fransisco that said the law is JUST LIKE Nazi Germany? No one in the media has contravened their claim (and, I won't even mention challenging the critical thinking of the "Boycott Arizona" Hollywood celebrities, since, well, they ARE celebrities and challenging someone who gets paid to memorize and repeat words that others write would be just plain disrepectful, for obvious reasons!!)

Finally, Barracka Hussein Obama TOLD us that from now on, a person in Arizona might not be able to take his child for ice cream, for fear of "the Nazis" hassling him while he decides between one or two scoops.

I actuall thought "Dad" would first have to get popped for actuall trying to ROB the store before the Nazi "hassles" him, but since Obama explained the law so accurately, I can see I was clearly mistaken. It IS Obama doin the talkin', after all!

So, while it's unfortunate that my outrage over this cruel law offends you, I am simply repeating the facts as has been portrayed by the MSM, highly-educated Hollywood celebrities, even more highly-educated illegal aliens, and highly employable San Fransisco hippies and anarchists. And, of course, the always reliable Obama.

So sad that you fail to empathize and feel outrage over the Nazi takeover. :0(

This has to be one of the most outrageous examples of racial profiling I have ever come across and it is a perfect example of why that scary Arizona law must be repealed immediately!!!

This is because the fact pattern here mirrors precisely what is written in the AZ law. A law enforcement officer notices a vehicle violating the speed limit and then he has the nerve to pull over the driver. As if that's not bad enough, he then demands identification from the driver.

In Arizona, this driver's failure to provide a driver's license that is statutorily accepted as proof of citizenship or lawful residency would subsequently leave him vulnerable to ADDED questions about his legal status. (And, yes, I realize that federal law requires all lawfully present aliens to carry their green card on their person AT ALL TIMES, but really, I think that's a bit onerous of a request, don't
you?)

Sooo, anyway, if this driver had been pulled over in Arizona for speeding, and he didn't have a valid
driver's license and was unable to provide the officer with proof of identification that he might be
legally required to carry at all times, this poor man would then be questioned about his immigration status, you know, just so the officer could find out just who the Hell this man speeding through the desert in the middle of the night is.

This, people, is what would happen under the new Arizona law. I personally think the officer should just have to say, "Oh, you have no driver's license and/or any other form of identification? Well, you have a nice day, Sir, and sorry for the inconvenience."

Instead, we can see the sort of civil liberties outrages that the Arizona law would allow these Jack-booted thug officers to do to this OBVIOUSLY racially-profiled gentleman.

Just like Nazi Germany, clearly.

OUTRAGEOUS!!!

(This comment was removed by the site staff. Off-topic.)

Well, I can certainly see why the errr, "mother" would want to hook up with this fabulous prize and leave her baby alone with him. Let's see...endangers his own child and flies into fits of rage-really, what more could a responsible, protective gal want in her shack-up honey? Why, the shack-up situation alone is a model of stability, and just the sort of environment to which every baby girl needs to be exposed growing up, amirite?!!

Plus, this mother has her rights!!! And, that includes her right to personal happiness and sexy time! Why should someone so young have to sacrifice all that for the sake of their baby?!!

The defendant is a pig and he'll get what's coming to him, but the word I have for an unwed mother who selfishly shacks up with a man, and adds insult to injury by knowingly choosing a man that is also a violent danger to the very baby that depends on her for safety and protection, is a word that wouldn't be printed in any publication.

Good thing the sperm donor couldn't be bothered to marry the mother of his child, since I'm sure this homicide would have happened if his daughter was being raised in an intact family unit.

Bet he's feeling pretty good right about now, what with about having been there as a married father to protect his daughter like a real man would.

(Of course, we wouldn't want to be "judgy" about unwed motherhood, since, you know, everything is equal, there's no such thing as better or worse, and who are we to say what comprises a "family"?!

Boy, thank goodness for the social wisdom of tv characters like Murphy Brown to set the rest of us
"judgmental" people straight about how maybe raising a kid in an unmarried household isn't the wisest course.)

Then we have "mom", who, apparently, is so desperate to have a "male member" in her life that not only is she willing to overlook the fact that her shack-up honey is a violent felon that likes to beat up infants, she leaves her own infant-you know, the helpless one she gave birth to who relies on her for safety and protection-with this beast.

Nice! Of course, I woudnt want to judge because who, after all, is to say that an intact family would have been better for the baby than this wonderfully unique arrangement?

Oh, but that's riiiight. The baby's DEAD now, so I guess no one has to worry about doing any judging anymore, do they?

Thanks, 60's Baby boomers! It's YOUR lax social and amoral attitudes that have infected this country by destroying the notion of societal shame being a positive force, such that unwed motherhood is accepted and no ones allowed to criticize "lifestyle choices".

Really seems to be have worked out well for this baby, wouldn't you say? But at least no one's "prudish" anymore, and really, when you think about it, isn't that the most important thing?

Why am I not surprised.