Kerry Picks Edwards as His Running Mate

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 92
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    Not that he's a lawyer but a trail lawyer. So he's in bed with the legal industry. You know? The ones that sue McDonalds for making food (and hot coffee), gun industry for making guns, cigarette companies for making smokes, Wal-Mart for employing people, drug companies for selling FDA approved drugs, car companies for making cars ?





    Is that like trail mix?
  • Reply 42 of 92
    gilschgilsch Posts: 1,995member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sammi jo

    Good. Anything is a big improvement over organized crime.



    Ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding.....



    That was funny.
  • Reply 43 of 92
    common mancommon man Posts: 522member
    This ticket is dead from its start. It is a waste of money to hold the election. The first as fourth most liberal senators as President and VP! We don't need liberal trial lawyers in the White House.
  • Reply 44 of 92
    faust9faust9 Posts: 1,335member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Common Man

    This ticket is dead from its start. It is a waste of money to hold the election. The first as fourth most liberal senators as President and VP! We don't need liberal trial lawyers in the White House.



    YEAH!!! What we need are corrupt buisness men from the oil industry running the country!!!
  • Reply 45 of 92
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    "Common" "man": But would you have said anything different had anyone (but Bush) been elected VP?
  • Reply 46 of 92
    buckeyebuckeye Posts: 358member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Common Man

    We don't need liberal trial lawyers in the White House.



    Yeah, trial lawyers might actually defend themselves.
  • Reply 47 of 92
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    Not that he's a lawyer but a trail lawyer. So he's in bed with the legal industry. You know? The ones that sue McDonalds for making food (and hot coffee), gun industry for making guns, cigarette companies for making smokes, Wal-Mart for employing people, drug companies for selling FDA approved drugs, car companies for making cars ?



    Someone who fights abusive corporations for the citizens?



    Are you *trying* to get me to vote for the Democrats?
  • Reply 48 of 92
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    What a great picture







    Kid on arm, check

    Flag in bagground, check

    Pointing at some bird a mile away, check

    Some hot chic...average american citizents around you, check



    Thats how you build your picture of a politician.
  • Reply 49 of 92
    auroraaurora Posts: 1,142member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Common Man

    This ticket is dead from its start. It is a waste of money to hold the election. The first as fourth most liberal senators as President and VP! We don't need liberal trial lawyers in the White House.



    What we really dont need is big business running the show. a long time ago it was about the people. In fact it was about the American people. now its big business /corporations paying there way into every decision. 4 years of George/Dick has proven this 100%. time for a change. Lets start putting people first not your rich corporate buddies like Haliburton,Enron, and those Pharmaceutical companies. People first. not Ceo's.
  • Reply 50 of 92
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Last time I checked, the American legal system is dependent on plaintiffs getting their day in court.



    Someone is going to need to explain to me how that would work without trial lawyers.



    Scott, if you are familiar with the McDonalds case, you should know that McDonalds was keeping their coffee at insanely scalding temperatures. The injured party was seriously injured, sustaining third degree burns on her thighs. The lawsuit forced McDonalds to change their policy, keeping the coffee hot but not scalding.



    Damn those trial lawyers. They forced a company to provide a safer product. Everybody knows that American life was always intended to be deadly obstacle course which separates the alert from the less so....
  • Reply 51 of 92
    common mancommon man Posts: 522member
    The democratic candidates are very rich men. They are the ultimate elite.
  • Reply 52 of 92
    audiopollutionaudiopollution Posts: 3,226member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Common Man

    The democratic candidates are very rich men. They are the ultimate elite.



    As opposed to that poor Republican in office?



    Think before you type.
  • Reply 53 of 92
    common mancommon man Posts: 522member
    The left is putting words in my mouth again. I did not say that the Republican candidates are not men of means. I was pointing out that the Democrats are also rich men, even if they pretend to be regular fellas.
  • Reply 54 of 92
    wrong robotwrong robot Posts: 3,907member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Common Man

    I was pointing out that the Democrats are also rich men, even if they pretend to be regular fellas.



    exactly what bush does.
  • Reply 55 of 92
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Common Man

    The left is putting words in my mouth again. I did not say that the Republican candidates are not men of means. I was pointing out that the Democrats are also rich men, even if they pretend to be regular fellas.





    Not making much headway are we?



    I mean nobody's buying today ( or any other day for that matter ).
  • Reply 56 of 92
    audiopollutionaudiopollution Posts: 3,226member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Common Man

    The left is putting words in my mouth again. I did not say that the Republican candidates are not men of means. I was pointing out that the Democrats are also rich men, even if they pretend to be regular fellas.



    Were you trying to say that in the same way that you used your own definiton of 'communism' in another thread? You know, how you say something that means one thing and when challenged you make up some lame excuse to pass off your lack of intelligence or forethought.



    You'd be a good troll if you weren't so damned funny.



    On the other hand, being pathetic isn't really funny.
  • Reply 57 of 92
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Anders

    What a great picture



    ...



    Kid on arm, check

    Flag in bagground, check

    Pointing at some bird a mile away, check

    Some hot chic...average american citizents around you, check




    Just thought I'd add that the bird is not just an ordinary bird, but an Eagle. An American Eagle.
  • Reply 58 of 92
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by addabox



    Scott, if you are familiar with the McDonalds case, you should know that McDonalds was keeping their coffee at insanely scalding temperatures. The injured party was seriously injured, sustaining third degree burns on her thighs. The lawsuit forced McDonalds to change their policy, keeping the coffee hot but not scalding.







    Yes I know. My wife used work at McDonalds. They used to make their coffee that hot because the old folks that sat in there for hours on end wanted that way. So it would stay hot. Also the contractors wanted it hot so that it would still be warm when they got to the job site.



    Just because someone is injured does not mean that big business is to blame. I have cup holders in my car. I put my coffee in it because I don't want to hold it in my lap. I'm an adult and I choose where to put my coffee. I'm in control and take responsibility for it. Why is that so hard?
  • Reply 59 of 92
    shinyshiny Posts: 26member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by addabox

    Last time I checked, the American legal system is dependent on plaintiffs getting their day in court.



    Someone is going to need to explain to me how that would work without trial lawyers.



    Scott, if you are familiar with the McDonalds case, you should know that McDonalds was keeping their coffee at insanely scalding temperatures. The injured party was seriously injured, sustaining third degree burns on her thighs. The lawsuit forced McDonalds to change their policy, keeping the coffee hot but not scalding.



    Damn those trial lawyers. They forced a company to provide a safer product. Everybody knows that American life was always intended to be deadly obstacle course which separates the alert from the less so....






    What about those trial lawyers that uncovered the tread problems with the Firestone Tires and Ford Expeditions? Do you really think Ford or Firestone would have fixed the problem if not for the lawsuits?



    I am biased because I am a lawyer, but when I hear people put down trial lawyers, it makes me burn. Ultimately, the trial lawyer puts on a case before a jury of people. If those people decide to give a massive award to the plaintiff, shouldn't the anger be directed at the jury?
  • Reply 60 of 92
    faust9faust9 Posts: 1,335member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    Yes I know. My wife used work at McDonalds. They used to make their coffee that hot because the old folks that sat in there for hours on end wanted that way. So it would stay hot. Also the contractors wanted it hot so that it would still be warm when they got to the job site.



    Just because someone is injured does not mean that big business is to blame. I have cup holders in my car. I put my coffee in it because I don't want to hold it in my lap. I'm an adult and I choose where to put my coffee. I'm in control and take responsibility for it. Why is that so hard?




    No, when that business does a study that says 185 degrees is too hot then the corperation is at fault. Also, this lady wasn't the first to file a lawsuit against McDonalds for burning herself. She didn't have the coffee between her legs nor was she driving as the myth goes. She was found to be 20% at fault and McDonalds was 80% because McDonalds knew their coffee was too hot and McDonalds kept their coffee 20-40 degrees hotter than all other restaurants. The initial award of 2.7 million was knocked down to less than 500,000 on appeal which most people don't know. The lawsuit was brought as a last resort again which most people don't know. The lady only wanted about 20,000 for her hospital bills and McDonalds only offered 800. The lady asked McDonalds for arbitration which was refused, so then and only then did she sue McDonalds. There are a handful of other damning facts against MD's which you forgot about or never bother to look into. This case has been used as a lawsuit abuse myth for some time now which isn't true. The system worked. The corporation was at fault (though not entirely). Ohter options where attempted to no avail.



    Keep beating this dead horse if you want. Oh, you should also bring up the Ohio doctor Bush brought on stage as an example of medical malpractice lawsuit abuse while you're at it. Its a funny story if you care to look into it. It happened within the last month so it shouldn't be too hard to find.
Sign In or Register to comment.