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?
The fact that there were numerous complaints to McDonald's before this particular accident and the fact that others had been burned put McD's on notice that people were putting the coffee in their laps. With that knowledge, you don't think it was reasonable for McD's to lower the temp. of the coffee?
Also, why are you raving against the plaintiff's lawyer in that case. McD had high powered, high priced attorneys on thier side that argued their evidence to the jury. The jury decided in favor of the Plaintiff and the JURY awarded the amount of money. Are you saying that the JURY was wrong. The jury is made up of common everyday people. Is your argument that everyday people don't know what they are doing on juries. Isn't that the same type of elitism that conservatives accuse democrats of?
[B]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.
And that, right there, was why I asked if he'd read the case. Which he said he had.
The fact that there were numerous complaints to McDonald's before this particular accident and the fact that others had been burned put McD's on notice that people were putting the coffee in their laps. With that knowledge, you don't think it was reasonable for McD's to lower the temp. of the coffee?
Also, why are you raving against the plaintiff's lawyer in that case. McD had high powered, high priced attorneys on thier side that argued their evidence to the jury. The jury decided in favor of the Plaintiff and the JURY awarded the amount of money. Are you saying that the JURY was wrong. The jury is made up of common everyday people. Is your argument that everyday people don't know what they are doing on juries. Isn't that the same type of elitism that conservatives accuse democrats of?
Blah blah blah we disagree who cares. Is every jury immune from bad judgment?
Blah blah blah we disagree who cares. Is every jury immune from bad judgment?
No, but juries are privy to information which you are not (are you choose not to look into). Fact is MD's was partially liable as the Jury found. You've been fed the myth long enough to believe its true. You just don't want to admit you're wrong though.
Personally, I see a little room for tort reform. I don't see big glaring holes in our system though because it works. Dangerous products are ferreted out. Discrimination is discovered and rectified. Responsible parties are brought to justice in our system usually. Oh, and frivolous lawsuit are punished (Mattel two weeks ago for instance).
Blah blah blah we disagree who cares. Is every jury immune from bad judgment?
First, why not address my points with something other than Blah blah blah. You made your dislike of trial lawyers an issue, why not defend it?
Second, I agree that juries are not immune from bad judgment. However, isn't that why we have appeals? Also, our system of justice is set up to allow the jury to be the final arbiter of truth in a dispute between two parties. The fact that the jury makes a decision that you or I disagree with does not make the attorney that tried the plaintiff's case a bad person, a filty trial lawyer or evil in any manner.
Let me ask you this: Do you think the President can make a bad judgment on national security matters? Isn't our system of government set up to allow the president to be the final arbiter of what is good for our national security? Wouldn't you agree that the if the President makes a decision that you or I don't agree with that does not make him a bad person, a liar or unfit for the office.
If you agree with the second scenario dealing with the President, why not agree with the first scenario dealing with the trial lawyer? After all, both of the scenarios deal with the structure of our American political/legal system. If you agree with with the first scenario, then what is your problem with "trial lawyers".
Daily yelling exercises to promote healthy vocal cords
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
Pres: Kerry
new campeign intro:
3 time Mr. Roboto look-alike champion and Your next president of these united states...
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
Sec Commerce: Lieberman
Great, so he could make life hell for apple computer as revenge to algore savatogeing his veep chanses in 2k by LOOSING HIS OWN DANM HOME STATE (Tenn.).
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
Sec Labor: Gephardt
Problem, rich lib, hasnt done a days work in his life.
Daily yelling exercises to promote healthy vocal cords
new campeign intro:
3 time Mr. Roboto look-alike champion and Your next president of these united states...
Great, so he could make life hell foe apple computer as revenge to algore savatogeing his veep chanses in 2k by LOOSING HIS OWN DANM HOME STATE (Tenn.).
Problem, rich lib, hasnt done a days work in his life.
You forgot Kucinich, Moseley-Braun, Clark, and Graham.
HOLY. FREAKIN. CRAP. DO we have to bring this up AGAIN Scott. Do some freakin research on the lady that spilled the coffee on herself from McDonald's. It burned out her reproductive system. It burned her vagina with 3rd degree burns! It was over a hundred degrees, maybe almost 200. If you spilled something that hot on your balls and weren't able to have kids wouldn't YOU be a little pissed off? This is the SECOND time I have had to clarify this particular issue. Do any of you conservatives ever research things?
OK Edwards is cool. 51! He looks thirty something he is doing good hehe. But Big Law? What a dumbass comment. Not even worth debating.
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?
--
Well, that makes way too much sense to make it into the thick skull of the American populace.
Daily yelling exercises to promote healthy vocal cords
new campeign intro:
3 time Mr. Roboto look-alike champion and Your next president of these united states...
Great, so he could make life hell for apple computer as revenge to algore savatogeing his veep chanses in 2k by LOOSING HIS OWN DANM HOME STATE (Tenn.).
Problem, rich lib, hasnt done a days work in his life.
HOLY. FREAKIN. CRAP. DO we have to bring this up AGAIN Scott. Do some freakin research on the lady that spilled the coffee on herself from McDonald's. It burned out her reproductive system. It burned her vagina with 3rd degree burns! It was over a hundred degrees, maybe almost 200. If you spilled something that hot on your balls and weren't able to have kids wouldn't YOU be a little pissed off? This is the SECOND time I have had to clarify this particular issue. Do any of you conservatives ever research things?
"Here's the things about Edwards the trial lawyer: he was on the side of the good guys against corporations, as he writes in his autobiography, including the case of "Valerie Lakey, the 5-year-old injured by a swimming pool drain [that had sucked out her intestines] whose manufacturers had not only ignored previous injuries caused by the drain but had also failed to warn purchasers that tiny errors in installing it could prove deadly." A good trial lawyer is a son of a bitch on behalf of the little person; he's a mean, vicious motherfucker who will rip out the spinal cords of corporate lackeys and their whore attorneys and leave them paralyzed, immobile, unable to do anything but weep and pay damages. And Edwards brings the noise even when he's questioning a judge. Here's the National Review, appalled, appalled, at how Edwards went after Charles Pickering in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. The article concludes with, "A man willing to do what he did to Pickering might not be quite the good guy he says he is." And the answer to that is that you don't want your trial lawyer to be a good guy when he's in court. You want him to be an eviscerating monster, prepared to lay waste to those who think they are entitled to crush you."
I think it's incredible he is so optimistic even though he lost his son, that's so sad.
Repeat after me: algore savatogeing his veep chanses.
It's a powerful incantation, in the secret language of the Hermitic Order of the Talking Pointed Ones.
It means: "Let the spirits of confusion have their way with me, for I am but a vessel of dubious merit".
OMFG too funny.
I read a paper a few months back that said people tend to correct misspelled words when they read without knowing it. I think that's what happened when I read a_greer's post. My brain wouldn't allow me to see the tortured kings english... Too funny. Good catch.
Im glad Kerry picked Edwards, I like Edwards and he is down to earth. His statement of 2 Americas is so true. Ceo's rack in millions and billions while screwing the working man this has shown itself time after time. corporate greed. all the suites are allways closing down plants, figuring out a way to shaft the common man more while usually getting big fat pay checks. Look at Cheney he is a Vp who is still making big bucks from Haliburton. No wonder they got the Iraq contract with no bidding process. selling a case of cokes to our military for $45.00
I can say one thing about Bush and that is after years of supporting the Republican platform he got me to go out and vote in the Democratic primary. who did i vote for ? John Edwards. Kerry/Edwards will be nice replacement for Bush/Cheney and corporate America. And by the way Edwards was representing the little guy vs Big business as a Lawyer.
I'm so sick of the Haliburton bashing. Haliburton is, in some cases, the only company in the world that has the manpower and resources (and skills) to take on some of the tasks we've given them.
I can't blame you for voting for Edwards. But, Edwards is not running for President. John Kerry is. Frankly, I don't see how you can support him.
Frankly SDW, we don't see how you can support Bush. You like Bush, we accept that. But you have to accept that we like Kerry. Some of the reasons that we like Kerry, you won't understand, just like we won't understand some of the reasons that you like Bush. This topic has been beaten to death through hundreds of topics since the primaries began and AO is becoming more and more like a broken record. I highly doubt that people are going to change their mind of who they will vote for because of something they have read on the AppleInsider forums.
That being said, I still want to post my opinion about Halliburton. I feel that Halliburton *should* have had to go through the normal process of bidding for the Iraq contract. Since they did not go through a normal bidding process, they are able to charge outrageous prices to the government for the work they are doing over there. Remember the outrage of how much they were charging for fuel? In what other areas are we being overcharged? This war has cost so much more than originally predicted, with Congress having to come up with more and more money to fund it that at the very least, the American people don't deserve to be taken for a ride by Halliburton.
This war is putting America into a huge deficit that is going to take years to recover from. We have to pay this money back at some point, and that will mean either higher taxes or less government spending on essential areas (education, health care, social security, homeland security, etc.). This is the position that the Bush Administration has put us in and the friends of the Bush Administration (Halliburton) shouldn't be making huge profits off of our tax dollars in this type of situation. If they really loved this country, they'd put it first over their profit margins.
Comments
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?
The fact that there were numerous complaints to McDonald's before this particular accident and the fact that others had been burned put McD's on notice that people were putting the coffee in their laps. With that knowledge, you don't think it was reasonable for McD's to lower the temp. of the coffee?
Also, why are you raving against the plaintiff's lawyer in that case. McD had high powered, high priced attorneys on thier side that argued their evidence to the jury. The jury decided in favor of the Plaintiff and the JURY awarded the amount of money. Are you saying that the JURY was wrong. The jury is made up of common everyday people. Is your argument that everyday people don't know what they are doing on juries. Isn't that the same type of elitism that conservatives accuse democrats of?
Originally posted by faust9
[B]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.
And that, right there, was why I asked if he'd read the case. Which he said he had.
Originally posted by shiny
The fact that there were numerous complaints to McDonald's before this particular accident and the fact that others had been burned put McD's on notice that people were putting the coffee in their laps. With that knowledge, you don't think it was reasonable for McD's to lower the temp. of the coffee?
Also, why are you raving against the plaintiff's lawyer in that case. McD had high powered, high priced attorneys on thier side that argued their evidence to the jury. The jury decided in favor of the Plaintiff and the JURY awarded the amount of money. Are you saying that the JURY was wrong. The jury is made up of common everyday people. Is your argument that everyday people don't know what they are doing on juries. Isn't that the same type of elitism that conservatives accuse democrats of?
Blah blah blah we disagree who cares. Is every jury immune from bad judgment?
Originally posted by Scott
Blah blah blah we disagree who cares. Is every jury immune from bad judgment?
No, but juries are privy to information which you are not (are you choose not to look into). Fact is MD's was partially liable as the Jury found. You've been fed the myth long enough to believe its true. You just don't want to admit you're wrong though.
Personally, I see a little room for tort reform. I don't see big glaring holes in our system though because it works. Dangerous products are ferreted out. Discrimination is discovered and rectified. Responsible parties are brought to justice in our system usually. Oh, and frivolous lawsuit are punished (Mattel two weeks ago for instance).
Originally posted by Scott
Blah blah blah we disagree who cares. Is every jury immune from bad judgment?
First, why not address my points with something other than Blah blah blah. You made your dislike of trial lawyers an issue, why not defend it?
Second, I agree that juries are not immune from bad judgment. However, isn't that why we have appeals? Also, our system of justice is set up to allow the jury to be the final arbiter of truth in a dispute between two parties. The fact that the jury makes a decision that you or I disagree with does not make the attorney that tried the plaintiff's case a bad person, a filty trial lawyer or evil in any manner.
Let me ask you this: Do you think the President can make a bad judgment on national security matters? Isn't our system of government set up to allow the president to be the final arbiter of what is good for our national security? Wouldn't you agree that the if the President makes a decision that you or I don't agree with that does not make him a bad person, a liar or unfit for the office.
If you agree with the second scenario dealing with the President, why not agree with the first scenario dealing with the trial lawyer? After all, both of the scenarios deal with the structure of our American political/legal system. If you agree with with the first scenario, then what is your problem with "trial lawyers".
Originally posted by faust9
Sec Health: Dean
Daily yelling exercises to promote healthy vocal cords
Originally posted by faust9
Pres: Kerry
new campeign intro:
3 time Mr. Roboto look-alike champion and Your next president of these united states...
Originally posted by faust9
Sec Commerce: Lieberman
Great, so he could make life hell for apple computer as revenge to algore savatogeing his veep chanses in 2k by LOOSING HIS OWN DANM HOME STATE (Tenn.).
Originally posted by faust9
Sec Labor: Gephardt
Problem, rich lib, hasnt done a days work in his life.
Originally posted by a_greer
Daily yelling exercises to promote healthy vocal cords
new campeign intro:
3 time Mr. Roboto look-alike champion and Your next president of these united states...
Great, so he could make life hell foe apple computer as revenge to algore savatogeing his veep chanses in 2k by LOOSING HIS OWN DANM HOME STATE (Tenn.).
Problem, rich lib, hasnt done a days work in his life.
You forgot Kucinich, Moseley-Braun, Clark, and Graham.
OK Edwards is cool. 51! He looks thirty something he is doing good hehe. But Big Law? What a dumbass comment. Not even worth debating.
--
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?
--
Well, that makes way too much sense to make it into the thick skull of the American populace.
Originally posted by a_greer
Daily yelling exercises to promote healthy vocal cords
new campeign intro:
3 time Mr. Roboto look-alike champion and Your next president of these united states...
Great, so he could make life hell for apple computer as revenge to algore savatogeing his veep chanses in 2k by LOOSING HIS OWN DANM HOME STATE (Tenn.).
Problem, rich lib, hasnt done a days work in his life.
Really running out of material here.
Originally posted by a_greer
hasnt done a days work in his life.
And you support Bush?
Originally posted by Aquatic
HOLY. FREAKIN. CRAP. DO we have to bring this up AGAIN Scott. Do some freakin research on the lady that spilled the coffee on herself from McDonald's. It burned out her reproductive system. It burned her vagina with 3rd degree burns! It was over a hundred degrees, maybe almost 200. If you spilled something that hot on your balls and weren't able to have kids wouldn't YOU be a little pissed off? This is the SECOND time I have had to clarify this particular issue. Do any of you conservatives ever research things?
<aside>Wasn't the lady elderly?</aside>
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2004/...r-shit-up.html
John Edwards will fuck your shit up!!!!
"Here's the things about Edwards the trial lawyer: he was on the side of the good guys against corporations, as he writes in his autobiography, including the case of "Valerie Lakey, the 5-year-old injured by a swimming pool drain [that had sucked out her intestines] whose manufacturers had not only ignored previous injuries caused by the drain but had also failed to warn purchasers that tiny errors in installing it could prove deadly." A good trial lawyer is a son of a bitch on behalf of the little person; he's a mean, vicious motherfucker who will rip out the spinal cords of corporate lackeys and their whore attorneys and leave them paralyzed, immobile, unable to do anything but weep and pay damages. And Edwards brings the noise even when he's questioning a judge. Here's the National Review, appalled, appalled, at how Edwards went after Charles Pickering in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. The article concludes with, "A man willing to do what he did to Pickering might not be quite the good guy he says he is." And the answer to that is that you don't want your trial lawyer to be a good guy when he's in court. You want him to be an eviscerating monster, prepared to lay waste to those who think they are entitled to crush you."
I think it's incredible he is so optimistic even though he lost his son, that's so sad.
I'm just saying. You know. Trying to make your lives easier.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by a_greer
...Great, so he could make life hell for apple computer as revenge to algore savatogeing his veep chanses ....
Repeat after me: algore savatogeing his veep chanses.
It's a powerful incantation, in the secret language of the Hermitic Order of the Talking Pointed Ones.
It means: "Let the spirits of confusion have their way with me, for I am but a vessel of dubious merit".
Originally posted by addabox
Repeat after me: algore savatogeing his veep chanses.
It's a powerful incantation, in the secret language of the Hermitic Order of the Talking Pointed Ones.
It means: "Let the spirits of confusion have their way with me, for I am but a vessel of dubious merit".
OMFG too funny.
I read a paper a few months back that said people tend to correct misspelled words when they read without knowing it. I think that's what happened when I read a_greer's post. My brain wouldn't allow me to see the tortured kings english... Too funny. Good catch.
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,...w=wn_tophead_3
Right now the campaign seems to be focused towards pleasing everyone to win and worrying about reality, consequences and a standpoint afterwards.
Originally posted by Aurora
Im glad Kerry picked Edwards, I like Edwards and he is down to earth. His statement of 2 Americas is so true. Ceo's rack in millions and billions while screwing the working man this has shown itself time after time. corporate greed. all the suites are allways closing down plants, figuring out a way to shaft the common man more while usually getting big fat pay checks. Look at Cheney he is a Vp who is still making big bucks from Haliburton. No wonder they got the Iraq contract with no bidding process. selling a case of cokes to our military for $45.00
I can say one thing about Bush and that is after years of supporting the Republican platform he got me to go out and vote in the Democratic primary. who did i vote for ? John Edwards. Kerry/Edwards will be nice replacement for Bush/Cheney and corporate America. And by the way Edwards was representing the little guy vs Big business as a Lawyer.
I'm so sick of the Haliburton bashing. Haliburton is, in some cases, the only company in the world that has the manpower and resources (and skills) to take on some of the tasks we've given them.
I can't blame you for voting for Edwards. But, Edwards is not running for President. John Kerry is. Frankly, I don't see how you can support him.
That being said, I still want to post my opinion about Halliburton. I feel that Halliburton *should* have had to go through the normal process of bidding for the Iraq contract. Since they did not go through a normal bidding process, they are able to charge outrageous prices to the government for the work they are doing over there. Remember the outrage of how much they were charging for fuel? In what other areas are we being overcharged? This war has cost so much more than originally predicted, with Congress having to come up with more and more money to fund it that at the very least, the American people don't deserve to be taken for a ride by Halliburton.
This war is putting America into a huge deficit that is going to take years to recover from. We have to pay this money back at some point, and that will mean either higher taxes or less government spending on essential areas (education, health care, social security, homeland security, etc.). This is the position that the Bush Administration has put us in and the friends of the Bush Administration (Halliburton) shouldn't be making huge profits off of our tax dollars in this type of situation. If they really loved this country, they'd put it first over their profit margins.