Liberalism Or Stupidity? You tell me. (1210 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 0.39 on 97 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by The Almighty Stabkill (View user info) at 2006-10-08 17:23:29 EDT
Lawn mower company liable in boy's death
Some jury members said the $2 million verdict was a message to the mower manufacturer.
By Mike Allen
-----------------------
When Ron and Kristie Simmons came out of the Roanoke City Courthouse on Wednesday afternoon, a group of five women were waiting to embrace them and shake their hands.
The women, who wiped tears from their eyes, were all members of a jury that had just awarded $2 million to the Botetourt County couple in the death of their son.
The jury wanted to send a message with that verdict to the makers of the lawn mower that killed 4-year-old Justin Simmons in 2004.
"We're just hoping that we make a difference," said juror Theresa Reed. "We just want the industry to see that there's a problem that needs to be fixed."
The jury's seven members came to their verdict after more than 10 hours of deliberation, ending a civil trial that began June 7. They divided it such that $500,000 would go to each parent and $1 million to Justin's 3-year-old brother, Josh.
"The protection of small children is one of the most important obligations of society," said Brent Brown, counsel for the Simmonses. "The jury has spoken loud and clear."
Mower producer MTD Products Corp. will appeal the verdict, said the company's attorney, John Fitzpatrick. "I find it incredulous that a jury no longer cares about common sense and personal responsibility," he said.
The boy's death happened at a day care in Daleville operated at the house of Orvil and Roberta Reedy.
As Orvil Reedy trimmed his lawn with a riding mower on April 22, 2004, Justin played in the yard. Roberta Reedy, who had been watching Justin, his brother and two other children, went inside to change Josh's diaper.
Moments later, she heard her husband scream.
As he tried to mow up a slope, the mower rolled backward and ran over Justin. Orvil Reedy, who didn't see at first that he'd hit the boy, tried to restart the mower, then saw Justin's feet sticking out from under the triple-blade deck.
Originally, Justin's parents had sued both the Reedys and MTD for $6 million.
Monday afternoon, as presentation of evidence drew to a close, the Simmonses dropped the Reedys from the case, leaving MTD the only defendant.
Fitzpatrick said in court Monday that the Reedys had made a $100,000 insurance payment offer to the Simmonses that had not been accepted at that time.
Wednesday, Brown said there was no settlement agreement yet with the Reedys.
John L. Cooley, attorney for the Reedys, could not be reached for comment late Wednesday afternoon.
After the trial, Fitzpatrick called the verdict "nonsense."
The jury held MTD at fault for not designing a mower that automatically stops its blades whenever it rolls backward. No such mower exists or has ever been tested, he said. "No one has even suggested that as a standard."
During closing arguments Monday, Fitzpatrick argued that the company should not be held responsible for the Reedys' poor judgment. Orvil Reedy didn't try to get an owner's manual for the 1988 model mower or heed any of the warnings printed on the machine, he said. Roberta Reedy left Justin unattended outside while her husband was mowing.
In Brown's closing arguments, he said MTD could have foreseen the danger.
The technology existed to correct the problem, but the company made no attempt to address it, he said.
The Simmonses' purpose in suing MTD was not to get rich but to get the attention of the mower industry, Brown said.
The jurors agreed with Brown. Reed and four other jurors remaining outside the courtroom spoke about how Justin would never have a prom or a graduation.
They all said they had kids, and they all agreed that, just as cars with safety problems are recalled, lawn mowers with safety problems should be recalled.
**********************************************************************************
Lawyers are greedy bastards, plain and simple.
But I do have this feeling that this is the work of those progressive types with the typical mindset of pacifist bleeding-heart type. They love to blame a corporation rather than an individual. In this case it could not be clearer to anyone with a FUCKING NORMAL BRAIN: You are in charge to watch children, instead you run one over with a lawn mower. The death is certainly tragic, but who really is to blame here? Well, to any high paid lawyer they know...the ones with the money.
I know how to avoid lawsuits: Have no money. If you have no money, you have nothing of interest to greedy lawyers.
Thinking about this makes me interested to sue Bart for some of the bullshit that has been written here... But Bart is a broke ass. I saw him reaching into a dumpster to get his dinner outside of McDonalds the other day. But Shlongy says he has big money. Perhaps I'll sue ubersite and name him as part of the lawsuit for "leading me to mental instability" that has caused me to beat my children. Please, shlongy...put in some healthy overtime hours and get that promotion so I can earn a few extra bucks.
User Reviews
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-10-12 20:35:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-10-08 17:55:59 (#)
Ranking: 0
America is a lot more right-winging in comparison with other western nations, yet these kind of cases are really typical to the U.S.
this has nothing to do with liberalism.
it has everything to do with a culture which prones lack of personal responsability and a juridical system that allows these kind of rulings.
americans need someone to blame. proof in case, you think this is the fault of liberals.
--------------
THIS was beautiful.
Submitted by Bob_Dole (user info) at 2006-10-11 06:38:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The jury held MTD at fault for not designing a mower that automatically stops its blades whenever it rolls backward. No such mower exists or has ever been tested, he said. "No one has even suggested that as a standard."
----------------------
It's unfortunate, but thats the world we live in. So go ahead, sue Mcdonalnds for their hot coffee, blame video games for the recent school shootings, and point to everyone else but ourselves for our bad judgement; like mowing the lawn while your 4-year old plays unattended behind you.
There's one and ONLY one thing that helps me sleep at night: thousands of people, like little justin-under-the-mower, will die by this time tomorrow. Sheer odds point to eventually killing all the stupid people. Bless you, Mr Darwin.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-10-10 18:34:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
how are liberals involved in this?
unless all stupid greedy people=liberals?
which would be stupid.
ARE you stupid?
Submitted by Nobb (user info) at 2006-10-10 11:52:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
This has nothing to do with liberalism, and everything to do with retards. You, and the people you're talking about.
Liberalism includes corporate responsibility, no shit. What you're trying to do here is twist the situation and make shit up to attack Liberals when you have no ground to stand on. Just shut the fuck up already, jesus christ.
Submitted by Arizhel (user info) at 2006-10-10 00:28:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Remove the warning labels from everything. Let Darwin do the rest.
Seriously, this was so the fault of the people watching the kid. I mean, mowing the lawn while having the kid playing in the yard is stupid in the first place. I don't even let my -dog- in the yard when I'm mowing. The company that made the mower shouldn't be liable for the fact that the people watching the kid were 24-karat ignoramuses.
The jury panelists hugging the defendants outside the courthouse is just plain wrong. "We just wanted to make a difference"? No, more like "We just wanted to kick some big corporation in the teeth. You're a convenient vehicle for us to do that. Thank you so very much for helping us feel better about ourselves." Impartial, my ass.
And here, I must pause to admit that using a baby as a melee weapon is not something I'd ever thought of. Bravo for idiots!
Submitted by pandora (user info) at 2006-10-10 00:11:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I can't see how anyone could reasonably expect the company who made the mower to predict that something like this would happen, but I do admire the creativity it took to embroider this into a "liberals-vs.-conservatives" issue. Nice work!
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2006-10-09 22:26:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Check out this story:
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/09/D8KL9F287.html
My lord people are fucking stupid.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-10-09 20:29:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I wouldn't classify ETS as a liberal, but a complete nut conspiracy theorist. Those guys get a whole classification to themselves and can never be taken seriously.
And why does he keep calling me a conservative? What is conservative about the things I say? Is it one of those "I don't like white, so I must be black" type of arguements? I have not actually said very good things about President Bush on top of other things. I'm just saying things how I see them and if you think that is conservative simply because I don't make sense in your bizarre world... sure. I'm conservative. Sign me up for bible school. Praise jesus.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-10-09 20:00:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-09 19:54:38 (#)
Ranking: 0
Stabkill: I'll come back to the rest of your argument a little later. Need to go home now. Just wanted to get out that jibe to the other two monkeys for now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh do be quiet, I spent months being sensible at you, and I say at you rather than with you because your response was to call me an idiot and or a chav.
I don't see why you need to call me a monkey and say I'm interfering just because I make a point about the use of the word liberal.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-09 19:54:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Stabkill: I'll come back to the rest of your argument a little later. Need to go home now. Just wanted to get out that jibe to the other two monkeys for now.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-10-09 19:52:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-09 19:47:35 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-10-09 19:02:07 (#)
Ranking: 0
You do know the difference between budget deficit and national debt, right?
You do know that deficit spending actually has its place in economics, especially during a recession...right?
-----------------------
Interesting viewpoint, Mr. Roosevelt. What a conservative THAT guy was!
You just put your foot in your conservative mouth right there, buddy.
So, thank you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He did? it sounded to me like he was stating basic economic theory. Did you even go to school?
You don't seem to know anything about....anything
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-09 19:50:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
DCWoody and jgreening,
You're not telling me a fucking thing I don't already know. This is called debating. If you can't make a point instead of just standing around harping "pawnage", pointing your fingers, or laughing like a couple hyenas on crack, then just get lost and let me and Stabkill sort it out ourselves.
I'm sure we can both do without your interference.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-09 19:47:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-10-09 19:02:07 (#)
Ranking: 0
You do know the difference between budget deficit and national debt, right?
You do know that deficit spending actually has its place in economics, especially during a recession...right?
-----------------------
Interesting viewpoint, Mr. Roosevelt. What a conservative THAT guy was!
You just put your foot in your conservative mouth right there, buddy.
So, thank you.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-10-09 19:46:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"US social security scales with income (it is a percentage) to a maximum of a certain amount...if you make over that, you need not pay social security tax on that amount."
Ya thats what I meant; I'm used to simplifying everything for ETS.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-10-09 19:43:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Well, mebe. I call all sorts of people idiots, does there really have to be a political label, for views as ridiculous as those lumped on liberals/right-wingers in the usa?
See this is the whole reason I dislike labels for people, I have to describe myself as something politically so I choose liberal, which seems to fit. Then I have all sorts of people going on about how stupid liberals are...and it turns out that I think these so called liberals are stupid, and I don't want to be associated with them.
And when someone asks me about my political views they literally insist I pick a label...then I say liberal and they start going on about gay marriage or global warming or soft on crime or some shit which half the time I don't even agree with.
Fuck it, I'm calling myself a Woodist from now on.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-10-09 19:39:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
US social security scales with income (it is a percentage) to a maximum of a certain amount...if you make over that, you need not pay social security tax on that amount. Oddly enough, these people don't need social security when they retire...they're usually rich.
I am all for personal accounts that really have our money in them. If you want to call it a "forced savings" you can. And if you croak, your family should get it put into their account.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-10-09 19:37:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Code Pink, that is.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-10-09 19:36:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Well, that could apply to people all over the politcal spectrum. I sure don't want someone quoting scripture as to why I shouldn't be allowed to do something right along side with someone telling me the benefits of avoiding trans-fat. Shit... I will call people of the left-wing persuasion lidiots and ridiots for right wing idiots. "L" doesn't mean liberal, but left-wing. Code-Pin are lidiots.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-10-09 19:35:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I have no idea, I think its just generally used as a term fr a personal tax that doesn't scale with income.
Submitted by Wiggles (user info) at 2006-10-09 19:32:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
not by the hairs of my cunny cunt cunt
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-10-09 19:32:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Well, I call people like that idiots.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-10-09 19:29:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
But I heard somewhere in South America they have a great social security system... Chile? Argentina? Somewhere got their act together and built a model to be commended.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-10-09 19:28:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
DCWoody, what do you propose? Democrat? There are good democrats, I think. I can't bash them as well. Progressive? Not really. Socialist? I like non-American socialists better than these wannabes here. The non-American socialists generally have work ethic (except for those immigrant slime who use the system). American socialists are revolutionary wannabes who just find strength in numbers but get their ass kicked if alone.
What are these people I speak of, DCWoody? They are NOT like the ones you find in Canada or elsewhere.
I think hidden101 was sliding toward the crazy side of liberalism but he seems like he is more level headed now, even though he still has most of those political opinions. So I certainly believe one can have liberal ideas and not be scum.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-10-09 19:24:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Another BS political game is social security. The democrats are lying to you, folks. I'm sure you believe the republicans are lying to you as well, and they are downplaying it so they kind of are... But at least they tried for personal accounts...they just didn't go far enough and people are generally uneducated and stupid to not know our social security is just a ponzi scheme and there isn't jack shit for money in any account under your name. They spend your social security on what the fuck they want to."
I think most countries have a version of that, over here its called national insurance.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-10-09 19:24:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Personally, I think we should lay off the "save the world" bullshit and try to fix our own nation. Is that selfish? I don't think so.
#1: Social Security: Illegal immigrants are going to get tax payers money, did you know this? Happy Happy, joy joy! Social security is a ponzi scheme! Yay!
#2: Medical Costs: Skyrocketing with no end in site as hospitals bilk insurance companies and insurance companies bilk employers and employers bilk employees. Could it be this easy? I think so.
#3: Foreign Policy: We spend BILLIONS on governments whose people hate us, and have killed many Americans and plan to do so in the future. Is this good policy? What the fuck?
#4: Government Spending: We give billions to companies to do shit with it, and they piss it away because they know they'll get more next year...and they have to spend all of what they get this year, or they'll get LESS next year. What a wonderful system!
#5: We let violent criminals on the street to make way for petty drug users. Nice!
#6: If ETS has conspiracy theories that are real, they'd probably involve big oil...but not in the sense that cheney & bush has something to do with it. They don't need those two asshats to push over the American people when they have most of congress in their pockets.
Those are my opinions...do they sound conservative?
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-10-09 19:22:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
ETS is so amazingly ignorant of just about everything and bad at arguing that I find myself almost agreeing with stabby.
Shit.
Stabby you're sounding quite intelligent recently (yes, I can fit my head through doors, why do you ask), I just wish you'd stop using the word liberal the way you do.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-10-09 19:16:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Not really...ETS is concerned for the national debt probably just like we all should be. The deficit is constantly bantered around, but that is just a huge political game.
Another BS political game is social security. The democrats are lying to you, folks. I'm sure you believe the republicans are lying to you as well, and they are downplaying it so they kind of are... But at least they tried for personal accounts...they just didn't go far enough and people are generally uneducated and stupid to not know our social security is just a ponzi scheme and there isn't jack shit for money in any account under your name. They spend your social security on what the fuck they want to.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-10-09 19:08:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
pwning
|
|
|
V
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-10-09 19:02:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You do know the difference between budget deficit and national debt, right?
You do know that deficit spending actually has its place in economics, especially during a recession...right?
You do know that the dollar is decreasing in value which actually makes our debt lower, right?
You do know that our debt to GDP ratio was much worse after WW II than now, right? Do you blame your grandfather like the democrats claim we are pushing this on our own children?
I know a little about economics. I do know that state government should have a balanced budget and never spend more than it gets.
I know that the national debt is a concern that should be dealt with as well. And Bush is certainly to blame for this spending that has been out of control. Reagan at least helped cause the downfall of communism with his wild spending, Bush doesn't have jack to show for his other than a bigger government. Thanks alot "small government" republican! This is a complete legitimate arguement against Bush that you can find few people to argue against it even on the republican side.
But, ETS, what do you really think would happen if you slapped...say a 10% surcharge on top of the top wage earners? What kind of impact would that have on the economy? Do you honestly think it would not be a negative thing? Well, if you see this coming ...please let me know, so I can quickly ditch my money into precious metals and get out of the stock market.
How much money has Bill Gates & Warren Buffet set aside for charity? I suppose that should have gone to the government to figure out to do with, rather than the people who made the money...right? The government has an awesome history of spending money wisely.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-09 18:56:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-10-09 18:46:39 (#)
Ranking: 0
Brad, she left the kid outside unattended to go inside.
She didn't tell her hubby what she was doing.
She didn't pass off responsibility for the kid.
Obviously you're not a parent, and would make a shitty one if you become one, because with small children, they DO need to have someone know where they are at all times.
I can see the ETS/FA household now.
"Brad, honey, did you lock the gun cabinet so Ihatebush doesn't get into it?"
"Leave me alone, woman. He's 5 years old, he can take care of hims*blam* What was that?"
------------------------
I'm not an idiot Jay. I know how to treat small children. I was merely saying I wasn't sure if she had been "left outside". I must've missed that part of the article.
What I said I said from EXPERIENCE, Jason.
I've been in a similar situation. I'd rather not talk any more about that.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-10-09 18:52:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Tax reform is good, but in the right places. Closing loopholes and ridding the nation of BS farm subsidies and such is probably a good thing, as long as you pass these savings to where it needs to be.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-10-09 18:52:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by LongestPants (user info) at 2006-10-09 16:52:15 (#)
Ranking: 2
I think, therefore I'm not a liberal,
------------------
In Great Britain, we say the same thing, except without the 'not' part.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-09 18:51:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-10-09 18:28:57 (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm sure this is an invalid source to people that don't trust the US Treasury department (like ETS) but read this:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/whopaysmost.htm
The bottom 50% of tax payers actually pay between 4.1% to 3.6% of the tax burden, while the top 5% actually pays more than 50%. It also states the Bush tax cut plan has actually increased the burden on the very top 5% while reducing it for the lower 50%. A much different story than we are lead to believe by the democrats, eh?
-------------------------
The top 5% pay 50% of the tax burden because they OWN 50% of the fucking wealth you dipshit!
Your assessment, their assessment, whatever...of Bush's tax cuts is a complete misrepresentation, probably on purpose. I wouldn't doubt he appointed whoever wrote that 'report' from the Treasury Department.
Plus, you're totally forgetting the flip side of this whole argument...the budget and the MASSIVE deficit racked up by YOUR Republican-controlled government.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/images/OB-AA578_budget_20060206173215.jpg
You can't have it both ways. You can't sell off America piecemeal to the fucking Japanese and Chinese just because you want to both increase spending AND lower taxes!
IT'S INSANE! YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT!
But still you try to mislead people with a statement from an 'analyst' inside the Bush-appointed Treasury Department. You must think we're stupid.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-10-09 18:46:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Brad, she left the kid outside unattended to go inside.
She didn't tell her hubby what she was doing.
She didn't pass off responsibility for the kid.
Obviously you're not a parent, and would make a shitty one if you become one, because with small children, they DO need to have someone know where they are at all times.
I can see the ETS/FA household now.
"Brad, honey, did you lock the gun cabinet so Ihatebush doesn't get into it?"
"Leave me alone, woman. He's 5 years old, he can take care of hims*blam* What was that?"
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-10-09 18:44:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
ETS, did you read the article? She was outside with the kid on the porch and went inside to change the diaper on the younger kid. She left him unattended!!!
I blame #1) The woman who should have been watching the kid. They probably shouldn't have even been outside with the mower going like that. And then you leave him unattended?
#2) The guy who ran the kid over. Did he not know how to use a freaking lawn mower? What an idiot.
#3) The parents. If she watched the kid herself, the kid would still be alive today. (Unless you believe you can't escape death like those Final Destination movies.) I know plenty of parents that wouldn't even consider leaving a kid off at ANY daycare facility.
It is amazing that after over a decade, that lawnmower had apparently not killed any children and now that it did...there all of a sudden is a "design flaw".
That is like going back and saying your 1990 Ford Tempo didn't have a built in clutch/starter circuit that prevented the car from lurching forward if you turned over the ignition without your foot on the clutch. Then you sue and win...even though that device didn't even exist.
As a matter of fact, since it is a device that STILL doesn't exist, it is more like going back and crying that your 1990 Taurus doesn't have built-in foaming anti-fire kit that shoots material in the car if there is a fire...after it kills your family because you ran into a gas tanker and fled before freeing them.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-10-09 18:38:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't argue the amounts paid at all, but I do argue the percentages. Example, I make about 28-29K a year, and I pay about $6500 in taxes.
Someone makes $5million, they pay about $1.5 in taxes. I'd have to pay taxes for about 230 years to pay what he does.
But the thing is, after taxes, I take home about 21-22K. I need every penny of that for a semi-shitty apartment, a fully paid 20-year old vehicle, insurance, food and gas.
The other guy has 3.5million to spend. I'm pretty sure he can live off of that.
Now, I don't believe in a higher tax for most "rich" people. I think it should kick in at $1million a year. Not $100,000 like many Bush stump speeches say.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-09 18:36:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2006-10-09 17:32:28 (#)
Ranking: 0
I didn't read any of the below comments, but in case nobody else said it, the woman who left the kid outside should be put in jail for manslaughter.
------------------
Who says she "left" the kid outside?
Look, you're both wrong. Sometimes tragedies happen. There is no punishment necessary. There is no one to "blame".
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-10-09 18:34:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Tom Tancredo is the shit, yo. (Except for some of his right-wing religious views... on immigration and his attitude toward Mexico, he rocks.)
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-10-09 18:30:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Wisconsin. Fun. I have family in New Richmond.
What I mean with red/blue is more a reflection of the government that's been elected, not the people.
Example, Colorado is a "Red" state because of a Republican gov, 1 GOP senator and 5 GOP congressmen. But in the presidential election, it was 53/47 for Bush, and it's been changing rapidly over the past 5 years.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-10-09 18:28:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm sure this is an invalid source to people that don't trust the US Treasury department (like ETS) but read this:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/whopaysmost.htm
The bottom 50% of tax payers actually pay between 4.1% to 3.6% of the tax burden, while the top 5% actually pays more than 50%. It also states the Bush tax cut plan has actually increased the burden on the very top 5% while reducing it for the lower 50%. A much different story than we are lead to believe by the democrats, eh?
The sad reality is that you will never hear a republican praise a democrat for a good thing and vice-versa...especially when it comes to GW Bush. He could advance cold fusion technology in the basement of the whitehouse and show that to the world, and the democrats would say he irresponsibly is playing with unregulated equipment in city limits or something...
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-10-09 18:21:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The red state/blue state thing is ...mostly... stupid, though. I mean, if a state voted 51% all of a sudden they are a "red" or "blue" state? I don't buy it.
But if I had to claim that, yes...I live a mere couple hours from the Democratic People's Republic Of Madison in one of the states that voted for Kerry.
Also, as a side note, the republicans were "blue states" in the old elections. When this term came about more recently, the colors were switched on the current election year. Weird, eh? Stupid red/blue.
I like the gun laws in Vermont, the helmet laws in Wisconsin, the seat belt laws in New Hampshire, the alcohol sales laws in Nevada (24/7, baby!) and I could go on and on about what states have good and bad. I wish there just was one state where they were all combined.
I wish people realized for every new law & regulation, there is a slew of people (government workers...ugh) hired to enforce it. More court time, and more costs to the taxpayers. I think, overall, most people are not educated on simple things and what they do hear is from the typical media outlets ...whether it be more conservative- styled Fox news, or wacko left wing newspapers that suck like the LA Times.
Who benefits the most from the sales of cigarettes, gasoline, and alcohol? It really is no shock to know who that one is and that is a bullshit shame on us for being stupid type of thing....
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-10-09 18:06:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Action is louder than words. Most "liberals" I know are mean-spirited, poor attitude assholes who are hypocrites as best. 9/11 conspiracies is not particularly what I care to listen to...ever. These guys are nutty and they think YOU are nutty if you don't believe THEM!!! Fuck these guys...really.
----
Sorry, hit enter...
anyway, if that's most liberals you know, then you know a very small section of liberals, or you live in a very red state where they might think it's neccisary. And not all or even many liberals believe in the 9/11 movement.
Most think the same or close to what I do. The government (the entire government structure, not just the Administration) knew SOMETHING was going to happen with Al Queda SOMETIME. But had no idea WHAT or WHEN. I blame them for not doing more to find out the WHAT and WHEN.
I think that's all I'll cover.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-10-09 18:03:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
OK, not sure if that was at me or ETS, but I'm assuming it wasn't me because of the DUI comment.
Anyway.
--
Generally, liberals support abortion, disapprove of the death penalty, are for raising taxes on the rich and (in extreme cases) for all out wealth redistribution. They support bans on smoking in public, food bans against transfat/Foie gras/whatever is bad for you. They hate religious symbols/discussion in public locations for christianity, but oddly enough can look the other way when the post office offers an Eid stamp. Liberals are very negative people, generally. They want to also regulate the auto industry as much as humanly possible, they support the Kyoto treaty (without really knowing what the damn thing is, I believe), and blame republicans for all that is bad in the world...particularly one man, that being George Bush.
--
I don't support abortion, personally. I do support the right to choose, however. That's different.
I approve of the death penalty in cases of murder with previous intent, which is different than premeditation. It can be an "act of love" but if you've shown signs of previous action in any way the penalty is in play.
I voted against the Denver public smoking ban.
As far as taxes, I believe that you should be taxed on total wages throughout the year instead of the staggered plane. And with that, yes, the rich should pay a higher tax. If that's not feasable, at least close the loopholes in the Tax Code that allow the top 5% of the wage earners in the country to pay a lower percentage than I do because of stock options and account offshoring.
I could give a shit what someone eats.
I am against religion in public schools. However, I am not against celebrating Christmas in school.
As for liberals being negative, we're not the ones saying "You hate the country and freedom because you won't let me search your phone records and purchace history and computer search history."
I do think that automobiles should be made as safe as possible, but I can't complain about the cost of cars, because a good 20% of the cost of a new car pays the people who built it, and supports their pension.
I could care less one way or the other about Kyoto, because I haven't read it.
And I blame government in general, Republicans AND Democrats for the state of the nation. Both sides hate each other so much, they can't work together for the better solution. But in the defense of Democrats, they don't have 4 senators and 18 congressmen under investigation for corruption, profiteering or pedophilia. They only have congressmen.
And Stabby, with all that "conservatism" running through me, I'm still a liberal.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-10-09 17:50:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Apparently you can't read because I said it was biased. All you folks out there completely ignore key words I write. Constantly I write "in my opinion" as opposed to "this is the way it is, and that's that"...yet people skim past these words.
I really don't care if someone claims to be liberal and they like guns. So there is 1 out of a million of you fuckers like that. So what?
Generally, liberals support abortion, disapprove of the death penalty, are for raising taxes on the rich and (in extreme cases) for all out wealth redistribution. They support bans on smoking in public, food bans against transfat/Foie gras/whatever is bad for you. They hate religious symbols/discussion in public locations for christianity, but oddly enough can look the other way when the post office offers an Eid stamp. Liberals are very negative people, generally. They want to also regulate the auto industry as much as humanly possible, they support the Kyoto treaty (without really knowing what the damn thing is, I believe), and blame republicans for all that is bad in the world...particularly one man, that being George Bush.
Do I really need to discuss the average liberal? I don't care if you think you are thinking outside the box. Go to www.moveon.org or any other progressive/liberal professed website like the daily kos. What do those guys stand for? Do you think I'm way off, or do you think I'm pretty much dead on? Well, if you think I'm way off...you're a real fool.
I will certainly admit not all liberals are terrible. I actually like Loki and have repeatedly said this...she and me are probably far apart on our political belief. But she seems legit to me, as opposed to a whole hell of a lot of other "liberals" who are just as bad as many mindless "conservatives".
Do not take offense to this if you think you are "liberal" but you think I'm offending you. The people who get angry the most are usually the exact ones I'm talking about. The others can see past this and know that the peta-loving, greenpeace-hugging, anti-free trade, pro-union UAW key your car because you have a "W" bumper sticker on it nutty fuckers are what hurts your people you want to get elected.
I have always ...always as mentioned over and over.... said I wish liberals were TRUE liberals in the sense of the word. But, alas, they are not.
I bet you that I emit less green house gas than you do (unless you got your license revoked for that DUI you got last year), and I'm certain I'll have solar power for my home in the future. Have you ever considered this outside a "I wish the electric company would..." statement?
Action is louder than words. Most "liberals" I know are mean-spirited, poor attitude assholes who are hypocrites as best. 9/11 conspiracies is not particularly what I care to listen to...ever. These guys are nutty and they think YOU are nutty if you don't believe THEM!!! Fuck these guys...really.
True liberals, not these ones we see on TV in Hollywood, especially.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-10-09 17:44:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-08 18:41:29 (#)
Ranking: -2
Look...
I hate frivilous lawsuits as much as the next guy, but this has more to do with a family trying to deal with their extraordinary grief than it does ANY sort of political ideal like what you always like to chaulk up as "liberalism".
If their lawsuit somehow makes them "liberal", then I guess agreeing with you in principle makes me a non-liberal.
Get fucking over it, Stabkill. Your window pane on the world is narrowing with each successive post.
-----
I'll even take the flip of ETS' argument - the family decided to cash in big with the lawyers' help - that doesn't make them liberal at all. That just makes them greedy.
This notion that 'conservatives' are some law-abiding bunch of selfless do-gooders is TOTAL BULLSHIT, and if you dont believe me, go ask 'Duke' Cunningham - know who 'Duke' blames for his own greed? LIBERALS!!
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2006-10-09 17:32:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I didn't read any of the below comments, but in case nobody else said it, the woman who left the kid outside should be put in jail for manslaughter.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-10-09 17:29:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Stabby, that is one of the most one-sided explainations of "liberal" I've every fucking read.
Seriously.
Again, I'm a LIBERAL AMERICAN. A LIBERAL, INDEPENDENT, AMERICAN.
And yet, against your stereotype, I believe that personal responsability should be a major tenant of humanity. The ability to say "Well, I fucked up, and I have no one to blame but myself" should be lauded, not ripped apart.
Sueing the lawnmower maker for the stupidity of the people using it is fucking moronic. Suing McDonalds because the coffee was too hot is insane. Suing tobacco companies because someone used a product that has A BIG FUCKING WARNING LABEL ON IT THAT IT MAY KILL YOU is assanine.
Christ man, quit making generalizations, it's making you look like a fucking moron.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-10-09 17:20:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-09 17:02:37 (#)
Ranking: -2
Stabkill, what gives you the idea those people are 'liberals'?
And what, pray tell, makes you a 'conservative'?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never said I was a conservative because I'm not. And many "liberals" I know actually CALL THEMSELVES LIBERALS. Have you ever listened to NPR, Mr. Enlightened One? God damn there are tons of calls where people say "I'm a liberal" and then they proceed to hash out the same ole' shit I am so used to hearing them talk about. And yet, if I bring this up...I get the wonderfully educated brilliant types here on ubersite telling me I'm wrong.
I've tried to explain it, but sometimes it isn't easy talking to bricks.
Drop the bullshit act, already.
And if you look down below I mention why I say the jurors are "liberals" (I actually said they are of a liberal-mindset). Do you know what political views people who deem themselves "liberal" stand on? I really doubt that if you are questioning me.
It is as if the second I mention "liberal" anytime, a bunch of cocksmokes here get all defensive and angry. Oddly enough, many are from outside this country to which I've always said means little to me and those people are probably different, and I honestly could care less.
I wonder if I could come up with a good explaination for liberal...
Liberal (American): Someone who believes the individual is less responsible for one's life than the government and those businesses around them. Someone who tends to believe in rights for murderous criminals over the rights of victims and potential victims. Someone who believes in abortions for everyones without any questions, but they believe in a long list of government regulations to give a child an aspirin at school. Someone who tries to claim they support the 1st amendment, but actually only support it when people agree with them or they bum-rush their soapbox and knock them off. ( http://youtube.com/watch?v=cfnn7wTgoE8 ) Someone who believes in lots of government regulation on most all of industry, and high taxes. Someone who also (falsely) believes that this helps the average person (by ignoring the fact that most all of these costs are always handed down to the consumer). Someone who does not respect property rights of people who own land/a business. Someone who makes excuses for behavior by pointing to social issues that caused bad behavior and then give that person a free pass because it wasn't their fault... and these people land back in jail. Someone who cannot stand the death penalty because we should be like European pussies instead and show compassion to murderers/rapists/child predators who have commit terrible acts upon society.
That definition may be biased, but that's what most liberals actually stand for. Go ahead and make excuses... I am the one who had to listen to some pro-death penalty guy get barraged with a dozen calls from self-professed liberals spewing their typical rhetoric. Did someone bring up "cowboy george bush"? You bet. Liberals...fuckin' idiots here in the USA.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-09 17:12:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by LongestPants (user info) at 2006-10-09 16:52:15 (#)
Ranking: 2
I think, therefore I'm not a liberal,
------------------
How ironic.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-09 17:02:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Stabkill, what gives you the idea those people are 'liberals'?
And what, pray tell, makes you a 'conservative'?
Submitted by LongestPants (user info) at 2006-10-09 16:52:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I think, therefore I'm not a liberal,
Submitted by Amontillado (user info) at 2006-10-09 16:40:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
No Comment
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-10-09 16:35:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Stabby.
I'm a liberal American.
I don't act like that.
Those are stupid as fuck collge kids who think speaking out against anything in authority is wicked awesome.
You think I enjoy getting lumped in with those mouth-breathers?
Fucking hell. I might as we say all Canadians fuck moose and drink Molson while saying "Eh, what yoo talkin aboot?" and all Aussies love to throw shrimp on the barbie and molest kangaroos while getting eaten by sharks or some shit.
My point, if I had one?
Don't make vast generalizations because you see a few people doing something.
For fucks sake.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-10-09 16:29:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
This is how American liberals act:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=cfnn7wTgoE8
ETS, go ahead and make excuses or say it isn't a "liberal/conservative thing". I really don't care, I just know I don't like how these morons are and they keep telling me they are "liberals".
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-10-09 14:54:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
And I don't want to seem like I am professing libertarians are the kick ass best people while liberals are shit... Sometimes in their philosophy they are the "right" ones. And actually even the conservatives can be right once in awhile...
But I do know libertarians profess personal responsiblity the most out of the bunch on the political spectrum.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-10-09 14:36:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-10-09 14:05:11 (#)
Ranking: 0
stabkill, these frivolous lawsuits have nothing to do with socialism or being progressive. again, most nations have "providence goverments" in comparison with america yet these kind of lawsuits are really typically American. it's a stereotype that americans sue anyone for anything.
i couldn't tell you what causes it. maybe your juridicial system. but it's unrelated to political beliefs if you consider that most of the western world is socialist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a certain mindset to people who are "liberal" though, but I can see where this jury might have been extremely biased. There were 4 women with children on the jury... and, no doubt, the lawyer played into this. The lawyers for MTD should be shitcanned because they probably thought it was a "no brainer" case and downplayed how easy it is to get fucked in the USA judicial system.
I'm just inclined to think the way people think that are self-professed liberals would play into it. If you tell a libertarian who is responsible, generally they will say "personal responsiblity: that kid was left at a daycare in the care of relative strangers by their own parents...the parents themselves put the kids at risk, and ultimately the guy riding the lawnmower and the woman not watching the kid led to his death...the lawnmower manufacturer bears no responsiblity." One main libertarian magazine is called "reason" and they constantly profess personal responsibility and are opposed to this kind of stuff.
Conservative-Republicans would probably take a similar stance...hell, the religious ones would certainly key on the fact they put the kids in day care instead of having the woman stay at home like a good mom should. (I'm not saying that for my own view, but that is certainly how religious people believe... I know in today's society it isn't easy to support a family on one income always. Then again, people feel they need a BMW and a nice boat to put in the yard of their $300,000 home.
And liberals? I will admit on this subject you can get a wide range of views from these guys. There is certainly a segment of these folks that are strongly anti-corporate and like to blame corporations for everything. I don't know if they do so in Canada so much, but here it is quite common. They would immediately question the safety of the lawn mower (liberals constantly support every government regulation on car manufacturers that can be imagined). This is just fact, Caulaincourt.
And people are going to have their personal views that can fall into that wide spectrum. I seriously doubt if you loaded that jury with die-hard libertarians you would have the same outcome.
But I agree with you completely about the justice system here...it is designed for this stuff to happen. But, like I said earlier, it seems as if the MTD lawyers failed miserably. Wal-Mart lawyers, on the other hand, are rabid pitbulls and lose very infrequently. Perhaps MTD should have borrowed some.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-10-09 14:05:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
stabkill, these frivolous lawsuits have nothing to do with socialism or being progressive. again, most nations have "providence goverments" in comparison with america yet these kind of lawsuits are really typically American. it's a stereotype that americans sue anyone for anything.
i couldn't tell you what causes it. maybe your juridicial system. but it's unrelated to political beliefs if you consider that most of the western world is socialist.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-10-09 13:24:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by FunnyAsCancer (user info) at 2006-10-08 21:33:05 (#)
Ranking: 1
I get why this is "liberal."
Conservatives are the rich. They don't want things to change, cause life is good as it is.
Liberals are the poor. They don't have the things they would like to have, so they institute change and so forth.
This is an age-old standard.
The rich don't need to make frivolous lawsuits. They already have the money.
Therefore, this is sheer bullshit/stupidity/nonsense on the liberal side.
It's just logic.
Oh, and nice job with the Bill Clinton blowjob attack. That was kinda like a black person calling a whitey "Cracker." That's not racism, oh no, it's fair game! We've been called niggers all our days, we're allowed to be racist!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
George Soros is not poor.
My personal view of the Clinton thing was, "Who cares? The guy lied, yes. But who the fuck wouldn't when asked "Did that woman give you a BJ" and you are MARRIED to another woman. And look at Hillary for God's sake... Not just her cold, dead eyes, but her frozen personality. Who else wouldn't consider doing the same exact thing. What a waste of tax dollars and time that one was... Oddly enough, the democrats are jumping on Foley (a sick pervert that needed to go) the same exact way they hated republicans doing in Bill Clinton for. Hypocrites, the whole lot of congress republican & democrat alike.
I'm saying the view of the jurors reeked of bleeding heart liberalism. We know a few things about what we call "liberals" and anti-corporate is certainly high on the list. Most of them will point a finger at a car company rather than a guy not wearing a seat belt getting ejected through the sunroof...which also popped out, so it failed to keep him inside the car, and he died and that is Ford's fault or something, right? Liberals... Progressives...Socialist idiots, whatever you want to call them... It is not common sense, and that hurts everyone else in the long run.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-10-09 10:19:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
that is fucking retarded.
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-10-09 09:09:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2006-10-08 21:23:42 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-10-08 18:58:18 (#)
Ranking: 0
-2 for even tying this in with "liberalism" Mr. O'Reilly.
+2 for it being stupidity. Both the guy on the mower, the lady watching the kid, and the fucking moronic jury.
Plus every riding mower I've ever operated works in reverse, and there's no reason for them NOT to do so. It saves time whilst cutting the grass.
Submitted by Pentameter (user info) at 2006-10-09 08:56:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't see how this has anything to do with liberalism. I think it has more to do with greed anything...but isn't that the American way?
What hideous behavior on the part of his parents.
Submitted by Hookhand (user info) at 2006-10-09 02:22:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
This is why there needs to be a cap on punitive damages in tort cases. Since they kept bringing up the point that MDT should have foreseen the danger of a mower that works in reverse, I am going to assume they sued for negligence. I don't think it's unreasonable to imply that the company should have included the safety feature, but this is 100% the Dad's fault for RUNNING THE FUCK OVER HIS SON. No safety feature would have helped when he RESTARTED THE MOWER ON TOP OF HIS SON. He fucked up. He wants someone to pay. He sues. Ostensibly this is about getting mower companies to design mowers that will prevent this sort of accident from happening again, so I don't disagree with the jury's finding in this case, nor do I find their award of 2 million dollars too much. However, there is no way to forsee every potential way a retard can misuse your product as a manufacturer. Tough case.
Submitted by LT (user info) at 2006-10-09 02:05:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Half and half.
It is dangerous for a sit on mower to continue working while rolling backwards.
But then the parents are fucking stupid to leave their kid playing behind the rower.
Not worth 2 million though.
Submitted by paint_it_black (user info) at 2006-10-08 23:42:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
But Shlongy says he has big money. Perhaps I'll sue ubersite and name him as part of the lawsuit for "leading me to mental instability" that has caused me to beat my children.
________
Shlongy can't rub two cents together, the guy aint got a dime, so you're fucked there.
Submitted by Axolotl (user info) at 2006-10-08 22:34:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I might be a liberal, but I don't agree with this verdict.
I guess I'm more of a fiscal conservative, but a social liberal. Best of both worlds.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-10-08 22:17:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
FaC, even rich folks get in on this, so it's not a one way street.
Remember the story this year about the guy who sued the Aneheim Angels for giving out fanny packs to only women on MOTHER'S DAY? Did he just want a fanny pack? hell no, he wanted 2.5 million.
Was he just some poor guy going to a baseball game?
Shit no, he was a friggin' high-priced doctor shrink!
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-10-08 21:44:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Conservatives are the rich. They don't want things to change, cause life is good as it is.
Liberals are the poor. They don't have the things they would like to have, so they institute change and so forth.
This is an age-old standard. "
God dman I hate the american view of liberalism vs conservatism.
Submitted by FunnyAsCancer (user info) at 2006-10-08 21:33:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I get why this is "liberal."
Conservatives are the rich. They don't want things to change, cause life is good as it is.
Liberals are the poor. They don't have the things they would like to have, so they institute change and so forth.
This is an age-old standard.
The rich don't need to make frivolous lawsuits. They already have the money.
Therefore, this is sheer bullshit/stupidity/nonsense on the liberal side.
It's just logic.
Oh, and nice job with the Bill Clinton blowjob attack. That was kinda like a black person calling a whitey "Cracker." That's not racism, oh no, it's fair game! We've been called niggers all our days, we're allowed to be racist!
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2006-10-08 21:23:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-10-08 18:58:18 (#)
Ranking: 0
-2 for even tying this in with "liberalism" Mr. O'Reilly.
+2 for it being stupidity. Both the guy on the mower, the lady watching the kid, and the fucking moronic jury.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-10-08 21:01:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
and this has what to do with politics?
Oh right Clinton got a blow job and now people are suddenly engaging in frivolous lawsuits.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2006-10-08 20:31:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-10-08 17:55:59 (#)
Ranking: 0
America is a lot more right-winging in comparison with other western nations, yet these kind of cases are really typical to the U.S.
this has nothing to do with liberalism.
it has everything to do with a culture which prones lack of personal responsability and a juridical system that allows these kind of rulings.
americans need someone to blame. proof in case, you think this is the fault of liberals.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-08 20:28:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-10-08 18:59:29 (#)
Ranking: 0
Wiggles? Ignored as usual.
ETS, I'm not saying the couple is liberal. But the mindset of the JURORS would be. Did you read the article? They hugged them after court! WHAT THE FUCK?!? They said they wanted to "send a message" to the lawn mower manufacturers...is this usually the typical "progressive" thing to do? Yes it is. Dispute all you want and make yourself look like an idiot, because the truth is out there.... You like that? "THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE, ETS."
YOUR window is closed, my conspiracy theorist friend. I even asked "liberalism or stupidity"? Not "liberalism AND stupidity".
It is about MONEY and greed. But they can't accomplish it without fucking morons on the jury. "We have kids too!" blah blah blah. They stacked the deck with bleeding hearts. It must be nice to use these fucking sheep to financial success.
----------------------
Again, you are trying to tie 2 disparate things together. You're applying convenient definitions to the jurors and looking for connections to other things you don't like in society, and, for you, it appears to be some sort of "liberal" agenda, when in reality you weren't sitting on that jury and you have little idea what those jurors heard or what evidence they saw that might have expounded on the negligence claim. And even in the event that this is a gross miscarriage of justice, as the article seems to show, that's what the appeals process is for.
Trying to paint this as some overarching liberal lawyer conspiracy is dismissing the fact that the giant corporations have just as much money to throw around on keeping even more lawyers on retainer, and they, too, make money hand over fist - money that is being recycled through the economy like everything else.
I agree that, from what I read, the jurors APPEAR to have made the wrong decision in this case and it's a symptom of a overwrought consumerist society that everything somehow has to be completely safe or come with every possible warning for every possible mishap, but that's one of the flip sides to your beloved capitalism. You can't have your cake and eat it to, otherwise we'd be back in the days before trust-busting, which we kinda are anyway.
What is it exactly you want? Do you want to make it a law that no one can sue? Ok, say that happened. Say no one could sue any longer. Who's gonna lose out? EVERYONE WILL, that's who. Companies like that - if they're smart - have safeguards in place for just such incidents, and when - like the dialogue in Fight Club illustrates - the numbers say it's become too expensive to keep fending off such suits, or when the insurance that helps companies safeguard against them gets too costly, they simply make design improvements to their products, and, in the end, they are safer and, in most cases, more economical.
This is just the flow of history at work, man. This is the way all things happen. For every gain, there is a loss. For every action, a reaction.
Your ignorant will to pan everything down to the elements of "liberalism" and "conservativism" - as you always do - is so fucking primitive a thought pattern, it blinds you to what is really going on and it's this (listen closely):
Our society has become shallow, self-indulgent, and overly consumerist. Our way of life - the capitalist way of life - is completely empty when not tempered with a bit of soul, a measure of compassion, or a hint of social or civil responsibility.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-10-08 20:12:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2006-10-08 19:22:26 (#)
Ranking: 2
I am on Stabkill's side that this has a lot to do with liberalism. The political attitude of the judges was obviously of that ideology.
------
What do you know, dipshit?
Where do you have the judge doing anything in this?
It's the fucking moronic "Well, we should be protected frm our own stupidity" jury you teenaged fuckstick.
Think about what you say before youtalk out of your ass on a subject you've only seen for 2 days in a textbook.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-10-08 20:04:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Stupidity.
Submitted by kybernetikum (user info) at 2006-10-08 20:01:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
But I do have this feeling that this is the work of those progressive types with the typical mindset of pacifist bleeding-heart type.
Idiot
Submitted by Foolproof (user info) at 2006-10-08 20:00:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-10-08 17:55:59 (#)
Ranking: 0
America is a lot more right-winging in comparison with other western nations, yet these kind of cases are really typical to the U.S.
this has nothing to do with liberalism.
it has everything to do with a culture which prones lack of personal responsability and a juridical system that allows these kind of rulings.
americans need someone to blame. proof in case, you think this is the fault of liberals
-----------------
Even Canadians get it. Stop blaming EVERY-FUCKING-THING you don't like on "liberals".
Submitted by Foolproof (user info) at 2006-10-08 19:58:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Do you know the meaning of the word "Liberal"?
lib‧er‧al  /ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl/
-adjective 1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
Get it now?
Conservatives think anything"Liberal" is bad. What does that say about them?
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-10-08 19:52:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The funny thing is...who takes it in the ass over this? MTD? Not really. They have a bottom line to meet and that riding lawn mover just went up from $1200 to $1300.
And then the lawsuits will start pouring in from anyone who so much lost a fingertip on a riding lawnmower.
Eventually, riding lawnmowers will cost double. (The bitch in the article says if it is done with cars, it should be done with mowers... the cost of cars has skyrocketed because of government regulation.)
The ban lawn darts, why not riding lawn mowers? The "green" thing to do is fill your yard full of gravel.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2006-10-08 19:22:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I am on Stabkill's side that this has a lot to do with liberalism. The political attitude of the judges was obviously of that ideology.
Submitted by Stagger_Lee (user info) at 2006-10-08 19:16:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Stupidity.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-10-08 19:12:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Nothing whatsoever to do wtih liberalism as I define it.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2006-10-08 19:09:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Nothing can bring that child back. But extorting 2 million dollars from a company for no reason is the next best thing.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-10-08 19:07:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Genko (user info) at 2006-10-08 19:02:58 (#)
Ranking: 0
I talked to an American lawyer once.
He told me about a case he tried where a man had run over some kid with a car. The kid lived, and the guy ended up paying out of his nose for the rest of his life because the kid had all kinds of special needs and shit.
As it turns out, if he'd backed up and ran the kid over again to finish the job, he'd have saved himself millions of dollars.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is never too late to finish the job.
Submitted by Genko (user info) at 2006-10-08 19:02:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I talked to an American lawyer once.
He told me about a case he tried where a man had run over some kid with a car. The kid lived, and the guy ended up paying out of his nose for the rest of his life because the kid had all kinds of special needs and shit.
As it turns out, if he'd backed up and ran the kid over again to finish the job, he'd have saved himself millions of dollars.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-10-08 18:59:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Wiggles? Ignored as usual.
ETS, I'm not saying the couple is liberal. But the mindset of the JURORS would be. Did you read the article? They hugged them after court! WHAT THE FUCK?!? They said they wanted to "send a message" to the lawn mower manufacturers...is this usually the typical "progressive" thing to do? Yes it is. Dispute all you want and make yourself look like an idiot, because the truth is out there.... You like that? "THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE, ETS."
YOUR window is closed, my conspiracy theorist friend. I even asked "liberalism or stupidity"? Not "liberalism AND stupidity".
It is about MONEY and greed. But they can't accomplish it without fucking morons on the jury. "We have kids too!" blah blah blah. They stacked the deck with bleeding hearts. It must be nice to use these fucking sheep to financial success.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-10-08 18:58:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
-2 for even tying this in with "liberalism" Mr. O'Reilly.
+2 for it being stupidity. Both the guy on the mower, the lady watching the kid, and the fucking moronic jury.
Submitted by Wiggles (user info) at 2006-10-08 18:46:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
blah blah blah blah blah shut the fuck up
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-08 18:41:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Look...
I hate frivilous lawsuits as much as the next guy, but this has more to do with a family trying to deal with their extraordinary grief than it does ANY sort of political ideal like what you always like to chaulk up as "liberalism".
If their lawsuit somehow makes them "liberal", then I guess agreeing with you in principle makes me a non-liberal.
Get fucking over it, Stabkill. Your window pane on the world is narrowing with each successive post.
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-10-08 18:37:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2006-10-08 18:27:10 (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm sorry, but it isn't liberals or American tendencies to blame other people and not take any personal responsibility, IT'S JUST PLAIN AND SIMPLE GREED!
I hate people.
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2006-10-08 18:27:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I hate people. Check this out; a few years ago, one of the phlebotomists had to draw blood from a 4 year old kid. A few months later, we found out that the stupid asshole parents were trying to sue because the phlebotomist left a bruise. A fucking bruise.
I got to see the photographs of the bruise in question. It was about nickel sized. That was all. Sometimes when people get their blood drawn, they get bruised. Imagine that!
The lawsuit claimed that the bruise caused the child 'great pain' and 'emotional damage' and that the child would require 'extensive physical therapy' as well as 'mental therapy' to help overcome his 'constant anxiety' that he experienced because of the 'trauma.'
The pussy hospital offered the family a settlement instead of fighting it. Why? Because doing that would be cheaper than fighting the lawsuit.
I'm sorry, but it isn't liberals or American tendencies to blame other people and not take any personal responsibility, IT'S JUST PLAIN AND SIMPLE GREED!
I hate people.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-10-08 18:20:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
though i must admit after rereading it, it's hilariously dumb.
i am gonna push my girlfriend's kid in front of a honda civic and i'll sue them for no creating a car that leaps over children.
the idiot even restarted his mower, knowing his kids were running free around him. that's like putting your car in reverse instead of getting out and check after you suspect you might have hit something.
i hope they mow their other kid and for forever remove themselves from the gene pool.
Submitted by LSD420 (user info) at 2006-10-08 18:10:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm speechless. Perhaps it's the massive chemical intake i have heroically continued, but there is a higher chance that it is due to the ridiculousness of these people's beliefs.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-10-08 17:55:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
America is a lot more right-winging in comparison with other western nations, yet these kind of cases are really typical to the U.S.
this has nothing to do with liberalism.
it has everything to do with a culture which prones lack of personal responsability and a juridical system that allows these kind of rulings.
americans need someone to blame. proof in case, you think this is the fault of liberals.
Submitted by AsshOly (user info) at 2006-10-08 17:34:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
yeah. stupidity.
Submitted by Aeneas (user info) at 2006-10-08 17:32:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Makes a good point and made me laugh, excellent!
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2006-10-08 17:31:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Right! I sued Bill Gates for refraning from using his money to design a chip that would stop me from being stupid enough to run over a child with a lawn mower. That bastard.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2006-10-08 17:28:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I ran over someone with a lawnmower once. I ended up getting 17 million dollars somehow. I blamed it on some greedy capitalist somehow.