|
Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "thunder" wrote in message t... On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 21:49:25 -0400, Larry wrote: Amazing. Two morons and a big settlement. I hope they can appeal it. It's worse than the lady who spilled coffee on her lap and sued because it was hot. Yeah, well there is hot, and then there is what McDonald's was selling. Eight days in hospital, with skin grafts, hot. http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm When you are 70 years old, and a coffee drinker, you should have learned coffee is hot. And not be so stupid as to take off the protective lid and place the cup in your crotch as your son drives over the curb leaving McD's. And the $24million was reduced to about 1.4 million. After medical and legal costs, I bet she had enough to buy a senior coffee at McD's. We're all eternally grateful that you're not in the legal profession, a judge, or qualified to sit on a jury. -- Nom=de=Plume Unlike you, I am qualified to sit on a jury, and have a couple times. Unlike me? There's no bar for an attorney to sit on a jury. Feel free to prove otherwise. -- Nom=de=Plume Your attitude would get the defense to toss you. Uh huh... wow. I must have really hit a nerve. I'm betting you're pretty homophobic also. Why don't you tell us about all your gay friends. -- Nom=de=Plume I see you can not answer a question again. Just like Harry to change subject. Mr. McGoo. The only question in the above is MY question: Unlike me? So, you're an idiot. Oh wait, we already knew that. -- Nom=de=Plume Enough of your idiocy, back in the igore mode. Don't cry. Harry will not like you if you do. Still waiting for you to tell us which question... oh wait, you're a coward, so ignore away! -- Nom=de=Plume |
Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 15:12:06 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote: "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "thunder" wrote in message t... On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 21:49:25 -0400, Larry wrote: Amazing. Two morons and a big settlement. I hope they can appeal it. It's worse than the lady who spilled coffee on her lap and sued because it was hot. Yeah, well there is hot, and then there is what McDonald's was selling. Eight days in hospital, with skin grafts, hot. http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm When you are 70 years old, and a coffee drinker, you should have learned coffee is hot. And not be so stupid as to take off the protective lid and place the cup in your crotch as your son drives over the curb leaving McD's. And the $24million was reduced to about 1.4 million. After medical and legal costs, I bet she had enough to buy a senior coffee at McD's. We're all eternally grateful that you're not in the legal profession, a judge, or qualified to sit on a jury. -- Nom=de=Plume Unlike you, I am qualified to sit on a jury, and have a couple times. Unlike me? There's no bar for an attorney to sit on a jury. Feel free to prove otherwise. -- Nom=de=Plume Your attitude would get the defense to toss you. Uh huh... wow. I must have really hit a nerve. I'm betting you're pretty homophobic also. Why don't you tell us about all your gay friends. -- Nom=de=Plume I see you can not answer a question again. Just like Harry to change subject. Mr. McGoo. The only question in the above is MY question: Unlike me? So, you're an idiot. Oh wait, we already knew that. -- Nom=de=Plume Enough of your idiocy, back in the igore mode. Don't cry. Harry will not like you if you do. Bill, that was a wise thing to do. In only eight months she's posted over 5000 inane messages, most of which have been answered...to what point no one knows. |
Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
"John H" wrote in message
... On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 15:12:06 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "thunder" wrote in message t... On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 21:49:25 -0400, Larry wrote: Amazing. Two morons and a big settlement. I hope they can appeal it. It's worse than the lady who spilled coffee on her lap and sued because it was hot. Yeah, well there is hot, and then there is what McDonald's was selling. Eight days in hospital, with skin grafts, hot. http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm When you are 70 years old, and a coffee drinker, you should have learned coffee is hot. And not be so stupid as to take off the protective lid and place the cup in your crotch as your son drives over the curb leaving McD's. And the $24million was reduced to about 1.4 million. After medical and legal costs, I bet she had enough to buy a senior coffee at McD's. We're all eternally grateful that you're not in the legal profession, a judge, or qualified to sit on a jury. -- Nom=de=Plume Unlike you, I am qualified to sit on a jury, and have a couple times. Unlike me? There's no bar for an attorney to sit on a jury. Feel free to prove otherwise. -- Nom=de=Plume Your attitude would get the defense to toss you. Uh huh... wow. I must have really hit a nerve. I'm betting you're pretty homophobic also. Why don't you tell us about all your gay friends. -- Nom=de=Plume I see you can not answer a question again. Just like Harry to change subject. Mr. McGoo. The only question in the above is MY question: Unlike me? So, you're an idiot. Oh wait, we already knew that. -- Nom=de=Plume Enough of your idiocy, back in the igore mode. Don't cry. Harry will not like you if you do. Bill, that was a wise thing to do. In only eight months she's posted over 5000 inane messages, most of which have been answered...to what point no one knows. Yeah, ignore me please! (Unfortunately for John, he can't just say no) -- Nom=de=Plume |
Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "John H" wrote in message ... On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 15:12:06 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "thunder" wrote in message t... On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 21:49:25 -0400, Larry wrote: Amazing. Two morons and a big settlement. I hope they can appeal it. It's worse than the lady who spilled coffee on her lap and sued because it was hot. Yeah, well there is hot, and then there is what McDonald's was selling. Eight days in hospital, with skin grafts, hot. http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm When you are 70 years old, and a coffee drinker, you should have learned coffee is hot. And not be so stupid as to take off the protective lid and place the cup in your crotch as your son drives over the curb leaving McD's. And the $24million was reduced to about 1.4 million. After medical and legal costs, I bet she had enough to buy a senior coffee at McD's. We're all eternally grateful that you're not in the legal profession, a judge, or qualified to sit on a jury. -- Nom=de=Plume Unlike you, I am qualified to sit on a jury, and have a couple times. Unlike me? There's no bar for an attorney to sit on a jury. Feel free to prove otherwise. -- Nom=de=Plume Your attitude would get the defense to toss you. Uh huh... wow. I must have really hit a nerve. I'm betting you're pretty homophobic also. Why don't you tell us about all your gay friends. -- Nom=de=Plume I see you can not answer a question again. Just like Harry to change subject. Mr. McGoo. The only question in the above is MY question: Unlike me? So, you're an idiot. Oh wait, we already knew that. -- Nom=de=Plume Enough of your idiocy, back in the igore mode. Don't cry. Harry will not like you if you do. Bill, that was a wise thing to do. In only eight months she's posted over 5000 inane messages, most of which have been answered...to what point no one knows. Yeah, ignore me please! (Unfortunately for John, he can't just say no) -- Nom=de=Plume This is the only place a sensible female will pay any attention to these clowns. They are starved for any banter they can get. |
Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
wrote in message
... On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 15:25:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: I think I'll withhold judgement until I read some of the facts from organizations dedicated to dissecting such things. Actually if you have an opinion it is time to contact your senator although I understand this is probably DOA in the senate Hmm... well, that was said of the healthcare bill, but if it is DOA, then why is it so disturbing? Because these things have a way of coming back until they get through. The difference is this time the Senate is not filibuster proof and in January the GOP might have both houses. Yes, good legislation sometimes get through. The Senate was not filibuster proof during the last go round with healthcare. The GOP is a failed party. They won't be getting anything back. That's a rightwing wet dream, but not based on reality. I never underestimate their ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory tho. If they keep on making idiots like Pailn their standard bearer they could lose the 40. This is a more likely outcome than gaining a majority. What can the Republicans say they've done for their constituents? Basically, they've done nothing. I am really independent, leaning toward Libertarian so I don't really have a dog in this fight. I voted for Martinez(R) and Nelson(D) just because the alternatives were worse. A democrat in Florida would be a republican in California anyway except for a 2 counties on the South East Coast. I'm really an independent, not leaning toward Libertarian, because I believe we have a responsibility to ourselves and our neighbors. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
"Don White" wrote in message
... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "John H" wrote in message ... On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 15:12:06 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "thunder" wrote in message t... On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 21:49:25 -0400, Larry wrote: Amazing. Two morons and a big settlement. I hope they can appeal it. It's worse than the lady who spilled coffee on her lap and sued because it was hot. Yeah, well there is hot, and then there is what McDonald's was selling. Eight days in hospital, with skin grafts, hot. http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm When you are 70 years old, and a coffee drinker, you should have learned coffee is hot. And not be so stupid as to take off the protective lid and place the cup in your crotch as your son drives over the curb leaving McD's. And the $24million was reduced to about 1.4 million. After medical and legal costs, I bet she had enough to buy a senior coffee at McD's. We're all eternally grateful that you're not in the legal profession, a judge, or qualified to sit on a jury. -- Nom=de=Plume Unlike you, I am qualified to sit on a jury, and have a couple times. Unlike me? There's no bar for an attorney to sit on a jury. Feel free to prove otherwise. -- Nom=de=Plume Your attitude would get the defense to toss you. Uh huh... wow. I must have really hit a nerve. I'm betting you're pretty homophobic also. Why don't you tell us about all your gay friends. -- Nom=de=Plume I see you can not answer a question again. Just like Harry to change subject. Mr. McGoo. The only question in the above is MY question: Unlike me? So, you're an idiot. Oh wait, we already knew that. -- Nom=de=Plume Enough of your idiocy, back in the igore mode. Don't cry. Harry will not like you if you do. Bill, that was a wise thing to do. In only eight months she's posted over 5000 inane messages, most of which have been answered...to what point no one knows. Yeah, ignore me please! (Unfortunately for John, he can't just say no) -- Nom=de=Plume This is the only place a sensible female will pay any attention to these clowns. They are starved for any banter they can get. I get that. I hate to encourage them, but I believe in mixing it up, the discussion. Unfortunately, some can't have a civil discussion. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
wrote in message
... On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 20:38:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Because these things have a way of coming back until they get through. The difference is this time the Senate is not filibuster proof and in January the GOP might have both houses. Yes, good legislation sometimes get through. The Senate was not filibuster proof during the last go round with healthcare. They used reconciliation. That is a fairly limited power that is hard to do if you never passed the bill in the first place. It really only works if the senate passed a bill, the House changed the bill and the senate just wants to accept the changes that come out of the conference committee. It also has to be a budget (appropriations) bill. The house bill they are looking at is not appropriations it is legislative. They have to be very careful how that procedure is executed or you can open it up to filibuster again. Yes, and the first vote passed with 60. Both are in keeping with the democratic process. The Congressional rules are complicated, so what's your point? -- Nom=de=Plume |
Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
wrote in message
... On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 23:23:58 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 20:38:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Because these things have a way of coming back until they get through. The difference is this time the Senate is not filibuster proof and in January the GOP might have both houses. Yes, good legislation sometimes get through. The Senate was not filibuster proof during the last go round with healthcare. They used reconciliation. That is a fairly limited power that is hard to do if you never passed the bill in the first place. It really only works if the senate passed a bill, the House changed the bill and the senate just wants to accept the changes that come out of the conference committee. It also has to be a budget (appropriations) bill. The house bill they are looking at is not appropriations it is legislative. They have to be very careful how that procedure is executed or you can open it up to filibuster again. Yes, and the first vote passed with 60. Both are in keeping with the democratic process. The Congressional rules are complicated, so what's your point? Cap and tax (H.R.2454) will not get 60 and might not even get 51. The house vote was very close 212-219 with 3 abstentions. The senate is usually more conservative than the house. If that's the case, then why are you so concerned? The argument that "it might creep back in" doesn't really make much sense. Send up a flare when it starts to and we can discuss it's implications then. Now, it's just a waste of time. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
|
Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
wrote in message
... On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 09:50:49 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 23:23:58 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message m... On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 20:38:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Because these things have a way of coming back until they get through. The difference is this time the Senate is not filibuster proof and in January the GOP might have both houses. Yes, good legislation sometimes get through. The Senate was not filibuster proof during the last go round with healthcare. They used reconciliation. That is a fairly limited power that is hard to do if you never passed the bill in the first place. It really only works if the senate passed a bill, the House changed the bill and the senate just wants to accept the changes that come out of the conference committee. It also has to be a budget (appropriations) bill. The house bill they are looking at is not appropriations it is legislative. They have to be very careful how that procedure is executed or you can open it up to filibuster again. Yes, and the first vote passed with 60. Both are in keeping with the democratic process. The Congressional rules are complicated, so what's your point? Cap and tax (H.R.2454) will not get 60 and might not even get 51. The house vote was very close 212-219 with 3 abstentions. The senate is usually more conservative than the house. If that's the case, then why are you so concerned? The argument that "it might creep back in" doesn't really make much sense. Send up a flare when it starts to and we can discuss it's implications then. Now, it's just a waste of time. I am only concerned because this administration has shown it's willingness to circumvent the senate rules. They did no such thing for two reasons. First, the "administration" isn't involved in such activities. That's the prevue of the Senators. Second, no rules were circumvented. In fact, the House Democrats decided not to use Deem and Pass, even though that is a legitimate House rule that's used frequently. Try again. -- Nom=de=Plume |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:22 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com