|
Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
wrote in message
... On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 23:21:19 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: I was discussing the difference in performance. I don't think anyone would do well getting hit by a propeller. Then what is the point? That a propeller guard doesn't significantly impact performance. How do you know that? Just curious. It is clear you have never shopped for propellers I'm willing to take thunder's word for it. He seems pretty credible to me. From the limited amount I've read on the subject in the last few days, it seems about right. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
On Apr 12, 9:18*am, hk wrote:
On 4/12/10 9:12 AM, Loogypicker wrote: On Apr 11, 10:58 am, *wrote: On 4/11/10 10:15 AM, Loogypicker wrote: On Apr 10, 6:10 pm, * *wrote: On 4/10/10 5:16 PM, Jack wrote: On Apr 10, 4:47 pm, * * *wrote: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...9ETMVA02..html So now what, will this become a safety standard of the industry that props should have guards? A guy jumped in the water behind a boat with a running motor. *The driver of the boat puts the boat in reverse, and hits the guy with the prop. The boat manufacturer has to pay. That's so screwed up it's almost unbelievable. *Almost. A president and his vice president lie about WMDs, and tens of thousands of people paid the price with their lives and pocketbooks. That's so screwed up it is unbelievable. --http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym You act like a ****ing little boy out on the playground - *everyone look at me, look at me, pay attention to me*..... What in HELL does this thread have to do with politics, at least until you injected your bull****? Here's a secret for you...I don't give a damn about what passes for thought in your pea-sized brain. BTW, it's spring here. When are you planning to make your promised visit here to engage in criminal assault and home invasion? --http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym-Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Please show where I ever said I was going to criminally assault anyone. Then please show where I said I was going to do a home invasion. See you in a few weeks, but please answer these allegations of yours first. *snerk Told you before, fart-for-brains...you're not welcome here and if you attempt to push the issue through assault or home invasion or vandalism, it will end badly for you. --http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - As suspected....nothing, so you resort to your low life childish name calling..... Now where in HELL are you getting this "home invasion or vandalism" crap? |
Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
wrote in message ... On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 22:29:14 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: Nope, you hold the coffee and steer with your belly. Probably sticks out and hits the wheel anyway. Come on Bill we all know you steer with your knee. I do, but plum probably uses the belly method. |
Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
"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. |
Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
wrote in message
... On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 09:50:30 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 22:58:05 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: If you want some light reading take a peek http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...4pcs. txt.pdf I couldn't get the link to work... I seriously doubt one's home would be required to have an energy star label like my fridge does. The link works, you may have just not waited long enough for it to load. ... and "energy star label" is exactly the language they use. I doubt it means you have to put a sticker on the door but you will have a notation on your title deed. I'll try again later. There's already tons of paperwork required for a sale... all sorts of disclosure statements. It's likely the same bs. This is going to be a huge bureaucracy coming up around energy savings. The states will have to hire a bunch of federally certified inspectors and if they refuse or are unable the feds will step in and bill the residents accordingly. I got an Email that makes this bill sound worse than it is but in trying to wade through it, I find plenty of troubling things. This is another brick of paper one person could barely pick up. It may be years before we really understand the ramifications of it. (much like that H,R 4577 we are arguing about) I think I'll withhold judgement until I read some of the facts from organizations dedicated to dissecting such things. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 23:21:19 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: I was discussing the difference in performance. I don't think anyone would do well getting hit by a propeller. Then what is the point? That a propeller guard doesn't significantly impact performance. How do you know that? Just curious. It is clear you have never shopped for propellers I'm willing to take thunder's word for it. He seems pretty credible to me. From the limited amount I've read on the subject in the last few days, it seems about right. -- Nom=de=Plume I run a boat with the ultimate ducted propeller. About 15% decrease in performance. I think it's operator error, since you're in error on most other things. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m... wrote in message ... On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 22:29:14 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: Nope, you hold the coffee and steer with your belly. Probably sticks out and hits the wheel anyway. Come on Bill we all know you steer with your knee. I do, but plum probably uses the belly method. You probably use your head, which is why you need to have auto insurance. -- Nom=de=Plume |
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 ... "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 |
Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
"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. |
Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
wrote in message
... On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:34:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 09:50:30 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message m... On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 22:58:05 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: If you want some light reading take a peek http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...4pcs. txt.pdf I couldn't get the link to work... I seriously doubt one's home would be required to have an energy star label like my fridge does. The link works, you may have just not waited long enough for it to load. ... and "energy star label" is exactly the language they use. I doubt it means you have to put a sticker on the door but you will have a notation on your title deed. I'll try again later. There's already tons of paperwork required for a sale... all sorts of disclosure statements. It's likely the same bs. This is going to be a huge bureaucracy coming up around energy savings. The states will have to hire a bunch of federally certified inspectors and if they refuse or are unable the feds will step in and bill the residents accordingly. I got an Email that makes this bill sound worse than it is but in trying to wade through it, I find plenty of troubling things. This is another brick of paper one person could barely pick up. It may be years before we really understand the ramifications of it. (much like that H,R 4577 we are arguing about) 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? -- Nom=de=Plume |
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 |
Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
"hk" wrote in message
m... On 4/13/10 2:37 PM, wrote: I am only concerned because this administration has shown it's willingness to circumvent the senate rules. Were you concerned when the Bush Administration circumvented all the rules about everything? -- Conservatives - just pretend Obama's health care legislation is another unnecessary war and you'll feel better about it. Technically, the Bush Administration _only_ circumvented the Constitution. The Senate pretty much did what they usually do. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Don wrote in message ... wrote in message ... "John wrote in message ... On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 15:12:06 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: wrote in message ... "Bill wrote in message m... wrote in message ... "Bill wrote in message m... wrote in message ... "Bill wrote in message m... wrote in message ... "Bill wrote in message ... 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. You are incapable of ANY discussion. When you are on the defensive you toss in lame diversions that are so transparent you should be embarrassed. |
Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
"Larry" wrote in message
... nom=de=plume wrote: "Don wrote in message ... wrote in message ... "John wrote in message ... On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 15:12:06 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: wrote in message ... "Bill wrote in message m... wrote in message ... "Bill wrote in message m... wrote in message ... "Bill wrote in message m... wrote in message ... "Bill wrote in message ... 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. You are incapable of ANY discussion. When you are on the defensive you toss in lame diversions that are so transparent you should be embarrassed. You're a liar of course. I've had many civil discussions, some of which were with people who I don't agree with on many issues. It's easy to tell the true bozos, such as yourself, who just can't handle it when a woman has a strong opinion. -- Nom=de=Plume |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:04 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com