"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

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.

"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

"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.

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

"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

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

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

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.

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