Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On 07/09/2011 6:20 PM, Honey Badger wrote:
North Star wrote:
On Sep 7, 11:52 am, BeachBum"not a wrote:
On 9/7/2011 9:13 AM, North Star wrote:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1261953.html
You folks will stoop to any level for a fast buck. How many slip and
fall incidents do you have to your credit?
You're right... that 'merican culture is all to pervasive. I blame it
on cable tv.. when we got over run with 'merican programming.

Canadians are incapable of producing television shows that their people
will watch? That's a shame!

-HB

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_831278.html

Actually, we have a few but they show in the US before they show here.
Canadians on average saw Stargate SG1 two years after the US did.

But mostly crap. Really sucks.


--
First rule of holes: If your in one, don't keep digging.
So in the hole, why do we insanely want more debt?

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On 9/8/11 2:22 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 13:32:41 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:55:10 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 10:42:54 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 12:44:07 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 06:13:03 -0700 (PDT), North Star
wrote:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1261953.html


That will just raise the cost of everything you buy from any store.
Insurance companies spread this risk to all of us. The Lawyer takes
his 33-50% and keeps it all himself.

Thus, someone shouldn't be compensated for her injuries?

We are not really sure what "injuries" she has. You seem to like to
assess degrees of blame. What is her degree of negligence for not
getting out of the way?

I agree! That's why we need courts and attorneys in the crucible of
jurisprudence.


I thought this would fall under the "cost of doing business" category.

That was my point. Everyone who buys anything from any store will be
paying for this. It simply gets passed along by the insurance
companies. That in turn shows up in the prices of products you buy
from the stores because they all have to buy that insurance.

They also have to pay for termite inspectors, lighting and heating,
and garbage removal services. So what??


You folks are cheering for this woman's windfall. Do you cheer for
termites too?


If the woman gets a windfall, it will be because of the negligence of
Wal-Mart, the marginal employees in its stores, and the lack of training
provided them. In a reasonable world, Wal-Mart would have been driven
out of business by its lack of ethics and predatory practices.


--
I'd much rather be a champion of the powerless than a lickspittle of the
powerful.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On 9/8/11 2:22 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 13:32:41 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:55:10 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 10:42:54 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 12:44:07 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 06:13:03 -0700 (PDT), North Star
wrote:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1261953.html


That will just raise the cost of everything you buy from any store.
Insurance companies spread this risk to all of us. The Lawyer takes
his 33-50% and keeps it all himself.

Thus, someone shouldn't be compensated for her injuries?

We are not really sure what "injuries" she has. You seem to like to
assess degrees of blame. What is her degree of negligence for not
getting out of the way?

I agree! That's why we need courts and attorneys in the crucible of
jurisprudence.


I thought this would fall under the "cost of doing business" category.

That was my point. Everyone who buys anything from any store will be
paying for this. It simply gets passed along by the insurance
companies. That in turn shows up in the prices of products you buy
from the stores because they all have to buy that insurance.

They also have to pay for termite inspectors, lighting and heating,
and garbage removal services. So what??


You folks are cheering for this woman's windfall. Do you cheer for
termites too?


You want to give corporations a free ride on the results of their
negligence?

--
I'd much rather be a champion of the powerless than a lickspittle of the
powerful.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

In article ,
says...

On 9/8/11 2:22 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 13:32:41 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:55:10 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 10:42:54 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 12:44:07 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 06:13:03 -0700 (PDT), North Star
wrote:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1261953.html


That will just raise the cost of everything you buy from any store.
Insurance companies spread this risk to all of us. The Lawyer takes
his 33-50% and keeps it all himself.

Thus, someone shouldn't be compensated for her injuries?

We are not really sure what "injuries" she has. You seem to like to
assess degrees of blame. What is her degree of negligence for not
getting out of the way?

I agree! That's why we need courts and attorneys in the crucible of
jurisprudence.


I thought this would fall under the "cost of doing business" category.

That was my point. Everyone who buys anything from any store will be
paying for this. It simply gets passed along by the insurance
companies. That in turn shows up in the prices of products you buy
from the stores because they all have to buy that insurance.

They also have to pay for termite inspectors, lighting and heating,
and garbage removal services. So what??


You folks are cheering for this woman's windfall. Do you cheer for
termites too?


If the woman gets a windfall, it will be because of the negligence of
Wal-Mart, the marginal employees in its stores, and the lack of training
provided them. In a reasonable world, Wal-Mart would have been driven
out of business by its lack of ethics and predatory practices.

Why don't you unionize McDonald's?

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

In article ,
says...

On 9/8/11 2:22 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 13:32:41 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:55:10 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 10:42:54 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 12:44:07 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 06:13:03 -0700 (PDT), North Star
wrote:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1261953.html


That will just raise the cost of everything you buy from any store.
Insurance companies spread this risk to all of us. The Lawyer takes
his 33-50% and keeps it all himself.

Thus, someone shouldn't be compensated for her injuries?

We are not really sure what "injuries" she has. You seem to like to
assess degrees of blame. What is her degree of negligence for not
getting out of the way?

I agree! That's why we need courts and attorneys in the crucible of
jurisprudence.


I thought this would fall under the "cost of doing business" category.

That was my point. Everyone who buys anything from any store will be
paying for this. It simply gets passed along by the insurance
companies. That in turn shows up in the prices of products you buy
from the stores because they all have to buy that insurance.

They also have to pay for termite inspectors, lighting and heating,
and garbage removal services. So what??


You folks are cheering for this woman's windfall. Do you cheer for
termites too?


You want to give corporations a free ride on the results of their
negligence?

Blame it on the laws of Canada.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 02:21:07 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 13:27:18 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:46:24 -0400, wrote:



The point is this did not cost WalMart anything. They have insurance
for it and that means we all pay.

Ultimately it is the customers who pay since the insurance premiums
are part of the price of all of the products you buy from any store.
That is the insidious problem with insurance. It spreads the cost of
just or unjust law suits equally. The idea that the insurance company
is hurt is ludicrous. It is just the cost of doing business and
reflected in next year's premiums.

Honestly, that's a pretty meaningless statement. "Consumers" pay for
lots of things. Insurance claims are just one of them, and they're a
tiny piece of the pie.

You are the one that used the term "cost of doing business" and that
all gets passed on to the customer. The corporation was not punished
in any way here.


You didn't say, "It is just the cost of doing business and reflected
in next year's premiums."?

You seriously believe that all costs are passed along to the consumer?
All costs? Feel free to try and defend that statement.

As I actually said, the "insurance claims are.. a tiny piece of the
pie."

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 02:22:20 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 13:32:41 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:55:10 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 10:42:54 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 12:44:07 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 06:13:03 -0700 (PDT), North Star
wrote:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1261953.html


That will just raise the cost of everything you buy from any store.
Insurance companies spread this risk to all of us. The Lawyer takes
his 33-50% and keeps it all himself.

Thus, someone shouldn't be compensated for her injuries?

We are not really sure what "injuries" she has. You seem to like to
assess degrees of blame. What is her degree of negligence for not
getting out of the way?

I agree! That's why we need courts and attorneys in the crucible of
jurisprudence.


I thought this would fall under the "cost of doing business" category.

That was my point. Everyone who buys anything from any store will be
paying for this. It simply gets passed along by the insurance
companies. That in turn shows up in the prices of products you buy
from the stores because they all have to buy that insurance.

They also have to pay for termite inspectors, lighting and heating,
and garbage removal services. So what??


You folks are cheering for this woman's windfall. Do you cheer for
termites too?

Cheering? She was injured. Apparently, no compensation is justified by
you?

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 08:23:17 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 9/8/11 2:22 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 13:32:41 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:55:10 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 10:42:54 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 12:44:07 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 06:13:03 -0700 (PDT), North Star
wrote:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1261953.html


That will just raise the cost of everything you buy from any store.
Insurance companies spread this risk to all of us. The Lawyer takes
his 33-50% and keeps it all himself.

Thus, someone shouldn't be compensated for her injuries?

We are not really sure what "injuries" she has. You seem to like to
assess degrees of blame. What is her degree of negligence for not
getting out of the way?

I agree! That's why we need courts and attorneys in the crucible of
jurisprudence.


I thought this would fall under the "cost of doing business" category.

That was my point. Everyone who buys anything from any store will be
paying for this. It simply gets passed along by the insurance
companies. That in turn shows up in the prices of products you buy
from the stores because they all have to buy that insurance.

They also have to pay for termite inspectors, lighting and heating,
and garbage removal services. So what??


You folks are cheering for this woman's windfall. Do you cheer for
termites too?


If the woman gets a windfall, it will be because of the negligence of
Wal-Mart, the marginal employees in its stores, and the lack of training
provided them. In a reasonable world, Wal-Mart would have been driven
out of business by its lack of ethics and predatory practices.

Why don't you unionize McDonald's?

You should probably not eat there so much!

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On 08/09/2011 11:12 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 02:21:07 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 13:27:18 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:46:24 -0400, wrote:



The point is this did not cost WalMart anything. They have insurance
for it and that means we all pay.

Ultimately it is the customers who pay since the insurance premiums
are part of the price of all of the products you buy from any store.
That is the insidious problem with insurance. It spreads the cost of
just or unjust law suits equally. The idea that the insurance company
is hurt is ludicrous. It is just the cost of doing business and
reflected in next year's premiums.

Honestly, that's a pretty meaningless statement. "Consumers" pay for
lots of things. Insurance claims are just one of them, and they're a
tiny piece of the pie.

You are the one that used the term "cost of doing business" and that
all gets passed on to the customer. The corporation was not punished
in any way here.


You didn't say, "It is just the cost of doing business and reflected
in next year's premiums."?

You seriously believe that all costs are passed along to the consumer?
All costs? Feel free to try and defend that statement.

As I actually said, the "insurance claims are.. a tiny piece of the
pie."

Ultimately yep, all costs will be passed on to the consumer. Take oil,
go ahead, slap a $90/barrel tax on oil and watch the pump prices double
or more.

No free lunch, just a fleabagger dream state.

Just like employment taxes, raise them and less raises to the wage
earner. Someone always pays and they are always the worker or the
consumer in the end. Always. Employment taxes are a good one because
if you add wages plus employment taxes, people got plent of raises over
the years just that government took them.

Take Obama's persecution of BP. I immediately bought foreign oil
producers stock and sold it for a 30% gain in just 10 months
anticipating a shortfall on US domestic production. That is how savvy
short term investors make good money on Obama bull****.

Hey, if investors get less, or in GMs case loose money, no job creating
investments will follow. Never invest good money after bad. Many do,
and why American wealth is diminishing as government is consuming it
fast leaving less for the people. Sort of like a snake eating its own tail.

The economy of a product, company or country or even the world is of
generally fixed size. When someone gets more, others get less. Trick
is to be one step ahead of the fleabaggers in todays economy.

Nothing operates in a vacuum, even a fleabaggers mind has bull****
between the ears.
--
First rule of holes: If your in one, don't keep digging.
So in the hole, why do we insanely want more debt?

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:23:19 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 08/09/2011 11:12 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 02:21:07 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 13:27:18 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:46:24 -0400, wrote:



The point is this did not cost WalMart anything. They have insurance
for it and that means we all pay.

Ultimately it is the customers who pay since the insurance premiums
are part of the price of all of the products you buy from any store.
That is the insidious problem with insurance. It spreads the cost of
just or unjust law suits equally. The idea that the insurance company
is hurt is ludicrous. It is just the cost of doing business and
reflected in next year's premiums.

Honestly, that's a pretty meaningless statement. "Consumers" pay for
lots of things. Insurance claims are just one of them, and they're a
tiny piece of the pie.

You are the one that used the term "cost of doing business" and that
all gets passed on to the customer. The corporation was not punished
in any way here.


You didn't say, "It is just the cost of doing business and reflected
in next year's premiums."?

You seriously believe that all costs are passed along to the consumer?
All costs? Feel free to try and defend that statement.

As I actually said, the "insurance claims are.. a tiny piece of the
pie."

Ultimately yep, all costs will be passed on to the consumer. Take oil,
go ahead, slap a $90/barrel tax on oil and watch the pump prices double
or more.

No free lunch, just a fleabagger dream state.

Just like employment taxes, raise them and less raises to the wage
earner. Someone always pays and they are always the worker or the
consumer in the end. Always. Employment taxes are a good one because
if you add wages plus employment taxes, people got plent of raises over
the years just that government took them.

Take Obama's persecution of BP. I immediately bought foreign oil
producers stock and sold it for a 30% gain in just 10 months
anticipating a shortfall on US domestic production. That is how savvy
short term investors make good money on Obama bull****.

Hey, if investors get less, or in GMs case loose money, no job creating
investments will follow. Never invest good money after bad. Many do,
and why American wealth is diminishing as government is consuming it
fast leaving less for the people. Sort of like a snake eating its own tail.

The economy of a product, company or country or even the world is of
generally fixed size. When someone gets more, others get less. Trick
is to be one step ahead of the fleabaggers in todays economy.

Nothing operates in a vacuum, even a fleabaggers mind has bull****
between the ears.

You are truly a single-minded moron, and I use the term single-minded
advisedly, since you are without a functioning brain.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On 9/8/2011 7:41 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 07:45:33 -0400, X `
wrote:

On 9/8/11 2:22 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 13:32:41 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:55:10 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 10:42:54 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 12:44:07 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 06:13:03 -0700 (PDT), North Star
wrote:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1261953.html


That will just raise the cost of everything you buy from any store.
Insurance companies spread this risk to all of us. The Lawyer takes
his 33-50% and keeps it all himself.

Thus, someone shouldn't be compensated for her injuries?

We are not really sure what "injuries" she has. You seem to like to
assess degrees of blame. What is her degree of negligence for not
getting out of the way?

I agree! That's why we need courts and attorneys in the crucible of
jurisprudence.


I thought this would fall under the "cost of doing business" category.

That was my point. Everyone who buys anything from any store will be
paying for this. It simply gets passed along by the insurance
companies. That in turn shows up in the prices of products you buy
from the stores because they all have to buy that insurance.

They also have to pay for termite inspectors, lighting and heating,
and garbage removal services. So what??


You folks are cheering for this woman's windfall. Do you cheer for
termites too?


You want to give corporations a free ride on the results of their
negligence?


Do you think Jim or Christy Walton will pay a dime of this judgement?
Do you think the stock will take a hit?
The worst thing that happens is a 3 pound box of rice might go up a
penny or two. Corporations don't pay for anything, their customers do.

This Harry character must be as dumb as a box of rocks.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On 9/8/2011 7:43 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 10:12:36 -0700, wrote:

You seriously believe that all costs are passed along to the consumer?
All costs? Feel free to try and defend that statement.

Yes I do. Unless the company wants to lose money and nobody wants to
do that. Anything as inelastic as insurance premiums gets spread
universally so all prices just go up.

It's either that or pay the stockholders less. Which would you choose
if you were COTB.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 20:31:59 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:23:19 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 08/09/2011 11:12 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 02:21:07 -0400, wrote:


You seriously believe that all costs are passed along to the consumer?
All costs? Feel free to try and defend that statement.

As I actually said, the "insurance claims are.. a tiny piece of the
pie."

Ultimately yep, all costs will be passed on to the consumer. Take oil,
go ahead, slap a $90/barrel tax on oil and watch the pump prices double
or more.

A classic example was the massive judgement against the cigarette
companies. Shortly after that Altria posted record profits.

I doubt there's much causation between the two. Feel free to provide
some facts that support this causation.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 19:43:39 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 10:12:36 -0700, wrote:

You seriously believe that all costs are passed along to the consumer?
All costs? Feel free to try and defend that statement.

Yes I do. Unless the company wants to lose money and nobody wants to
do that. Anything as inelastic as insurance premiums gets spread
universally so all prices just go up.

So, I guess you never heard of how the Japanese dumped chips onto the
market below cost. Did they "lose money" in the long term because of
this? No.

As is normally the case, there are very few situations when "all" or
"every" as a qualifier are fact based.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 19:41:19 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 07:45:33 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 9/8/11 2:22 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 13:32:41 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:55:10 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 10:42:54 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 12:44:07 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 06:13:03 -0700 (PDT), North Star
wrote:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1261953.html


That will just raise the cost of everything you buy from any store.
Insurance companies spread this risk to all of us. The Lawyer takes
his 33-50% and keeps it all himself.

Thus, someone shouldn't be compensated for her injuries?

We are not really sure what "injuries" she has. You seem to like to
assess degrees of blame. What is her degree of negligence for not
getting out of the way?

I agree! That's why we need courts and attorneys in the crucible of
jurisprudence.


I thought this would fall under the "cost of doing business" category.

That was my point. Everyone who buys anything from any store will be
paying for this. It simply gets passed along by the insurance
companies. That in turn shows up in the prices of products you buy
from the stores because they all have to buy that insurance.

They also have to pay for termite inspectors, lighting and heating,
and garbage removal services. So what??


You folks are cheering for this woman's windfall. Do you cheer for
termites too?


You want to give corporations a free ride on the results of their
negligence?


Do you think Jim or Christy Walton will pay a dime of this judgement?
Do you think the stock will take a hit?
The worst thing that happens is a 3 pound box of rice might go up a
penny or two. Corporations don't pay for anything, their customers do.

This is such a bull**** argument. According to this logic, no law, no
regulation, no tax, no civil judgment should be imposed because "the
consumer pays eventually." It's just sophistry and has no place in an
honest discussion about someone being injured.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 19:46:59 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 10:13:57 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 02:22:20 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 13:32:41 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:55:10 -0400, wrote:


That was my point. Everyone who buys anything from any store will be
paying for this. It simply gets passed along by the insurance
companies. That in turn shows up in the prices of products you buy
from the stores because they all have to buy that insurance.

They also have to pay for termite inspectors, lighting and heating,
and garbage removal services. So what??


You folks are cheering for this woman's windfall. Do you cheer for
termites too?

Cheering? She was injured. Apparently, no compensation is justified by
you?

Why didn't she sue the shoplifter?
How about the rentacop company that hired the guard?
Oh I forgot, you always sue the deepest pocket, no matter what their
degree of negligence.

Oh I forgot, you don't know anything about the case or the law for
that matter.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 19:55:28 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 06:13:03 -0700 (PDT), North Star
wrote:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1261953.html

WTF!
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/15/wa...-store-gunman/

Sounds like an idiot manager. Sheesh!

Since it's from 2011, I wonder what eventually happened.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 22:42:00 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 19:13:56 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 20:31:59 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:23:19 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 08/09/2011 11:12 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 02:21:07 -0400, wrote:


You seriously believe that all costs are passed along to the consumer?
All costs? Feel free to try and defend that statement.

As I actually said, the "insurance claims are.. a tiny piece of the
pie."

Ultimately yep, all costs will be passed on to the consumer. Take oil,
go ahead, slap a $90/barrel tax on oil and watch the pump prices double
or more.

A classic example was the massive judgement against the cigarette
companies. Shortly after that Altria posted record profits.

I doubt there's much causation between the two. Feel free to provide
some facts that support this causation.

They certainly passed all the costs on to the customer, plus a huge
profit.

The cost being lung cancer. Of course, they don't need to be
regulated, right? The consumer should be able to figure it out without
any help from the gov't. Why they can just stop, and if they can't,
they must be weak-minded and deserve to get sick. - this is the
mantra of the right, including Ron (non-St.) Paul.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:23:19 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 08/09/2011 11:12 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 02:21:07 -0400, wrote:


You seriously believe that all costs are passed along to the consumer?
All costs? Feel free to try and defend that statement.

As I actually said, the "insurance claims are.. a tiny piece of the
pie."

Ultimately yep, all costs will be passed on to the consumer. Take oil,
go ahead, slap a $90/barrel tax on oil and watch the pump prices double
or more.

A classic example was the massive judgement against the cigarette
companies. Shortly after that Altria posted record profits.

It is amazinig what business can do when they do not have an unknown
hanging over their head.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On 9/9/2011 1:11 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 22:42:00 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 19:13:56 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 20:31:59 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:23:19 -0600,
wrote:

On 08/09/2011 11:12 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 02:21:07 -0400, wrote:


You seriously believe that all costs are passed along to the consumer?
All costs? Feel free to try and defend that statement.

As I actually said, the "insurance claims are.. a tiny piece of the
pie."

Ultimately yep, all costs will be passed on to the consumer. Take oil,
go ahead, slap a $90/barrel tax on oil and watch the pump prices double
or more.

A classic example was the massive judgement against the cigarette
companies. Shortly after that Altria posted record profits.

I doubt there's much causation between the two. Feel free to provide
some facts that support this causation.

They certainly passed all the costs on to the customer, plus a huge
profit.

The cost being lung cancer. Of course, they don't need to be
regulated, right? The consumer should be able to figure it out without
any help from the gov't. Why they can just stop, and if they can't,
they must be weak-minded and deserve to get sick.- this is the
mantra of the right, including Ron (non-St.) Paul.

IS THE GUBMINT *STILL* SUBSIDIZING TOBACCO COMPANIES WHILE THE SURGEON
GENERAL WARNS ABOUT THE DANGERS OF TOBACCO.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On 08/09/2011 5:50 PM, Drifter wrote:
On 9/8/2011 7:43 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 10:12:36 -0700, wrote:

You seriously believe that all costs are passed along to the consumer?
All costs? Feel free to try and defend that statement.

Yes I do. Unless the company wants to lose money and nobody wants to
do that. Anything as inelastic as insurance premiums gets spread
universally so all prices just go up.

It's either that or pay the stockholders less. Which would you choose if
you were COTB.

Stock holders get their slice or no jobs/invest.

The Obama way, everyone on welfare.
--
First rule of holes: If your in one, don't keep digging.
So in the hole, why do we insanely want more debt?

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

"X ` Man" wrote in message ...

On 9/8/11 2:22 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 13:32:41 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:55:10 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 10:42:54 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 12:44:07 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 06:13:03 -0700 (PDT), North Star
wrote:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1261953.html


That will just raise the cost of everything you buy from any store.
Insurance companies spread this risk to all of us. The Lawyer takes
his 33-50% and keeps it all himself.

Thus, someone shouldn't be compensated for her injuries?

We are not really sure what "injuries" she has. You seem to like to
assess degrees of blame. What is her degree of negligence for not
getting out of the way?

I agree! That's why we need courts and attorneys in the crucible of
jurisprudence.


I thought this would fall under the "cost of doing business" category.

That was my point. Everyone who buys anything from any store will be
paying for this. It simply gets passed along by the insurance
companies. That in turn shows up in the prices of products you buy
from the stores because they all have to buy that insurance.

They also have to pay for termite inspectors, lighting and heating,
and garbage removal services. So what??


You folks are cheering for this woman's windfall. Do you cheer for
termites too?


If the woman gets a windfall, it will be because of the negligence of
Wal-Mart, the marginal employees in its stores, and the lack of training
provided them. In a reasonable world, Wal-Mart would have been driven
out of business by its lack of ethics and predatory practices.


--
I'd much rather be a champion of the powerless than a lickspittle of the
powerful.


-------------------------------------------------------
Not really. The original case of letting a kid fall out of the grocery cart
because of no seat belt were my neighbors in the mid 50's. The let the kid
fall out of the Safeway Stores grocery cart. They got $50k plus a college
fund for the kid. Was not Safeway's fault they let the kid fall out. Cars
did not even have seat belts. Started a flood of windfall suits over the
years.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On 9/9/2011 11:44 AM, Califbill wrote:
"X ` Man" wrote in message ...

On 9/8/11 2:22 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 13:32:41 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:55:10 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 10:42:54 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 12:44:07 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 06:13:03 -0700 (PDT), North Star
wrote:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1261953.html


That will just raise the cost of everything you buy from any store.
Insurance companies spread this risk to all of us. The Lawyer takes
his 33-50% and keeps it all himself.

Thus, someone shouldn't be compensated for her injuries?

We are not really sure what "injuries" she has. You seem to like to
assess degrees of blame. What is her degree of negligence for not
getting out of the way?

I agree! That's why we need courts and attorneys in the crucible of
jurisprudence.


I thought this would fall under the "cost of doing business" category.

That was my point. Everyone who buys anything from any store will be
paying for this. It simply gets passed along by the insurance
companies. That in turn shows up in the prices of products you buy
from the stores because they all have to buy that insurance.

They also have to pay for termite inspectors, lighting and heating,
and garbage removal services. So what??


You folks are cheering for this woman's windfall. Do you cheer for
termites too?


If the woman gets a windfall, it will be because of the negligence of
Wal-Mart, the marginal employees in its stores, and the lack of training
provided them. In a reasonable world, Wal-Mart would have been driven
out of business by its lack of ethics and predatory practices.



Krause thinks the gubmint is obligated by the Constitution to protect
him from himself and others.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 14:08:17 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 22:11:06 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 22:42:00 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 19:13:56 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 20:31:59 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:23:19 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 08/09/2011 11:12 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 02:21:07 -0400, wrote:


You seriously believe that all costs are passed along to the consumer?
All costs? Feel free to try and defend that statement.

As I actually said, the "insurance claims are.. a tiny piece of the
pie."

Ultimately yep, all costs will be passed on to the consumer. Take oil,
go ahead, slap a $90/barrel tax on oil and watch the pump prices double
or more.

A classic example was the massive judgement against the cigarette
companies. Shortly after that Altria posted record profits.

I doubt there's much causation between the two. Feel free to provide
some facts that support this causation.

They certainly passed all the costs on to the customer, plus a huge
profit.

The cost being lung cancer. Of course, they don't need to be
regulated, right? The consumer should be able to figure it out without
any help from the gov't. Why they can just stop, and if they can't,
they must be weak-minded and deserve to get sick. - this is the
mantra of the right, including Ron (non-St.) Paul.

People who smoke know it is dangerous, everyone has known that for 40
years. They are hooked on the drug and they keep doing it. You can say
the same thing about a lot of drugs, legal and illegal.
It is really none of our business.

If you are worried about the cost of Medicare you should like smokers.
A lot of them will die before they ever even get to 65.
Most avoid going to the doctor and they die fairly cheaply compared to
a "healthy" person who lives to 85, getting artificial hips, organ
transplants, cataract operations and tons of expensive drugs.

It sounds cruel but it is the choice they made.

My non-smoking grandfather lived to 100 and cost Medicare a bundle. My
smoking parents both died young and didn't have any significant
medical bills at all. My smoking sister is pretty much on her death
bed and still not on medicare. (Dec 01, 11 based on her husband's age)

What about kids? Are they supposed to understand those dangers? How
old do they have to be? Tobacco companies have and continue to promote
smoking to kids. What about second hand smoke?

But, that's ok in a society (oh wait, it wouldn't be a society) that
ignores public health.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 07:46:01 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:23:19 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 08/09/2011 11:12 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 02:21:07 -0400, wrote:


You seriously believe that all costs are passed along to the consumer?
All costs? Feel free to try and defend that statement.

As I actually said, the "insurance claims are.. a tiny piece of the
pie."

Ultimately yep, all costs will be passed on to the consumer. Take oil,
go ahead, slap a $90/barrel tax on oil and watch the pump prices double
or more.

A classic example was the massive judgement against the cigarette
companies. Shortly after that Altria posted record profits.

It is amazinig what business can do when they do not have an unknown
hanging over their head.


What unknown? Typical bull**** comment with no substance.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 09:20:56 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 08/09/2011 5:50 PM, Drifter wrote:
On 9/8/2011 7:43 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 10:12:36 -0700, wrote:

You seriously believe that all costs are passed along to the consumer?
All costs? Feel free to try and defend that statement.

Yes I do. Unless the company wants to lose money and nobody wants to
do that. Anything as inelastic as insurance premiums gets spread
universally so all prices just go up.

It's either that or pay the stockholders less. Which would you choose if
you were COTB.

Stock holders get their slice or no jobs/invest.

The Obama way, everyone on welfare.

You really have a hard-on for him don't you. Everything is about
Obama. How about some personal responsibility on your part? Oh wait,
you're an idiot.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On 09/09/2011 12:34 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 09:20:56 -0600,
wrote:

On 08/09/2011 5:50 PM, Drifter wrote:
On 9/8/2011 7:43 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 10:12:36 -0700, wrote:

You seriously believe that all costs are passed along to the consumer?
All costs? Feel free to try and defend that statement.

Yes I do. Unless the company wants to lose money and nobody wants to
do that. Anything as inelastic as insurance premiums gets spread
universally so all prices just go up.

It's either that or pay the stockholders less. Which would you choose if
you were COTB.

Stock holders get their slice or no jobs/invest.

The Obama way, everyone on welfare.

You really have a hard-on for him don't you. Everything is about
Obama. How about some personal responsibility on your part? Oh wait,
you're an idiot.

Obama has **** to do with personal responsibility. I have personal
responsibility, I don't depend on government like a leach like you.

Polly fleabagger want a cracker?

--
First rule of holes: If your in one, don't keep digging.
So in the hole, why do we insanely want more debt?

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 14:19:42 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 09/09/2011 12:34 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 09:20:56 -0600,
wrote:

On 08/09/2011 5:50 PM, Drifter wrote:
On 9/8/2011 7:43 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 10:12:36 -0700, wrote:

You seriously believe that all costs are passed along to the consumer?
All costs? Feel free to try and defend that statement.

Yes I do. Unless the company wants to lose money and nobody wants to
do that. Anything as inelastic as insurance premiums gets spread
universally so all prices just go up.

It's either that or pay the stockholders less. Which would you choose if
you were COTB.

Stock holders get their slice or no jobs/invest.

The Obama way, everyone on welfare.

You really have a hard-on for him don't you. Everything is about
Obama. How about some personal responsibility on your part? Oh wait,
you're an idiot.

Obama has **** to do with personal responsibility. I have personal
responsibility, I don't depend on government like a leach like you.

Polly fleabagger want a cracker?

Give us a break. You've got your greasy little hand out all the time.
I'm sure the Canadian gov't is pretty sick of you by now. Move to
Somalia like you promised.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On 9/9/2011 4:19 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 09/09/2011 12:34 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 09:20:56 -0600,
wrote:

On 08/09/2011 5:50 PM, Drifter wrote:
On 9/8/2011 7:43 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 10:12:36 -0700, wrote:

You seriously believe that all costs are passed along to the
consumer?
All costs? Feel free to try and defend that statement.

Yes I do. Unless the company wants to lose money and nobody wants to
do that. Anything as inelastic as insurance premiums gets spread
universally so all prices just go up.

It's either that or pay the stockholders less. Which would you
choose if
you were COTB.

Stock holders get their slice or no jobs/invest.

The Obama way, everyone on welfare.

You really have a hard-on for him don't you. Everything is about
Obama. How about some personal responsibility on your part? Oh wait,
you're an idiot.

Obama has **** to do with personal responsibility. I have personal
responsibility, I don't depend on government like a leach like you.

Polly fleabagger want a cracker?


Are you intentionally attracting flies like De Plume?

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 21:02:33 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:32:59 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 14:08:17 -0400, wrote:

My non-smoking grandfather lived to 100 and cost Medicare a bundle. My
smoking parents both died young and didn't have any significant
medical bills at all. My smoking sister is pretty much on her death
bed and still not on medicare. (Dec 01, 11 based on her husband's age)

What about kids? Are they supposed to understand those dangers? How
old do they have to be? Tobacco companies have and continue to promote
smoking to kids. What about second hand smoke?

The law says they have to be 18, they should understand the danger by
then if they will ever learn.

Yes, the law says. And, the tobacco companies have routinely ignored
it.

Second hand smoke is mostly a nuisance, not a health hazard.
If you have 100 smokers in a small room you might have a potential
hazard but a whiff of smoke on a park bench never hurt anyone.

Wow. You should send your results to the Mayo Clinic. I'm sure they'd
be interested in reviewing them.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/sec...-smoke/CC00023

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 21:04:37 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:33:39 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 07:46:01 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:23:19 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 08/09/2011 11:12 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 02:21:07 -0400, wrote:


You seriously believe that all costs are passed along to the consumer?
All costs? Feel free to try and defend that statement.

As I actually said, the "insurance claims are.. a tiny piece of the
pie."

Ultimately yep, all costs will be passed on to the consumer. Take oil,
go ahead, slap a $90/barrel tax on oil and watch the pump prices double
or more.

A classic example was the massive judgement against the cigarette
companies. Shortly after that Altria posted record profits.

It is amazinig what business can do when they do not have an unknown
hanging over their head.


What unknown? Typical bull**** comment with no substance.


The unknown was what future lawsuits were coming down the poke. The
settlement blocked any future lawsuits so they knew what they were
dealing with and what price point they had to hit to continue being
profitable.

So, you believe that either there should never be a lawsuit against a
company (or an individual) or you believe that lawsuits should be
known about in advance?

Sounds like an interesting game you've got going with your crystal
ball.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On 9/9/2011 10:51 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 21:02:33 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:32:59 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 14:08:17 -0400, wrote:

My non-smoking grandfather lived to 100 and cost Medicare a bundle. My
smoking parents both died young and didn't have any significant
medical bills at all. My smoking sister is pretty much on her death
bed and still not on medicare. (Dec 01, 11 based on her husband's age)

What about kids? Are they supposed to understand those dangers? How
old do they have to be? Tobacco companies have and continue to promote
smoking to kids. What about second hand smoke?

The law says they have to be 18, they should understand the danger by
then if they will ever learn.

Yes, the law says. And, the tobacco companies have routinely ignored
it.

Second hand smoke is mostly a nuisance, not a health hazard.
If you have 100 smokers in a small room you might have a potential
hazard but a whiff of smoke on a park bench never hurt anyone.

Wow. You should send your results to the Mayo Clinic. I'm sure they'd
be interested in reviewing them.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/sec...-smoke/CC00023

What do you think of a very high government official who openly admits
he is helplessly and hopelessy addicted to cigarretes? The guy has two
impressionable kids too. I hope he isn't killing them with second hand
smoke. Probably as bad, they will likely become addicts. You know the
old adage,"Monkey see Monkey do."

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On 9/9/2011 10:52 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 21:04:37 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:33:39 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 07:46:01 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:23:19 -0600,
wrote:

On 08/09/2011 11:12 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 02:21:07 -0400, wrote:


You seriously believe that all costs are passed along to the consumer?
All costs? Feel free to try and defend that statement.

As I actually said, the "insurance claims are.. a tiny piece of the
pie."

Ultimately yep, all costs will be passed on to the consumer. Take oil,
go ahead, slap a $90/barrel tax on oil and watch the pump prices double
or more.

A classic example was the massive judgement against the cigarette
companies. Shortly after that Altria posted record profits.

It is amazinig what business can do when they do not have an unknown
hanging over their head.


What unknown? Typical bull**** comment with no substance.


The unknown was what future lawsuits were coming down the poke. The
settlement blocked any future lawsuits so they knew what they were
dealing with and what price point they had to hit to continue being
profitable.

So, you believe that either there should never be a lawsuit against a
company (or an individual) or you believe that lawsuits should be
known about in advance?

Sounds like an interesting game you've got going with your crystal
ball.

Him with his crystal ball and you pulling crap out of your wonder bra.
Youse guys are a barrel of laughs.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On 9/10/2011 2:15 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 19:51:11 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 21:02:33 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:32:59 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 14:08:17 -0400, wrote:

My non-smoking grandfather lived to 100 and cost Medicare a bundle. My
smoking parents both died young and didn't have any significant
medical bills at all. My smoking sister is pretty much on her death
bed and still not on medicare. (Dec 01, 11 based on her husband's age)

What about kids? Are they supposed to understand those dangers? How
old do they have to be? Tobacco companies have and continue to promote
smoking to kids. What about second hand smoke?

The law says they have to be 18, they should understand the danger by
then if they will ever learn.

Yes, the law says. And, the tobacco companies have routinely ignored
it.


I didn't know there were any tobacco companies in the retail business.
Where is the Altria store

Second hand smoke is mostly a nuisance, not a health hazard.
If you have 100 smokers in a small room you might have a potential
hazard but a whiff of smoke on a park bench never hurt anyone.

Wow. You should send your results to the Mayo Clinic. I'm sure they'd
be interested in reviewing them.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/sec...-smoke/CC00023

Long on opinion short on facts.
Any discussion of airborne poisons that doesn't talk about threshold
limit values (an OSHA standard) is just conjecture.
There may be a dangerous concentration of second hand smoke but simply
being able to smell it (the current standard) is bull****.

I don't really smoke (maybe 6 cigars a year) but I don't think the
current persecution is warranted. That is particularly true when the
person has the ability not to go where people smoke and chooses to
just so they can be offended.
I think they should be able to put up a sign that says "this is a
smoking establishment, if you don't like it, get even with me and
spend your money somewhere else."

Smokers shouldn't go where people are unless they refrain from exhaling.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 02:15:14 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 19:51:11 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 21:02:33 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:32:59 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 14:08:17 -0400, wrote:

My non-smoking grandfather lived to 100 and cost Medicare a bundle. My
smoking parents both died young and didn't have any significant
medical bills at all. My smoking sister is pretty much on her death
bed and still not on medicare. (Dec 01, 11 based on her husband's age)

What about kids? Are they supposed to understand those dangers? How
old do they have to be? Tobacco companies have and continue to promote
smoking to kids. What about second hand smoke?

The law says they have to be 18, they should understand the danger by
then if they will ever learn.

Yes, the law says. And, the tobacco companies have routinely ignored
it.


I didn't know there were any tobacco companies in the retail business.
Where is the Altria store

Second hand smoke is mostly a nuisance, not a health hazard.
If you have 100 smokers in a small room you might have a potential
hazard but a whiff of smoke on a park bench never hurt anyone.

Wow. You should send your results to the Mayo Clinic. I'm sure they'd
be interested in reviewing them.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/sec...-smoke/CC00023

Long on opinion short on facts.

And, in your case, not a medical professional. I think I'll go with
the people who actually have a degree and some expertise in the
subject. Feel free to take deep breaths.

Any discussion of airborne poisons that doesn't talk about threshold
limit values (an OSHA standard) is just conjecture.
There may be a dangerous concentration of second hand smoke but simply
being able to smell it (the current standard) is bull****.

According to you.

I don't really smoke (maybe 6 cigars a year) but I don't think the
current persecution is warranted. That is particularly true when the
person has the ability not to go where people smoke and chooses to
just so they can be offended.
I think they should be able to put up a sign that says "this is a
smoking establishment, if you don't like it, get even with me and
spend your money somewhere else."

You might want to cut out the cigars. It doesn't take much from
something like that to cause all sorts of health problems.

I'm sure you don't believe in lots of things. That doesn't mean you
have the actual facts to back up your nonsense assertions.

Smoke them if you got them.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 10:57:56 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 08:34:20 -0400, Drifter wrote:

I think they should be able to put up a sign that says "this is a
smoking establishment, if you don't like it, get even with me and
spend your money somewhere else."

Smokers shouldn't go where people are unless they refrain from exhaling.

If a privately owned place is clearly marked "smoking allowed", don't
go there. It is called freedom of choice.

You do not have the right not to be offended, particularly on someone
elses property.

A privately owned place that is open to the public, is quite different
than a privately owned place like your home.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 02:16:36 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 19:52:36 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 21:04:37 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:33:39 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 07:46:01 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:23:19 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 08/09/2011 11:12 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 02:21:07 -0400, wrote:


You seriously believe that all costs are passed along to the consumer?
All costs? Feel free to try and defend that statement.

As I actually said, the "insurance claims are.. a tiny piece of the
pie."

Ultimately yep, all costs will be passed on to the consumer. Take oil,
go ahead, slap a $90/barrel tax on oil and watch the pump prices double
or more.

A classic example was the massive judgement against the cigarette
companies. Shortly after that Altria posted record profits.

It is amazinig what business can do when they do not have an unknown
hanging over their head.


What unknown? Typical bull**** comment with no substance.


The unknown was what future lawsuits were coming down the poke. The
settlement blocked any future lawsuits so they knew what they were
dealing with and what price point they had to hit to continue being
profitable.

So, you believe that either there should never be a lawsuit against a
company (or an individual) or you believe that lawsuits should be
known about in advance?

Sounds like an interesting game you've got going with your crystal
ball.


Read up on the tobacco suits and get back to me.


So, you do believe that lawsuits (if any are allowed) should be known
in advance. Interesting.

Read up on fantasy and get back to me.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:07:51 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 11:49:58 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 10:57:56 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 08:34:20 -0400, Drifter wrote:

I think they should be able to put up a sign that says "this is a
smoking establishment, if you don't like it, get even with me and
spend your money somewhere else."

Smokers shouldn't go where people are unless they refrain from exhaling.

If a privately owned place is clearly marked "smoking allowed", don't
go there. It is called freedom of choice.

You do not have the right not to be offended, particularly on someone
elses property.

A privately owned place that is open to the public, is quite different
than a privately owned place like your home.

That is simply a perversion of the law.

It is not. It's been pretty well upheld by the courts.

I bet you would support the right of a restaurant owner to refuse
admittance of a person wearing a T shirt that said "Kill all the
fags" or something else offensive.

Don't have to, since most restaurants can refuse service to people who
are disruptive.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:03:09 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 11:49:03 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 02:15:14 -0400, wrote:



Second hand smoke is mostly a nuisance, not a health hazard.
If you have 100 smokers in a small room you might have a potential
hazard but a whiff of smoke on a park bench never hurt anyone.

Wow. You should send your results to the Mayo Clinic. I'm sure they'd
be interested in reviewing them.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/sec...-smoke/CC00023

Long on opinion short on facts.

And, in your case, not a medical professional. I think I'll go with
the people who actually have a degree and some expertise in the
subject. Feel free to take deep breaths.

Short on facts, no matter who they are.

Really? Show us the research to support the claim that second hand
smoke is safe.

Any discussion of airborne poisons that doesn't talk about threshold
limit values (an OSHA standard) is just conjecture.
There may be a dangerous concentration of second hand smoke but simply
being able to smell it (the current standard) is bull****.

According to you.

According to OSHA and they are the ones who actually regulate these
things.

OSHA doesn't make any claim about the beneficial or benign effects of
second hand smoke. Feel free to show otherwise.

I don't really smoke (maybe 6 cigars a year) but I don't think the
current persecution is warranted. That is particularly true when the
person has the ability not to go where people smoke and chooses to
just so they can be offended.
I think they should be able to put up a sign that says "this is a
smoking establishment, if you don't like it, get even with me and
spend your money somewhere else."

You might want to cut out the cigars. It doesn't take much from
something like that to cause all sorts of health problems.

So is red meat and driving a car. I will chose my risks, you chose
yours. That is what freedom means.


Yes, so is red meat and driving. I have no problem with you smoking
your cigars in your home and driving, up to the point where you risk
my health or safety. Your "freedom" ends as soon as it impacts mine.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:11:30 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 11:51:01 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 02:16:36 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 19:52:36 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 21:04:37 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:33:39 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 07:46:01 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:23:19 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 08/09/2011 11:12 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 02:21:07 -0400, wrote:


You seriously believe that all costs are passed along to the consumer?
All costs? Feel free to try and defend that statement.

As I actually said, the "insurance claims are.. a tiny piece of the
pie."

Ultimately yep, all costs will be passed on to the consumer. Take oil,
go ahead, slap a $90/barrel tax on oil and watch the pump prices double
or more.

A classic example was the massive judgement against the cigarette
companies. Shortly after that Altria posted record profits.

It is amazinig what business can do when they do not have an unknown
hanging over their head.


What unknown? Typical bull**** comment with no substance.


The unknown was what future lawsuits were coming down the poke. The
settlement blocked any future lawsuits so they knew what they were
dealing with and what price point they had to hit to continue being
profitable.

So, you believe that either there should never be a lawsuit against a
company (or an individual) or you believe that lawsuits should be
known about in advance?

Sounds like an interesting game you've got going with your crystal
ball.


Read up on the tobacco suits and get back to me.


So, you do believe that lawsuits (if any are allowed) should be known
in advance. Interesting.

Read up on fantasy and get back to me.


The settlement was with the attorneys general of the states involved
and specified that this was going to be the end of it.

I am sure there might be some individual who might try to take on
Altria after this but they would get ground up and spit out. The idea
that anyone on the planet has not seen the warning on the side of a
cigarette pack is ludicrous.

Which has nothing to do with fantasy that lawsuits should be known
about in advance.

I suppose you consider 12 year olds cognizant of the dangers of cigar
smoke also. Typical "libertarian" nonsense.