On 9/7/2011 12:41 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 9/7/11 12:33 PM, North Star wrote:
On Sep 7, 1:27 pm, wrote:
On 07/09/2011 7:13 AM, North Star wrote:

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

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

My my. Bad enough that the rest of the Dopers don't know the proper
name for citizens of Halifax. As a 'so called' Canadian I'd have
thought you'd know better.
We're Haligonians........ one& all!


Interesting. I've never heard that term...Haligonian...


How illiterate of you.

On 9/7/2011 12:33 PM, North Star wrote:
On Sep 7, 1:27 pm, wrote:
On 07/09/2011 7:13 AM, North Star wrote:

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

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

My my. Bad enough that the rest of the Dopers don't know the proper
name for citizens of Halifax. As a 'so called' Canadian I'd have
thought you'd know better.
We're Haligonians........ one& all!

My guess would have been Hallifaxitosis

On Sep 7, 12:50*pm, BeachBum "not a wrote:
On 9/7/2011 12:33 PM, North Star wrote:

On Sep 7, 1:27 pm, *wrote:
On 07/09/2011 7:13 AM, North Star wrote:

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

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

My my. *Bad enough that the rest of the Dopers don't know the proper
name for citizens of Halifax. *As a 'so called' Canadian I'd have
thought you'd know better.
We're Haligonians........ one& *all!

My guess would have been Hallifaxitosis

Give her a frekin' wide screen and be done with it...

On 9/7/11 12:44 PM, 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.


So, someone who is injured on a corporation's property should just grin
and bear it?

Nonsense.



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

On 9/7/2011 12:48 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 9/7/11 12:44 PM, 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.


So, someone who is injured on a corporation's property should just grin
and bear it?

Nonsense.




Anyone see the medical report?

On 9/7/11 3:46 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 12:48:53 -0400, X `
wrote:

On 9/7/11 12:44 PM, 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.


So, someone who is injured on a corporation's property should just grin
and bear it?

Nonsense.

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.

So, again, what is your point? That corporate negligence should be ignored?

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

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

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 12:48:53 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 9/7/11 12:44 PM, 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.


So, someone who is injured on a corporation's property should just grin
and bear it?

Nonsense.

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.

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."

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?

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.