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.