# # I didn't invent it, it's a common, everyday, real world # occurance. You just refuse to address it because, # well, you can't. You stand on your soap box and claim # to have simple solutions for real world problems. Yet, # obviously you don't.
Do you by being an asshole naturally or did you train for the job ? Let's referesh the MORON's pea-sized brain
Your strawman was I quote (you) > You claim to have some valid alternative to either the current system where... "
I made NO such claim Your scenario was thrown at me based on this LIE
So take your claim take your scenario And SHOVE it.
Your strawman YOU feed it.
# # I know you're fundamentally dishonest. #
Considering that:
- you know shit
- yo make wild-ass presumptions about others
- you lie
- then you lie some more when called on it.
You can take your "knowledge" and shove it right back up your ass where you got it from..
# You put forth bankrupt ideas that are worthless # and when someone exposes any one of the many # obvious holes in it, instead of being able to answer # for yourself, you run away like a child.
The only one "putting forth" anything in this thread, was you, you idiot Your strawman and presumptions are neither my problem nor my responsibility
Now piss off you stupid wanker Go peddle your lies and presumptions elsewhere
Yeah, we all know the story. A stupid old bat spilled hot coffee in her lap and looked for somebody other than herself to blame.
If she had cranked up an oxyacetylene torch and applied it to herself would the maker of the torch be at fault? If she had stuck her finger in a light socket would the power company be at fault?
She was stupid, she got punished for it, and the courts should have told her to sod off.
Well, actually one can. McD has considerably improved their coffee since then (has nothing to do with the suit and everything to do with Starbucks).
The main change that McD made was to put signs all over the place "warning, coffee is hot".
It's stuff like this that makes me wish I wasn't an atheist. I really _want_ to believe that there is a Hell in which the Stupid Old Bat and her lawyer spend all eternity drinking lukewarm coffee.
At her age I think the prospect of future offspring was a moot point regardless. As someone once said of Australia, "it's down there, but nobody cares".
Huh? McD most assuredly had been sued before. What makes her unique is that she won.
Later, somebody tried the same crap on the manufacturer of the coffee maker that McD uses. Unlike McD, Bunn pulled out the ANSI specification for coffee makers, showed that theirs were compliant, and that was the end of that.
You hold it in your hand--she wasn't driving, she was a passenger. Or you find a place to wedge it--I've never had any trouble finding one in any car I've owned.
The problem with Welfare isn't the people recieving Welfare. The "leeches" are the ever expanding legions of government bureaucrats who are there to try to keep anybody from cheating the system.
In its first few years Welfare had a real effect. In the 40 or so years since the budget has increased radically but the number of people being helped and the degree to which they are being helped has remained substantially unchanged.
This notion that seat belts or banning tobacco or restricting portion sizes or the like can reduce the death rate is one of the stupidest arguments I have ever seen. The death rate is constant--one person, one death. Everybody dies. The question is not whether, it is when.
Seat belts do not save lives. They may prolong them, which is a different issue. As to "cost", which costs more, to treat acute trauma from an automobile accident or to treat Alzheimer's?
Excuse me, but YOU are the one bitching that we should not require everyone to have healthcare so that they are covered in the event of an accident or illness that puts them in the hospital. I asked what YOUR alternate system was. YOU responded with you have no problem with people donating to charity. And you also gave a response that indicated you didn't much care what happened to them. So apparently now you agree that is not a VALID alternative and in fact you don't have any workable, real approach.
So, instead of something that could start to address the problem of us all paying for the guy who has no insurance, exactly what is going on now, you'd prefer to hang your hat on empty basic principles. Principles which only sound great to some fanatic, yet that same fanatic can't go through a simple example of how it would work in the real world. You can't because it doesn't work.
A guy with a low paying job has a car crash. He has serious head injuries. He'a laying on the side of the road. What should be done? Should be a simple thing, how would it work? Go ahead, finally answer it instead of running away.
That is about as intellectually bankrupt as you can get. And as I said before, in my experience, the whack jobs like you with alleged simple solutions like, "I shouldn't have to pay for it, let charity do it", are usually the ones that actually give nothing to charity.
Oh what a pile of total BS. Show us any evidence that this is true. That the overwhelming percentage of welfare money is not actually going to recipients. As for the bureaucrats checking up for fraud, there should be more of them. When is the last time you saw anyone prosecuted for welfare fraud?
Apparently you don't, you just think you do. The jury knows the story. And that story, in sum, is not that the woman refused to accept responsibility for her actions, but that McD's refused to accept responsibility for theirs.
Now, you want to throw out the jury system, you're gonna have to go bigger than usenet.
I agree with you on this one. I think a lot of the people just jump to the conclusion with very little of the facts. I looked into it a bit and here are some of the facts:
McDonald=92s Operations Manual required the franchisee to hold its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;
Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the worst kind of burn) in three to seven seconds;
Third-degree burns do not heal without skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability of the victim for many months, and in some cases, years;
She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for more than two years.
The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio- mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;
McDonald=92s admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years =97 the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail;
From 1982 to 1992, McDonald=92s coffee burned more than 700 people, many receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks;
McDonald=92s admitted at trial that its coffee is =93not fit for consumption=94 when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;
Liebeck=92s treating physician testified that her injury was one of the worst scald burns he had ever seen. McDonald=92s did a survey of other coffee establishments in the area, and found that coffee at other places was between 30-40 degrees cooler.
In my world, the jury decision was fully justified and the right one. Arguing that it was her fault because she spilled it on herself doesn't absolve McDonalds. McDonalds knows perfectly well what customers who purchase their products at a drive-through do with them. A large percentage of the customers will be opening the container in a car, shortly after receiving it. They knew other people had been burned. It would have been very easy for them to simply serve the coffee at a lower temperature. Even if you buy the argument that the woman bears responsibility, at most it's just some of the responsibility. Maybe 20% her fault, I could see that kind of verdict too. But not one that absolves McD for most of what happened.
I wouldn't mind seeing Red Skelton again. When I was a kid, the family would gather around the giant 23" B&W console TV and watch The Red Skelton show. He was funny without being lascivious, something that doesn't seem possible these days. O_o
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.