Tired_Old_Man

People always use that McDonald's coffee lawsuit, but people should look into the facts first. McDonald's was fined 1000's of time prior to the incident of the woman being burned for selling coffee too hot to drink. Over 700 people had been previously burned by McDonald's coffee. There are laws in every state that say that a product must be usable for its intended purpose when sold, but McDonald's constantly broke that law by selling coffee too hot to drink. The McDonald's coffee was not a few degrees hotter than most other coffees or what the suggested maximum temperature should be but 40 to 50 degrees hotter. They were ordered over and over again to adjust their thermostats (internal) on their coffee makers. McDonald's elected to keep breaking the law and paying the (what to them are meaningless) fines. So, there was a lawbreaker with expensive lawyers thumbing their nose at the law and paying minor fines. That was taken into account along with the woman doing the stupid thing of putting the coffee between her legs. The jury had to determine after listening to expert testimony from doctors if a cup of coffee at a legal temperature would have caused the burns that she sustained. The jury determined that a cup of coffee at a proper temperature would not have caused the physical damage that Micky D's coffee did to her and because of the previous flaunting of the law, they made McDonald's pay, in the punitive award, an amount which would/should inspire them to follow the law in the future. By the way, the jury found McDonald's 80% to blame and the woman 20% to blame and the judgment was adjusted for that, plus on appeal the award was cut way down.

I feel for you and the problem, but if the law in your town/city/state says you can be held liable, then the bar owner had better get you help in the form of bouncers or other bartenders. My female friend used to be a bartender and there was always a male manager there to come to her aid. I would not work in a bar if the owner did not protect me and his business. He is not a good businessman if he leaves himself open to violence and/or liability lawsuits.

Yes, yes ,yes, no, no,yes. Just a joke (above). The sidewalk owner has no responsibility because the sidewalk did not contribute to the injury. This country uses a contributory negligence system in court. If two drivers collide and one driver is judged 80% at fault and the other driver is 20% at fault, they subtract 20 from 80 ( equals 60) and the 80% driver's insurance has to pay 60% of the damage to the 20% driver. Getting back to your questions: Unless the car had steering or brake defects that the manufacturer knew about and yet failed to recall the car to be fixed, they are not at fault because their negligence did not contribute to the injury. All cities have a speed limit even if not posted. Unless there was a defect in the road pavement that could coarse cars to go out of control, then the city is not at fault because their negligence did not contribute to the injury. However if there was a rut in the street that could lock a wheel into a course that a driver could not control or if there was no sign warning the driver of the need to drive slower because of a dangerous turn ahead, then the city could be held liable for their percentage of the amount awarded to you. Both the amount and the percentage would be decided by the jury. It is not as difficult as your question tries to make it. In the bartender/drunk driver situation, depending on what witnesses say about how the drunk was acting before he was served his last few drinks, the jury might decide that the driver did $100,000 of damage and the drivers was 80% responsible and the bartender (and bar owner) were 20% responsible. Most likely the driver's insurance would pay $80,000 and the bar's insurance would pay $20. If I was going to get a job as a bartender (and I have thought about it), I would first find out if my perspective employee had insurance and if I was covered in a liability case as described. If I owned a bar, I would cover my butt with insurance. I as a private person who owns 2 rental units and at one time owned 4, I have coverage for liability regarding injuries on my properties and an Umbrella policy for $1,000,000. It is the price of doing business. Before anyone talks about our suit happy society, consider that manufactures take the easy way out. Ford knew that their Pinto gas tanks were prone to explosion in rear end collisions. Ford knew it would cost $11 per new car to fix the problem and about $40 to correct the problem in cars already on the road, but a memo was sent that it was not "cost effective" to correct either the new cars or the cars already on the road. A women was burned so bad in her Pinto, that she required over 100 surgeries. Her husband and her children left her because she was too grotesque to look at. She sued Ford and won over $100,000,000. Ford will probably put that into the equation the next time that they need to decide if it is "cost effective" to correct a possible exploding gas tank. And GM, Toyota, Mercedes, Volvo, ect., will probably also build saver cars because of that lawsuit.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander, except when George is the gander.

Where did you read anything about me suggesting that the drunk driver should not be held responsible? There is much legal president in not allowing drunks to give informed consent. Men have been held liable for sexual abuse when having sex with a drunk woman who could not give consent and it is illegal (in many jurisdictions) to sign a contract while drunk. No one is saying that the bartender should count drinks, but when a bartender serves a drink to a person who is slurring his speech or acting in a manner that would lead a normal person to conclude that the drinker was drunk, then the bartender should not serve him. I used to be a heavy drinker and I decided one day that I was going to only have a few. After my third drink, the bartender said, "Here's one on the house, TOM". It doesn't take too many drinks before the will-power breaks down and I wound up having probably about ten drinks. I was only3 blocks from home, but I still could have killed somebody. YES, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MY FAULT, but the bartender was a contributing factor. Bars do not give away free drinks to be nice. They do it to make money and it works. And who is most likely to threaten the bartender? The man who is drunk. And if the "current law" says that bartenders share liability (as they do in many places) are you willing to agree that it is then the the bartender's responsibly to monitor his patrons? TOM PS: BJean, You have some temper. I love it when you get passionate about a topic. I would be afraid to cut off your drinks in a bar if I were a bartender or even if I was given a party in my home and you attended.

Both before BuSh put his controversial "No Child Left Behind" Policy into effect while governor of Texas and after the policy had been in effect for years, they tested the incoming freshmen at the University of Texas with simple tests. Questions were of the nature of which side was the US on in the Vietnam war(?) and the Korean war(?), who was president during the civil war(?). The questions were either multiple choice ( with 2 possible choices) or true/false. The average score was 50%. Flipping a coin would have done just as well. The standardized testing IMHO has made the problem worse while giving it the appearance of making things better. Teachers and principals know that their jobs are on the line if the children do poorly on the standardized tests, so they teach how to pass the test, not who was president during the civil war(?) or which is the closest planet to the Sun(?). The program runs counter to all other programs in that it gives the schools who need the least financial aid (because they are doing well) more money, and takes money away from the schools who need financial aid the most because they are doing poorly. The rational for this approach is, “Why should we reward poor performance?” Sounds like a smart question at first glance, but think of the ramifications. If a school is located in a well to do town with high property values, the school tax and school budget will be high. The children there do well on the standardized testing so they get more money. In the next town which has a poor population, lower property values, lower school tax and therefor a lower school budget, when they do poorly, they get a cut in financial aid for their school system. So the rich kids who are getting a better education get even more help, while the poor lose money for the extra tutoring and remedial programs that they need. And then we wonder why the poor are locked into a cycle of poverty and we hear preaching about personal responsibility (of the poor performing students) when it is the earning power of the parents which are actually being tested. I used the University of Texas test story for two purposes. One; to show how badly high school graduates are doing and two; to show that the standardized testing of the "No Child Left Behind" Program is not working. Most colleges, I believe would have a similar record.

You are not unique in that respect, but when a church holds 100 people and they can influence 40 to vote their way, it only takes 18% of the rest to make it a majority. If there are 30 million Evangelicals and 80% vote the way that the president of the Evangelical council wants them to vote, it only takes about 20% of the rest of the eligible voters in the USA to elect a US President.

Aren't bartenders people also and if they are people and people should take responsibilty for their actions, and the actions were serving people too much to drink, then why should bartenders not be responsible for that? I am not saying that the drunk who runs someone over with his car should not be held responsible, but I am saying that the bartender should take his share of the responsibilty for what he did which was serving a drunk person.

On forums and on talk shows and in the papers, where ever people discuss the NSA spying on phone calls and internet usage, or where they discuss FBI collective of data on peace groups, or when they speak or write about warrantless searches of homes and offices, I hear the same continual refrain from members on the Right and/or supporters of the BuSh regime, "I didn't do anything wrong, so I have nothing to hide". Now the shoe is on the other foot. Members of the BuSh inner circle are accused of dirty dealing by firing US attorneys who prosecuted Republicans or who didn't prosecute enough Democrats or more generally were not seen as doing the administration's bidding. The firings, of course were legal, but the motives may have been unethical (to maybe illegal). Either way, this is a Republican scandal because all of the fired US attorneys are Republicans, who were replaced by Republicans and the replacements were not confirmed by Republicans (or Democrats for that matter). The Senate voted today 94 to 2 to repeal that clause in the newest version of Patriot Act that allows the president to bypass Senate confirmation of US attorneys, something that was slipped in without notice by congress. But getting back to the main focus of this post; the Right's continual refrain of, "I didn't do anything wrong, so I have nothing to hide". Congress wants the people involved in the scandal to testify under oath as to what took place. Some BuSh people have made statements, but the statements keep getting contradicted by the original makers of the statements and by e-mails saved by the Department of Justice and made public since the scandal broke. BuSh has offered closed door interviews of his people with no oaths and no transcript. The congress fell for this when it was Republican controlled and they were investigating 911. The problem, of course, was that after the interviews, one congressman claimed that the person being interviewed said one thing, another congressman said that he said something else and the person claimed he said a third thing, and of course the US public was left in the dark. So I want to know, if, "I didn't do anything wrong, so I have nothing to hide" is good enough when private citizens are being scrutinized, how come it isn't just as good when government officials are being scrutinized? Personally I think that it is not ok for government officials to hide behind secrecy, but private citizens should be protected. And that goes no matter which party is in power. Private citizens should only be investigated when they have given probable cause, but government officials give up that right when they take on the job, because then they are working as public servants of the people.

And my spelling is screwed up too. I started to write "Mother Nature" and attempted to change it to "Mother Nurture" and would up with "Mother Narture".:faint:

You got me!!:faint: I should have checked Snopes, but the pictures were so beautiful, that I posted them without checking. :help: I am a bad boy.:embarassed:

I purposely wrote my last post so as to be so confusing that no one would dare challenge it. Even I don't know what it means.:mad:

Churches can do wonderful things to help people. That is one side of the coin. The other side of the coin is that while they are helping people, they are also enlarging their membership through proselytizing. I read a few years ago that Russia was one of the prime targets of the US Christian movement and was considered both fertile group and contested ground by the Christian denominations. Of course the churches claim they are going there to help the poor, but they are also helping their membership roles, both short term and more importantly long term. When I read the article, the Mormon church was making huge inroads and was the leading denomination in signing up previously God-less Russians. I also welcome MsDad, both as a new member and as one with a different perspective, maybe even a more unique (oxymoron) perspective than most. I am always glad to hear new ideas from people with different backgrounds. I am tired of bashing the same old types of members.:mad: I hope that was taken as the joke it was meant to be.:embarassed: But if not, I will still put my foot into my mouth and state my opinions. One of those opinions is that even when people are doing their best to do good, they can cause harm. And that goes for both sides of the spectrum. Because a group fights for freedom for another particular group, doesn't mean that group will use that freedom wisely. Just because a person gives to charity, doesn't mean that the charity will be beneficial to its intended recipients. And just because someone feels like they have made a difference, doesn't mean that the difference was for the best. Big churches can be overpowering, but small churches which are part of a large denomination can also be dominating, but by doing things in a smaller way, they may appear more benevolent. Of course, it is human nature (the good side) to believe that you vote and do things for your values which are moral. But there is a certain immorality in forcing your moral values on to others even if you believe that it is for their own good. I do not know of any decent person that can totally help themselves from doing it, myself included. There is however, another side to human nature (the dark side) which manifests itself in trying to change other people's values for their own benefit while pretending to be doing it for them and worst of all are the ones who trick people, from the good side, into helping them change values for others while having them believe that they are doing it for people who are the targets of change. These manipulators are the Satans of our society, while often thought of as the most reverent.

Tell that to Elliot Ness.

Mother Nurture:

Mother Nurture:

Mother Nurture:

I will not call you a Nazi, but this is a medical problem that has been made into a police/law enforcement crisis. And the only people that gain anything from the problem are the people who work in the government. There has to be a better way that killing our own children. Who will the community (that needs safety) be when the children of the community are dead? It didn't work with alcohol and it will not work with drugs.

I guess there was a lot more than a touch of sarcasm in mine.:deadhorse:

:boy_hug::mad:

I was 99% sure that you did know how it works, but since we have non-US citizens on this forum and most US citizens, according to a recent survey, do not understand the system, I was just putting everyone on the same page. As the first line of my explanation stated, "Of course the majority has to rule", so yes, if enough people put pressure on their congressmen and state legislatures to do what I said was needed to pass a constitutional amendment, then porn would be outlawed and I would abide by it, of c:rolleyes:urse. But, since porn grosses more money that legit movies, we know the chances of that. We could even pass an amendment to outlaw Islam, but they might have to outlaw freedom of religion to do that. If some people got their way and enough politicians who believe in the literal Bible were elected, I guess we could pass enough amendments and laws to make the USA a theocracy. If we have an attack similar to what has been going on in "24", that might not be far behind. Porn grosses more money that legit movies, so who is watching all the porn? Could it be that most Christians and MANY females are liars?

I love the hypocrisy of people who have the free will to say "no" to over-eating, but can't, so they have their bodies mutilated, saying that people addicted to drugs have the free will not to take the money to have their bodies mutilated.:frusty:

I just used pornography to illustrate the point, first because of the constitutional argument and then also the 60 votes to get out of conference rule in the Senate. Besides with Tina gone all this time, what do you think is left for me to do?

How about if I hold a gun to your head and give you the right to decide if you want to sign this contract?

Where should we start to line up the 10,000,000 people that you would like executed?