The "social contract" that doesn't exist

[bripat9643]

Adults- decent ones at least, do look out for each other.

Conservatism has become one big argument for selfishness.

So you let your neighbor drive your car whenever he wants to? Do you pay his medical bills? Do you bring him chicken soup when he has a cold?

. . . . . . . .

I didn't think so.

Apparently you don't lift a finger to help your neighbors. You're all talk. but we already knew that.

Actually, I do all sorts of nice things for my neighbors... Probably to a fault. But that's not the argument we are having here, is it.

Sure ya do, Joe. I'll bet you bake them some toll house cookies every Christmas.

The thing is, you guys on the right don't want to live in Somalia. You want government to take care of your interests and protect your property and rights. You just don't want them looking out for the other guy.

Protecting my property is one of the few things that government is supposed to do. That's pretty much the only reason for having a government. As for "protecting my interests," than could mean virtually anything. "looking out for the other guy" is a liberal euphemism meaning to loot Richard Roe for the benefit of Joe Blow. You're right, I am against robbery, no matter who does it.

If you want to argue with me that the governmetn subsidizes too much bad behavior, I'd probably agree with you. Our priorities on social welfare programs are all wrong.

That's true. Even having welfare programs is all wrong.

But the thing about you guys is you really don't want these people being helped at all. It's the kind of mean-spiritedness that's infected the GOP like a disease.

If you were really interested in helping them, you could simply write them a check. There's absolutely no need for government to get involved. The reality is you don't give a **** about the poor, you just want to loot the rich. That's all there is to liberalism.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Hot is a reasonable expectation.

So hot that it causes third degree burns when it comes into contact with human skin is not.

Wow. Scalding water causes burns to skin. Who knew?

And it is likely the clothing that the woman was wearing that trapped the heat of that liquid, to the point that her skin was burned to the extent that it was. Where was the lawsuit against the clothing manufacturers?

Wow, you guys really invest yourselves in excusing corporations, don't you.

The clothing manufacturers are not the ones who continued to serve coffee at 180-190 degrees (Water boils at 212) after receiving 700 reports of burns.

Clothing traps heat. That is a fact of thermodynamics, not any excuse making for corporations.

That 700 people got burned by coffee that they knew was hot speaks more to the carelessness of them than anyone else.

 

[bripat9643]

Hot is a reasonable expectation.

So hot that it causes third degree burns when it comes into contact with human skin is not.

Wow. Scalding water causes burns to skin. Who knew?

And it is likely the clothing that the woman was wearing that trapped the heat of that liquid, to the point that her skin was burned to the extent that it was. Where was the lawsuit against the clothing manufacturers?

Wow, you guys really invest yourselves in excusing corporations, don't you.

The clothing manufacturers are not the ones who continued to serve coffee at 180-190 degrees (Water boils at 212) after receiving 700 reports of burns.

Cutlery manufacturers continue to sell their wares despite the fact that tens of thousands of people go to the hospital every year with serious cuts.

 

[JoeB131]

Oh, I totally want to loot the rich. They have too much wealth and what they use it for is creating very little good.

But here's the problem with social welfare. It's mostly meant to keep people from rioting.

you see, I'm old enough to remember race riots in the streets.

The thing is, back then, middle class folks like my parents wanted a firewall between the poor and them.

Now the middle class is quickly vanishing, and you guys wonder why the Democrats win elections?

 

[JoeB131]

Wow. Scalding water causes burns to skin. Who knew?

And it is likely the clothing that the woman was wearing that trapped the heat of that liquid, to the point that her skin was burned to the extent that it was. Where was the lawsuit against the clothing manufacturers?

Wow, you guys really invest yourselves in excusing corporations, don't you.

The clothing manufacturers are not the ones who continued to serve coffee at 180-190 degrees (Water boils at 212) after receiving 700 reports of burns.

Clothing traps heat. That is a fact of thermodynamics, not any excuse making for corporations.

That 700 people got burned by coffee that they knew was hot speaks more to the carelessness of them than anyone else.

There's obviously no point in having a logical conversation with you, so I'm not even going to bother.

 

[bripat9643]

Wow, you guys really invest yourselves in excusing corporations, don't you.

The clothing manufacturers are not the ones who continued to serve coffee at 180-190 degrees (Water boils at 212) after receiving 700 reports of burns.

Clothing traps heat. That is a fact of thermodynamics, not any excuse making for corporations.

That 700 people got burned by coffee that they knew was hot speaks more to the carelessness of them than anyone else.

There's obviously no point in having a logical conversation with you, so I'm not even going to bother.

That's true, because that would first require you to have the ability to commit logic. You've never displayed the slightest evidence of that.

 

[JoeB131]

Clothing traps heat. That is a fact of thermodynamics, not any excuse making for corporations.

That 700 people got burned by coffee that they knew was hot speaks more to the carelessness of them than anyone else.

There's obviously no point in having a logical conversation with you, so I'm not even going to bother.

That's true, because that would first require you to have the ability to commit logic. You've never displayed the slightest evidence of that.

Guy, they had 700 reports of skin burns because their coffee was 22 degrees short of boiling.

Logic says that is hot enough to burn skin if it is contact with it for more than two seconds.

McDonalds ignored the warnings until someone made them pay.

 

[bripat9643]

There's obviously no point in having a logical conversation with you, so I'm not even going to bother.

That's true, because that would first require you to have the ability to commit logic. You've never displayed the slightest evidence of that.

Guy, they had 700 reports of skin burns because their coffee was 22 degrees short of boiling.

Logic says that is hot enough to burn skin if it is contact with it for more than two seconds.

McDonalds ignored the warnings until someone made them pay.

Most people are aware of the fact that hot coffee can burn you. I've been aware of it ever since my mother spilled almost an entire pot of it on my legs and caused burns over about one square foot of my skin.

 

[JoeB131]

Not going to talk about family, but that isn't the legal issue here.

McDonalds prepares coffee in a mass production environment to a standard. They were told that standard caused burns when spilled. The refused to change the standard until someone sued them and won.

 

[P@triot]

But...but....coffee was never intended to come in contact with the skin. It's designed to stay in the cup until it's ingested. And the senses can feel the steam, heat, etc. and gauge whether or not it's too hot for ingesting as it is brought close to the mouth.

Thank you for proving once again that you do not believe in personal responsibility.

So tell me, if you buy a hamburger and get E. Coli, do you say, "Well, I should have expected that, because it was made of meat that might be contaminated."

No, guy. We should have a REASONABLE expectation when we buy something, that it is safe.

Once again you make no sense. Burgers were meant to be ingested without ecoli. Coffee was never intended to come into contact with the skin. Would you like to try again? Maybe with an analogy that makes sense this time? Or are you willing to admit that you're simply flat out wrong?

 

[P@triot]

The actual case was a lot more comlicated.

Initially, all the poor woman wanted was for McDonalds to cover her hospital bills.

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In short, the Corporate Assholes and people like Rottweiler who worship at their feet call this a case of "Tort Abuse", but the fact was, McDonald's was negligent.

McDonald's was "negligent" because a woman couldn't hold her own cup and spilled it on herself like a child? Dumbocrat "logic" at it's finest here folks...

No, McDonald's was liable because most sensible people don't expect coffee to be so scalding hot it melts skin.

And McDonald's doesn't expect sensible people to poor their coffee on their skin

 

[kaz]

No, McDonald's was liable because most sensible people don't expect coffee to be so scalding hot it melts skin.

You don't know that boiling water can seriously scald your skin? Seriously? You don't know that?

 

[kaz]

Most of those taxes don't apply to me... or most people.

Incidently, I work in an office, not a factory. Highly certified expert in my field.

Considering you don't pay most taxes, either you're not as expert as you think or what you are an expert in isn't very useful. But we do get to the truth here, once again, liberalism is about screwing "rich" people. You're not going to take a crowbar to your own wallet. That's why liberals have been so upset about Obamacare, OMG, you're paying for it this time...

 

[P@triot]

Poodle, sweetie, I think that individual responsibility is fine and all...

But most sensible people realize that when you buy coffee, it should not be so hot that it causes third degree burns when it comes in contact with skin.

And here was the thing. A jury agreed with her.

Now you can whine about Communism all day, but McDonald's WAS negligent.

A jury also agreed with OJ Simpson. A jury also agreed with John Gotti on a dozen seperate occassions. Weren't you just crying about Al Capone like a little *****? Well, a jury agreed with him on about a dozen different occasions as well.

(Aren't you just the ****'n idiot now?)

Actually, Al Capone was only brought to trial once and found guilty. So that doesn't fly. You need to learn your history, dude.

A jury didn't agree with Simpson, it just rejected what the cops were saying because the cops lied. Fuhrman insisted up and down he didn't use the N-word, and they caught him on tape... using the N-word. Oh, yeah. And the gloves didnt' fit.

Now, getting back to Ms. Leibeck... what exactly is your logic here? That she should have known that the coffee was so hot that it would cause third degree burns if she spilled it on herself? Really?

First of all, dumb-ass here skips right over John Gotti because he knows it proves him wrong. Then, out of pure desperation, he attempts a narrative that OJ Simpson really was innocent and a good guy (even though he knows OJ was guilty as hell, just like the rest of us). Here's the thing - "GUY" - Mark Fuhrman wasn't on trial. OJ Simpson was. So it doesn't matter how many times Furman used the word ****** or how many times he lied about using the word ******. What mattered was that OJ Simpson committed a heinous double-homicide and then walked free because defense attorney's ensure that assholes such as yourself sit on the jury.

But the funniest **** up in your post is your ignorant and inaccurate claim that Al Capone was only on trial once in his life. The guy had about half a dozen trials before he was out of his 20's!

Police took Al Capone's mug shot for the first time in 1929 after he was arrested on a concealed weapons charge in Philadelphia. He had been attending a gathering of organized crime leaders in Atlantic City, New Jersey with his bodyguard, Frank Cline. On the way home, he stopped at the Stanley Movie Theater, where two detectives arrested him. Although Capone had been previously apprehended for a host of crimes, most of which he was never tried or convicted for; he had not been photographed or fingerprinted prior to this May 16, 1929 arrest. For the concealed weapons charge, Capone was given a one-year prison sentence. He served most of the sentence at Eastern State Penitentiary, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, earning two-months off for good behavior.

Famous Law Enforcement Records: The Al Capone Mugshot - Crime.Answers.com

Oops! Looks like somebody needs to check their history.

 

[P@triot]

Actually, government taxes nowhere near 50% for most of us. And I like clean water and police protection and all the things we get from government.

But seriously, guy, you keep reading Fortune and the rest of the Plutocracy Porn and keep wishing some day you'll get there...

because you won't. But you can always dream.

Spoken like a true loser Joe. And you wonder why you work two factory jobs for minimum wage while the federal government takes over 50% of what you earn?

]

Most of those taxes don't apply to me... or most people.

Incidently, I work in an office, not a factory. Highly certified expert in my field.

I mean, I suspect that you are about 25 and haven't moved out of the house yet, otherwise you wouldnt' say such stupid things.

At least Templar is honest enough to admit what he is.

I've been 100% honest too - and that's what pisses you off. The fact that I'm right and you're wrong. I'm not in my 20's and haven't been for a long time. Because I annihilate you with facts backed up by verifiable links (while you have only uninformed opinion), you think you're only chance to win the debate is convince people I'm in my 20's and shouldn't be taken seriously because of that. It's sad and it's weak. I mean, even when I was in my 20's, I was still more mature, informed, and educated than you are today.

And if you consider being certified to turn a wrench on an assembly line as being "highly certified", well, you need more help than I thought.

By the way chief, it's amazing that you would claim that taxes such as property, sales, gas, etc. "don't apply to you". Even if you rent and take public transportation, the costs to cover those taxes are built into your rental cost and your bus fees. You continue to take stupid to a whole new level. And it really is amazing that you thought the only taxes you pay are income...

 

[bripat9643]

Not going to talk about family, but that isn't the legal issue here.

McDonalds prepares coffee in a mass production environment to a standard. They were told that standard caused burns when spilled. The refused to change the standard until someone sued them and won.

Why isn't it a legal issue? The coffee pot my mother used brewed coffee hot enough to cause burns. Why did no one sue the manufacturer of the coffee brewer?

Cutlery manufacturers have been told that sharp knifes can cut human flesh. Yet they continue to sell sharp knives. Why isn't anyone suing the cutlery manufacturers?

 

[bripat9643]

No, McDonald's was liable because most sensible people don't expect coffee to be so scalding hot it melts skin.

You don't know that boiling water can seriously scald your skin? Seriously? You don't know that?

I can believe Joe doesn't know simple facts like that.

 

[bripat9643]

Not going to talk about family, but that isn't the legal issue here.

McDonalds prepares coffee in a mass production environment to a standard. They were told that standard caused burns when spilled. The refused to change the standard until someone sued them and won.

Joe: explain why this pimp shouldn't win his case, or do you think he should?

Pimp sues Nike for $100m for not warning that sneakers can be a weapon | Mail Online


Pimp sues Nike for $100m b/c they didn't warn him re dangers of using shoes to stomp on man's face

A pimp is suing Nike for $100 million -- and says that its Air Jordan shoes failed to include a warning on them that they could be used as dangerous weapons after he used his own pair to beat a man.Sirgiorgiro Clardy, 26, alleges Nike is partially responsible for Clardy's 100-year prison sentence for beating a man in 2012, The Oregonian reports. Clardy, a Portland-based pimp, was wearing a pair of Jordans when he stomped on the face of a man who was attempting to leave a hotel without paying Clardy's prostitute, the paper adds. Clardy was found guilty of second-degree assault by...

 

[JoeB131]

[

Once again you make no sense. Burgers were meant to be ingested without ecoli. Coffee was never intended to come into contact with the skin. Would you like to try again? Maybe with an analogy that makes sense this time? Or are you willing to admit that you're simply flat out wrong?

Guy, are you somekind of ******* retard?

If it's hot enough to burn skin, it's probably too hot to put INSIDE your body.

 

[JoeB131]

McDonald's was "negligent" because a woman couldn't hold her own cup and spilled it on herself like a child? Dumbocrat "logic" at it's finest here folks...

No, McDonald's was liable because most sensible people don't expect coffee to be so scalding hot it melts skin.

And McDonald's doesn't expect sensible people to poor their coffee on their skin

Well, guess what, 2 million dollars later, they fuckers know better, don't they?