Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by UFLAW81, Jul 21, 2014.
Lacuna, I was using extreme irony and thank you for helping me make my point.
Sad story about the kid's injury but .... Were the parents charged with child endangerment for having store gasoline near an open flame? Seems if a parent was going to do that they would buy the proper container ...... No?
I've been using cans for transport and storage of gasoline for over 40 years and never once had a problem. I guess intelligent responsible people do better with gas cans than do ignorant irresponsible mopes who need liberal lawyers to file ridiculous legal actions.
Yeh, I learned about their demise when I tried to buy a gas can, recently, and it cost $20. Nice to know I'm contribution to the net worth of liability insurance co shareholders and egg stealing liberal lawyers.
Why does the consumer not have a responsibility of performing sufficient diligence to purchase the product that is safe for the intended use ..... Inside near a flame? I believe a reasonable, intelligent, and objective person would say the parents were at fault for improperly and dangerously storing the gasoline thereby placing themselves and the family at risk.
Then, when it's pointed out that there was a sign warning of loose carpeting ("caution wet floor"?) at the top of the stair, that the person ignored before using the staircase, what happens? Contributory negligence?
I am pointing out that people were able to quit even with the added chemicals but lawyers were able to play the heart strings of jurors because they saw a big pay day. At least that is what it appears to me.
So some can stop drinking and some can't and alcohol manufacturers are not responsible. The alcohol is the addictive part!
Yet some CAN stop smoking and some can't and cigarette manufacturers are responsible? The chemicals are the addictive part!
Now lying under oath...
Does it have too? I mean the existing warning is pretty damn clear... To me anyway... That smoking can kill you. Do I care to know the specifics of just HOW it can kill me? Nope.
It's more than adequate for a reasonably intelligent, responsible human being. However ... it seems the "John Edward wannabes" in the legal vocation are hell-bent on forcing the manufacturer to utilize warnings that can be understood by the basest of cretins. Interesting that the found a niche income stream from this scheme .... apparently in collusion with their brethren on the bench and the "I want some $US$ too" mopes they channel into the jury box.
Yes ... you being reasonable ... and are not viewing the adequacy of the "warning" as a money making opportunity.
But you should know the specifics that the warning is rendered meaningless by countering it with chemicals that make it very difficult to quit.
Anyway, no point in arguing with people who think perjury is justified in exchange for profits.
Again, what is the baseline for acceptable addiction criteria for a given product? How can you have a rule that prevents/discourages a deviation from the baseline level of addiction without having a defined standard as to what is acceptable as it pertains to the addictive quality of any substance?
Who on here has said perjury was okay?
You really are good about making stuff up...
That said there really is no point in arguing with people who make up accusations about others because they disagree that people should take personal responsibility.
Maybe I missed it but I have yet to see anyone defend perjury by RJR or anyone here...yet we have a poster making that claim. If only it was under oath...
No, not really. All I need to know is that by using this product I could become very sick or even die. That's enough for me to know to stay away.
Who is saying the perjury is justified? I must have missed that one...
USA TODAY Snapshots 7.30.2014.
Fewer Lighting Up.
Drop In U.S. Cigarette Consumption Down 55% From 1981's Peak.
In Billions Of Cigarettes:
1981. 633 Billion.
2010. 309 Billion.
2011. 299 Billion.
2012. 293 Billion.
2013. 285 Billion.
Source: Euromonitor International.
Anne R. Carey and Veronica Bravo, USA TODAY.
But of course, it's still legal.