You hypothetical situation about the drunk, his Ford, the liquor store and Budweiser offers an opportunity to explore the subject of individual and corporate responsibility. In this case responsibility for the accident depends on the circumstances. Even though I am not a Ford guy, I don't think Ford would be culpable unless it could be proven that the Ford had a mechanical defect that contributed to the accident. If mechanical defectiveness was shown to be present, Ford should only be liable for contributing negiligence.
The drunk would clearly be liable for damages because he made the decision to drive impaired. He was unquestionably the most responsible players in this situation. Anheuser Busch should not be found culpable provided that they had followed federal, state and local regulation for the manufacture, promotion and distribution of it's beer.
The liquor case should only be found liable if the driver in question was not legally old enough to purchase beer or showed up already drunk at the store.
I agree with you that the consumer bears responsibility for the safe use of a manufacturer's product. I heard once that a man sued when he lost his arm while using his lawnmower as a hedge trimmer. Stoo-pid claim.
In Senator Kerry's voting to not allow the gun industry to skirt their responsibilities if they fail to produce a safe product when used in lawfully and sell if to people who are not excluded from buying it by law for reasons of public safety are reasonable positions in my view.
BTW, Kerry did not risk his life in Vietnam. He shot first and killed civilians before knowing they were civilians. He did shoot one frightened enemy teenager running from him in the back. Maybe we should give him credit for risking his life there. During that mission where Kerry apparently "saved" the life of one of the guys on the swift boats, it turned out the guy was on Kerry's boat when a mine went off on one of the other swift boats throwing some of those guys into the water. The men in those swift boats shot at the coast line until they were certain it was clear to rescue these men. Kerry thought he was under fire and turned his swift boat around in a 180, causing one of the guys to flip over off the ship into the water and Kerry fled the scene. When Kerry realized that they were not under fire after all, he turned around and picked up the guy out of the water he originally dumped in.
Man goes into a liquor store, buys a case of Budweiser beer, has a few in the parking lot, and drives off in his F-150 Ford pick-up, consuming beer as he goes. He has to travel a ways to get to his house, so he is pretty well "lubricated" by the time he is half way there.
...
The guilty party is the one who chose to use products in an unlawful manner --- NOT the folks who produced, or sold those products.
...
Accountability is something that all companies should strive for, yet once their "product" (whatever it may be), leaves their factory -- they are blameless for how it is used.
Although I mostly agree with you on that, there are other factors to consider that may make you lean the other way.
What if the guy bought the beer from a drive through liqour store that kept them cold and gave away free cupholders for your car with the beers? It isn't just that they are leaving it up to the consumer to not be stupid, but that they are selling the alcohol specifically to facilitate him getting drunk while driving. The liquor store can't claim to be innocent when they are focused on getting people to drive drunk. They aren't the main one to blame since the guy that bought the beers is the actual criminal, but the family should be able to sue the drive through liquor store for helping the drunk driver commit a crime.
Budweiser would not be liable unless they were putting ads out that show how fun it is to get drunk and drive. Another possible reason would be that they decided to put some hallucinagenic drug in their beer as a secret ingredient, and the driver only expected it to be a beer. Ford would not be liable for the same reasons. They'd either have to advertise to people as Fod being the choice vehicle for driving drunk, or they would have to make their vehicle flawed in such a way that it would make it easier to run over someone trying to cross the street, such as knowingly having faulty brakes and not doing anything to fix it.
With guns, it makes sense for some liability to be there as well, although mainly with the sellers. If someone doesn't do a background check and sells a pistol to a rapist drug dealer, then that gun seller should get in trouble with the law. I don't think that gun manufacturers should be liable for that. However, if they were to advertise in such a way that would entice criminals to use their guns to commit crimes (e.g. if they were to pay to advertise their guns in a movie like "Boys 'n the hood"), or if they designed their guns in such a way that it was either easy to modify to be illegal, or that they were able to be used in a clearly illegal manner of which there was no legal reason for it, or if there was some flaw that would cause the gun to blow up in people's faces when they used it (non-suicidal I mean), then they would be legally liable.
For example, if a company designed a PVC air rifle with plastic CO2 containers, as well as plastic bullets, and came with a shirt that doubled as a holder to conceal it, then named the gun the "Terror Tool 5000, guaranteed to get past all metal detectors" I think that the people who designed it should be held liable if a terrorist were to use their weapons.
With that being said, companies should be held accountable for what the produce, but within reason. I don't agree with those that sue gun manufacturers because someone used them to shoot someone else. The seller may be somewhat liable, but may not if the seller adhered to the law. I don't think that the ridiculous lawsuits should be used to define the validity of all of the cases. Sometimes there is a good reason for them.
If gun manufacturers can be held liable for any and all instances that their product was used wrongfully, then it follows in my hypothetical situation that :
Ford is guilty of making a truck that operates correctly, with a drunk behind the wheel;
Budweiser is equally guilty of making a product that impairs a person;
And certainly the liquor store is guilty for ringing up the sale, that caused the man to get into this situation in the first place. -->
Where is the accountability????? It surely shouldn't be dumped into the laps of those who made the products -- regardless of what they were -- it should rightfully be thrown in the face of the person who used those products. Not the folks who made them.
quote: I don't agree with those that sue gun manufacturers because someone used them to shoot someone else
Mr P-Mosh --- Thank you for that, and as per your "drive-though sales" -- I would say that (if it is legal in your area for that to happen) the blame (if something detrimental happens), should still be addressed to the miscreant, and not the vendor.
If the vendor is following the law, well --------------. Hmmmm.
You have the documentation, sources, and *details* of what he did in Paris with the enemy? How did he 'collaberate' with the enemy? All I hear so far here are accusations with no exhibits A, B, or C.
Oh, and how is it that what Kerry supposedly did that got you nearly killed? You mean it wasn't the Vietcong or North Vietnamese that were shooting at you? -->
When Kerry spoke out, what was it that he was specifically speaking out against? It wasn't the war itself, but the American troops themselves that he spoke out against? Again, exhibits A, B, and C please.
And please, let it not be some accusations trumped up or 'evidence' rounded up from questionable sources who were 'sure about what Kerry did' even if they weren't there to verify it by those who were ....ed off because he threw his medals away or spoke out against the war. (Besides, is Bush lying then because he said that Kerry served honorably in Vietnam?)
Ok, so evidently Kerry's record in Vietnam isn't as pretty or as wonderful as he would like to make it out to be, but this is the charge of being a traitor we're talking about here, and neither indignant feelings, nor unsubstantiated charges just isn't good enough to try the man for treason.
Let's do better than Dan Rather or the Swiftboat Veterans for Propagand--err, I mean Truth at this, ok?
P.S., you know what I would like to see happen with all these accusations of 'treason', 'traitor' and the like thrown around like water? Bring them up before a special federal grande jury, both the accusers and the accused. If the accused is proven guily beyond any doubt, he loses ALL chance of running for office, and yes, to be thrown in prison.
BUT, if the accuser loses (ie., not prove their case according to the standard the law requires), then they should lose their right to vote from thenceforth forward, or some other serious consequence. And believe you me, a LOT of these charges would drop like flies, because you know and I know that a good portion of these charges of treason, particularly made during an election year, ain't worth a rat's ***. Particularly if they never wound up in court to begin with, hmmm?
Already they found so many holes in the Swiftboat Veteran's for Propaganda--err Truth, that it isn't funny. Almost as funny as Dan 'I Hate Bush' Rather's F*** Up of his career.
you know a lot of these politicians promise crap and then the bill for it is prohibitive...then it gets blamed on the members of congress (cop-out) when in fact it should have never been promised in the first place....under the definition of a promise that it...
PS: the scuttlebutt in the Democrat Camp in NM is that Richardson will be running with Hillary next time round...course thats if K+E don't win...if they do, guess they gotta wait 8 years....either way.. its the local heresay
I voted for Perot years ago...and would do it again, don't think Nader's a good option either way...he's a better consumer advocate.
"So Kerry had alot of spirits helping him talk. BIG DEAL
Remember the FATHER OF LIES. "
What the h*ll does this mean?????
Sorry Wacky you did not understand my meaning. The Father of lies, the devil is in control of his spirits (in this case lying spirits) which he sends to control people who are open to the spirits. Since JK continually lies then lies again to cover the lies, it is a sure sign that he has some help. I hope this clarifies my meaning.
I'm with Radar on this... and I have no opinion on the debates because I didn't watch them, nor will I... these things are nothing more than extended political campaign ads... and I get enough of that foisted upon me as it is... thank God for TIVO!
The differences between John Kerry and George Bush are distinctive enough to make a clear decision. Kerry represents "business as usual"...a liberal senator form Mass. who plays ball with rich and powerful lobbyists like most politicians do. On the other hand, Bush represents a radical right wing agenda, which includes, aggressive "empire building" and repression of freedoms here in America.
Thankfully Kerry won the debate and has almost caught up to the oil pimp in the polls.
Eagle, I thank John Kerry for his testimony to congress. He spoke for me then on VietNam and he speaks for me now on Iraq. I will sort out the other issues after we are rid of the greatest divider of all, George W. Bush.
oh hell, never mind. I am too ....ed off right now. I am American, I am patriotic, I have served my country,
I AM VOTING FOR KERRY, so get over it.
I don't think any TRUE American should vote for Bush, but I will fight to the death for your right to do it. I think that better honors the uniform I grew up with.
~HAPe4me
I no more believe the propoganda about treason than I believe Bush's reasons (how many has he flip-flopped with now?) for the action in Iraq. The action in Vietnam was based on antiquated scenarios based in post World War II philosophy concerning Europe. I believe it was wrong. At the time, we were told it was because of the dominoe theory. If one country fell to communism, pretty soon it would be at our shores.
I thank you for your service, I am sure you did so honorably. It was no game to you and i know that. What I think you do not know is that it was no game for us either. I am ....ed off that we lost over 45000 of our finest men in that war, and we had no business being there. We have no business being in Iraq either, but now that we are there......
"Sorry Wacky you did not understand my meaning. The Father of lies, the devil is in control of his spirits (in this case lying spirits) which he sends to control people who are open to the spirits. Since JK continually lies then lies again to cover the lies, it is a sure sign that he has some help. I hope this clarifies my meaning."
Surely you jest....
You actually still think this way?
You keep eatin' those cookies girl in la la land. ;)-->
The guy (Kerry) is a traitor. He gave as much as he could to the enemy in Paris in 1971 as he could. Because he didn't know "top" secrets (no one at that time would trust him to any, I am sure), that none-the-less does not diminish his traitor status.
Please provide details of when, in Kerry's lifetime, we were at war with France.
quote:Originally posted by Eagle:
Because of his collaberation with the enemy after returning from Vietnam, no one, and I mean, no American, should be voting for this guy.
So you are claiming, based on propaganda, that Kerry is guilty of doing 30 years ago what Bush did while president. There are people in the Bush administration that are guilty of treason but will never be tried. They overthrew the U.S. government when the Supreme Court appointed Bush as president when there was no clear winner in 2000. They were in bed with the bin Ladens and the Saudis. They made a war with Iraq which has placed our nation and our citizens in greater danger than before the war. They have sold our freedom to big businesses and swindled our tax dollars in an obvious con. At the very least, they are guilty for allowing 9/11 to happen when it was obvious to anyone who had access to their level of data that it was going to happen.
quote:Originally posted by Eagle:
We have to sink very, very low to nominate a guy like this for a major party. Kerry is one sick power-hungry individual, deserves nothing except prison, and if he is elected somehow, the joint chiefs of staff should walk out with the entire military and not move a muscle until he resigns. Ignore every order as if he did not exist. No military man should take any orders from a known criminal and traitor.
You are confused. Bush is the one you are talking about, except he has actually aided those that have attacked us and killed our civilians.
quote:Originally posted by Eagle:
Why do I feel this way? Being one of the guys almost killed by the enemy because of he and Jane Fonda.
Did John Kerry or Jane Fonda point a gun at you?
quote:Originally posted by Eagle:
Frankly, I think his candidacy should have been brought up for a vote by Vietnam Veterans. He'd have a few votes, but would be overwhelming defeated and remembered as the guy who aided the enemy, betrayed his fellow veterans, and spoke of the dead in Vietnam with dishonor.
So you hate our country and would prefer to restrict voting to a small number of people who were forced to go to a war that was wrong. It would be even worse if you stole the right to vote from everyone but those who volunteered to go to war. Sorry Eagle, but this is America, not Saudi Arabia. We have something called freedom here, whether you like it or not.
quote:Originally posted by Eagle:
Would I serve in the armed forces under this guy? Not even close, not even if drafted again. I would sooner help my country by joining an independent force to defend America outside its borders, with no input from him if he was commander-in-chief.
So you would gladly act as a traitor just because your guy didn't win? I'm not happy with Bush as president, and think he's part of a group of evil people who are destroying the nation. However, I'm not going to become a traitor to my own nation just because some of my fellow citizens are stupid enough to support the guy.
It's extremely hypocritical of you to defame Kerry by calling him a traitor, then you talk about how you would like to be a traitor yourself.
quote:Originally posted by Eagle:
Clinton was a poor enough military leader. Kerry is worse. This time, people should NOT be voting party, but looking right at Kerry and what he did. Thirty, fifty, even one hundred years ago would still matter if he was a traitor to the United States of America.
You have no proof that Kerry was a traitor, and even if he was, we get to pick between a person who was a traitor over 30 years ago when he was young and shell shocked, or a traitor three years ago who was simply stupid and greedy.
quote:Originally posted by Eagle:
The guy is a traitor, a war criminal, and a spoiled brat from my own district in Massachusetts.
Well, at least we can take comfort in knowing that your uninformed vote won't count for anything.
Yes, both the collaberations with the North Vietnamese of John Kerry in Paris in 1971 and his statements against his fellow vets are documented. The attorney general under Nixon should have had both Jane Fonda and John Kerry picked up. Don't water down treason. Kerry was still a Naval Reserve officer when he did this as well. He had no right to do it and could have been brought up by charges by the military. They didn't do that and this is the result.
The guy expects us to believe him now as commander in chief. What a crock.
Hape4me:
The same with you. For Mister P-Mosh, Hape4me, and Garth, John Kerry as sure as anything picked up a gun and shot it right at us in Vietnam when he continuously protested our presence their giving so much hope and aid to the enemy that the NVA saw this division and launched a major offensive called the Easter offensive in 1972 which killed my friends. The bullets flying around me might as well have been shot personally by John Kerry and Jane Fonda. At least Fonda regrets what she did, though I don't believe that exonerates her now either.
You vote for Kerry, fine. He's not my president. I'll just look at the United States as a country with a House and a Senate with an out-of-control judiciary, and no sitting president and watch while Kerry screws up like he always does.
And whoever said it, don't ever say a vote won't count for anything. We fought too hard to give people that right.
Concerning George Bush, charges of "treason" against him are ludicrous. Just another charge from those who grew up in the 60's who apparently can't leave the 60's or those raised by those who still can't get off the anti-war trip. To them, every war America fights is evil, even after 9/11. In Vietnam the argument was that Vietnam was too far away, not a threat. Today, apparently Manhatten isn't close enough either. The terrorist financial network flowed through Iraq. The link between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein was revealed in 1999 on ABC news, though they won't replay that now, because Clinton was president then.
George Bush does what every Democrat wanted when Clinton was president, to take out Saddam Hussein, and Democrats, true to their sick nature, turn the spin on it, care nothing for the safety of people in this country, and use it as a political tool against Bush.
And yes, Bush should use his defense of the country after 9/11 as a campaign issue. He is forced to anyway. He's the one who fought back.
Kerry is a wimp, has no backbone, his wife is a public disgrace, and the rest of the Democrats falling behind him knowing what they know have lowered themselves. Only Zel Miller had the guts to reveal what was going on.
The Democrats need more Zel Millers, and less John Kerrys and Bill Clintons.
Several text books (go to McGraw-Hill, student web site to confirm) for college level economics point out that Bush’s tax break was exactly the right thing to do to save the economy, and that it was planned before he won the election.
I haven't read a college text book in a long time. But I do read about what current economists say and do. Many do not agree. They think a tax cut aimed at the most wealthy was not the best way to jump start the economy. A cut more focused on the middle class, and working folk would have done a lot more.
And the economy has not done that well. Yes it has shown some signs of life recently - but only anemic ones. Bush remains the 1st president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a net loss in jobs. It has turned around in recent months, but not by much.
In addition, the cuts in federal support to states have increased state taxes, state fees and cut state benefits for those same middle class and working folks.
Not to mention the fact that the tax cut was "sold" in misleading terms about how much it would really benefit the "average" tax payer. When the benefits were so heavily skewed toward the richest 2%. It's a bit like having Bill Gates walk into a monistary and say that the avereage net worth of people in the room is $10 Million. Not a lie, but misleading all the same.
No I do not think Bush has a good record on how he handled the economy. I agree that the recession wasn't his fault, and that he had to manage the economic hit of 9/11 which he didn't manage to prevent (but that's another thread).
But I think he mis-managed the economy and I do think the size of the deficit is his fault. We will be paying that back for years - not only in higher taxes or lower government services, but in higher interest rates as soon as the election is over.
Of course higher interest rates are great for folks in the top 2% of wealth - they are the ones who lend the money. But for most Americans and for businesses who borrow that's not a good thing.
You are like the prosecuting attorney who says to the judge during a trial, "Of course we have evidence that will convict this man, your honor!" and then provides arguments as to why the accused is guilty, but provides not one shred of actual evidence.
... Oh wait. Are you referring to that he protested and testified against the war in Paris? Is this your 'documented evidence'? "... when he continuously protested our presence their giving so much hope and aid to the enemy that the NVA saw this division and launched a major offensive called the Easter offensive in 1972 which killed my friends." Is that it? Oh wow! So the NVA heard about John Kerry testifying in Paris, and said "Hot Damn! Here is our chance to drive out the imperialist war pigs! Lets attack NOW! Thank you comrade Kerry!!" For the love of Pete, guy. Many people both well known and common were demonstrating against that war, from Eugene McCarthy and other senators back in '67 all the way forward. And the NVA didn't need our divisions to attack. Hell, what about the Tet Offensive back in '68? Or back in the mid 60's when Johnson decided to go full bore against North Vietnam and even bring B-52s into the picture. Didn't squelch them then either. Not for very long anyway.
It was an unjust and poorly fought war. True the vast majority of troops over there (including yourself I wager) weren't the bad guys, just the higher ups (including Lyndon Johnson) and the troops who did crap like My Lai were the ones who dirtied up America's reputation, and I imagine that Kerry did some crap himself in the shooting of those civilians. But treason isn't part of what he was guilty of, at least not in protesting that war.
Hell chief, if you are going to have the mitigated gaul at accusing those who protested/demonstrated against the war or who were for that protesting, then at least have the honest courage at accusing those of us here on Greasespot of treason too. Be consistant and honest in your accusations, pal!
Better yet, get off this sick kick of thinking that those who love this country are only those who are blindly loyal and in agreement with every war it fights.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt
Think about the man who made that statement. A very patriotic one. Think about that statement. And he made that statement during World War I from what I hear. ... According to your belief, why shouldn't that be rendered 'treason' as well, hmmmm?
quote:They were in bed with the bin Ladens and the Saudis. ..... At the very least, they are guilty for allowing 9/11 to happen when it was obvious to anyone who had access to their level of data that it was going to happen.
Ahh, altho' Bush and his family has quite a bit of questionable connections with some rich Saudis, I think you're going to have to do just as much to prove any connection with 9-11 and other related activities as well, dude. Those are pretty serious charges there, even the one about 'letting 9-11 happen'. Again, where is exhibit A, B, and C please? And no, Micheal Moore hasn't provided proof either, just some very good questions to ask in his flick, and that is as far as it goes.
Garth, you are completely misunderstanding what Eagle is calling treason. Eagle didn't say that protesting the war amounted to treason. He said that Kerry meeting with the enemy delegation in Paris (for P-Mosh's benefit, that's not the French) was treason. I'm not making that charge, but I do think it was highly improper, and probably criminal, for an officer in the Naval Reserves to independently meet with diplomats representing an enemy, or to meet with representatives of any other country regarding U.S. policy, whether we are at war with them or not. From my limited knowledge, it seems like a pretty clear violation of the UCMJ, and depending on what went on in the meeting(s?) it could be treason. Again, I am not making that charge. In addition, Eagle seems to be saying that some other things Kerry did (not simple protesting) were acts of a traitor, even if they didn't legally constitute treason.
Personally, I give Kerry a pass on that, except as the thinking behind it fits with his words and actions while in the Senate, which I think gives ample reason to not even consider voting for him. I'm not that worried about his domestic agenda, should he become President, but I'm very concerned about his defense and foreign policy agenda. I could be quite content with a Lieberman or a Gephardt as President, but not Kerry.
I agree with Eagle--you (I ) can usually tell a lot about a man by the woman he sleeps with (or doesn't).
I love Laura Bush, and truth be told, probably voted for Geo. because of her. She speaks straight from the heart and isn't from a rich and privileged background and I see no deceit in her. If she's still with Geo. after all he's put her through, I'm satisfied he is now a decent human being or she wouldn't still be with him.
Unlike some first ladies, she doesn't strike me as someone who woke up one day and said, "Hum, I'd like to become First Lady (and President) and I'll do anything to get there."
Also, Geo. had the balls to fight back (thanks again Eagle). He is our enemy's worst nightmare, in my opinion, and Kerry, all they could hope for.
As far as Jane Fonda goes, she seems genuinely sorry for her actions and I see no reason not to forgive her for everything, but it was a little disappointing that her story on Biography Channel last year described her relationship with Christ in less than one sentence as having "explored Christianity" in a series of other things she did while living in Atlanta.
Concerning George Bush, charges of "treason" against him are ludicrous. Just another charge from those who grew up in the 60's who apparently can't leave the 60's or those raised by those who still can't get off the anti-war trip. To them, every war America fights is evil, even after 9/11. .
those charges of Bush's treason, are just as valid as the ones you pose at John Kerry- that is neither is valid.
CAN"T GET OUT OF THE 60s???? You are the one who is basing his vote, and admits that you will not serve or honor a duly elected president, based on your perception of 32 years ago. IMO it is sad that anyone would so dishonor the uniform we formerly wore based on false analysis of the effect of one person's actions so long ago.
I proudly served, I proudly organized protests, and I did it all BECAUSE of the love for my country. It was not a game for us here anymore than for you who were over there. Some of us were even shot at on our own campuses. To allude it is un-American to vote for John Kerry is baffling to me, and casts aspersions even more on the motives of those who would further sell out our future by giving Bush 4 more years.
This discussion should be on another thread and in another forum, so I will not reply again to this derail, on this thread. If'n you want, start another thread. I apologize to the OPEN forum for allowing myself to get drawn in to this side-bar. It raised my hackles. Frankly I was content to leave VietNam out of the quagmire of this election, but it raised its ugly head once again. Kinda like TWI huh?
to get back to the opinions about the debate,Charlie Daniels (on his site), had the best suggestion I have heard yet.
In his "soapbox" section, he said;
quote: In the first place I think that the debates use the wrong format. I think they should be two hours long and that the first hour should be devoted to ordinary American citizens who can ask any question they want to of either candidate. Of course there would have to be restrictions on how long a candidate could take to answer the question.
I think the second hour should be devoted to the candidates asking each other questions, no holds barred, no subject taboo. And again the time restrictions would have to apply.
Just think about it. You give one guy a minute to ask a question and the other five minutes to answer it and if things get a little bit out of hand and tempers flair all the better. Then we’d get a chance to see how they can handle stress.
The present format is a little panty waisted to say the least and is not a true debate. It’s more of an exam
Garth, you have no idea what you are talking about or are dealing with. I suppose you could put a man and a woman in a locked room alone, the man has a gun and gloves, and shoots the woman, and police break in and see him standing over her, gun still in hand, gun smoking, but he says he didn't do it. And because no one 'saw him shoot her', I suppose there is no 'proof'. That is your approach to dealing with issues like this. But, the real problem is, you could be given volumes of encyclopedia of facts against John Kerry and would still support him, as underhanded, pompous, and evil that he really is.
Mister P-Mosh, because I said that John Kerry met the North Vietnamese in Paris in 1971 does not at all infer that we were at war with France. We probably should be, but I was talking about the North Vietnamese delegation and I had hoped you understood that.
Hape4me, you organized protests in the 60s and were proud of it? And you loved your country? My opinion is that I doubt that. You helped people like Kerry and American soldiers died because the war went on too long due to the North Vietnamese counting on the protestors. The fruit of the protests?
Kent State 1970
Protestors attacked and threw rocks and bottles at the National Guard, causing a backlash. I wonder who organized that disaster. Hopefully, not you.
Laos, Cambodia, and South Vietnam, millions killed after the North took the South in 1975.
If you leave the soldiers to do their job, they do it remarkably well. The actual record on the battlefield in Nam was...even on their home turf, we kicked their ***. The North Vietnamese were forced by Nixon to sign the 1973 agreement to cease hostilities. The French only left. Case in point, the North Vietnamese surrendered and then changed their minds after Nixon withdrew the troops. They couldn't beat us there, so they looked at the political climate of the United States and knew once Nixon brought the troops home that the people, through the loud protesting, wouldn't go back. So they waited until we were gone, then attacked the South.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
7
6
9
15
Popular Days
Oct 3
43
Oct 1
24
Oct 4
13
Oct 2
13
Top Posters In This Topic
Tom 7 posts
waterbuffalo 6 posts
Mister P-Mosh 9 posts
dmiller 15 posts
Popular Days
Oct 3 2004
43 posts
Oct 1 2004
24 posts
Oct 4 2004
13 posts
Oct 2 2004
13 posts
oenophile
dmiller,
You hypothetical situation about the drunk, his Ford, the liquor store and Budweiser offers an opportunity to explore the subject of individual and corporate responsibility. In this case responsibility for the accident depends on the circumstances. Even though I am not a Ford guy, I don't think Ford would be culpable unless it could be proven that the Ford had a mechanical defect that contributed to the accident. If mechanical defectiveness was shown to be present, Ford should only be liable for contributing negiligence.
The drunk would clearly be liable for damages because he made the decision to drive impaired. He was unquestionably the most responsible players in this situation. Anheuser Busch should not be found culpable provided that they had followed federal, state and local regulation for the manufacture, promotion and distribution of it's beer.
The liquor case should only be found liable if the driver in question was not legally old enough to purchase beer or showed up already drunk at the store.
I agree with you that the consumer bears responsibility for the safe use of a manufacturer's product. I heard once that a man sued when he lost his arm while using his lawnmower as a hedge trimmer. Stoo-pid claim.
In Senator Kerry's voting to not allow the gun industry to skirt their responsibilities if they fail to produce a safe product when used in lawfully and sell if to people who are not excluded from buying it by law for reasons of public safety are reasonable positions in my view.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eagle
BTW, Kerry did not risk his life in Vietnam. He shot first and killed civilians before knowing they were civilians. He did shoot one frightened enemy teenager running from him in the back. Maybe we should give him credit for risking his life there. During that mission where Kerry apparently "saved" the life of one of the guys on the swift boats, it turned out the guy was on Kerry's boat when a mine went off on one of the other swift boats throwing some of those guys into the water. The men in those swift boats shot at the coast line until they were certain it was clear to rescue these men. Kerry thought he was under fire and turned his swift boat around in a 180, causing one of the guys to flip over off the ship into the water and Kerry fled the scene. When Kerry realized that they were not under fire after all, he turned around and picked up the guy out of the water he originally dumped in.
That was the guy he "saved".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
Although I mostly agree with you on that, there are other factors to consider that may make you lean the other way.
What if the guy bought the beer from a drive through liqour store that kept them cold and gave away free cupholders for your car with the beers? It isn't just that they are leaving it up to the consumer to not be stupid, but that they are selling the alcohol specifically to facilitate him getting drunk while driving. The liquor store can't claim to be innocent when they are focused on getting people to drive drunk. They aren't the main one to blame since the guy that bought the beers is the actual criminal, but the family should be able to sue the drive through liquor store for helping the drunk driver commit a crime.
Budweiser would not be liable unless they were putting ads out that show how fun it is to get drunk and drive. Another possible reason would be that they decided to put some hallucinagenic drug in their beer as a secret ingredient, and the driver only expected it to be a beer. Ford would not be liable for the same reasons. They'd either have to advertise to people as Fod being the choice vehicle for driving drunk, or they would have to make their vehicle flawed in such a way that it would make it easier to run over someone trying to cross the street, such as knowingly having faulty brakes and not doing anything to fix it.
With guns, it makes sense for some liability to be there as well, although mainly with the sellers. If someone doesn't do a background check and sells a pistol to a rapist drug dealer, then that gun seller should get in trouble with the law. I don't think that gun manufacturers should be liable for that. However, if they were to advertise in such a way that would entice criminals to use their guns to commit crimes (e.g. if they were to pay to advertise their guns in a movie like "Boys 'n the hood"), or if they designed their guns in such a way that it was either easy to modify to be illegal, or that they were able to be used in a clearly illegal manner of which there was no legal reason for it, or if there was some flaw that would cause the gun to blow up in people's faces when they used it (non-suicidal I mean), then they would be legally liable.
For example, if a company designed a PVC air rifle with plastic CO2 containers, as well as plastic bullets, and came with a shirt that doubled as a holder to conceal it, then named the gun the "Terror Tool 5000, guaranteed to get past all metal detectors" I think that the people who designed it should be held liable if a terrorist were to use their weapons.
With that being said, companies should be held accountable for what the produce, but within reason. I don't agree with those that sue gun manufacturers because someone used them to shoot someone else. The seller may be somewhat liable, but may not if the seller adhered to the law. I don't think that the ridiculous lawsuits should be used to define the validity of all of the cases. Sometimes there is a good reason for them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
If gun manufacturers can be held liable for any and all instances that their product was used wrongfully, then it follows in my hypothetical situation that :
Ford is guilty of making a truck that operates correctly, with a drunk behind the wheel;
Budweiser is equally guilty of making a product that impairs a person;
And certainly the liquor store is guilty for ringing up the sale, that caused the man to get into this situation in the first place.
-->
Where is the accountability????? It surely shouldn't be dumped into the laps of those who made the products -- regardless of what they were -- it should rightfully be thrown in the face of the person who used those products. Not the folks who made them.
Mr P-Mosh --- Thank you for that, and as per your "drive-though sales" -- I would say that (if it is legal in your area for that to happen) the blame (if something detrimental happens), should still be addressed to the miscreant, and not the vendor.
If the vendor is following the law, well --------------. Hmmmm.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Well, Bush said he respected Kerry for his many years of service in the Senate
:)-->
Thomas Heller you seemed to have forgotten the rest of the Quote so I added it for you. I'm sure it was an oversight......
Well, Bush said he respected Kerry for his many years of service in the Senate. But I don't respect his record.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Eagle,
You have the documentation, sources, and *details* of what he did in Paris with the enemy? How did he 'collaberate' with the enemy? All I hear so far here are accusations with no exhibits A, B, or C.
Oh, and how is it that what Kerry supposedly did that got you nearly killed? You mean it wasn't the Vietcong or North Vietnamese that were shooting at you?
-->
When Kerry spoke out, what was it that he was specifically speaking out against? It wasn't the war itself, but the American troops themselves that he spoke out against? Again, exhibits A, B, and C please.
And please, let it not be some accusations trumped up or 'evidence' rounded up from questionable sources who were 'sure about what Kerry did' even if they weren't there to verify it by those who were ....ed off because he threw his medals away or spoke out against the war. (Besides, is Bush lying then because he said that Kerry served honorably in Vietnam?)
Ok, so evidently Kerry's record in Vietnam isn't as pretty or as wonderful as he would like to make it out to be, but this is the charge of being a traitor we're talking about here, and neither indignant feelings, nor unsubstantiated charges just isn't good enough to try the man for treason.
Let's do better than Dan Rather or the Swiftboat Veterans for Propagand--err, I mean Truth at this, ok?
P.S., you know what I would like to see happen with all these accusations of 'treason', 'traitor' and the like thrown around like water? Bring them up before a special federal grande jury, both the accusers and the accused. If the accused is proven guily beyond any doubt, he loses ALL chance of running for office, and yes, to be thrown in prison.
BUT, if the accuser loses (ie., not prove their case according to the standard the law requires), then they should lose their right to vote from thenceforth forward, or some other serious consequence. And believe you me, a LOT of these charges would drop like flies, because you know and I know that a good portion of these charges of treason, particularly made during an election year, ain't worth a rat's ***. Particularly if they never wound up in court to begin with, hmmm?
Already they found so many holes in the Swiftboat Veteran's for Propaganda--err Truth, that it isn't funny. Almost as funny as Dan 'I Hate Bush' Rather's F*** Up of his career.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Who are "they", and is there a site I can look at that enumerates even some of these "holes"?
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DaddyHoundog
you know a lot of these politicians promise crap and then the bill for it is prohibitive...then it gets blamed on the members of congress (cop-out) when in fact it should have never been promised in the first place....under the definition of a promise that it...
PS: the scuttlebutt in the Democrat Camp in NM is that Richardson will be running with Hillary next time round...course thats if K+E don't win...if they do, guess they gotta wait 8 years....either way.. its the local heresay
I voted for Perot years ago...and would do it again, don't think Nader's a good option either way...he's a better consumer advocate.
Washingtonweather
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LornaDoone
Sorry Wacky you did not understand my meaning. The Father of lies, the devil is in control of his spirits (in this case lying spirits) which he sends to control people who are open to the spirits. Since JK continually lies then lies again to cover the lies, it is a sure sign that he has some help. I hope this clarifies my meaning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
I'm with Radar on this... and I have no opinion on the debates because I didn't watch them, nor will I... these things are nothing more than extended political campaign ads... and I get enough of that foisted upon me as it is... thank God for TIVO!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
The differences between John Kerry and George Bush are distinctive enough to make a clear decision. Kerry represents "business as usual"...a liberal senator form Mass. who plays ball with rich and powerful lobbyists like most politicians do. On the other hand, Bush represents a radical right wing agenda, which includes, aggressive "empire building" and repression of freedoms here in America.
Thankfully Kerry won the debate and has almost caught up to the oil pimp in the polls.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
oh for pistol pete's sake!
Eagle, I thank John Kerry for his testimony to congress. He spoke for me then on VietNam and he speaks for me now on Iraq. I will sort out the other issues after we are rid of the greatest divider of all, George W. Bush.
oh hell, never mind. I am too ....ed off right now. I am American, I am patriotic, I have served my country,
I AM VOTING FOR KERRY, so get over it.
I don't think any TRUE American should vote for Bush, but I will fight to the death for your right to do it. I think that better honors the uniform I grew up with.
~HAPe4me
I no more believe the propoganda about treason than I believe Bush's reasons (how many has he flip-flopped with now?) for the action in Iraq. The action in Vietnam was based on antiquated scenarios based in post World War II philosophy concerning Europe. I believe it was wrong. At the time, we were told it was because of the dominoe theory. If one country fell to communism, pretty soon it would be at our shores.
I thank you for your service, I am sure you did so honorably. It was no game to you and i know that. What I think you do not know is that it was no game for us either. I am ....ed off that we lost over 45000 of our finest men in that war, and we had no business being there. We have no business being in Iraq either, but now that we are there......
~HAPe4me
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
And this is better than "empire building"?
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wacky Funster
"Sorry Wacky you did not understand my meaning. The Father of lies, the devil is in control of his spirits (in this case lying spirits) which he sends to control people who are open to the spirits. Since JK continually lies then lies again to cover the lies, it is a sure sign that he has some help. I hope this clarifies my meaning."
Surely you jest....
You actually still think this way?
You keep eatin' those cookies girl in la la land.
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
Please provide details of when, in Kerry's lifetime, we were at war with France.
So you are claiming, based on propaganda, that Kerry is guilty of doing 30 years ago what Bush did while president. There are people in the Bush administration that are guilty of treason but will never be tried. They overthrew the U.S. government when the Supreme Court appointed Bush as president when there was no clear winner in 2000. They were in bed with the bin Ladens and the Saudis. They made a war with Iraq which has placed our nation and our citizens in greater danger than before the war. They have sold our freedom to big businesses and swindled our tax dollars in an obvious con. At the very least, they are guilty for allowing 9/11 to happen when it was obvious to anyone who had access to their level of data that it was going to happen.
You are confused. Bush is the one you are talking about, except he has actually aided those that have attacked us and killed our civilians.
Did John Kerry or Jane Fonda point a gun at you?
So you hate our country and would prefer to restrict voting to a small number of people who were forced to go to a war that was wrong. It would be even worse if you stole the right to vote from everyone but those who volunteered to go to war. Sorry Eagle, but this is America, not Saudi Arabia. We have something called freedom here, whether you like it or not.
So you would gladly act as a traitor just because your guy didn't win? I'm not happy with Bush as president, and think he's part of a group of evil people who are destroying the nation. However, I'm not going to become a traitor to my own nation just because some of my fellow citizens are stupid enough to support the guy.
It's extremely hypocritical of you to defame Kerry by calling him a traitor, then you talk about how you would like to be a traitor yourself.
You have no proof that Kerry was a traitor, and even if he was, we get to pick between a person who was a traitor over 30 years ago when he was young and shell shocked, or a traitor three years ago who was simply stupid and greedy.
Well, at least we can take comfort in knowing that your uninformed vote won't count for anything.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eagle
Garth,
Yes, both the collaberations with the North Vietnamese of John Kerry in Paris in 1971 and his statements against his fellow vets are documented. The attorney general under Nixon should have had both Jane Fonda and John Kerry picked up. Don't water down treason. Kerry was still a Naval Reserve officer when he did this as well. He had no right to do it and could have been brought up by charges by the military. They didn't do that and this is the result.
The guy expects us to believe him now as commander in chief. What a crock.
Hape4me:
The same with you. For Mister P-Mosh, Hape4me, and Garth, John Kerry as sure as anything picked up a gun and shot it right at us in Vietnam when he continuously protested our presence their giving so much hope and aid to the enemy that the NVA saw this division and launched a major offensive called the Easter offensive in 1972 which killed my friends. The bullets flying around me might as well have been shot personally by John Kerry and Jane Fonda. At least Fonda regrets what she did, though I don't believe that exonerates her now either.
You vote for Kerry, fine. He's not my president. I'll just look at the United States as a country with a House and a Senate with an out-of-control judiciary, and no sitting president and watch while Kerry screws up like he always does.
And whoever said it, don't ever say a vote won't count for anything. We fought too hard to give people that right.
Concerning George Bush, charges of "treason" against him are ludicrous. Just another charge from those who grew up in the 60's who apparently can't leave the 60's or those raised by those who still can't get off the anti-war trip. To them, every war America fights is evil, even after 9/11. In Vietnam the argument was that Vietnam was too far away, not a threat. Today, apparently Manhatten isn't close enough either. The terrorist financial network flowed through Iraq. The link between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein was revealed in 1999 on ABC news, though they won't replay that now, because Clinton was president then.
George Bush does what every Democrat wanted when Clinton was president, to take out Saddam Hussein, and Democrats, true to their sick nature, turn the spin on it, care nothing for the safety of people in this country, and use it as a political tool against Bush.
And yes, Bush should use his defense of the country after 9/11 as a campaign issue. He is forced to anyway. He's the one who fought back.
Kerry is a wimp, has no backbone, his wife is a public disgrace, and the rest of the Democrats falling behind him knowing what they know have lowered themselves. Only Zel Miller had the guts to reveal what was going on.
The Democrats need more Zel Millers, and less John Kerrys and Bill Clintons.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
My3Cents
I haven't read a college text book in a long time. But I do read about what current economists say and do. Many do not agree. They think a tax cut aimed at the most wealthy was not the best way to jump start the economy. A cut more focused on the middle class, and working folk would have done a lot more.
And the economy has not done that well. Yes it has shown some signs of life recently - but only anemic ones. Bush remains the 1st president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a net loss in jobs. It has turned around in recent months, but not by much.
In addition, the cuts in federal support to states have increased state taxes, state fees and cut state benefits for those same middle class and working folks.
Not to mention the fact that the tax cut was "sold" in misleading terms about how much it would really benefit the "average" tax payer. When the benefits were so heavily skewed toward the richest 2%. It's a bit like having Bill Gates walk into a monistary and say that the avereage net worth of people in the room is $10 Million. Not a lie, but misleading all the same.
No I do not think Bush has a good record on how he handled the economy. I agree that the recession wasn't his fault, and that he had to manage the economic hit of 9/11 which he didn't manage to prevent (but that's another thread).
But I think he mis-managed the economy and I do think the size of the deficit is his fault. We will be paying that back for years - not only in higher taxes or lower government services, but in higher interest rates as soon as the election is over.
Of course higher interest rates are great for folks in the top 2% of wealth - they are the ones who lend the money. But for most Americans and for businesses who borrow that's not a good thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Eagle,
You are like the prosecuting attorney who says to the judge during a trial, "Of course we have evidence that will convict this man, your honor!" and then provides arguments as to why the accused is guilty, but provides not one shred of actual evidence.
... Oh wait. Are you referring to that he protested and testified against the war in Paris? Is this your 'documented evidence'? "... when he continuously protested our presence their giving so much hope and aid to the enemy that the NVA saw this division and launched a major offensive called the Easter offensive in 1972 which killed my friends." Is that it? Oh wow! So the NVA heard about John Kerry testifying in Paris, and said "Hot Damn! Here is our chance to drive out the imperialist war pigs! Lets attack NOW! Thank you comrade Kerry!!" For the love of Pete, guy. Many people both well known and common were demonstrating against that war, from Eugene McCarthy and other senators back in '67 all the way forward. And the NVA didn't need our divisions to attack. Hell, what about the Tet Offensive back in '68? Or back in the mid 60's when Johnson decided to go full bore against North Vietnam and even bring B-52s into the picture. Didn't squelch them then either. Not for very long anyway.
It was an unjust and poorly fought war. True the vast majority of troops over there (including yourself I wager) weren't the bad guys, just the higher ups (including Lyndon Johnson) and the troops who did crap like My Lai were the ones who dirtied up America's reputation, and I imagine that Kerry did some crap himself in the shooting of those civilians. But treason isn't part of what he was guilty of, at least not in protesting that war.
Hell chief, if you are going to have the mitigated gaul at accusing those who protested/demonstrated against the war or who were for that protesting, then at least have the honest courage at accusing those of us here on Greasespot of treason too. Be consistant and honest in your accusations, pal!
Better yet, get off this sick kick of thinking that those who love this country are only those who are blindly loyal and in agreement with every war it fights.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt
Think about the man who made that statement. A very patriotic one. Think about that statement. And he made that statement during World War I from what I hear. ... According to your belief, why shouldn't that be rendered 'treason' as well, hmmmm?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
P-mosh,
Ahh, altho' Bush and his family has quite a bit of questionable connections with some rich Saudis, I think you're going to have to do just as much to prove any connection with 9-11 and other related activities as well, dude. Those are pretty serious charges there, even the one about 'letting 9-11 happen'. Again, where is exhibit A, B, and C please? And no, Micheal Moore hasn't provided proof either, just some very good questions to ask in his flick, and that is as far as it goes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Garth, you are completely misunderstanding what Eagle is calling treason. Eagle didn't say that protesting the war amounted to treason. He said that Kerry meeting with the enemy delegation in Paris (for P-Mosh's benefit, that's not the French) was treason. I'm not making that charge, but I do think it was highly improper, and probably criminal, for an officer in the Naval Reserves to independently meet with diplomats representing an enemy, or to meet with representatives of any other country regarding U.S. policy, whether we are at war with them or not. From my limited knowledge, it seems like a pretty clear violation of the UCMJ, and depending on what went on in the meeting(s?) it could be treason. Again, I am not making that charge. In addition, Eagle seems to be saying that some other things Kerry did (not simple protesting) were acts of a traitor, even if they didn't legally constitute treason.
Personally, I give Kerry a pass on that, except as the thinking behind it fits with his words and actions while in the Senate, which I think gives ample reason to not even consider voting for him. I'm not that worried about his domestic agenda, should he become President, but I'm very concerned about his defense and foreign policy agenda. I could be quite content with a Lieberman or a Gephardt as President, but not Kerry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waterbuffalo
I agree with Eagle--you (I ) can usually tell a lot about a man by the woman he sleeps with (or doesn't).
I love Laura Bush, and truth be told, probably voted for Geo. because of her. She speaks straight from the heart and isn't from a rich and privileged background and I see no deceit in her. If she's still with Geo. after all he's put her through, I'm satisfied he is now a decent human being or she wouldn't still be with him.
Unlike some first ladies, she doesn't strike me as someone who woke up one day and said, "Hum, I'd like to become First Lady (and President) and I'll do anything to get there."
Also, Geo. had the balls to fight back (thanks again Eagle). He is our enemy's worst nightmare, in my opinion, and Kerry, all they could hope for.
As far as Jane Fonda goes, she seems genuinely sorry for her actions and I see no reason not to forgive her for everything, but it was a little disappointing that her story on Biography Channel last year described her relationship with Christ in less than one sentence as having "explored Christianity" in a series of other things she did while living in Atlanta.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
those charges of Bush's treason, are just as valid as the ones you pose at John Kerry- that is neither is valid.
CAN"T GET OUT OF THE 60s???? You are the one who is basing his vote, and admits that you will not serve or honor a duly elected president, based on your perception of 32 years ago. IMO it is sad that anyone would so dishonor the uniform we formerly wore based on false analysis of the effect of one person's actions so long ago.
I proudly served, I proudly organized protests, and I did it all BECAUSE of the love for my country. It was not a game for us here anymore than for you who were over there. Some of us were even shot at on our own campuses. To allude it is un-American to vote for John Kerry is baffling to me, and casts aspersions even more on the motives of those who would further sell out our future by giving Bush 4 more years.
This discussion should be on another thread and in another forum, so I will not reply again to this derail, on this thread. If'n you want, start another thread. I apologize to the OPEN forum for allowing myself to get drawn in to this side-bar. It raised my hackles. Frankly I was content to leave VietNam out of the quagmire of this election, but it raised its ugly head once again. Kinda like TWI huh?
~HAPe4me
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
to get back to the opinions about the debate,Charlie Daniels (on his site), had the best suggestion I have heard yet.
In his "soapbox" section, he said;
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eagle
Thanks waterbuffalo, for the support.
Garth, you have no idea what you are talking about or are dealing with. I suppose you could put a man and a woman in a locked room alone, the man has a gun and gloves, and shoots the woman, and police break in and see him standing over her, gun still in hand, gun smoking, but he says he didn't do it. And because no one 'saw him shoot her', I suppose there is no 'proof'. That is your approach to dealing with issues like this. But, the real problem is, you could be given volumes of encyclopedia of facts against John Kerry and would still support him, as underhanded, pompous, and evil that he really is.
Mister P-Mosh, because I said that John Kerry met the North Vietnamese in Paris in 1971 does not at all infer that we were at war with France. We probably should be, but I was talking about the North Vietnamese delegation and I had hoped you understood that.
Hape4me, you organized protests in the 60s and were proud of it? And you loved your country? My opinion is that I doubt that. You helped people like Kerry and American soldiers died because the war went on too long due to the North Vietnamese counting on the protestors. The fruit of the protests?
Kent State 1970
Protestors attacked and threw rocks and bottles at the National Guard, causing a backlash. I wonder who organized that disaster. Hopefully, not you.
Laos, Cambodia, and South Vietnam, millions killed after the North took the South in 1975.
If you leave the soldiers to do their job, they do it remarkably well. The actual record on the battlefield in Nam was...even on their home turf, we kicked their ***. The North Vietnamese were forced by Nixon to sign the 1973 agreement to cease hostilities. The French only left. Case in point, the North Vietnamese surrendered and then changed their minds after Nixon withdrew the troops. They couldn't beat us there, so they looked at the political climate of the United States and knew once Nixon brought the troops home that the people, through the loud protesting, wouldn't go back. So they waited until we were gone, then attacked the South.
That is the record.
I can keep this going on forever if necessary.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.