sturg33
I
Ahhhh she's so smart and powerful where is my man card????!!!
116th Congress
- Thread starter 57Brave
- Start date
Ahhhh she's so smart and powerful where is my man card????!!!
sturg33
I
I'm just extending the socialists logic here.
Like, is Boeing liable for 9/11? Or better yet, the bank/stock holders who financed the planes?
The idea that a financer is responsible for something going wrong with the manufacturers product is laughably stupid
sturg33
I
She makes Palin look like a genius
57Brave
Well-known member
or like Boeing being responsible for the 737 max 8 ?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
oh yeah, this happened today:
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/14/7034...inst-gun-manufacturer-allowed-to-move-forward
The suit is a high-stakes challenge to gun companies, which have rarely been held liable for crimes committed with their products, and could mark a new front in the battle over gun regulations and corporate accountability. It centers on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a 2005 law that shields manufacturers and retailers from civil liability in lawsuits brought by victims of gun violence. An eventual ruling against Remington could establish legal precedent, opening doors for more lawsuits against gun manufacturers, and expose the company's communications about its marketing plans.
This is not the same thing and the fact you think it is is kind of odd.
57Brave
Well-known member
Once the doors to corporate responsibility ...
why not ?
Had someone in your family died in a crash of a 737 max8 --- shouldn't Boeing be held to fiduciary responsiblity?
**** if that peckerwood kid in Kentucky can sue CNN WaPo for half a mil because --- well because he was standing there -- why not this- where there is actual loss
Remington reaps the rewards from the sales in fact their business model and advertising are aimed at people that want to shoot other people --- why not have them accept the responsibility for their business?
In 2017, Joshua D. Koskoff, one of the lawyers representing the families, said in oral arguments before a panel of judges that “Remington may never have known Adam Lanza, but they had been courting him for years.”
"
why not ?
Had someone in your family died in a crash of a 737 max8 --- shouldn't Boeing be held to fiduciary responsiblity?
**** if that peckerwood kid in Kentucky can sue CNN WaPo for half a mil because --- well because he was standing there -- why not this- where there is actual loss
Remington reaps the rewards from the sales in fact their business model and advertising are aimed at people that want to shoot other people --- why not have them accept the responsibility for their business?
In 2017, Joshua D. Koskoff, one of the lawyers representing the families, said in oral arguments before a panel of judges that “Remington may never have known Adam Lanza, but they had been courting him for years.”
"
57Brave
Well-known member
You must be a lousy at poker.
Reason I say that is is, whenever you are out of things to say or cant formulate a sentence with adult words to make your point you resort to 4th grade insults.
That is called a "tell"
having said that,
refute my opinion
offer a contrary opinion - that holds water.
I'm willing to listen.
Change my mind
Reason I say that is is, whenever you are out of things to say or cant formulate a sentence with adult words to make your point you resort to 4th grade insults.
That is called a "tell"
having said that,
refute my opinion
offer a contrary opinion - that holds water.
I'm willing to listen.
Change my mind
57Brave
Well-known member
sturg33
I
Yes, if Boeing makes a faulty product that kills people, they should be held responsible. There is a reason their stock is down 15% this week.
No, Boeing should not be held liable for a madman flying their product through a building.
The fact this has to be explained to you is shocking, and frankly scary that so many like minding people vote
57Brave
Well-known member
You dont have to explain schit to me.
I never mentioned Boeing and 9/11 or that Boeing should be held responsible for 9/11.
Thought never crossed my mind
this is the only mention of Boeing and 9/11 in this conversation
#622 if you are keeping score
I'm just extending the socialists logic here.
Like, is Boeing liable for 9/11? Or better yet, the bank/stock holders who financed the planes?
The idea that a financer is responsible for something going wrong with the manufacturers product is laughably stupid
...............................
The difference between 9/11 and Boeing being responsible and Sandy Hook and Remington is airplanes are made for flying - weapons are made for killing.
Or in the case of DAPL --- there was scientific evidence and there were pleas not to go ahead for environmental reasons yet WF saw "the risk worth it"
Just like the 737 max8
which to quote you " Yes, if Boeing makes a faulty product that kills people, they should be held responsible."
Well in this case the faulty product (the source) was the capital
WF made the choice contrary to the information .
Or as you like to call it "data"
Last edited:
57Brave
Well-known member
on top of being a social scientist, a financial adviser, legal expert and god knows what you will be tomorrow
you are now a psychologist ?
that is rich
let a billionaire weigh in on student loans
that too is rich
I know I know, you paid yur loans, something about boot straps blah blah blah
Last edited:
sturg33
I
let the free market decide who will pay for the cleanup.