This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I'm much more mellow after a couple of Crown Royal/7's.
I always love that one. (c)
No, I'd prefer it through the courts but our courts, and government are so corrupt as it is I'll take my money now thank you.Yes, my solution is through the courts. It's imperfect, but it also protects us from the insanely arbitrary and potentially dangerous solution of appointing an unelected person to dole out money to "the deserving".
You and scooby want immediate gratification at the expense of the balance of power between the three branches of our government. You are essentially saying you want the executive branch to carry out a mission that was meant for the judiciary. By extension, if a state disaster occurs, we'll have governors compelling companies to establish funds and then they'll appoint unelected people to pay out the money there, too.
Don't either of you see the possible abuse here? Politicians appointing unelected and unaccountable people to handle vast sums of money demanded from companies that screw up to compensate alleged victims... hmmm, no, no possibility of something going wrong there.
Yes, my solution is through the courts. It's imperfect, but it also protects us from the insanely arbitrary and potentially dangerous solution of appointing an unelected person to dole out money to "the deserving".
You and scooby want immediate gratification at the expense of the balance of power between the three branches of our government. You are essentially saying you want the executive branch to carry out a mission that was meant for the judiciary. By extension, if a state disaster occurs, we'll have governors compelling companies to establish funds and then they'll appoint unelected people to pay out the money there, too.
Don't either of you see the possible abuse here? Politicians appointing unelected and unaccountable people to handle vast sums of money demanded from companies that screw up to compensate alleged victims... hmmm, no, no possibility of something going wrong there.
Once again you guys have believed a knuckledragging conservative politician, and once again he's left you high and dry. Thought you guys might have learned your lesson with Sanford, Craig, Foley, etc etc but I guess not. Either way, step up to the plate on this one.
Bob, Walrus, Old Pio, Patman, I'm publicly calling you guys out.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWZlZDA3ODhmNDkyYWY3NGRkODNjOTJkMjM5MzVhN2M
Turns out it was Kyl who was lying. Who would have thunk it.
Huh, go figure, something was reported wrong or a politician flat out lied, I'm shocked
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWZlZDA3ODhmNDkyYWY3NGRkODNjOTJkMjM5MzVhN2M
Turns out it was Kyl who was lying. Who would have thunk it.
Not lying. His comments were "taken out of context."
...except for the high probability of facing the full weight of the federal government if the company refused Obama's demand. It's not like some random stranger approached the company and asked it for money - it was the leader of the free world doing it, and oh by the way, his party has control of Congress at least until the fall elections. So if the company decided to tell him to * off, I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that the administration would make it their mission to get that money one way or another.
The end does not justify the means.