/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
|
|
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 259260261262263 303> |
| Author | ||||
Padraic 
Special Collaborator 
Honorary Collaborator Joined: February 16 2006 Location: Pennsylvania Status: Offline Points: 31169 |
 Posted: August 03 2008 at 08:16 |
|||
I think there's some pretty good humor value sometimes. "You're a great American!" "No, you're a great American!". Then the caller just regurgitates what was just said to them about 5 minutes ago. Very bizarre feedback machine. |
||||
 |
||||
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member 
Joined: December 13 2006 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 1191 |
Posted: August 02 2008 at 20:44 |
|||
|
||||
|
||||
|
The Doctor
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: June 23 2005 Location: The Tardis Status: Offline Points: 8543 |
Posted: August 02 2008 at 16:57 |
|||
It is unfortunate in many circumstances because it leaves the injured person undercompensated. Let's say for example, someone has an insurance policy which covers them for up to $200,000. They are injured in an accident and suffer $600,000 worth of damage. The insurance company pays them the 200 grand, and they sue the person who caused the injury. Let's assume that the court fully compensates the victim, awarding the injured party 600 grand. You might think that the injured party has now been overcompensated. However, the injured party must also pay an attorney, and in these types of cases that usually 1/3 of the award. So the injured party get 200 from the insurance company, 600 from the person who caused the injury, less 200 which he must pay to an attorney. This leaves the injured party with 600, the amount of his injury. However, when the insurance company then takes 200, this leaves the injured party with only 400, undercompensating the victim for his injuries. I simplified the numbers of course, but this often happens in these cases.
Further, if the court undercompensates the victim, or the defendant is unable to pay all of the injured party's damages, the first 200 goes to the insurance company. So let's say the court awards 600, but the injured party only has assets/insurance enough to pay 200. That 200 (minus the attorney fees of course) goes to the insurance company, leaving the injured party with only 200 for an injury that costs 600. Edited by The Doctor - August 02 2008 at 17:01 |
||||
|
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
|
||||
|
||||
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 1191 |
Posted: August 02 2008 at 15:25 |
|||
|
||||
|
||||
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 1191 |
Posted: August 02 2008 at 15:23 |
|||
|
||||
|
||||
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: February 16 2006 Location: Pennsylvania Status: Offline Points: 31169 |
Posted: August 02 2008 at 13:23 |
|||
I implied nothing. But usually the best recourse in dealing with "trolls" is to ignore them. I've listened to these types of shows on occasion and the personalities as well as their audience thrives on the vitriol of their adversaries - it only emboldens them and strengthens their resolve and belief in what they're saying. You're still free to express as much hatred for the man as you want, of course, and I have no problem with that - just relaying an observation is merely what I intended. |
||||
|
||||
|
The Doctor
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: June 23 2005 Location: The Tardis Status: Offline Points: 8543 |
Posted: August 02 2008 at 06:33 |
|||
Unfortunately, those types of clauses (subrogation clauses) are typical in almost all insurance policies. Generally, if someone collects money from his or her insurance company and also wins damages against the person who caused the harm, the insurance company has a right to collect the damages won, up to the amount of the insurance payout. Sadly, there is nothing uncommon about that. And while I'm no fan of Walmart, this case has more to do with the fact that insurance companies are evil than with Walmart being evil.
|
||||
|
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
|
||||
|
||||
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator 
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam Joined: April 29 2006 Location: Atlantais Status: Offline Points: 29630 |
Posted: August 02 2008 at 05:44 |
|||
|
Well, then happy anniversary jerk! I think it's highly unlikely he visits Tom's site or progarchives, but just in case.  So what were you implying, I should say nice things about him so I'll annoy him? Rush, is that you?  Sweetiekins? 
|
||||
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
||||
|
||||
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: February 16 2006 Location: Pennsylvania Status: Offline Points: 31169 |
Posted: August 01 2008 at 21:37 |
|||
You do realize that there's probably nothing that makes Rush Limbaugh more happy than eliciting this type of response. |
||||
|
||||
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 1191 |
Posted: August 01 2008 at 21:24 |
|||
On the other hand, the unions, after having been the champion for the working class rights a hundred years ago, metamorphosed into obnoxious extortionists and blackmailers (as does any entity capable of wielding serious power). I remember vividly the NYC subway strike in the spring on 1980 when they held the entire city hostage to their exorbitant demands. They put their collective tail betwen their legs after Reagan crushed the air controllers strike, but that made them even more hypocritical and morally corrupt as they have to justify their existence to their members while walking the tightrope of appeasing the big business.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam Joined: April 29 2006 Location: Atlantais Status: Offline Points: 29630 |
Posted: August 01 2008 at 19:30 |
|||
|
I was thinking about opening a new thread for this but it isn't really worthy. Tom puts it as well as I can:
Tom Tomorrow:
Edited by Slartibartfast - August 02 2008 at 05:44 |
||||
|
||||
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam Joined: April 29 2006 Location: Atlantais Status: Offline Points: 29630 |
Posted: August 01 2008 at 17:51 |
|||
I'm actually not alone in the boycott. And I'd totally forgotten about another reason to do so, having the gaul to decide what's inappropriate for us. http://www.theroc.org/boycotts/walmart.htm http://walmart**tch.com/ OK the autobleeper took out "wa" in the link above. http://www.1worldcommunication.org/Walmart.htm http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A17618 http://boycottwalmart.meetup.com/ http://user.pa.net/~nrwing/buyamerican/ And then there's this: " JACKSON, Missouri (CNN) -- Debbie Shank breaks down in tears every time she's told that her 18-year-old son, Jeremy, was killed in Iraq.  Debbie Shank, 52, has severe brain damage after a traffic accident in May 2000.  1 of 3   The 52-year-old mother of three attended her son's funeral, but she continues to ask how he's doing. When her family reminds her that he's dead, she weeps as if hearing the news for the first time. Shank suffered severe brain damage after a traffic accident nearly eight years ago that robbed her of much of her short-term memory and left her in a wheelchair and living in a nursing home. It was the
beginning of a series of battles -- both personal and legal -- that
loomed for Shank and her family. One of their biggest was with
Wal-Mart's health plan. Two years after the accident, Shank and her husband, Jim, were awarded about $1 million in a lawsuit against the trucking company involved in the crash. After legal fees were paid, $417,000 was placed in a trust to pay for Debbie Shank's long-term care. Wal-Mart had paid out about $470,000 for Shank's medical expenses and later sued for the same amount. However, the court ruled it can only recoup what is left in the family's trust. The Shanks didn't notice in the fine print of Wal-Mart's health plan policy that the company has the right to recoup medical expenses if an employee collects damages in a lawsuit." Complete story here: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/25/walmart.insurance.battle/
Edited by Slartibartfast - August 02 2008 at 05:33 |
||||
|
||||
|
The Doctor
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: June 23 2005 Location: The Tardis Status: Offline Points: 8543 |
Posted: August 01 2008 at 15:38 |
|||
I shop at Walmart because they're always rolling back prices.
 Actually, I think a lot of people boycott Walmart for various reasons, anti-union attitudes, hiring of illegal immigrants, refusing to sell music they deem "inappropriate", etc. I don't shop at Walmart because it's like taking a trip through the trailer parks of the US.
|
||||
|
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
|
||||
|
||||
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: February 16 2006 Location: Pennsylvania Status: Offline Points: 31169 |
Posted: August 01 2008 at 14:03 |
|||
I'm sure they're taking your personal boycott into serious consideration. |
||||
|
||||
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam Joined: April 29 2006 Location: Atlantais Status: Offline Points: 29630 |
Posted: August 01 2008 at 13:55 |
|||
|
I seriously do not shop at Wal-Mart because of their anti-union attitude. Perhaps they should think about that. I think workers for one of the largest companies in the world are entitled to the leverage that organizing can bring.
Edited by Slartibartfast - August 01 2008 at 17:57 |
||||
|
||||
|
debrewguy
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 30 2007 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 3596 |
Posted: August 01 2008 at 11:29 |
|||
|
"Formerly no one was allowed to think freely; now it is permitted, but no one is capable of it any more. Now people want to think only what they are supposed to think, and this they consider freedom." - Oswald Spengler in The Decline of the West (1918) Wal-Mart warns managers against DemocratsReutersWal-Mart Stores Inc. said Friday it has held meetings with United States store managers warning them of issues that could arise if Democrats win power and pass a law that would make it easier for workers to unionize, but stressed it was not telling workers how to vote. Wal-Mart opposes proposed legislation called the Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it easier for workers to unionize by signing a card rather than holding a vote. “We believe EFCA is a bad bill and we have been on record as opposing it for some time,” Wal-Mart spokesman David Tovar said. “We feel educating our associates about the bill is the right thing to do.” The Wall Street Journal reported that about a dozen employees who attended meetings in seven states said executives told them employees would be required to pay hefty union dues and get nothing in return, and warned that unionization could force Wal-Mart to cut jobs as labour costs rise. The Journal report said Wal-Mart human-resources managers who run the meetings do not specifically tell attendees how to vote in November's presidential election, but they make it clear that voting for Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Barack Obama would be tantamount to inviting unions in. “If anyone representing Wal-Mart gave the impression we were telling associates how to vote, they were wrong and acting without approval,” Mr. Tovar said. Wal-Mart, which does not have a unionized U.S. workforce, has been the target of union-backed groups that criticize the retailer for everything from its pay practices to its health care benefits. As posted on the Globe and Mail's site. "nuff said ? |
||||
|
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
|
||||
|
||||
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 1191 |
Posted: July 31 2008 at 21:38 |
|||
|
U.S.S. Jimmy Carter
WASHINGTON (Roto Reuters) -- The Department of Defense announced June 3 that the Navy�s newest Seawolf-class nuclear-powered submarine Jimmy Carter will be christened June 5 during an 11 a.m. ET ceremony at General Dynamics Electric Boat in Groton, Conn. The submarine, Jimmy Carter, honors the 39th president of the United States. Carter is the only U.S. president to qualify in submarines. He has distinguished himself by a lifetime of public service, and has long ties to the Navy and the submarine force. He is a 1946 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, served as an officer aboard submarines while in uniform, and served as commander-in-chief from 1977-1981. Carter's statesmanship, philanthropy and sense of humanity have made him one of the most influential Americans of the late 20th century. 
Shown here is the artist conception of the U.S.S. Jimmy Carter at sea. As specified by Jimmy Carter and his daughter Amy the submarine carries no tactical nuclear weapons. The missile system carried is the new Paci-Fist missile guaranteed to pack a punch to those with peanut allergies resulting in possibly wiping one percent of enemy combatants with anaphylaxis. The peace-not-warhead delivers delivers weapons grade peanut butter (P-232). 
Mr. Carter initially requested that the submarine use solar power or an alternate fuel such as Billy Beer instead of a nuclear power plant. These ideas were rejected after explaining a submarine that could never submerge or where burps showed on on enemy sonar was of no use. The Navy is especially glad to complete this project. During construction inexplicably inflations costs for all parts was between 19 and 20 percent. Mr. Carter himself negotiated deals for components from North Korea and Haiti which initially looked favorable but later fell apart. One effort to negotiate with suppliers in Iran fell apart when their Helicopters crashed in the sand.
|
||||
|
||||
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 1191 |
Posted: July 31 2008 at 21:30 |
|||
The Navy’s Two Newest Ships
USS RONALD REAGAN….
When the Bridge pipes ‘Man the Rail’ there is a lot of rail to man on this monster: shoulder to shoulder, around 4.5 acres. Her displacement is about 100,000 tons with full complement. Interesting Facts:
USS BILL
|
||||
|
||||
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam Joined: April 29 2006 Location: Atlantais Status: Offline Points: 29630 |
Posted: July 30 2008 at 12:02 |
|||
            Edited by Slartibartfast - August 02 2008 at 00:13 |
||||
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
||||
|
||||
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 1191 |
Posted: July 29 2008 at 21:36 |
|||
|
||||
|
||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 259260261262263 303> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Political discussion thread
Topic Options
IVNORD wrote:
