Originally Posted By X-san ***He jumps on the hood of the car, tears out the windshield with his bare hands (permanently ruining both shoulders in the process as it later turns out), and saves everyone. Later, he gets sued by the same family he saved.*** That's an unbelievable and horrible story. I hope that your father in law did okay in the end at least (did he win against them?). How sick. Nice, indeed. I hate litigious societies.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 "If Obama withdrawals from Iraq and things happen, the blood is in his hands... like it or not."<< Bad things are happening while we are here? Is the blood on Bush's hands? Your statement is ludicrous.
Originally Posted By X-san ***They said one of their number ended up a vegetable and had no quality of life. He should have left him there to die.*** Was that truly the crux of their argument? I have to believe there is something more there...(not necessarily something more that was "his fault", but just something more to the justification of suing a person).
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Was that truly the crux of their argument? I have to believe there is something more there...(not necessarily something more that was "his fault", but just something more to the justification of suing a person)." No, that was the basis for their suit. He was defended by the city of L.A. It never went to trial, as a judge dismissed it out of hand. Legal jargonwise, the city demurred, and that was that. Meaning, in english, they said yeah, it's all true what you say, but there's still no grounds for a suit. You idiots wouldn't be alive today to be able to sue him had he not done what he did. What was he supposed to do, pick the ones to save with his expert medical diagnosis while bleeding from both hands from the glass cuts off the windshield before the car exploded? Which it did. But it all did happen. My FIL, who now has advanced Alzheimer's, was a real bad dude in his day. Real bad. I read about him before I ever knew he'd be my father in law.
Originally Posted By X-san ***It never went to trial, as a judge dismissed it out of hand.*** Glad to hear that, at least! Regarding the family, I know it's really easy to say "screw them" and all (and the suit is ridiculous to say the least)...BUT, the thing is we're talking about a family in pain. Your father in law helped them, and suffered abuse, which sucks. Thing is, they were in pain and lashed out. The fault is really with the legal system that seems to invite such people to seek retribution from any corner. They were at fault, yes, but the fact that society sort of TELLS them "yes, you can lash out at whoever you guess harmed you" is part of the problem too. I'm sure I didn't express that well, but anyway I wanted to say something beyond the easy "well, what a bunch of scum that family is", since it's never all that simple.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Well, to put it in perspective, this was all in the late 70's, at the height of frivolous suits and before the rules were tightened. Moreover, this family in pain were the ones at fault in the accident in the first place.
Originally Posted By X-san I hope I didn't make it sound as though I were in any way "on their side". I'm just saying...
Originally Posted By woody "If Obama withdrawals from Iraq and things happen, the blood is in his hands... like it or not." >>Like it or not woody, your statement is ridiculous. That's like saying if you pull someone from a burning building it's your fault they were there in the first place.<< No, its not ridiculous because Obama's withdrawal policy will be scrutinized. It is also the same as saying Bush's policy of invasion did not include keeping the peace after the war. Bush is responsible for the result although he did achieve his objectives for winning the war. You will be judged for your actions. Although you tell a horrible story, what are you supposed to do about it. Either the court case is warranted or it is frivolous, but someone will seek justice nonetheless. "If Obama withdrawals from Iraq and things happen, the blood is in his hands... like it or not."<< >>Bad things are happening while we are here? Is the blood on Bush's hands? Your statement is ludicrous.<< Well, some people has said it. Nice for you to come full circle. Are we to blame Bush for Obama's expected withdrawal policy especially since we can't blame Bush for Bush's policy in the first place? Your turn.
Originally Posted By woody >>No, that was the basis for their suit. He was defended by the city of L.A. It never went to trial, as a judge dismissed it out of hand.<< Okay, we have an understanding.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Either woody's been drinking or he's off some sort of meds.
Originally Posted By DAR There is currently no blood on Bush's hands. There will be no blood on the hands of either Obama or McCain whatever they decide to do. I will maintain that always fell on Sadam Hussein. But don't everyone assume that Obama will withdraw or McCain will keep us in there. Their politicians and thus bound to disappoint us.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "There is currently no blood on Bush's hands." Oh, I think you'll find a few people who will disagree with this.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It must be comforting for you to believe that. They intentionally misled us into war. There was no other reason for the talking points to be so carefully aligned, for them to rarely fail to mention Iraq and 9/11, or Iraq and bin Laden in the same paragraph.> Again, I believe the Bush administration said what they believed, based on the intelligence that they were given. I have lots of reasons to hold that belief, and your opinion or the opinion of others isn't going to change that, no matter how often it is repeated. <Even taken together that was not an adequate rationale.> A majority of the House and Senate said otherwise. <As for your fantasy that we're now "winning," give me a break. It's been abundantly clear to all but the blinkered for some time now that the surge was never about "winning."> We are winning, and it's becoming abundantly clear to all but the blinkered that the doom sayers have been wrong all along.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "We are winning, and it's becoming abundantly clear to all but the blinkered that the doom sayers have been wrong all along." You can say it a million times, it still won't be true.
Originally Posted By dshyates 'Again, I believe the Bush administration said what they believed, based on the intelligence that they were given. I have lots of reasons to hold that belief, and your opinion or the opinion of others isn't going to change that, no matter how often it is repeated." I guess denial is a way to feel ok about voting for these guys. But there is a mountain of evidence to support the claims that these guys went to war, as an ideological war of choice. Pushed by Cheney to benefit Halliburton and sold to W. as a way to secure his legacy as the genius that brought peace and democracy to the middle east. So they made up a great deal of the intell, ignored a lot, And lied about even more. They removed the yellow cake lie from an October speech, but put it back in for the State of the union speech after knowing it was lie. You are OK with these guys lieing to you about nuclear threats so they can go to war and kill thousands of people. I really and truly don't understand how anyone can still believe that load of crap they sold this war on.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> I believe the Bush administration said what they believed, based on the intelligence that they were given. << They didn't use intelligence "they were given" because those facts didn't support their agenda. So instead, they created their own separate intelligence department within DOD with the express purpose of churning out intel that provided the 'cooked' intel that they needed to bolster their run-up to the iraq war. There are countless examples that show that this administration didn't want to hear any intelligence that was contrary to their agenda, and in some cases actively suppressed it. >> I have lots of reasons to hold that belief, and your opinion or the opinion of others isn't going to change that, no matter how often it is repeated. << I suspect that your reasons are essentially the same as the bush administration - if the facts don't fit the pre-existing ideology then dismiss them, discredit them, pretend they don't exist. These aren't "opinions" being repeated, they're verifiable facts. That you choose to ignore them doesn't change those facts. As I recall, you were one of the people pointing to 'curveball' and chalabi and the fictitious 'prague' meeting as support for your beliefs. Are these included among your "lots of reasons"? If so, you've been duped by your own government. >> it's becoming abundantly clear to all but the blinkered that the doom sayers have been wrong all along. << Oh, the irony. Speaking for us 'doomsayers', we have been RIGHT all along. Bush was never able to make the case for invading iraq because his intent was to deceive all along. And I've said the same thing all along. You can fool some of the people all of the time - we call those people "fools".
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh You guys can keep repeating your incorrect opinions, but you have been and will be proven wrong. Every report has shown that there was no "cooking" of intelligence, and the situation in Iraq continues to improve.
Originally Posted By X-san "have been wrong"? That's idiotic. How many Americans approve of Bush and what he has accomplished at this point? Are you trying to claim otherwise?
