I've thought about lawsuits lately. I've thought of the impact that they are having on our nation. I thought about the lawsuits against the tobacco industry, and the lawsuits against the gun industry. I've thought of the active roll that city and state governments have played in the massive lawsuits. I've thought of the massive people who sue McDonalds because they are massive.
But let's take a different approach. What if McDonalds started to decide who is capable of eating their foods? What would the reaction be then? Would juries then be sensitive to the compassionate side of McDonalds? Would juries then say McDonalds has the right to refuse service to people based on their obesity? But haven't we decided that large corporations can be held responsible even when we are at fault for the malfunction of their product?
In Denham Springs, a city just outside of Baton Rouge, a woman sues Nintendo for death of her son. It didn't matter to the woman that her son spent more time in front of the Nintendo than most of us spend at work. It didn't matter to the oman that her son already had siezures while playing the Nintendo. It did not matter to the woman that she failed to raise her son properly. But what may have mattered is that Nintendo had already put into the user manual a warning that if siezures occur while playing the system, to stop use of system immediately and consult a doctor.
We have seen the idiot warnings. You know, the warnings that only an idiot needs. Like a warning that says not to use a toaster in the bathtub. Or the one that says plastic wrapper is not a part of the toy. Even after idot warnings exist, large companies are sued.
So I think companies ought to take a different approach.
What if the companies refused to sell to certain people. Such as the tobacco industry. What if after the lawsuits, they had taken out a large ad simply stating that because of the lawsuits, Phillip-Morris will no longer sell tobacco products in listed states. What would the reactions of both liberal and conservative smokers then be?
What if the evil gun manufacturers spent and equal amount of money lost due to lawsuits taking out television and radio ads explaining that because listed states believed that guns were responsible for *** deaths in said state, that the gun manufactureres will no longer sell in said states including selling to police, national gaurd, security gaurds? What would the reaction of the public then be?
What if the gun shops required their buyers to become lifetime members of both the NRA and RKBA organizations? Or to have the ten amendments of the constitution memorized? Would the gun owners who insist on more gun legislation approve? What if the gun shops required people to take an oath to loyally support the second amendment before they were allowed to purchase the gun? What if Democrats just made a law that members of the Democrat party can't own a gun? I'd support that measure.
Vote here....
¤§¤§¤§¤§¤§¤§¤§¤§¤§¤§¤§¤
Blogging has really taken off - noted columnist
Michelle Malkin and
David Limbaugh have blogs.
If that wasn't enough justification, bloggers continue to lead the fight against Rather hates Bush gate. It seems as if the hate group er lunatics called er 527 organization called Texans forged truth may have a connection in all of this. As more and more people play pajama detective, the more eyes there are on irregularities in the newsroom, and elsewhere. The people naturally find free speech.
¤§¤§¤§¤§¤§¤§¤§¤§¤§¤§¤§¤
MAJOR CHANGE ---
Virtual tie in Illinois
