Spiderweb

AP - In a wide spread action by Corporate America, all female workers have been fired yesterday. A joint statement from Fortune 500 companies was issued stating the reason was because their health insurance costs too much. In a related move, Yellow Freight, Con Way, ABX, Roadway, Ryder, were considering firing all male drivers under the age of 35 because their driver's insurance costs were deemed too high, but they've since reconsidered because female replacements would have cost them too much in health care costs. Currently, both the Senate and Congress are considering the elimination of all equal opportunity laws because companies should be allowed to do whatever the hell they feel like doing. <sarcasm off> Maybe as pre-employment criteria, I could accept some of this, but where will it stop? No job for you son, sorry, you've been known to frequent fast food establishments, ride motorcycles, play contact sports, and have also had mutiple instances of blood alcohol levels exceeding .02. But hey, we're only promoting healthy lifestyles and excercising our god given right to do whatever the heck we feel like doing.

funny....

In case you haven't heard, the smokers DO pay for their sin/vice, with the very price they pay for every pack they smoke. Strangely enough, big government profits quite handsomely from the very heavy taxes imposed on the product. Taxes, settlements, etc. Sorry, but it's the most well funded sin/vice there is. Also, as a side note, a number of years back, during the infamous cigarette trials, the defense (big tobacco) was not allowed to bring into evidence that smokers actually cost the system less (mainly because of their shortened life span). The argument, a bit revealing and cold in that they would have been saying, "yep, our product kills you" wasn't politically correct and was deemed inadmissible . Make the smoker go outside, fine. They have no right to impose their smoke on another person. Just as you my friend, have no right (business, government, or otherwise) to tell them they can't smoke or they'll be fired, stripped of their citizenship, or rights, etc, etc, etc. Yes, I do smoke. At home, I go to the garage or outside for the sake of my family (not to mention the yellow sticky film it leaves on everything inside one's home). I've quit a dozen times, yet ultimately have wandered back. I'll quit again. Maybe someday I'll make it, but that should be MY choice, not yours or my employer's, or the government's. By your logic, next on the list will be Mickey D's and so on until society matches up with your self perceived best intentions. Clearly you enjoy freedoms today you simply do not deserve because you fail to understand what freedom is.

Ah, all those fun loving "1984" wannabes. While smoking is very bad thing, so is being a fat slob and last I heard, there's far more fat slobs in this country "weighing" down the health care system than smokers. Are they the next target? So what the heck, let's continue down that slippery slope toward the day where big brother controls every facit of our lives. Hey, we're only promoting healthier life styles. It's for your own good.

Hard to argue with 2 rings and a shot at a third vs. zero.

All TD said is "nothing". He's left all his options open, yet the one thing that we can gain from this was he did not give Bledsoe an endorsement either. TD has left the position wide open for who ever steps up and takes it, just as it should be. Whether TD will be able to wheel and deal TH or even possibly Bledsoe (very doubtful though) remains to be seen.

Exactly.... I might add that Mularkey showed a bit of this which was a pleasant surprise after the Williams-Gilbride "my system or die" philosphy. I believe we'll be stronger next year with or without the Drewster. Optimist? You bet....

He does have numerous comebacks (see other posts). Do you ever stop to think that he might play a full game so that it doesn't come down to having to pull them out week after week in the 4th? What I see is a QB who puts the ball in very catchable places for his receivers, and a receiving corp that doesn't drop very many. The system crap is just that, crap. Was Montana a "system QB"? That was the argument against him while he played (until the end of his career anyway). Was Steve Young a "system QB", Unitas, Starr, Fouts, Marino, Kelly? Everyone of these guys had the opportunity to play in systems that allowed them to excel, but they were all outstanding in their own right as well. I've always despised the Pats and hope their fall starts against the Eagles, but I won't hold my breath.

Gabriel? Check out the live version of "Biko".....blows the overly pop Sledgehammer away.

The glorious days of the BUD's are gone. Ah, circa 1983, the sky's were clear and unscrambled. Wild feeds, naked ladies, Al Goldstein's Screw Magazine show (later 80's), etc. Porno (XXXctasy), HBO, led the change (scrambling along with the videocipher from MA Comm - sold to GI).... Alas, those days were glorious but unfortunately are now only a distant memory. (drawback - large and expensive equipment required).

Dangerous ground you're walking on there Petrino.

OK

LMAO....

Well said. Now you better duck....

The cap hit from paying a vet the vet minimum also has a catch in that it counts less only after the player has some set length of NFL tenure. It was more for the 10 year (and plus) vets who were geting cut simply because of $$$ IIRC.

Nope, then the liability would be all his. Can't continue to deny that the "limit" itself expressed an understanding of their product and that they, through the actions of their employee, violated that accepted understanding. That's what is the essence of responsibility anyway. This is not an evil company issue. Now who's comparing apples to donuts? Have a great day...

Back in the day (SB run), I loved all the Bills players shows. Rigas and sons destroyed a great service. Sad day, even if we all knew it was coming.

The "argument" revolves around the purported violation of the "limit" policy which clearly implies an understanding of what the product may contribute to. Surely, the scumbag is the front runner, but from a legal and ethical perspective, the vendor does share responsibility. What is wrong with this case is the size of the award, nothing more.

Catchy phrase (your close), but the if that employee did violate the "limit" ploicy then shared responsibility does fall back on the vendor as well. That is what place's the company in harm's way. It cannot be exonerated for the actions of any employee, from the CEO to the counter guy selling the beer. Sorry, but this is both reasonable and logical. In fact, had there not been a limit policy, again we could argue against placing the vendor/company at risk in this action, but that wasn't the case. The "limit" policy clearly shows an understanding of what their product can contribute to. Can't pick and chose bits and pieces. You have to look at the whole.

Never mind the loss of life this contibuted to. Who cares anyway...... Hope that something like this never happens to anyone here, but if it did, I'll bet the tune would change quickly.

As I just replied to AD, if their employee broke the "Limit" rules, then it does become their shared responsibility, directly relating to their product and the reasons for an imposed limit thereof. Surely, I do feel the brunt should be borne by the drunken scumbag, but it's quite evident that if the "limit" (to their product) was broken, then they become a part of the shared responsibility with the tragic events that their "product" contributed towards.

The mitigating factor in this clearly is (if true) that the vendor's employee did accept the $10.00 tip/bribe to sell more than the established limit. That action, in and of itself, does place considerable responsibility with the employee and the vendor, and rightfully so. That act alone makes this similar to turning one's back to known defects. Be honest, why was a limit established to begin with? Might it have something to do with known problems caused by the over consumption of the product they sell? Had it not be broken, then I could argue that the vendor did not fail in acting with due diligence but alas, that apparently wasn't the case.

While the brunt of the responsibility for this should be borne by the drunk, it's questionable at best that you see no responsibility borne by the vendor. This seems a bit too one sided for any arguments sake. Must be nice that the vendor has none, for their sake, at least in your eyes. Should Ford have shared any responsibility in making Pinto's that were prone to gas tank contents igniting upon a rear end collision? Should the maker's of the Dalkon (spelling?) Shield be responsible for the damage (and deaths) caused by their product? Or do we simply wish to exist in a "buyer beware" society where anything goes? I would hope not. Sorry, but product liability (manufacturer/vendor) exists for very moral, ethical and logical reasons. What simply doesn't make sense is the size of the awards. Can the little girl be replaced, clearly not. Life itself is the most valuable component of our existance, yet to make it a lottery jackpot, actually demeans life itself. I would favor reasonable limits (good God I sound like GW) on punitive damages coupled with actual damages, with fair and equitable computation of them base upon life, lost wages, etc. The problem I see with all this really is the size of the award. That, and my heart goes out to the family of the little girl who's life was tragically taken by that scumbag, who as you said, should be erased from the gene pool.

Congratulations Mike. Give our love to Mom, and especially to the beautiful gift just bestowed upon you. Welcome.

That's exactly what I was thinking....