and since when did AOL get rid of the 'unsend' feature???

,,,



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/2012 08:10PM by Hatemotor.

Yeah.... Happens a lot... No big deal... You dust off your dick... wipe off your ass... and keep on truckin', bro...

Signatures are for fags

turns out I didn't drunk e-mail the girly after all......whew......dodged a bullet there...

,,,



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/2012 08:10PM by Hatemotor.

lots of black people making noise outside my window

why do THOSE people have to be so LOUD??

,,,



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/2012 08:10PM by Hatemotor.

,,,,



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/2012 08:10PM by Hatemotor.

,,,



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/2012 08:11PM by Hatemotor.

I've cried in public and in front of strangers three different times over the past four days.

openly sobbing, even weeping.

dare I say blubbering.

,,,



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/2012 08:11PM by Hatemotor.

Hatemotor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, that's not good,,,


why is it not good, though? Is it just not good because it makes other people extremely uncomfortable? If that's the 'not good' about it, then I really don't give a damn. I don't care anymore. I'm going to cry where and when I feel like it. I'm sick of worrying about whether or not I'm making people uncomfortable. Why is it so important to be comfortable at all times, anyway? People should expect to be uncomfortable sometimes. In fact, they should welcome it. Life is not about being 'comfortable'.

,,,



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/2012 08:11PM by Hatemotor.

srsly tho

hamtaro, would it make you uncomfortable if we met in real life and I suddenly started to cry?

,,,



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/2012 08:12PM by Hatemotor.

Feel free to make people uncomfortable...

But why does it have to be at your expense? Make them uncomfortable, not to be around you but, to be around themselves...

That's how you stick it to 'em... If you make them uncomfortable by crying, then they will write off the experience and not learn from it...

Make them uncomfortable by thinking about themselves... and they will be haunted by it for the rest of their lives...

Signatures are for fags

how do I do that.....should I make them cry? How would I do that?

,,,



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/2012 08:12PM by Hatemotor.

,,,,



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/2012 08:12PM by Hatemotor.

Mr. Misery Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've cried in public and in front of strangers
> three different times over the past four days.
Attachments:

,,,,



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/2012 08:12PM by Hatemotor.

Naw... it ain't happenin'...

Signatures are for fags

hmm

Killer anticipation ..FFXU Up All Night! x)

Hatemotor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Remember
>
> "You don't have to worry, cause taken care of
> bid'ness is his game"


No, taking care of bid'ness is his game.
Attachments:

no posts in thirty minutes........hmmmmmmm........
Attachments:

I'm going to die in my sleep tonight

I'm dying right now

Hiyo

Signatures are for fags

are you in favor of tort reform?

I'm in favor of tortas and reform in general..

Signatures are for fags

have you ever needed a lawyer?

Yes...

Signatures are for fags

were you the plaintiff or the defendant?

Trick question...

It wasn't civil...

Signatures are for fags

what did you do wrong?

I was a good friend...

Signatures are for fags

there was a time long ago when i was 7 and ate a friend for breakfast who then sat on our pedestal and asked me what i wanted for christmas and i said i only want my Harry Tuttle to play with me, perhaps play some football with misery, or even better to dance and sing kids bop 3 with eesh while carving a pumpkin but i digress so as i was walking down the door fell and i saw my mom and the that balloon that i saw at the mall three and a half days ago popped without a warning. I then went to bed and woke up on the third morning of the fourth day, there was a considerable crowd to please. i just want to win.

There is some wicked abstract talent frequenting the AD lately... What about Jesus, Lars?

Signatures are for fags

what do you think of that old lady who sued McDonald's for spilling hot coffee on herself?

Lars says YOU DO NOT MESS WITH JESUS.

eesh prays to ONE god. ONE god only. That God is Cary.

Cary create life for many. Cary create life for eesh and tuttle.

Cary is all knowing. Cary knows IP Address of eesh and tuttle.
Cary can not be stopped.

YOU DO NOT MESS WITH CARY

on a side note, i like turtles.

I think the fact that she won is a prime example of why this country is fucked...

Mr. Misery Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what do you think of that old lady who sued
> McDonald's for spilling hot coffee on herself?

Signatures are for fags

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the fact that she won is a prime example
> of why this country is fucked...
>
> Mr. Misery Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > what do you think of that old lady who sued
> > McDonald's for spilling hot coffee on herself?


That and the fact that your people respect me, bow to me, make exceptions for me, love me, honor me

hahahahahaHaHAhahahaHa

I don't have enough evidence to refute that....

Allah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> That and the fact that your people respect me, bow
> to me, make exceptions for me, love me, honor me
>
> hahahahahaHaHAhahahaHa

Signatures are for fags

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the fact that she won is a prime example
> of why this country is fucked...
>
> Mr. Misery Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > what do you think of that old lady who sued
> > McDonald's for spilling hot coffee on herself?


Harry, would your opinion on that change if I showed you the following images of the actual burns suffered by Ms. Stella Leibeck, the plaintiff in the now infamous mcdonald's 'hot coffee' case? Do me a favor and check out the documentary "Hot Coffee", now playing on HBO, and tell me if you still feel the same way. WHile you're at it, quickly glance over the actual facts of this case, which at this point, has become something of a tall-tale used to reinforce the special interests of big business and so-called 'tort reform'. Harry, I'm afraid you're just one of the many who have been conditioned to think that our civil justice system is being crippled by frivolous, 'jackpot-lawsuits'......the fact is, big business and special interests want you to believe that so they can continue to make money without fear of legal repercussions when people get hurt. THey've done a damn good job of getting this perception into our heads. Say no to tort 'reform'.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
Attachments:

She spilled the coffee on herself... Why is that McDonald's bad? Because the lid didn't have a "Caution! Contents are extremely hot" label?

If it was appropriately labeled, do you think she wouldn't have accidentally spilled coffee on herself?

Unfortunate shit happens all the time... She made a mistake... and McDonald's ended up paying for it...

Am I missing something here?

Signatures are for fags

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> She spilled the coffee on herself... Why is that
> McDonald's bad? Because the lid didn't have a
> "Caution! Contents are extremely hot" label?
>
> If it was appropriately labeled, do you think she
> wouldn't have accidentally spilled coffee on
> herself?
>
> Unfortunate shit happens all the time... She made
> a mistake... and McDonald's ended up paying for
> it...
>
> Am I missing something here?


yes. The coffee was 180 degrees fahrenheit. She had third degree burns and needed skin grafts. And she wasn't some greedy old lady demanding 5 million dollars for a cup of hot coffee getting spilled on her......that million dollar figure was for punitive damages....punitive damages are not meant to be a big payday for just the person suing....we have them basically as a way of getting a major corporation to sit up and pay attention and change their behavior (in this case, making their coffee so hot it could cause third degree burns, which, by the way, are on record as occuring many times prior to this incident). McDonald's refused to change it's policy when it knew that people were being harmed; that's why that astronomical figure made the news like it did. In reality, Ms. Leibeck, the 'hot coffee lady', ended up with a couple hundred thousand in damages, which, if you've seen the burns she had, I think is completely reasonable.

but don't take my word for it, harryo. Watch "Hot Coffee" on HBO or HBO on Demand. You've been duped by big business and lobbyists. THere's more to this story. And it goes way beyond the hot coffee case.

maybe because it's because they were the only ones serving coffee that hot ..i mean really does it have to be that hot? to preserve the flavor ? McDonald's Coffee seriously? heh ..anything less than a million i would condone wouldn't care to know how much she got so it's good to not know not that it really matters to me
but that's just my opinion Harry ..McDonald's ..is evil

'tort reform' is a ploy by big business and lobbyists and the politicians who work for them to keep everyday american citizens from their constitutional right to take the person or people responsible for their injury to court. They want to keep you and me, not just some crazy old 'hot coffee' lady, out of the courts, because the one thing they can't control is a trial by jury. Tort reform is a way of circumventing the court system and overriding the decision of a jury in order to favor big business.

Isn't coffee supposed to be hot? I've never stuck a thermometer in coffee... is 180 douglas Fahrenheit excessively hot? The boiling point of water is 212 douglas Farenheit...

Is the issue that the coffee was so hot... or that the cup didn't clearly warn the end user that the coffee would be hot?

Did they use a coffee maker to make the coffee? I mean, it's not like anyone superheated the coffee as a prank... They just followed the coffee makers instructions, right? Why didn't the lady sue the coffee maker manufacturer? Where does the blame really lie? Maybe the coffee maker manufacturer realized that their machine malfunctioned due to a faulty part that was made by a separate company? Is there a chain of lawsuits in order?

Was the individual who made the coffee to blame? Why didn't that person get sued?

Ultimately, wasn't it the lady's fault for opening a lid improperly and spilling the coffee on herself?

Why can't anyone take responsibility for their own actions these days?

Signatures are for fags

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Isn't coffee supposed to be hot? I've never stuck
> a thermometer in coffee... is 180 douglas
> Fahrenheit excessively hot? The boiling point of
> water is 212 douglas Farenheit...
>
> Is the issue that the coffee was so hot... or that
> the cup didn't clearly warn the end user that the
> coffee would be hot?
>
> Did they use a coffee maker to make the coffee? I
> mean, it's not like anyone superheated the coffee
> as a prank... They just followed the coffee
> makers instructions, right? Why didn't the lady
> sue the coffee maker manufacturer? Where does the
> blame really lie? Maybe the coffee maker
> manufacturer realized that their machine
> malfunctioned due to a faulty part that was made
> by a separate company? Is there a chain of
> lawsuits in order?
>
> Was the individual who made the coffee to blame?
> Why didn't that person get sued?
>
> Ultimately, wasn't it the lady's fault for opening
> a lid improperly and spilling the coffee on
> herself?
>
> Why can't anyone take responsibility for their own
> actions these days?


Harry, you're missing the big picture. And worse than that, you're buying into every hack late-night talk show monologue joke you've ever heard about this case. Seriously, check out the documentary "Hot Coffee". It's on HBO all this month and ON Demand.

also, the knee-jerk, joe six-pack, blue collar, armchair wisdom response to this case has always been that 'personal responsibility' line.....if you actually look at the facts in this case, you'll see that that's EXACTLY the reaction McDonald's corporation spent millions on in PR campaigning to get you to think.

not a sermon, just a thought.

look at the burns though i think the point was that it wasn't necessary and that's why they settled. that's all i'm saying. Tort reform only exists because this is a capitalistic society, do they still serve coffee that hot? is the question i be wondering. I think the tort reform is the opposite of taking responsibility for corporate decisions ..as harry supposed with the consumer.

Becareful Mr. Misery, because this is an oxymoronic path you're following! Marxist! Vive le republica americana! Can't claim something's self evident yet still promote it!

Mr. Misery Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Harry, you're missing the big picture. And worse
> than that, you're buying into every hack
> late-night talk show monologue joke you've ever
> heard about this case. Seriously, check out the
> documentary "Hot Coffee". It's on HBO all this
> month and ON Demand.

Well, can you stop being condescending and actually explain it to me? I'll watch the documentary if I get a chance... but, in the meantime, why not explain it to me....?

What's the big picture here? What is the key part of this case that determined that McDonald's was to blame? Was it the temperature of the coffee? Was it the fact that McDonald's didn't warn the customer?

Tell me, damnit... Why wasn't it the lady's fault for opening the lid wrong and spilling it all over her lap?

Signatures are for fags

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2012 03:55PM by Alias.

No. Mr. Misery is suggesting that capitalism is quasi-flawed with self-preservation and that naturally it comes naturally through our expense. Thereby, with our self-preservation in mind we protect ourselves through Tort law. But, this is where it becomes borderline Marxism, because at it's routes Capitalism is to be overthrown by the non-bourgeoisie class, or the so-called worker, the middle-man, us. WE will just assume corporation=bourgeoisie for the sake of arguing. But, this is flawed because it's not balanched, because it's not self-evident that corporations are exploiting us, the workers, or the middle-class, or the not so billionaire class, because it's only naturally for them to do so is the only way to arguably sustain themselves is where he's trying to make his argument against Tort reform, but because it's an over-drive mechanic he's promoting it's not clear that his argument is satisfactory so it becomes Marxism, because Marxist tear down the bourgeoisie and remake it in their own image arbitrarily.

McDonald's had recieved hundreds of similar complaints about the coffee being too hot prior to the hot coffee case. They knew there was a problem but did not fix it because it would've cost them too much money. SO, people kept getting burned. And yes, the coffee was waaaaaaay too hot. In fact, the plaintiff even signed a document admitting 20 percent fault in the case for spilling it on herself. She was not after big money. Just enough to cover what medicare wouldn't. The millions came under the category of 'punitive damages'....that is, yes, the old lady would get that money (even though she didn't get anywhere near that in the end), but the point was to punish McDonald's by hitting them in their wallet so that they would finally take responsibility for their product hurting people. THat's what punitive damages are.

yes, McDonald's was to blame for not lowering the holding temperature of their coffee (180-190 degrees fahrenheit, enough to cause bad third degree burns) even after recieving hundreds of similar complaints. THe old lady agreed to 20 percent liability in spilling it on herself in court.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2012 03:53PM by Alias.

fuck you whore

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Coffee is hot.


not hot enough to cause third degree burns and skin grafts.

heh

just try to get past the knee-jerk reaction, whatever you do in life. THat's my motto.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2012 03:51PM by Alias.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do you smoke, Mr. Misery?


no, never. Do you, Alias? WHat's your brand? You know I have a smoking fetish.

this is the sort of thing I find sexy
Attachments:

Mr. Misery Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> You know I have a smoking fetish.


smoking poles still?

Ok... so what? Are you saying that companies shouldn't be allowed to sell us things that could be dangerous? Should corporations have to babysit us because they're afraid we may not be responsible enough to use their product without hurting ourselves?

What if we want to buy something that could be dangerous? Should we not be allowed to because we will sue the manufacturer if we accidentally hurt ourselves with these products?

Should I sue KitchenAid if I burn myself on the stove?

Should I sue Ginsu if I slice myself on their dangerous blade?

Where does it end?

I'm not saying that companies have no responsibility for faulty products that they may release... I just think that anyone who buys a cup of coffee knows that the cup is going to contain hot fucking liquid... and should handle the cup accordingly...

Signatures are for fags

smoking your mom's pole

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ok... so what? Are you saying that companies
> shouldn't be allowed to sell us things that could
> be dangerous? Should corporations have to babysit
> us because they're afraid we may not be
> responsible enough to use their product without
> hurting ourselves?
>
> What if we want to buy something that could be
> dangerous? Should we not be allowed to because we
> will sue the manufacturer if we accidentally hurt
> ourselves with these products?
>
> Should I sue KitchenAid if I burn myself on the
> stove?
>
> Should I sue Ginsu if I slice myself on their
> dangerous blade?
>
> Where does it end?
>
> I'm not saying that companies have no
> responsibility for faulty products that they may
> release... I just think that anyone who buys a cup
> of coffee knows that the cup is going to contain
> hot fucking liquid... and should handle the cup
> accordingly...


it's about more than that. Trust me, if you watch this documentary, you will get mad. Do me a solid and check it out.

Mr. Misery Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> smoking your mom's pole
Attachments:

I said I'd watch it when I get a chance.... but why can't you answer my questions right here and now, Robin Young?

I'm asking YOU.... Quit doing the high and mighty... "Trust me, dude, you need to read this book" defense...

You and I are here right now... talking about this... Why can't we have a discussion?

Why can't you defend your newfound views yourself?

Signatures are for fags

goodnight everybody. I love you all. I hope to live through the night.

Ugghhh...

Signatures are for fags

what's the matter, HT? You turning into a Miz hater?

Mr. Misery Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I hope to
> live through the night.

Hopefully not

the most electrifying duo in sports entertainment history may be in trouble, y'all....

Mr. Misery Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what's the matter, HT? You turning into a Miz
> hater?


Probably since he's not a Mizterbator

I'm not hating... I still got nothing but love for ya, Miz...

But I am getting frustrated by your hit and run tactics... You bring up interesting and controversial discussions and then run away when someone challenges your views...

Edit: especially when you are quick to judge someone for having a dissenting opinion...

You keep giving me debate team blue balls, y'tease...

Mr. Misery Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what's the matter, HT? You turning into a Miz
> hater?

Signatures are for fags



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/29/2011 03:56AM by Harry Tuttle.

Mr. Misery Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the most electrifying duo in sports entertainment
> history may be in trouble, y'all....


hooray!

I thought that way too, Harry, when I was 12 and this actually happened, and I thought wow that's irresponsible of her, but, it's the reality that we live in where we there are defective products, and we need something in our arsenal to protects against them. Of course, this is assuming that this company is to blame in this particular instance, but I think Mr. Misery clearly showed negligence and that's the only basis we actually need. It was just an accident on the lady's fault, supposedly, juxtaposed against negligence it doesn't even matter.

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ok... so what? Are you saying that companies
> shouldn't be allowed to sell us things that could
> be dangerous? Should corporations have to babysit
> us because they're afraid we may not be
> responsible enough to use their product without
> hurting ourselves?
>
> What if we want to buy something that could be
> dangerous? Should we not be allowed to because we
> will sue the manufacturer if we accidentally hurt
> ourselves with these products?
>
> Should I sue KitchenAid if I burn myself on the
> stove?
>
> Should I sue Ginsu if I slice myself on their
> dangerous blade?
>
> Where does it end?
>
> I'm not saying that companies have no
> responsibility for faulty products that they may
> release... I just think that anyone who buys a cup
> of coffee knows that the cup is going to contain
> hot fucking liquid... and should handle the cup
> accordingly...

just cause I thought I explained it. But I guess not. It's about more than an old lady spilling hot coffee on herself. That's just an example. I'm talking about so-called tort reform. I'm trying to say that hot coffee case, for example, has been used as propaganda for big business and tort reform lobbyists to get average americans thinking that most personal injury cases are frivolous and people are out to cheat the system and make a quick buck by exploiting the courts.....when the truth is, it's big business that exploits us, you and me, by doing all sorts of things that would take too much time to go into now.....just look up 'tort reform'.....you'll find info, on both sides.....but the point is, there's a perception out there that anyone who sues for personal injury is likely out to cash in when the fact is, that's exactly what they want you to think. This is big business pushing an agenda. THe civil court system is the only venue in this society where an average citizen can take on a huge corporation and maybe win. The other branches of government are not open to us as average citizens. We have no direct influence there. THat is why it's important to preserve the people's right to directly challenge another party--McDonalds' for example---in a court of law, and have the outcome decided by a jury of one's peers. Tort reform and the agenda behind it seeks to limit your ability to do that, to make corporations untouchable and not liable for any wrongdoing. THat's the big picture. THat's what I'm talking about. THe hot coffee case is just one example.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2012 03:52PM by Alias.

If I bought a brand new cell phone... and it exploded in the middle of a phone call.. leaving me with third degree burns all over my face... I would believe that Samsung is to blame for putting defective products on the market... People don't expect cell phones to blow up in your face when you say "Abercrombie Calling"....

But everyone should know that coffee is hot... You have to BOIL (way hotter than 180 F) liquid in order to brew the coffee.... anyone who's ever drank coffee knows that it's hot... anyone who's ever used a knife knows that it's sharp... Those products are inherently dangerous and you have to be responsible when using them...

Really hot coffee isn't a defective product... If the bitch opened the lid safely, she would never have received the burn... It's not like the product's intended use was to be spilled on a lap... she didn't use the product properly...

If I accidentally shoot my eye out, because I use a rubber band improperly, should I sue the rubber band manufacturer?

If I die because I decide I want to eat a newspaper, should my family sue the presses because their product killed me?

If my daughter sticks a Tootsie pop in her vagina, should I sue Tootsie Roll Industries because their product gave my daughter a bacterial infection?

I'm just not convinced that, in this instance, McDonald's was to blame...

Juxtaposition Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I thought that way too, Harry, when I was 12 and
> this actually happened, and I thought wow that's
> irresponsible of her, but, it's the reality that
> we live in where we there are defective products,
> and we need something in our arsenal to protects
> against them. Of course, this is assuming that
> this company is to blame in this particular
> instance, but I think Mr. Misery clearly showed
> negligence and that's the only basis we actually
> need. It was just an accident on the lady's fault,
> supposedly, juxtaposed against negligence it
> doesn't even matter.
>
> Harry Tuttle Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Ok... so what? Are you saying that companies
> > shouldn't be allowed to sell us things that
> could
> > be dangerous? Should corporations have to
> babysit
> > us because they're afraid we may not be
> > responsible enough to use their product without
> > hurting ourselves?
> >
> > What if we want to buy something that could be
> > dangerous? Should we not be allowed to because
> we
> > will sue the manufacturer if we accidentally
> hurt
> > ourselves with these products?
> >
> > Should I sue KitchenAid if I burn myself on the
> > stove?
> >
> > Should I sue Ginsu if I slice myself on their
> > dangerous blade?
> >
> > Where does it end?
> >
> > I'm not saying that companies have no
> > responsibility for faulty products that they
> may
> > release... I just think that anyone who buys a
> cup
> > of coffee knows that the cup is going to
> contain
> > hot fucking liquid... and should handle the cup
> > accordingly...

Signatures are for fags

Ok, well, I agree that companies should be liable for faulty products... If the product causes unexpected injury from its intended use, then the product is faulty... and that's on the company...

If "Tort Reform" is going to prevent people from being compensated for a genuine malfunction... then I'm against it...

But I have a suspicion it's not as black and white as that...

Mr. Misery Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> just cause I thought I explained it. But I guess
> not. It's about more than an old lady spilling hot
> coffee on herself. That's just an example. I'm
> talking about so-called tort reform. I'm trying to
> say that hot coffee case, for example, has been
> used as propaganda for big business and tort
> reform lobbyists to get average americans thinking
> that most personal injury cases are frivolous and
> people are out to cheat the system and make a
> quick buck by exploiting the courts.....when the
> truth is, it's big business that exploits us, you
> and me, by doing all sorts of things that would
> take too much time to go into now.....just look up
> 'tort reform'.....you'll find info, on both
> sides.....but the point is, there's a perception
> out there that anyone who sues for personal injury
> is likely out to cash in when the fact is, that's
> exactly what they want you to think. This is big
> business pushing an agenda. THe civil court system
> is the only venue in this society where an average
> citizen can take on a huge corporation and maybe
> win. The other branches of government are not open
> to us as average citizens. We have no direct
> influence there. THat is why it's important to
> preserve the people's right to directly challenge
> another party--McDonalds' for example---in a court
> of law, and have the outcome decided by a jury of
> one's peers. Tort reform and the agenda behind it
> seeks to limit your ability to do that, to make
> corporations untouchable and not liable for any
> wrongdoing. THat's the big picture. THat's what
> I'm talking about. THe hot coffee case is just one
> example.

Signatures are for fags

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What bullshit.


YOUR RIGHT...THE MEAN PEOPLE ON THIS WEBSITE SUCK

Suck cock...

MattnCally4ever Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> YOUR RIGHT...THE MEAN PEOPLE ON THIS WEBSITE SUCK

Signatures are for fags

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Suck cock...
>
> MattnCally4ever Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > YOUR RIGHT...THE MEAN PEOPLE ON THIS WEBSITE
> SUCK


YOU WANT ME TO SUCK COCK?????????? DOES THAT TURN YOU ON FAGGOT?

Do you want that to turn me on, you homo?

Signatures are for fags

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do you want that to turn me on, you homo?


YOUR THE ONE TELLIN PEOPLE TO DO GAY SHIT

You're the one assuming that what I'm saying has anything to do with gay people...

[insert 6th sense picture about seeing gay people everywhere]

MattnCally4ever Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> YOUR THE ONE TELLIN PEOPLE TO DO GAY SHIT

Signatures are for fags

I'm not in favor of tort reform. I'm opposed to caps on either "pain and suffering" or punitive damages. Our legal system is not perfect (no system is), but I think it basically works. That said, this documentary sounds like a propaganda piece.



Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/06/26/2282999/a-documentary-about-lawyers-this.html#ixzz1QffQR4wl

Related:
Urban legends and Stella Liebeck and the McDonald’s coffee case: http://overlawyered.com/2005/10/urban-legends-and-stella-liebeck-and-the-mcdonalds-coffee-case/

Two more hot coffee lawsuit data points: http://overlawyered.com/2006/11/two-more-hot-coffee-lawsuit-data-points/

Stella Liebeck and McDonald’s coffee revisited: http://overlawyered.com/2004/08/stella-liebeck-and-mcdonalds-coffee-revisited/

Stella Liebeck and McDonald’s coffee revisited II: http://overlawyered.com/2004/08/stella-liebeck-and-mcdonalds-coffee-revisited-ii/

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What bullshit.


I just love Republicans. They'll give up every constitutional right except the one that actually kills people.

,,,



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/2012 08:14PM by Hatemotor.

tonights disucssion, is black music....



its not good but why cant i stop listening to it?

Attachments:

dick head Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Alias Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What bullshit.
>
>
> I just love Republicans. They'll give up every
> constitutional right except the one that actually
> kills people.

I just love Democrats. They've never read The Constitution.

,,,,



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/2012 08:15PM by Hatemotor.