Top Communist Admits: Communist Party ‘Utilizes’ the Democratic Party – a Lesson for

[PaintMyHouse]

Yes, they do. It's how it works, now you know.

So you condemn capitalism for doing the same thing as the socialist government programs you defend?

I'm not condemning anything, I'm explaining to you that such things are numbers games. The human costs, meaning death and disability, are also part of the calculation. If I employ a 1,000 kids and 999 of them won't die because of some flaw in the equipment, I don't fix the equipment, it's not cost effective to do so.

But here's the problem with that. If that one kid that dies is mine... and I find out that you knew that there was a chance that my child MIGHT DIE doing what you asked them to do, from the moment that I discovered that you knew of that risk... and you subjected my child to that risk, I would immediately go to where you are and kill you.

If I knew you were that kind of nut I wouldn't hire your kid. And you would be breaking the law while I wouldn't be, at least if you had your way I wouldn't be. People die using perfectly working equipment all the time. As long as they were trained and warned, that's on them for the most part. You can always sue but believe me, capitalists do the numbers first. A flaw that causes one person in a thousand driving the car to die will never be fixed in the cars already on the road. It would make no sense to do so, it's not cost-effective.

Actually, it's more like one person in 100,000. The flaws were are talking about are often not the direct cause of an accident. Take the infamous Corvair case. The accusation was that the placement of the gas tank caused the car to blow up when it was struck in the right way, So what we're actually talking about is the failure of the equipment to protect the occupants from accidents.

If you think costs should not be considered when making decision on safetey, you're a fool. We can make a car that is 100% safe, but it might cost $500,000 a copy.

What's the point of building a car that no one will buy?

Exploding gas tanks were in Pintos. Corvairs were just plain unsafe. Cute Little Deathtraps Nader called them.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I'm not condemning anything, I'm explaining to you that such things are numbers games. The human costs, meaning death and disability, are also part of the calculation. If I employ a 1,000 kids and 999 of them won't die because of some flaw in the equipment, I don't fix the equipment, it's not cost effective to do so.

But here's the problem with that. If that one kid that dies is mine... and I find out that you knew that there was a chance that my child MIGHT DIE doing what you asked them to do, from the moment that I discovered that you knew of that risk... and you subjected my child to that risk, I would immediately go to where you are and kill you.

If I knew you were that kind of nut I wouldn't hire your kid. And you would be breaking the law while I wouldn't be, at least if you had your way I wouldn't be. People die using perfectly working equipment all the time. As long as they were trained and warned, that's on them for the most part. You can always sue but believe me, capitalists do the numbers first. A flaw that causes one person in a thousand driving the car to die will never be fixed in the cars already on the road. It would make no sense to do so, it's not cost-effective.

Actually, if you knew a piece of equipment had a design flaw that made it dangerous, and you allowed someone to work on it without fixing the problem, you could go to prison for negligent homicide.

They can try, but yet again. you are using the law to regulate capitalism.

That's criminal law, not regulation by some three letter bureaucracy.

When did you become such a fan of regulation?

 

[bripat9643]

So you condemn capitalism for doing the same thing as the socialist government programs you defend?

I'm not condemning anything, I'm explaining to you that such things are numbers games. The human costs, meaning death and disability, are also part of the calculation. If I employ a 1,000 kids and 999 of them won't die because of some flaw in the equipment, I don't fix the equipment, it's not cost effective to do so.

But here's the problem with that. If that one kid that dies is mine... and I find out that you knew that there was a chance that my child MIGHT DIE doing what you asked them to do, from the moment that I discovered that you knew of that risk... and you subjected my child to that risk, I would immediately go to where you are and kill you.

If I knew you were that kind of nut I wouldn't hire your kid. And you would be breaking the law while I wouldn't be, at least if you had your way I wouldn't be. People die using perfectly working equipment all the time. As long as they were trained and warned, that's on them for the most part. You can always sue but believe me, capitalists do the numbers first. A flaw that causes one person in a thousand driving the car to die will never be fixed in the cars already on the road. It would make no sense to do so, it's not cost-effective.

Actually, it's more like one person in 100,000. The flaws were are talking about are often not the direct cause of an accident. Take the infamous Corvair case. The accusation was that the placement of the gas tank caused the car to blow up when it was struck in the right way, So what we're actually talking about is the failure of the equipment to protect the occupants from accidents.

If you think costs should not be considered when making decision on safetey, you're a fool. We can make a car that is 100% safe, but it might cost $500,000 a copy.

What's the point of building a car that no one will buy?

Exploding gas tanks were in Pintos. Corvairs were just plain unsafe. Cute Little Deathtraps Nader called them.

Either way, it wasn't because any mechanical defect in the car would directly cause an accident.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I'm not condemning anything, I'm explaining to you that such things are numbers games. The human costs, meaning death and disability, are also part of the calculation. If I employ a 1,000 kids and 999 of them won't die because of some flaw in the equipment, I don't fix the equipment, it's not cost effective to do so.

But here's the problem with that. If that one kid that dies is mine... and I find out that you knew that there was a chance that my child MIGHT DIE doing what you asked them to do, from the moment that I discovered that you knew of that risk... and you subjected my child to that risk, I would immediately go to where you are and kill you.

If I knew you were that kind of nut I wouldn't hire your kid. And you would be breaking the law while I wouldn't be, at least if you had your way I wouldn't be. People die using perfectly working equipment all the time. As long as they were trained and warned, that's on them for the most part. You can always sue but believe me, capitalists do the numbers first. A flaw that causes one person in a thousand driving the car to die will never be fixed in the cars already on the road. It would make no sense to do so, it's not cost-effective.

Actually, it's more like one person in 100,000. The flaws were are talking about are often not the direct cause of an accident. Take the infamous Corvair case. The accusation was that the placement of the gas tank caused the car to blow up when it was struck in the right way, So what we're actually talking about is the failure of the equipment to protect the occupants from accidents.

If you think costs should not be considered when making decision on safetey, you're a fool. We can make a car that is 100% safe, but it might cost $500,000 a copy.

What's the point of building a car that no one will buy?

Exploding gas tanks were in Pintos. Corvairs were just plain unsafe. Cute Little Deathtraps Nader called them.

Either way, it wasn't because any mechanical defect in the car would directly cause an accident.

The capitalist response to either is the same. Don't spend money if you don't have to, and just because people will die doesn't qualify if the numbers don't make sense.

 

[bripat9643]

But here's the problem with that. If that one kid that dies is mine... and I find out that you knew that there was a chance that my child MIGHT DIE doing what you asked them to do, from the moment that I discovered that you knew of that risk... and you subjected my child to that risk, I would immediately go to where you are and kill you.

If I knew you were that kind of nut I wouldn't hire your kid. And you would be breaking the law while I wouldn't be, at least if you had your way I wouldn't be. People die using perfectly working equipment all the time. As long as they were trained and warned, that's on them for the most part. You can always sue but believe me, capitalists do the numbers first. A flaw that causes one person in a thousand driving the car to die will never be fixed in the cars already on the road. It would make no sense to do so, it's not cost-effective.

Actually, it's more like one person in 100,000. The flaws were are talking about are often not the direct cause of an accident. Take the infamous Corvair case. The accusation was that the placement of the gas tank caused the car to blow up when it was struck in the right way, So what we're actually talking about is the failure of the equipment to protect the occupants from accidents.

If you think costs should not be considered when making decision on safetey, you're a fool. We can make a car that is 100% safe, but it might cost $500,000 a copy.

What's the point of building a car that no one will buy?

Exploding gas tanks were in Pintos. Corvairs were just plain unsafe. Cute Little Deathtraps Nader called them.

Either way, it wasn't because any mechanical defect in the car would directly cause an accident.

The capitalist response to either is the same. Don't spend money if you don't have to, and just because people will die doesn't qualify if the numbers don't make sense.

You just admitted that the capitalist response is the same as the government/socialist response, so why are you whining about it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

would you libs please give us a list of the countries where communism, socialism, marxism, progressivism, or liberalism has ever been successful? or for that matter, just name one country.

Sweden. Denmark. Germany.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Capitalism relegates itself by working the numbers. If it cost more to fix the defect in the cars already on the road than to pay off the lawsuits of people who die because of it, the defect doesn't get fixed. It's a numbers game, and it's why we regulate it.

False!

You're speaking of the practices of the non-virtuous who engage in Capitalism. The response to which is that they received LESS business, thus their profits are lower then they would have been, had they been adequately trained in the soundly reasoned moral absolutes common to American Principle.

You see scamp, killing one's clientele is VERY hard on the bottom line and can be fatal to the enterprise.

Such practices are limited to processes OKA: Crony Capitalism, wherein the fascist (or Progressive, if you prefer) feel that they are protected by 'The Gubmint'... such individual's lack virtue.

Now again: WHICH SET OF IDEAS REJECT THE OBJECTIVITY WHICH IS ESSENTIAL TO VIRTUE?

Thanks for the ideology, which is dead wrong of course. In the real world you figure out how much a problem is going to cost you before you fix it. Capitalists don't do the right thing just because. That is anti-capitalist even illegal depending on what you do because the only legal goal is to maximize shareholder value. it's why corporations can't just hand out cash unless they can justify how doing so will help the bottom line, which in the end is the only thing that matters.

In the real world, you do the best you can to NOT HAVE A PROBLEM... we call that DUE DILIGENCE.

But, in fairness... there was no way that you could have known that. As such falls within a subject known as "Ethics"... which falls under "Virtue", which requires Objectivity, which you as a relativist, have no means to understand, let alone apply.

Which is why you're so poorly suited for freedom and that is why you're so rarely found participating in it, historically speaking.

The freedoms this country has are because my people founded it, not yours. Your kind shouldn't even be here since you are anti-American.

So you feel that addle-minded communists founded the United States?

Are you sure?

Because the United States was founded upon the Charter of Principles which recognizes that All men are endowed by God with rights, and that those rights rests upon no less an authority THAN GOD and as a result that no power within humanity is capable of removing those rights... which would decidedly include the limitless power of Government.

And THAT is pretty much the antithesis of everything you've ever said on this here message board.

This country was founded by people like Thomas Paine, who advocated for a universal minimum income for all citizens.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Capitalism relegates itself by working the numbers. If it cost more to fix the defect in the cars already on the road than to pay off the lawsuits of people who die because of it, the defect doesn't get fixed. It's a numbers game, and it's why we regulate it.

False!

You're speaking of the practices of the non-virtuous who engage in Capitalism. The response to which is that they received LESS business, thus their profits are lower then they would have been, had they been adequately trained in the soundly reasoned moral absolutes common to American Principle.

You see scamp, killing one's clientele is VERY hard on the bottom line and can be fatal to the enterprise.

Such practices are limited to processes OKA: Crony Capitalism, wherein the fascist (or Progressive, if you prefer) feel that they are protected by 'The Gubmint'... such individual's lack virtue.

Now again: WHICH SET OF IDEAS REJECT THE OBJECTIVITY WHICH IS ESSENTIAL TO VIRTUE?

Thanks for the ideology, which is dead wrong of course. In the real world you figure out how much a problem is going to cost you before you fix it. Capitalists don't do the right thing just because. That is anti-capitalist even illegal depending on what you do because the only legal goal is to maximize shareholder value. it's why corporations can't just hand out cash unless they can justify how doing so will help the bottom line, which in the end is the only thing that matters.

In the real world, you do the best you can to NOT HAVE A PROBLEM... we call that DUE DILIGENCE.

But, in fairness... there was no way that you could have known that. As such falls within a subject known as "Ethics"... which falls under "Virtue", which requires Objectivity, which you as a relativist, have no means to understand, let alone apply.

Which is why you're so poorly suited for freedom and that is why you're so rarely found participating in it, historically speaking.

The freedoms this country has are because my people founded it, not yours. Your kind shouldn't even be here since you are anti-American.

So you feel that addle-minded communists founded the United States?

Are you sure?

Because the United States was founded upon the Charter of Principles which recognizes that All men are endowed by God with rights, and that those rights rests upon no less an authority THAN GOD and as a result that no power within humanity is capable of removing those rights... which would decidedly include the limitless power of Government.

And THAT is pretty much the antithesis of everything you've ever said on this here message board.

Then why do you want the Government to remove abortion rights?

 

[bripat9643]

would you libs please give us a list of the countries where communism, socialism, marxism, progressivism, or liberalism has ever been successful? or for that matter, just name one country.

Sweden. Denmark. Germany.

It's not successful there. Those countries are largely capitalist. They are coasting on their former capitalist success. Now they are in trouble. They all have chronic double digit unemployment and they're debt is skyrocketing.

 

[bripat9643]

False!

You're speaking of the practices of the non-virtuous who engage in Capitalism. The response to which is that they received LESS business, thus their profits are lower then they would have been, had they been adequately trained in the soundly reasoned moral absolutes common to American Principle.

You see scamp, killing one's clientele is VERY hard on the bottom line and can be fatal to the enterprise.

Such practices are limited to processes OKA: Crony Capitalism, wherein the fascist (or Progressive, if you prefer) feel that they are protected by 'The Gubmint'... such individual's lack virtue.

Now again: WHICH SET OF IDEAS REJECT THE OBJECTIVITY WHICH IS ESSENTIAL TO VIRTUE?

Thanks for the ideology, which is dead wrong of course. In the real world you figure out how much a problem is going to cost you before you fix it. Capitalists don't do the right thing just because. That is anti-capitalist even illegal depending on what you do because the only legal goal is to maximize shareholder value. it's why corporations can't just hand out cash unless they can justify how doing so will help the bottom line, which in the end is the only thing that matters.

In the real world, you do the best you can to NOT HAVE A PROBLEM... we call that DUE DILIGENCE.

But, in fairness... there was no way that you could have known that. As such falls within a subject known as "Ethics"... which falls under "Virtue", which requires Objectivity, which you as a relativist, have no means to understand, let alone apply.

Which is why you're so poorly suited for freedom and that is why you're so rarely found participating in it, historically speaking.

The freedoms this country has are because my people founded it, not yours. Your kind shouldn't even be here since you are anti-American.

So you feel that addle-minded communists founded the United States?

Are you sure?

Because the United States was founded upon the Charter of Principles which recognizes that All men are endowed by God with rights, and that those rights rests upon no less an authority THAN GOD and as a result that no power within humanity is capable of removing those rights... which would decidedly include the limitless power of Government.

And THAT is pretty much the antithesis of everything you've ever said on this here message board.

This country was founded by people like Thomas Paine, who advocated for a universal minimum income for all citizens.

Thomas Paine was the only socialist among the Founding Fathers. The rest were all die-hard capitalists.

 

[Mr Natural]

So you condemn capitalism for doing the same thing as the socialist government programs you defend?

I'm not condemning anything, I'm explaining to you that such things are numbers games. The human costs, meaning death and disability, are also part of the calculation. If I employ a 1,000 kids and 999 of them won't die because of some flaw in the equipment, I don't fix the equipment, it's not cost effective to do so.

But here's the problem with that. If that one kid that dies is mine... and I find out that you knew that there was a chance that my child MIGHT DIE doing what you asked them to do, from the moment that I discovered that you knew of that risk... and you subjected my child to that risk, I would immediately go to where you are and kill you.

If I knew you were that kind of nut I wouldn't hire your kid. And you would be breaking the law while I wouldn't be, at least if you had your way I wouldn't be. People die using perfectly working equipment all the time. As long as they were trained and warned, that's on them for the most part. You can always sue but believe me, capitalists do the numbers first. A flaw that causes one person in a thousand driving the car to die will never be fixed in the cars already on the road. It would make no sense to do so, it's not cost-effective.

Actually, it's more like one person in 100,000. The flaws were are talking about are often not the direct cause of an accident. Take the infamous Corvair case. The accusation was that the placement of the gas tank caused the car to blow up when it was struck in the right way, So what we're actually talking about is the failure of the equipment to protect the occupants from accidents.

If you think costs should not be considered when making decision on safetey, you're a fool. We can make a car that is 100% safe, but it might cost $500,000 a copy.

What's the point of building a car that no one will buy?

Exploding gas tanks were in Pintos. Corvairs were just plain unsafe. Cute Little Deathtraps Nader called them.

Apart from it's unsafe handling, the Corvair used air from the engine to work the heater, allowing carbon monoxide to fill the passenger compartment.

A simple fix that could have been handled very easily and inexpensively by making sure that the owners' manual contained instructions warning the owner to never drive with the heat on and the windows rolled up.

 

[NYcarbineer]

lol, if that were true, the results make MY case, not yours.

Who was your employer?

ROFLMNAO! You have no 'case'.

You're an imbecile with a feeble, fecklessly advanced, bitch.

My old man was my employer... and getting fired was a fantasy with no hope of ever coming to pass.

Back sass your boss and he'll bitch and scream. Back sass my old an and he'd beat your ass. Then yell and bitch THEN you get to start over and do it all again! Every day was "Ground Hog Day", for me.

So you're product of child abuse. That's a partial explanation, I guess.

Sure sounds like it. One of those guys who thinks Daddy made a man out of me, by beating and abusing me. That tends towards sexual abuse as well, which would be no shock in this case.

I'm not accusing him of anything he is not himself offering in evidence.

I'm just enjoying the chance to debate someone who wants to put kids back in the mines.

No one is talking about putting kids in mines, jackass. There's no reason kids can't do simple jobs like cleaning up stocking shelves. Those are the kinds of jobs they have typically done. If a kid got hurt doing a dangerous job the parents could sue the employer for millions, so that isn't likely to happen.

Yes they are. Where r Keys wants to end all laws against child labor because he claims that they are unjustifiable. He wants kids in mines, kids in prostitution. He is not talking about your kid mowing the lawn.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I'm not condemning anything, I'm explaining to you that such things are numbers games. The human costs, meaning death and disability, are also part of the calculation. If I employ a 1,000 kids and 999 of them won't die because of some flaw in the equipment, I don't fix the equipment, it's not cost effective to do so.

But here's the problem with that. If that one kid that dies is mine... and I find out that you knew that there was a chance that my child MIGHT DIE doing what you asked them to do, from the moment that I discovered that you knew of that risk... and you subjected my child to that risk, I would immediately go to where you are and kill you.

If I knew you were that kind of nut I wouldn't hire your kid. And you would be breaking the law while I wouldn't be, at least if you had your way I wouldn't be. People die using perfectly working equipment all the time. As long as they were trained and warned, that's on them for the most part. You can always sue but believe me, capitalists do the numbers first. A flaw that causes one person in a thousand driving the car to die will never be fixed in the cars already on the road. It would make no sense to do so, it's not cost-effective.

Actually, it's more like one person in 100,000. The flaws were are talking about are often not the direct cause of an accident. Take the infamous Corvair case. The accusation was that the placement of the gas tank caused the car to blow up when it was struck in the right way, So what we're actually talking about is the failure of the equipment to protect the occupants from accidents.

If you think costs should not be considered when making decision on safetey, you're a fool. We can make a car that is 100% safe, but it might cost $500,000 a copy.

What's the point of building a car that no one will buy?

Exploding gas tanks were in Pintos. Corvairs were just plain unsafe. Cute Little Deathtraps Nader called them.

Apart from it's unsafe handling, the Corvair used air from the engine to work the heater, allowing carbon monoxide to fill the passenger compartment.

But hey, Cavaet Emptor!

That, and regulation.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm not condemning anything, I'm explaining to you that such things are numbers games. The human costs, meaning death and disability, are also part of the calculation. If I employ a 1,000 kids and 999 of them won't die because of some flaw in the equipment, I don't fix the equipment, it's not cost effective to do so.

But here's the problem with that. If that one kid that dies is mine... and I find out that you knew that there was a chance that my child MIGHT DIE doing what you asked them to do, from the moment that I discovered that you knew of that risk... and you subjected my child to that risk, I would immediately go to where you are and kill you.

If I knew you were that kind of nut I wouldn't hire your kid. And you would be breaking the law while I wouldn't be, at least if you had your way I wouldn't be. People die using perfectly working equipment all the time. As long as they were trained and warned, that's on them for the most part. You can always sue but believe me, capitalists do the numbers first. A flaw that causes one person in a thousand driving the car to die will never be fixed in the cars already on the road. It would make no sense to do so, it's not cost-effective.

Actually, it's more like one person in 100,000. The flaws were are talking about are often not the direct cause of an accident. Take the infamous Corvair case. The accusation was that the placement of the gas tank caused the car to blow up when it was struck in the right way, So what we're actually talking about is the failure of the equipment to protect the occupants from accidents.

If you think costs should not be considered when making decision on safetey, you're a fool. We can make a car that is 100% safe, but it might cost $500,000 a copy.

What's the point of building a car that no one will buy?

Exploding gas tanks were in Pintos. Corvairs were just plain unsafe. Cute Little Deathtraps Nader called them.

Apart from it's unsafe handling, the Corvair used air from the engine to work the heater, allowing carbon monoxide to fill the passenger compartment.

But hey, Cavaet Emptor!

They did not vent exhaust gases directly into the passenger compartment. If they did the passengers would all die within minutes. They used a heat exchanger, just like the volkswagon does.

You have reached incredible heights of stupidity with that post.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Capitalism relegates itself by working the numbers. If it cost more to fix the defect in the cars already on the road than to pay off the lawsuits of people who die because of it, the defect doesn't get fixed. It's a numbers game, and it's why we regulate it.

False!

You're speaking of the practices of the non-virtuous who engage in Capitalism. The response to which is that they received LESS business, thus their profits are lower then they would have been, had they been adequately trained in the soundly reasoned moral absolutes common to American Principle.

You see scamp, killing one's clientele is VERY hard on the bottom line and can be fatal to the enterprise.

Such practices are limited to processes OKA: Crony Capitalism, wherein the fascist (or Progressive, if you prefer) feel that they are protected by 'The Gubmint'... such individual's lack virtue.

Now again: WHICH SET OF IDEAS REJECT THE OBJECTIVITY WHICH IS ESSENTIAL TO VIRTUE?

Thanks for the ideology, which is dead wrong of course. In the real world you figure out how much a problem is going to cost you before you fix it. Capitalists don't do the right thing just because. That is anti-capitalist even illegal depending on what you do because the only legal goal is to maximize shareholder value. it's why corporations can't just hand out cash unless they can justify how doing so will help the bottom line, which in the end is the only thing that matters.

In the real world, you do the best you can to NOT HAVE A PROBLEM... we call that DUE DILIGENCE.

But, in fairness... there was no way that you could have known that. As such falls within a subject known as "Ethics"... which falls under "Virtue", which requires Objectivity, which you as a relativist, have no means to understand, let alone apply.

Which is why you're so poorly suited for freedom and that is why you're so rarely found participating in it, historically speaking.

The freedoms this country has are because my people founded it, not yours. Your kind shouldn't even be here since you are anti-American.

So you feel that addle-minded communists founded the United States?

Are you sure?

Because the United States was founded upon the Charter of Principles which recognizes that All men are endowed by God with rights, and that those rights rests upon no less an authority THAN GOD and as a result that no power within humanity is capable of removing those rights... which would decidedly include the limitless power of Government.

And THAT is pretty much the antithesis of everything you've ever said on this here message board.

The Founders said Government was responsible for protecting your rights, not God.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Thanks for the ideology, which is dead wrong of course. In the real world you figure out how much a problem is going to cost you before you fix it. Capitalists don't do the right thing just because. That is anti-capitalist even illegal depending on what you do because the only legal goal is to maximize shareholder value. it's why corporations can't just hand out cash unless they can justify how doing so will help the bottom line, which in the end is the only thing that matters.

In the real world, you do the best you can to NOT HAVE A PROBLEM... we call that DUE DILIGENCE.

But, in fairness... there was no way that you could have known that. As such falls within a subject known as "Ethics"... which falls under "Virtue", which requires Objectivity, which you as a relativist, have no means to understand, let alone apply.

Which is why you're so poorly suited for freedom and that is why you're so rarely found participating in it, historically speaking.

The freedoms this country has are because my people founded it, not yours. Your kind shouldn't even be here since you are anti-American.

So you feel that addle-minded communists founded the United States?

Are you sure?

Because the United States was founded upon the Charter of Principles which recognizes that All men are endowed by God with rights, and that those rights rests upon no less an authority THAN GOD and as a result that no power within humanity is capable of removing those rights... which would decidedly include the limitless power of Government.

And THAT is pretty much the antithesis of everything you've ever said on this here message board.

This country was founded by people like Thomas Paine, who advocated for a universal minimum income for all citizens.

Thomas Paine was the only socialist among the Founding Fathers. The rest were all die-hard capitalists.

Die-hard? They were nothing of the kind.

 

[bripat9643]

But here's the problem with that. If that one kid that dies is mine... and I find out that you knew that there was a chance that my child MIGHT DIE doing what you asked them to do, from the moment that I discovered that you knew of that risk... and you subjected my child to that risk, I would immediately go to where you are and kill you.

If I knew you were that kind of nut I wouldn't hire your kid. And you would be breaking the law while I wouldn't be, at least if you had your way I wouldn't be. People die using perfectly working equipment all the time. As long as they were trained and warned, that's on them for the most part. You can always sue but believe me, capitalists do the numbers first. A flaw that causes one person in a thousand driving the car to die will never be fixed in the cars already on the road. It would make no sense to do so, it's not cost-effective.

Actually, it's more like one person in 100,000. The flaws were are talking about are often not the direct cause of an accident. Take the infamous Corvair case. The accusation was that the placement of the gas tank caused the car to blow up when it was struck in the right way, So what we're actually talking about is the failure of the equipment to protect the occupants from accidents.

If you think costs should not be considered when making decision on safetey, you're a fool. We can make a car that is 100% safe, but it might cost $500,000 a copy.

What's the point of building a car that no one will buy?

Exploding gas tanks were in Pintos. Corvairs were just plain unsafe. Cute Little Deathtraps Nader called them.

Apart from it's unsafe handling, the Corvair used air from the engine to work the heater, allowing carbon monoxide to fill the passenger compartment.

But hey, Cavaet Emptor!

That, and regulation.

You two are too stupid for words to describe.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If I knew you were that kind of nut I wouldn't hire your kid. And you would be breaking the law while I wouldn't be, at least if you had your way I wouldn't be. People die using perfectly working equipment all the time. As long as they were trained and warned, that's on them for the most part. You can always sue but believe me, capitalists do the numbers first. A flaw that causes one person in a thousand driving the car to die will never be fixed in the cars already on the road. It would make no sense to do so, it's not cost-effective.

Actually, it's more like one person in 100,000. The flaws were are talking about are often not the direct cause of an accident. Take the infamous Corvair case. The accusation was that the placement of the gas tank caused the car to blow up when it was struck in the right way, So what we're actually talking about is the failure of the equipment to protect the occupants from accidents.

If you think costs should not be considered when making decision on safetey, you're a fool. We can make a car that is 100% safe, but it might cost $500,000 a copy.

What's the point of building a car that no one will buy?

Exploding gas tanks were in Pintos. Corvairs were just plain unsafe. Cute Little Deathtraps Nader called them.

Apart from it's unsafe handling, the Corvair used air from the engine to work the heater, allowing carbon monoxide to fill the passenger compartment.

But hey, Cavaet Emptor!

That, and regulation.

You two are too stupid for words to describe.

Yes, we know. Reality is something you rejected long ago my little infant.

 

[bripat9643]

In the real world, you do the best you can to NOT HAVE A PROBLEM... we call that DUE DILIGENCE.

But, in fairness... there was no way that you could have known that. As such falls within a subject known as "Ethics"... which falls under "Virtue", which requires Objectivity, which you as a relativist, have no means to understand, let alone apply.

Which is why you're so poorly suited for freedom and that is why you're so rarely found participating in it, historically speaking.

The freedoms this country has are because my people founded it, not yours. Your kind shouldn't even be here since you are anti-American.

So you feel that addle-minded communists founded the United States?

Are you sure?

Because the United States was founded upon the Charter of Principles which recognizes that All men are endowed by God with rights, and that those rights rests upon no less an authority THAN GOD and as a result that no power within humanity is capable of removing those rights... which would decidedly include the limitless power of Government.

And THAT is pretty much the antithesis of everything you've ever said on this here message board.

This country was founded by people like Thomas Paine, who advocated for a universal minimum income for all citizens.

Thomas Paine was the only socialist among the Founding Fathers. The rest were all die-hard capitalists.

Die-hard? They were nothing of the kind.

Yes they were. In fact, plenty of them died fighting for a country with economic freedom.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The KKK wholeheartedly supports the 2nd Amendment. Do you?

So? If you don't then you are unAmerican. It's part of our constitution and our rights. Thanks for proving you're a commie.

The whole premise of this stupid thread is the claim that the Democratic Party is Communist because some people calling themselves communists agree with the Democratic Party on some issues.

If you agree with that premise, which YOU DO, then that premise is valid - by your measure - to apply to other circumstances.

The other circumstance cited, in accordance with your measure - is that YOU are KKK because you agree with the KKK on some issues.

Get it now?

the purpose of the thread is to remind everyone that the communist party feels comfortable aligning itself with the democrats. Thats all this is about. Spin all you wish, you cannot change the fact that communists and democrats have a lot in common.

So do rightwingers and Nazis. And KKK'ers.