The latest advance in our litigious society

[Liberal Classic]

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nevada/2004/apr/17/041710554.html

Nevada woman sues Coors over son's death in accident


ASSOCIATED PRESS

RENO, Nev. (AP) - A Reno woman has sued Coors Brewing Co. over her son's death in a traffic accident, claiming it promotes underage drinking.

In her lawsuit filed Wednesday in Washoe County District Court, Jodie Pisco contends Coors has failed in its duty to protect the country's youth from drinking. The suit seeks unspecified damages.

Her 19-year-old son, Ryan, was killed in March 2002 after he drank Coors at a party in Reno and drove his girlfriend's car into a light pole at 90 mph.

...

---

I hate to say I told you so but this was inevitable in the face of tobacco and gun lawsuits. Where will the "War on Something or Other" stop?

[iverglas]

1. yeah, eh?

Joe Camel, Eddie Eagle ... has Coors picked a mascot yet to anchor its underaged drinking campaign?

http://clearinghouse.adhl.org/campaigns/ruad/ed_art.html

Me, I wonder when the war on kids might stop.

And of course I also wonder what some people imagine that the reason why tobacco, firearm and alcohol (and hamburger and doughnut) manufacturers spend all that money on advertising might be.

Funny, how they seem to know something that nobody else can figure out.

In a recent interview, the CEO of Coors Brewing admitted that alcohol is a poison, "If you chug a gallon of alcohol, you're going to die." But Coors does not think we should be telling young people not to drink. "What I'd like to see this country do is to have a situation where kids could learn to drink responsibly over time."

Why waste a single minute of that time, when there are profits to be made?

.

[demsrule4life]

2. Let's be fair about this

The mother should sue the girlfriend for letting him drive her car with or without her permission, sue the person hosting the party and sue who ever is responsible for putting the light pole in the way. Maybe she should also sue herself for raising an idiot. Thank god he killed himself and didn't hit a car full of family.

On edit

When is the last time you saw firearms being advertised on billboards and TV? I'm not saying it never happens, but to the extent of beer, comercials showing people driving cars like idots and all the fast food?

[iverglas]

3. yeah

... sue the girlfriend for letting him drive her car ... without her permission ...

Now that makes sense.

... sue herself for raising an idiot.

That's right. Parents (especially mothers) are able to pre-determine the entire course of their children's lives. And Coors spends all that money advertising to underaged drinkers because it has absolutely no effect at all.

.

[OpSomBlood]

4. Hmm.

That's strange...I seem to recall Coors doing quite a bit of advertising against underage drinking.

Do you have a link to one of the ads that specifically targets underaged drinkers?

[Wickerman]

6. I don't recall a Coors comercial that notably

marketed itto youth. Nearly all their advertising is markedly geared towards an immature audience. Same thing? Can't say. Coors has always been a lousy corrporate citizen. Union busting, etc. Do a google on Coors+Boycott if you are unfamiliar Huge supporters of the Bush* campaign and the RW agenda in general. While I don't know the merits of this case, I'd sure like to see the beer companies market their product more towards moderation. Perhaps this will help. :shrug:

[Superfly]

7. Or, maybe alcohol consumption

should not be treated as a rite of passage in the US.

I grew up in Bavaria, where, as you know, there really are no hard and fast ages concerning alcohol consumption. There, alcohol consumption just isn't given the hype and hooplah as it is over here, which, I believe, leads to consumption by youths who "want to act grown up."

[Wickerman]

14. I agree we in the US treat ETOH consumption

like adolescents - with a wink and nudge. Much like sex and drugs we don't talk about it, we have little realistic discussion of it (with the exception of bombastic programs like DARE, and the obvious titillation of the marketing community), then we expect you to behave as an adult simply because you had a birthday.
My perspective is that the goofy Coors commercials contribute to the adolescence factor in alcohol consumption.

Some more info on those great pillars of America, the Coors family:

-1984, In a speech to a minority business group in Denver, William Coors told the group that if they thought it was "unfair" that their "ancestors were dragged here in chains against their will... I would urge those of you who feel that way to go back to where your ancestors come from, and you will find out that probably the greatest favor that anybody ever did you, was to drag your ancestors over here in chains, and I mean it."

-Later in the same speech Coors said, "... they (Blacks) lack the intellectual capacity to succeed."

http://www.corporations.org/coors/

[MrBenchley]

10. The Coors family has long been funding

every nutcase right wing cause they can find.

[Superfly]

12. Next, you're going to say that the entire brewing industry

is the poster child of the RW and that they are all in cahoots with Dick Cheney, etc....

It might please you to know, then, that I've not consumed a Coors in about a million years. Pretty much 99.99% of all the beer I drink is of the home-grown variety. So, by proxy, I am supporting the efforts of grain growers and hop cultivators, both industries on which I await your stamp of approval.

[MrBenchley]

22. Fly...helloooo, fly....

Don't cry to me because you don't know the background...

"Joseph Coors, über-conservative and founder of the Heritage Foundation, has died at age 85. According to his brother:
"He was very principled and dedicated. But we got along a lot better if we didn't talk politics," Bill Coors said.
"He was conservative as they come. I mean he was a little bit right of Attila the Hun."
His legacy, unfortunately, will be with us for a long time to come."

http://www.calpundit.com/archives/000694.html

""He was a great man who cared deeply for his country. A real patriot!"
With these words, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review publisher Richard M. Scaife (and there's an ace to draw to!) described Joseph Coors Sr., a brewing company magnate who used his administrative talents and wealth to underwrite and guide conservative causes.
As an advocate of self-reliance and free enterprise, Mr. Coors, besides his commitment to the Heritage Foundation, also was a major backer of the John Birch Society, founded Television News Inc. (TVN) and the Free Congress Foundation and backed any organization or group that supported conservative congressional candidates. "

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/regional/s_124247.html

"The Heritage Foundation was founded in 1973 with the help of $250,000 from Joseph Coors, and a further $300,000 each year for several years thereafter. Based in Washington DC, it was designed to counter-attack liberal thinking with solid, timely research on policy issues. Within a decade it had an annual budget of more than $10 million and supported studies by more than 100 researchers.
Its papers inspired Reagan's space-and-land-based Strategic Defence Initiative, or "Star Wars", his "trickle-down" economic policy, and his budget cuts. It also backed White House support for the Contras in Nicaragua, and the forging of closer links with the apartheid regime in South Africa.
This was to be a drawn-out affair, but by the time Reagan was elected as President in 1980, Coors was a key member of the inner circle that would help determine the make-up of the new administration. With his support, several Coloradans were recruited by Reagan, including James Watt, the president of the Mountain States Legal Foundation (another conservative group funded by Coors) and Anne Gorsuch.
In 1987 Coors testified before congressional committees investigating the Iran-Contra affair, and admitted that on one occasion his support for Reagan had stretched to wiring $65,000 to a Swiss bank account (at the behest of the former CIA director William Casey and the White House aide Oliver North) to fund the purchase of a small cargo plane for the Contras."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$SUHGYBTUJJV2FQFIQMFSFF4AVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2003/03/19/db1903.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/03/19/ixportal.html

"It might please you to know, then, that I've not consumed a Coors in about a million years. "
Jeeze, why should anybody give a fuck about that?

[Superfly]

24. Such rage...really, it doesn't suit you...

Coors is shitty beer. I could give a flying fuck about their politics, they make a substandard product, and for that reason I will not buy a Coors.

Now, if I went to a picnic and all they offered was Coors, would I rage against their alleged RW politics? No, I will just belly up...because OPB is always the best beer.

[OpSomBlood]

25. Great point.

Who cares what Coors does, their beer is shit.

[Superfly]

26. Unless it's free.

Then it's the best beer...

[MrBenchley]

30. Geeze, fly...I'm not the one who flew into a rage

and started ranting about the brewing industry...that was YOU.

[Superfly]

31. Where did I do that?

Rage? Rant?

No, I just said that I do not care about Coors' politics and that I do care about the quality of their product.

[MrBenchley]

38. Yeah, where was it that you stamped your feet and cried

"next you're going to say that the entire brewing industry...."

Wonder where that could be? Good thing DU's got a search function, eh....

[Superfly]

39. Ummm...Bench....

that was *sarcasm*. But, I guess you need a sense of humor to see that.

[MrBenchley]

42. no, fly

as we see in this thread, it's the bullets for brains crowd trying to make excuses for right wing shits...again. For what twisted reason, I have no idea.

[Superfly]

44. And like I said...

I could not give two shits about their politics. I choose not to patronize Coors because they make a substandard product.

[iverglas]

41. well, except

that it turned out to be pretty much true.

"Next you're going to say that the sky is blue. </sarcasm>"

Er, yes. Allow me to offer you evidence ...

"Eek, eek, you've flown into a rage, when I was just being sarcastic ..."

.

[MrBenchley]

45. Funny how it never seems

that the bullets for brains bunch is sticking up for moderates or liberals...it's always right wing pieces of shit that they're trying to defend...

[Superfly]

46. It must be nice to see the world in black and white...

All liberals good, all conservatives bad.

Shit, man, not everything in this world is politics. If you made decisions about everything you read, saw, ate, drank, based on politics, you would develop a seriously narrow, intolerant point of view.

***Lightbulb turns on*** Nevermind, I get it now.

[MrBenchley]

47. Gee, I'm not the one

trying to pretend right wingers are not right wingers...

"not everything in this world is politics"
Politics is politics...if someone puts his head up his ass and pretends politics don't influence the way his world operates, then he's a fool with his head up his ass.

But then I wonder why somebody who's trying to pretend he's not interested in politics is on a political discussion board, in the middle of a political discussion.

"you would develop a seriously narrow, intolerant point of view"
Just like the scummy Coors family.

[Superfly]

49. I said I was not interested in the politics

of the Coors Brewing Company. Their politics do not affect the way I make my decision on whether or not to buy their beer. The quality of their product does.

Not everything is politics.

"Just like the scummy Coors family"
As far as I know, the scummiest thing about the Coors family is their beer.

[iverglas]

48. who said that?!?

All liberals good, all conservatives bad.

Who *was* that masked man?!?


From a quick glance, it seems that John McCain has altered some of his positions since 2000:

http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/John_McCain_Gun_Control.htm
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/20/171553.shtml
(The newsmax article is critical of McCain, so we can take it as read that I offer it for the facts it reports, which, since newsmax doesn't like those facts and has no other reason to be wanting to discredit McCain that I can think of, I'm willing to accept as accurate.)

I think that one could call John McCain a "conservative" within the US paradigm.

You assert that Benchley says "all conservatives <are> bad". (I have no idea how you arrived there from what Benchley actually appears to say, which is "many bad people <are> conservative", but I won't ask.)

Has Benchley said something that would amount to "John McCain bad"?

So on the face of it, even disregarding whatever bizarre logic you used in order to put the statement "all conservatives bad" in Benchley's mouth, is your conclusion not pretty much, uh, bad?

Proving a negative. ("Benchley does not say 'all conservatives bad.") Offer an example inconsistent with the positive. Benchley does not say "John McCain bad" (if I may be so presumptuous as to presume this). Ergo Benchley does not say "all conservatives bad".

Over to you.

.

[Superfly]

51. You would think by your post

that you are a neophyte to the J/PS world. Bench has a demonstrated track record of holding all things "liberal" as gospel, and decrying all things "conservative" as less than savory.

He's got 15,000 posts, I'm sure a cursory search of them will support what I wrote.

Over to you.

[iverglas]

53. no, I'm awfully sorry

Bench has a demonstrated track record of holding all things "liberal" as gospel, and decrying all things "conservative" as less than savory.

What I have seen is a propensity for (if we engage in a bit of hyperbole, anyway) characterizing all things less than savoury as conservative.

To me, that's just tautological.

Nonetheless, it does NOT imply the reverse: that all things conservative are less than savoury.

Bad = conservative.
NOT
Conservative = bad.

Find a bad person, and s/he will likely be conservative. NOT find a conservative person, and s/he will likely be bad.

Ditto liberal/good. Find a good person, and s/he will likely be liberal. NOT find a liberal person, and s/he will likely be good.

(Although, again, that tautology factor creeps in ...)

You know. All Socrateses are mortal. And yet not all mortals are Socrates.

Nugents and Pratts are conservative because they are bad -- not bad because they are conservative. (The latter is true, but only as a tautology ... the fact that they are conservative is not the actual reason why they are characterized as bad. The former is true as an empirical observation: they are bad, therefore they become, not merely are characterized as, conservatives.)

Ball hasn't left your court yet.

.

[Superfly]

54. You say "tomato"

I say Coors is still awful beer.

Ever have La fin du Monde? Now, that, my dear iverglas, is a *great* beer.

[iverglas]

55. and you keep saying "road apple"

We do know what road apples are ... and of course tomatoes are really "love apples" ...

Oranges and road apples ... love apples and road apples ... all just the same old shit, eh?

:P

.

[Superfly]

56. nevermind...

not a time to be uncivil, like some on this board.

[iverglas]

57. oh dear

And here I thought that pictures of horseshit were, like, inherently funny.

Like "k" words, and mothers-in-law.

Not to mention ever so clever plays on words ...

Oh well. Road apples before swine, I guess.

IT'S A FIGURE OF SPEECH, for dog's sake.

But then it seems that most on this board prefer lip-pursed dourness, or at least to portray themselves as utterly devoid of the humour impulse.

.

[Superfly]

58. My mistake, then....

I thought that was a dig at what I had just posted. Your sense of humour appears to be vastly different from my own....

Peace

[iverglas]

59. well, you see, it was

I posted information and argument to demonstrate why what you were saying was incorrect, and you just kept saying it. I regard the product of that approach as a road apple.

Does nobody hereabouts actually understand how "discussion" works?

Person A says something. Person B responds to it. Then Person A responds to what Person B said.

Person A doesn't just say the same thing all over again. (Or say "well that's my opinion", or words to that effect. Stating an opinion is not discussion.)

Of course, even prior to that, there's often a little consideration called "relevance". And characterizations of things people say -- let alone mischaracterizations of them -- aren't always relevant.

Just like Feinstein's alleged mishandling of a disabled firearm isn't relevant to the issue of appropriate restrictions on the sale and possession of certain types of firearms.

.

[iverglas]

8. gee, a link?

Did you try clicking on the link in my post (that I quoted from)?

I was kinda busy last night; just looked at the one. I'll bet that if *you* do what I did -- ask Google for coors "underage drinking" (1570 results) or the more correct coors "underaged drinking" (a mere 12 results, most not much use), you could find some links of your own (and of course be discerning enough to identify those which might provide useful information).

.

[OpSomBlood]

50. Deleted.

Deleted.

[demsrule4life]

5. Why not?

... sue the girlfriend for letting him drive her car ... without her permission ...



If he wasnt driving her car he would be alive. A couple of weeks ago two idiots that I work with went out drinking and driving. The guy driving passed a car, lost control and ran off the road. The truck flipped over, ejected the driver and the truck rolled over onto his head. The wife is now trying to sue the passenger for letting her husband drive. Her husband was 44 years of age a father and grandfather, but it is the passengers fault that he was acting like an idiot.


On edit

Now I think I understand what you mean Coors=money, girlfriend=none

[iverglas]

9. no, try again

... sue the girlfriend for letting him drive her car ... without her permission ...

No, what I meant was: how the hell does anyone "let" someone do anything "without the permission" of the first person?

If the first person didn't give permission, s/he didn't "let".

Now, granted, s/he might have negligently allowed the person access to his/her car keys and car by leaving the car sitting around in the driveway and the keys lying around in her purse ...

.

[demsrule4life]

11. If someone went through her purse

took her car keys and took her car, that is car theft. When did it happen that people are not responsible for their own actions?

[iverglas]

15. make a point and stick to it, eh?

If someone went through her purse
took her car keys and took her car, that is car theft.

Again: DUH. And she did not LET him drive her car "without her permission", right?

When did it happen that people are not responsible for their own actions?

Oh, about when we emerged from the primeval sludge and became subject to the influences in our environment, all of which affect the extent to which we are all responsible for our own actions.

Of course, I'm sure you were referring to Coors, and asking why it should not be held liable for the consequences of inciting underaged drinkers to consume alcohol.

I'm unendingly surprised at the selectiveness with which some people engage in that favourite pastime, the blame game.

.

[demsrule4life]

17. I don't play the blame game

If you fuck up you are responsible for your actions. I don't care what the circumstances are. The only people that play the blame game in this town are the antigun group or the ones who think they know better than anyone else.

[iverglas]

18. and now all you need to do

is explain why Coors should not be held accountable for ITS ACTIONS.

.

[Superfly]

19. What actions?

Forcing an underage person to drink, and then drive?

[demsrule4life]

20. Coors did not force him to drink

Coors did not force an unlicensed intoxicated person to drive a car. He was 19 years old, in most countries in the world that makes him an adult and responsible for his actions.

If I would have to guess I made at least 1000 DUI busts in my career. Each and everyone had an exuse, not one would admit it was their fault. Shit most of the time it was my fault for busting them.

[MrSandman]

62. "I only had a couple of beers"

That was the favored refrain here when I dealt with them.

Now I know what kind of beer they were drinking.

:think:

[iverglas]

21. and now all you both need to do

is explain why Coors spends millions and millions of dollars on advertising aimed at underaged drinkers.

After all, it's a complete waste of money, right?


Political theory and our understanding of human psychology.

Two things in which there really have been advances since the 18th century, even if it's all still a mystery in some parts.

.

[Superfly]

23. And, please, all you need to do is show me:

where Coors targeted underage drinkers in its advertising.

Just cut and paste that advertising in any reply you make, thanks!

B

[iverglas]

28. really; over to you

I offered one link. Here's another.

http://www.marininstitute.org/scary/SDUT_102403.htm

If you're going to be applying a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of proof to this debate, all I can say is watch out for flying boomerangs.

If you want to discuss the issue in the manner in which such issues are normally discussed -- and perhaps in reference to the standard of proof used in civil law, or in academic inquiry -- feel free to pick up the ball and do something with it.

.

[Superfly]

29. So, the next thing you're going to say

is that Coors advertising at baseball games is advertising to underage drinkers.

[iverglas]

32. actually

I don't plan to say much of anything else until someone addresses something of what has actually been said. Follow those links.

And your notions of what I am or am not going to say are supremely uninteresting.

.

[Superfly]

34. Jeebus, wake up on the wrong side of the bed?

Screw the links...*show* me the advertising.

Reading an article about how somebody thinks having Coors support of a movie constitutes targeting minors is not enough. Show me a picture.

And, let's not get snarky. I really would like to discuss this with you without the snide comments.

[OpSomBlood]

33. Logic fault...

The rating of the film does not mean it is targeted at that specific age group. The filmmaker does not have control over what rating the MPAA gives it.

[iverglas]

35. yes indeedy

The rating of the film does not mean it is targeted at that specific age group.

Who said it did? What it does do is give advertisers an indication of who the audience will include.

Beep. Straw person.

The filmmaker does not have control over what rating the MPAA gives it.

Who said it did? The filmmaker plainly KNOWS what rating the films it advertises in have, and CHOOSES to advertise in those films. (Perhaps *you* think that the advertiser does not have control over what films its ads appear with?)

Beep. Straw person.

Now if only you'd identified a "logic fault" in my post, we'd be even.

.

[Superfly]

36. So?

"What it does do is give advertisers an indication of who the audience will include"

What good is that?

1) Film is written and sponsors are chosen. Products placed in film as subtle advertising.
2) Film is put on celluloid.
3) MPAA rates the film before release.
4) "...advertisers <have> an indication of who the audience will include"

So what?

[OpSomBlood]

37. Does an R rating make a difference?

Scary Movie and Scary Movie 2 were both rated R. The filmmakers had no reason to believe that the third one would be rated differently while they were making the movie.

Besides, would this product placement be more acceptable to you in an R-rated movie? The R rating is restricted for 17 and up...still well below the legal drinking age.

[iverglas]

40. how perceptive of you

Besides, would this product placement be more acceptable to you in an R-rated movie? The R rating is restricted for 17 and up...still well below the legal drinking age.

You're very right. Audience demographics, and not the rating, is the significant factor.

If I can ask google, I'll bet Pete Coors can.

In response to "scary movie 2" audience demographics, I found this, which doesn't actually have the figures for that movie, but makes it clear what figures are available:
http://www.jupiterresearch.com/xp/jmm/press/2001/pr_080901.html

Obviously, movie marketing types know exactly what audience their products are targeted to, and can provide prospective advertisers with very accurate predictions. What *do* you people think advertisers spend all that money for, and how randomly do you think they do it??


Scary Movie and Scary Movie 2 were both rated R. The filmmakers had no reason to believe that the third one would be rated differently while they were making the movie.

Do you really imagine that advertising and product placement is locked in with no escape clause in the event that a rating is different from what was anticipated? (And do you really imagine that the movie makers were not aiming for a lower rating that time?)

Yeah. Pete Coors is that stupid.

.

[OpSomBlood]

43. I'm no Coors fan...

...but I just don't see it the same way as you.

- Underage drinking is illegal.
- Coors participates actively in anti-underage drinking advertising.

I've never seen Scary Movie 3 so I have no idea how the Coors product placement might entice a teenager to drink beer. I don't recall the outrage over Stand By Me where small children smoking cigarettes was presented as a rite of passage to adulthood.

[iverglas]

52. ah, proof by blatant assertion

Coors participates actively in anti-underage drinking advertising.

I have offered links to information and opinion about Coors' "anti-underage drinking advertising". The way these things work is that I really don't have to copy and paste everything I've linked to.

Nobody has given anything resembling a response to what I have offered, which addresses the assertion you have made.

Nope, we'll just continue saying it.

"The sky is green." Here, let me offer you a link to an internet site that demonstrates that the sky is blue. "The sky is green."

I've never seen Scary Movie 3 so I have no idea how the Coors product placement might entice a teenager to drink beer.

And you are apparently bound and bent not to learn anything about it. No skin off my nose. Just don't imagine (or pretend) that you are engaged in a discussion of something, 'k?

I don't recall the outrage over Stand By Me where small children smoking cigarettes was presented as a rite of passage to adulthood.

If you want to draw an analogy between the two things, you go ahead and do it. Again, saying "thing 2" in response to "thing 1" is not drawing an analogy, and not making an argument.


- Underage drinking is illegal.
- Coors participates actively in anti-underage drinking advertising.

Uh ... may I assume that your conclusion from these apparent premises is "Coors does not promote underaged drinking"?

Unfortunately, what I see is

- a totally irrelevant statement
- a statement that is not inconsistent with the conclusion "Coors promotes underaged drinking".

I see it more like this:

- Coors spends a minimal amount of money on ineffective anti-underaged drinking advertising;

- Coors spends enormous amounts of money on advertising and product placement too obviously directed at underaged drinkers and potential drinkers;

- many underaged drinkers purchase and consume Coors products, with Coors' full knowledge;

Conclusion: Coors promotes and encourages the purchase of its product by underaged drinkers.

.

[demsrule4life]

63. The blame game again

Lawyers invented the blame game to line their greedy pockets. Can you imagine if the concept of individual responsibility started up again? Half of the bottom feeding lawyers would be out of work the next day.

[MrBenchley]

64. Ah, the "personal responsibility" game again...

Right wingers like Rush serve that crap up to ignorant yokels every fucking day.

"Can you imagine if the concept of individual responsibility started up again?"
Let's see....the gun industry might stop trying to keep citizens from having their day in court?
The RKBA crowd might finally admit that closing the gun show loophole would keep criminals from getting their hands on guns?
Some of the freepers who drift over here from places like highroadrage with handles like "leftofstalin" might admit who they are instead of trying to pass themselves off as Democrats?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=170057

[demsrule4life]

65. Congratulations

it appears that you have discovered the spell checker.

[MrBenchley]

68. Discover any posts of yours supporting Democrats?

Telling...

[OpSomBlood]

66. Sad...

It's unfortunate that in your mind, the concept of personal responsibility is a myth perpetuated by the right wing. That you don't fathom how when someone gets drunk and kills themself, it might possibly have been their own fault.

[demsrule4life]

67. Toast to a post

:toast:

[MrBenchley]

70. High praise indeed...

[MrBenchley]

69. Even sadder...

that some people will struggle so far out of their way to pretend corporate wrongdoing cannot possibly exist, no matter how much evidence to the contrary is amassed.

"when someone gets drunk and kills themself, it might possibly have been their own fault."
Funny, when gun dealers wink at straw purchases it's never THEIR fucking fault, to listen to the glocksuckers around ehre.

[OpSomBlood]

72. Revisionist history.

Nobody ever argued that gun dealers who are complicit in straw purchases are free of liability. They should be prosecuted harshly.

But if a dealer makes a legal sale to a person who passes the background checks, are they supposed to be psychic and know what the customer is going to do with the gun once they leave the store?

[MrBenchley]

74. Horse shit

"Nobody ever argued that gun dealers who are complicit in straw purchases are free of liability."
Hell, there are three or four posts on the board right now arguing that very fucking thing. And the Republican party was trying to engineer immunity for laibility in the Senate just a few weeks ago, while the RKBA crowd cheered.

Revisionist history my ass.

[demsrule4life]

76. I KNOW I KNOW

of course they are. They are responsible for someone else's actions.

[iverglas]

71. right outa the park -- and news!!

That you don't fathom how when someone gets drunk
and kills themself, it might possibly have been
their own fault.

Y'all sure got a soft pitch with this one. Irresponsible punk drives drunk, kills self. Tsk, tsk.

I wonder ... how about if irresponsible drunk had driven drunk and killed the family of five sitting by the window of the Krispy Kreme shop he smashed into? And himself, of course.

Well, I'm sure "personal responsibility" would have covered that one too. Those grease-guzzling pre-schoolers would just have got their just desserts, obviously; if they hadn't been filling their faces with crap, they'd still be alive. And their parents should have known that coffee was meant to be hot.

Now, some people would just rather try to prevent harm than blame someone when it happens. Others prefer to say tsk, tsk a lot.

And others are happy to make huge profits from encouraging people to do the things that lead to harm ... and use some of that money to fund the Heritage Foundation, and ... well SHIT, did we miss this one??

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~64~2081261,00.html

Brewing magnate Pete Coors formally announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate on the steps of the state Capitol this morning, saying he is running because "I owe my country a debt of gratitude and I want to serve my country."

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E64%257E2080003,00.html

A Republican, a gun owner and a father of six, he opposes abortion, supports the right of all Americans to bear arms and believes marriage should be only between a man and a woman.

Yup, that's my kinda guy. And just the kidna guy whose sincere claim to be doing everything in his power to curb underaged drinking, and heavens to betsy, who would never try to persuade underaged drinkers to buy his beer, I would swallow without hesitation.

.

[MrBenchley]

73. Always instructive to see

the sort of folks that the RKBA crowd race to defend, isn't it?

[OpSomBlood]

75. This is just weird.

How does Pete Coors being a Republican make him responsible for what happens when people abuse his product? That's quite a logical leap you've made there...the guy is a Republican, therefore he should be sued when people get drunk and do bad things.

And to answer your question, if someone gets drunk and kills a family of five, it's still not the beer brewer's fault. It's the driver's fault. Personal responsibility covers that...in fact, it covers the responsibility of everything a person chooses to do. Hence the term "personal responsibility."

[iverglas]

77. gee, who said it did?

How does Pete Coors being a Republican make him responsible for what happens when people abuse his product?

I dunno. Why don't you ask someone who said that?

That's quite a logical leap you've made there

"Logical leap" is not the term I would use for what you've created here.

the guy is a Republican, therefore he should be sued when people get drunk and do bad things.

Are you stating your own opinion, or quoting someone else?

If the latter, please use your copy and paste function, and insert the quotation marks, and cite the source, so that we can all know whom to call a raving idiot.

And to answer your question, if someone gets drunk and kills a family of five, it's still not the beer brewer's fault.

Was that my question? I guess I didn't make myself plain. I was actually following along in the discussion that was actually underway, which had to do with a brewer's potential liability for harm caused when someone whom it had incited to engage in illegal underaged drinking did what the brewer had incited him/her to do and caused harm that would not have occurred if s/he had not done what the brewer incited him/her to do.

Of course, I haven't stated an opinion on Coors' liability. But my not having stated an opinion has never stopped anyone from ascribing opinions to me in the past, so don't you worry.

I know that some people here do have difficulty with basic concepts of human psychology. That's unfortunate. Fortunately for Pete Coors, he has no such difficulty. I mean, that's what I infer from the fact that he spends so much money on advertising. He may be evil, but I don't read him as stupid.

Personal responsibility covers that...in fact, it covers the responsibility of everything a person chooses to do. Hence the term "personal responsibility."

Hey, I like that.

The oinkingly selfish, wilfully blind nature of RKBAers covers a lot of things ... in fact, it covers the oinkingly selfish, wilfully blind nature of everything I see RKBAers do. Hence the term "oinkingly selfish, wilfully blind RKBAers".

I do so love it when an argument is settled by appealing to one's own opinion.

.

[OpSomBlood]

78. So explain.

So if Pete Coors' political affiliation has nothing to do with his level of liability, then what was the point of mentioning it in a giant bold font in a discussion thread about Coors' level of liability? You were clearly implying that since Coors is a Republican, he must be guilty in this matter.

And I still have no idea why personal responsibilty is such an alien concept to some people.

[iverglas]

81. take your false allegations

You were clearly implying that since Coors is a Republican, he must be guilty in this matter.

And stuff 'em somewhere fun, okay?

First, there is no question of "guilty" or otherwise under discussion. There is a question of CIVIL LIABILITY. If you want to discuss something, you'd do well to figure out what it is before you start.

Now, let's take a look at what I actually SAID, and see whether it supports your claim of what I was "implying".

Yup, that's my kinda guy. And just the kidna guy whose sincere claim to be doing everything in his power to curb underaged drinking, and heavens to betsy, who would never try to persuade underaged drinkers to buy his beer, I would swallow without hesitation.

EVEN IF Coors was lying through his rotten, vicious teeth when he said that he would never try to persuade underaged drinkers to buy his beer, and EVEN IF I claim that he was lying when he said that, I HAVE NOT stated the opinion that he is liable for any harm caused by underaged drinkers who buy his beer.

And I have MOST CERTAINLY not said that he is liable for that harm BECAUSE he is a Republican.

WHAT I SAID is that his obviously rotten character makes him a person whose claims I do not "swallow without hesitation" -- accept at face value, accept without some reason to consider them true other than his say-so.

I am even less likely to accept his claims when I know, as I do know, that they run counter to the evidence, which is that he advertises his product in a manner that is NOT CONSISTENT with his claim that he would never try to persuade underaged drinkers to buy his beer.

If someone says "I was home all night" and I saw him/her at the movies on the night in question, I really, really am not likely to believe his/her claim to have been home all night.

Likewise, if Pete Coors claims never to have tried to persuade underaged drinkers to buy his beer, and I see that he advertises his beer in a manner plainly designed to persuade underaged drinkers to buy his beer, I really, really am not likely to believe his claim never to have tried to persuade underaged drinkers to buy his beer.

The fact that he's a stinking right-wing Republican is just icing on this particular lack of credibility cake. Even if I didn't know that he had advertised his beer in a manner plainly designed to persuade underaged drinkers to buy his beer, I would need more than his own words to persuade me that he had not done so, because stinking right-wing Republicans just don't have a lot of credibility in my eyes.

But hey, that's just me. Apparently.

But in any event, no: I WAS NOT "clearly implying that since Coors is a Republican, he must be guilty in this matter". And, having read this plain demonstration that the allegation that I WAS implying this is entirely without foundation, and FALSE, yer average decent person would retract that allegation.

Tick, tock.

And I still have no idea why personal responsibilty is such an alien concept to some people.

Well, my suggestion would be that you try asking Pete Coors for an explanation, or explaining the concept to him.

.

[MrBenchley]

80. Funny that the gun nuts' pal Pete

isn't expected to take any personal responsibility for his advertising and promotional choices, isn't it?

[MrBenchley]

79. Instructive to see what some people will defend

Amazing none of these rootin tootin gun totin' liberal;s around here ever can find anyone but Republicans to stick up for...

Especially Republican billionaires who advertise their beer to young folks and then attempt to evade personal and corporate liability and responsibility for the outcome by funding a right wing think tank that hires mendacious pieces of shit to put out reams of crap like this...

"Who would have thought about personal responsibility so much were it not for the present onslaught against it?"

http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/HL515.cfm

to impress dittoheads everywhere...

But then Holy Koresh forbid any of the posters here know anything but gun porn and simple-minded right wing talking points....

"Most importantly, the tort reform movement is associated with a network of organizations, such as the Heritage Foundation, the Washington Legal Foundation, the Cato Institute and the American Legislative Exchange Council. All are part of the self-described "conservative movement."
Right-wing organizations in this network all receive major general operating support, project grants and coordinated strategic guidance from a core group of interlocking, ultra-conservative foundations that has been working for nearly thirty years to alter public attitudes and move the national agenda to the right. This core group of right-wing foundations includes the Scaife, Castle Rock (endowed by the Adolph Coors Foundation in 1993), Bradley, Olin and Koch foundations.
But a number of tort reform arguments rest upon a broader, underlying ideological foundation, one built around the ideas of personal responsibility, free markets, deregulation of business, and privatization of government functions. For example, the values of self-reliance and personal responsibility are evoked in tort reform arguments regarding the dangers of cigarette smoking and fast food. The free enterprise theme is frequently evoked in arguments for limiting punitive damages, because of the potential harm to a company or a whole industry. By promoting an anti-government, pro-corporate philosophy that encompasses many issues, the Right has laid the ideological groundwork for public acceptance of these tort reform arguments. The problem is that the right's ideologues have warped the values they claim to espouse, and the danger is that they have taken them to extremes."

http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/reports/tort/Section1.html

[demsrule4life]

27. You know how I feel

so I have no need to explain. I like to drink beer, I never drive a car afterwords. You have stated in the past you like to tip the glass now and then. I'm sure you don't drive afterwords either. Both of us being responsible even with all that advertising out there.

[demsrule4life]

13. I decided to read the article

guess what else it says?

Despite Pisco's intoxication and lack of a valid driver's license, his girlfriend, Heather Taylor, allowed him to drive off in her car, which had been given to her by her mother, Janice Taylor, the suit says.

The mother and daughter also were named in the suit but could not be reached for comment.

[iverglas]

16. and I didn't say otherwise

I was simply pointing out how ludicrous it was to suggest that anyone sue anyone who had "let" someone do something "without his/her permission".

Presumably, the car owner had insurance, and the insurance would cover her liability for allowing her car to be driven by an unlicensed intoxicated driver, if that is what she did. She would then be a fine target for a lawsuit. And while she might not end up owing a penny, she might find herself unable to purchase car insurance for a long time. Probably not adequate payment for doing such a reprehensible thing, but there you are. Blood from stones, and all that. And who knows how "voluntary" her permission actually was.

.

[MrSandman]

61. They do not have deep pockets...

[Liberal Classic]

60. Support the War on Doughnuts!

If you don't support the War on Doughnus, why then you must want kids to get fat, have heart disease, and die!

Krispy Kremes are leading this country into overweight hell!

I say away with these purveyors of unadulterated sugars!

Parents who let their kids get fat are not fit to raise children!