Mike Castle in the Spotlight Today

Filed in Delaware by on January 27, 2009

Reports of Mike Castle and the Rest of the House Republican Caucus’ meeting with President Obama to talk about the economic recovery plan will start to filter out soon.

I wonder if Mike will side with the corrupt to the core Radical Republicans who call the shots in the caucus, or if his apology was sincere and he will instead side with working Delawareans?

If you are reading this Mike, (and I know you are) you might be interested in perusing these items from Paul Krugman which demolish your party leaderships economic recovery act talking points:

First, there’s the bogus talking point that the Obama plan will cost $275,000 per job created. Why is it bogus? Because it involves taking the cost of a plan that will extend over several years, creating millions of jobs each year, and dividing it by the jobs created in just one of those years.

Next, write off anyone who asserts that it’s always better to cut taxes than to increase government spending because taxpayers, not bureaucrats, are the best judges of how to spend their money.

Finally, ignore anyone who tries to make something of the fact that the new administration’s chief economic adviser has in the past favored monetary policy over fiscal policy as a response to recessions.

It’s true that the normal response to recessions is interest-rate cuts from the Fed, not government spending. And that might be the best option right now, if it were available. But it isn’t, because we’re in a situation not seen since the 1930s: the interest rates the Fed controls are already effectively at zero.

Tags: ,

About the Author ()

Jason330 is a deep cover double agent working for the GOP. Don't tell anybody.

Comments (104)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. anonone says:

    or if his apology was sincere

    I haven’t heard any apology. I looked on his website. I looked on his campaign site.

    No apology. Have you signed up to be Castle’s blogger for his Senate race in 2010?

  2. jason330 says:

    Yeah. I’m a big Mike Castle fan. If he sides with the GOP and tries to hold up the economic recovery I might have to reconsider though.

  3. Your premise is that the stimulus plan is economic recovery-it isn’t and won’t be. It is a transfer of money and a huge addition to our debt.

    Mr. Castle would be correct to question the plan, it is deeply flawed for many reasons.

    I am confident if a republican proposed such a plan you would scream bloody murder.

    The Congress has shown no ability to find a solution for any long term problem yet we are to believe they now have new found brilliance.

    Go back to July 2008 when Barney Frank said Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape.

  4. anon says:

    Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay bill passes, Castle votes No:

    What does Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Bill do? Technically, it clarifies the 180 day statute of limitations on discrimination claims. Before this bill was passed, employees only had 180 days to seek redress. Lilly Ledbetter states that every time an employer issues a discriminatory paycheck, a new 180 day statute of limitation is triggered.

  5. FSP says:

    “every time an employer issues a discriminatory paycheck, a new 180 day statute of limitation is triggered.”

    Trial lawyers rejoice!

  6. cassandra_m says:

    My condolences that this avenue of discriminating against your employees is now closed to you, Dave. I have every confidence that you’ll find another way to screw over your employees, dude.

  7. Unstable Isotope says:

    If a Republican proposed a stimulus plan, it would be another massive gift of tax breaks to the rich, so yes, I would oppose it.

  8. FSP says:

    The “avenue of discriminating” was never open, dude. It was always a violation to discriminate on the basis of gender.

    This just allows trial lawyers, essentially, an open-ended period in which to find the best way to bilk their clients of the highest amount of money possible. That’s why the Specter amendment was voted down.

  9. cassandra_m says:

    It was open — just ask Ms. Ledbetter who was discriminated against for years, but was told that since she didn’t know it as soon as it happened she couldn’t recover from it.

    And she isn’t the only one.

    Any employer who, right now in the 21st century, who is still doing this discriminatory shit needs to be required to make up back pay for the entire time they did this. No point in rewarding bad behavior.

    Though I will stipulate that you don’t think that this is bad behavior.

  10. jason330 says:

    A normal human being might think that maybe companies could deprive greedy trial lawyers of their ill gotten gains by not discriminating in the first place.

    I understand why that thought would never occur to a piece of human garbage though.

  11. R Smitty says:

    Human garbage? Can’t you just keep it political sniping and not so fucking personal?

  12. I’ve brought this up with Jason before and all I ever get is some convoluted response that I can’t even piece together. Part of it is sarcasm. Part of it is his honest feelings.

    Sometimes, J, I just don’t get you. It really is nasty, dude.

  13. R Smitty says:

    No, it’s his honesty. Dave is the closest thing he has to all the hate he feels over the past eight years. So no matter the hate he spews from his core, no matter the circumstance it could ever cause Dave, it is all justified because Dave the person is nothing but collateral damage to his bigger picture. We’ve had this discussion over the blog before, too. All it took this time was a weak linking of Dave to bias, bigotry and sexism (none of which applies to Dave the person), but again, since he’s the lowest hanging fruit, that makes it all OK, fuck the consequences.

    Really, Mike, it’s easy to understand, just a bitch to see the attempts to justify it.

  14. adlib says:

    Mike Castle promises to do right for the citizens of Delaware? You got that in blood, Jason?

    Lets see the vote on the stimulus package and see where ole Mikey falls in. I say he will stick with the workers all right….those banker/gangster/creditcard/company workers. Liberals are so easily swayed. Get in blood and have 3 witness’s.

  15. anonone says:

    You guys are great!

    not so fucking personal as opposed to just “not so personal.”

    And Mike!!! It really is nasty, dude.

    After all the invectives you’ve pleasantly hurled in my direction, I didn’t think anything could or would seem nasty to you!

    As for Jason, hopefully it is the effect of Kastle’s Kool Aid wearing off and all that repressed anti-republicanism is emerging as he sees that Kastle pwned him.

    There’s no place like home, big guy.

  16. R Smitty says:

    The f word is simply so fucking cool. Couldn’t fucking help it. You should see my recent fucking comment in the fucking Citi fuckstick post.

  17. anonone says:

    My favorite:

    Fuck you, you fucking fuck

    Save it for those special occasions.

  18. Anonone,

    Jason is being nasty to a tangible person (Dave) who has made his identity known. I have no problem with nastiness directed towards anonymous fucking trolls.

    Get it? You’re an anonymous blowhard who uses the convenience of your anonymity to lob ad hominems and viciousness. I may be bitching about Jason’s general nastiness toward Dave, but at least he plugs his name on to his bullshit, as do I.

    I may lob attacks, but the difference is people know who I am and there’s a record of my comments. I take full ownership and, likewise, full responsibility for my comments should they come back to bite me in my big, fat ass.

    You should really just give up, A1. You’re reaching at this point and you continue to make a fool of yourself. I don’t know why the (mostly) reasonable contributors of DeLib haven’t sniffed out your bullshit yet. I guess they’re too busy enjoying the adoration you heap upon them every day.

  19. anonone says:

    Thanks, Mike. I feel much better now.

  20. jason330 says:

    it is all justified because Dave the person is nothing but collateral damage to his bigger picture.

    Oh Please. He is just a big fucking piece of shit. Is that so tough to figure out? I mean just read his comments in this thread for christsake.

    Mike,

    Dave is allowed to call people human garbage and I’m not? How is that fair? Republicans get all the breaks.

  21. R Smitty says:

    Oh, anonone, if you like the art of the word “fuck,” I have a great attachment for you (audio), but that would require I know how to reach you via e-mail and I have this HUUUUGE hunch that ain’t gonna happen.

  22. Jason,

    As far as I can remember, Dave only called one person a piece of human garbage. And I kind of remember you agreeing with him. The circumstances are also different. Dave comes here and tries to have an honest debate. An honest debate with GOP talking points, for sure, but it’s totally undeserving of the really nasty and vile comments you make.

    Hell, after what Dave and I went through last year, shouldn’t I be the one who’s still pissed off looking to hate on him? Jesus, dude, just get over it. Please, tell me what’s bugging you so much that you feel calling him those names is really that worth it?

  23. A1,

    I’m here to help! Another smiley (with a wink) coming your way!
    😉

  24. R Smitty says:

    Oh Please. He is just a big fucking piece of shit. Is that so tough to figure out?

    Yup it is…unless he really did kick your dog.

  25. anonone says:

    Rsmitty,

    I prefer to remain intangible and not a real person.

    At this point, I think Mike would come and shoot the windows out of my house. I actually had one window shot out with a pellet gun after an Op Ed letter of mine in the NJ a few years back.

    Anyway, it is enough to know that we both enjoy the finer art of the word “fuck”.

  26. Oh Please. He is just a big fucking piece of shit. Is that so tough to figure out?

    Y’see, Jason…that’s where it gets personal. Rather than calling him a piece of shit, how about saying he’s simply “full of shit.” There’s definitely a semantic difference there.

  27. cassandra_m says:

    An honest debate with GOP talking points

    Did you actually read this?

    How do you have an honest debate with a prepackaged argument — an argument prepackaged by someone other than you?

  28. anonone says:

    I really thought that we were making fucking progress, Mike. 😉

  29. At this point, I think Mike would come and shoot the windows out of my house. I actually had one window shot out with a pellet gun after an Op Ed letter of mine in the NJ a few years back.

    Jesus, not only are you unhinged, you’re paranoid. And you also attempt to paint me as some lunatic. And you call me irresponsible for printing what I do.

    Get over yourself, dude, ok?

  30. R Smitty says:

    Going preschool isn’t very effective, either (not saying you did that, Cassandra, btw). That’s kinda the point.

  31. Cassandra,

    Well considering some of the contributors here at DL utilize Dem talking points, I’m sure you can understand the argument I was trying to make. When I was referring to “honest debate,” I wasn’t necessarily referring to “the facts.” I was specifically trying to say how calling someone a “human piece of garbage” or “big fat asswipe” is dishonest and shuts down the “honest debate.”

    I would have thought you’d understand that.

  32. Yes, Cassandra. Calling someone a big, fat asswipe (which RSmitty said he wasn’t assigning to you). Going preschool is so…Mike Matthews!

  33. cassandra_m says:

    So there is such a thing as an honest debate that is fact free?

  34. Cassandra,

    Stop parsing my words. Now you’re being dishonest and you’re deflecting from the point I was trying to make. Why?

  35. R Smitty says:

    Just to be certain, I am not accusing you of that.

    Answering your question, true, they probably wouldn’t understand something like He is just a big fucking piece of shit. They’d probably go a softer, but equally effective I know you are, but what am I route.

  36. R Smitty says:

    Know what…Dave believes what he writes and you believe what you write, that is debate. Hate his opinions all you want and disagree with them all the same.

    Damn it, Dave. You better buy me lunch or dinner for this, you big, fat, asswipe! Oh no, I went there.

  37. anonone says:

    Hmmmm….

    I see your point, Mike. You think that it is better to be stuffed full of shit until it is coming out your ears than it is to have the reality of your existence to actually be a piece of excrement.

    It is a subtle but profound difference, but I think that the inanimate piece of shit might actually have a more pleasant existence since it doesn’t actually know it is a piece of shit where as someone like Dave probably realizes he is full of shit.

    Kapeesh?

    P.S. I was kidding about the windows.

  38. cassandra_m says:

    When I was referring to “honest debate,” I wasn’t necessarily referring to “the facts.”

    I am asking specifically about this statement. One that you made. And I have no idea how you reconcile honest debate with not referring to facts. None.

    If you can’t explain yourself, the honorable thing to do is to say so and not do the silly defensive deflection you did here.

  39. cassandra_m says:

    I understand what the preschool was supposed to refer to now, Smitty — thanks.

  40. jason330 says:

    Mike,

    Debate has been shut down long ago and not by me. Why bother trying to “debate” anything with people like Dave, Sharon, and Dana? These people hold political philosophies that are utterly lacking in basic morality and detached from reason and rationality. There is no “debate” with these brain dead losers.

    There is only the ability to heap scorn and ridicule on them when they open their stupid mouths, as Dave did in this thread.

  41. anonone says:

    Mike,

    Get over yourself, dude, ok?

    I really would but I don’t understand who is the self that gets over one’s self.

    BTW, your live blogging the snake bill tonight was a stitch.

  42. R Smitty says:

    Um…whom do you debate any more in the blogs that isn’t a fellow Liberal?

  43. Cassandra,

    I was not talking about “facts” of an argument, OK? Again, you obviously aren’t understanding what I’m saying here (which I find very hard to believe because you’re a very intelligent person [not that you need some dumb validation from me]). When I was referring to the “honest debate,” I wasn’t talking about the facts being presented, OK? Stay with me here.

    I am condemning Jason’s predilection towards calling Dave really abhorrent names and therefore closing down the debate because of said name-calling. You are parsing my words because you’re uninterested in “honestly” taking a side.

    Why are you treating me like I’m some fool? I know I do a good enough job of looking foolish myself, but I’m honestly trying to make a point here.

    Let me put it more simply, cassandra:

    Do you agree with Jason when, in the middle of a debate (and whether the facts are true or untrue), he calls Dave Burris a “human piece of garbage” and a “fat asswipe?”

    Perhaps I should have been more direct with you in the first place. My apologies.

  44. A compliment coming from you is like gold, A1. I’m printing it and putting it on the refrigerator!

  45. anonone says:

    God, this is so funny reading Mike “first state filth” Matthews complaining about somebody else’s name calling.

    How rich does it get?

  46. anonone says:

    You do crack me up, Mike! 🙂

  47. jason330 says:

    Do you agree with Jason when, in the middle of a debate (and whether the facts are true or untrue), he calls Dave Burris a “human piece of garbage” and a “fat asswipe?”

    There is no “middle” of a debate because there is no debate.

  48. cassandra_m says:

    Why are you treating me like I’m some fool? I know I do a good enough job of looking foolish myself, but I’m honestly trying to make a point here.

    There is little in my question for you to get so defensive over. Walk away and think about how you may have communicated better — because that is really the issue here and NOT one should should be upset with me over.

    You are parsing my words because you’re uninterested in “honestly” taking a side.

    And this is you with the motives again. I am asking a question here in 27 and 34 and you are choosing to be defensive about that instead of just answering. If this is too hard, then say that. If you can’t explain yourself, then say that. Substituting what you guess are my motives for the clear fact you aren’t doing a particularly good job of making yourself clear is really dishonest.

    And this:
    Do you agree with Jason when, in the middle of a debate (and whether the facts are true or untrue), he calls Dave Burris a “human piece of garbage” and a “fat asswipe?”

    And the ONLY way you can make yourself clearer is to ask this high school question here?

    If you guys can’t make decipher this business, what makes you think I can?

  49. cassandra_m says:

    God, this is so funny reading Mike “first state filth” Matthews complaining about somebody else’s name calling.

    Comment of the fucking year.

  50. A1,

    I’m going to say this for the last time: I direct my insults to PUBLIC people in power and it’s generally with much sarcasm that my readers pick up on immediately. I can’t think any time in my blogging history where I’ve had knock-down drag-outs with other bloggers and commenters where I’ve EVER gotten as PERSONALLY nasty as Jason has with Dave. I am 100% willing to stand by that.

    I think the worst I ever got was with Hube in 2005. It got nasty, but both of us were simply bullheaded and stood by our opinions without EVER having to get as personal as Jason has. And, whaddya know? Hube and I are good friends who manage to take playful jabs at each other on the blogosphere, yet still enjoy a beer (or, an iced tea with lemon in my case) a few times a year.

    But for anonymous folks who like to slam others with ad hominems and other nastiness? Sorry, it’s all fair game and all bets are off. But, I’m starting to warm to you!

  51. R Smitty says:

    Um…whom do you debate any more in the blogs that isn’t a fellow Liberal?

    ?

  52. jason330 says:

    Back to the point of the post. I stand by this comment 100%

    A normal human being might think that maybe companies could deprive greedy trial lawyers of their ill gotten gains by not discriminating in the first place.

    I understand why that thought would never occur to a piece of human garbage though.

    Good night. I need my rest in order to heap scorn and ridicule on GOP stupidity tomorrow.

  53. Cassandra and Jason,

    I’m done with this “dishonest” debate, OK? Both of you are deflecting.

    Contrary to what you may believe, cassandra, I don’t believe my question was “high school.” Thank you for treating me with the respect I’ve attempted to afford you and Jason. At this point, it’s not worth it because we’re not getting anywhere.

    I guess all I’m wondering here is, where’s the fucking humanity? I mean, Jason, you know Burris on a personal level. As a simply human issue, why do you feel it’s at all good to refer to him in that manner? Again, we understand that you’re angry (too angry?) for eight years of George Bush and the millions of people who voted for him twice. Trust me, I’m angry, too, but there’s a part of me that has found peace within myself and decided that the anger does NO good except to satiate some primeval function in my being that wants to simply hate on anyone or anything that pisses me off. On the surface, that’s totally satisfying. But once you dig a little deeper, it’s totally not helpful.

  54. anonone says:

    Mike,

    I gotta tell you – I am laughing so hard at this discussion that I’m just about crying. I have never heard anybody try to parse “full of shit” versus “piece of shit” or “fat asswipe” or “human piece of garbage” in as serious a manner as you.

    Particularly in the context of every name you’ve ever called me! You are fucking hysterical. And I mean that sincerely.

    Now, back down to business: Do you think that “thin asswipe” would have been less insulting than “fat asswipe”? How about “you sandpaper asswipe”? Better or worse, what do you think?

    You’re really the expert here. I’m just an amateur.

  55. jason330 says:

    I guess all I’m wondering here is, where’s the fucking humanity?

    Our mistake was affording the GOP the kind of treatment reserved for decent human beings. See where that got us?

    I mean, Jason, you know Burris on a personal level. As a simply human issue, why do you feel it’s at all good to refer to him in that manner?

    I once thought that people like Dave wanted the best for the country, but had different ideas about how to get there. Turns out I was wrong.

  56. jason330 says:

    Good night for real this time.

  57. A1,

    You’re still anonymous. I don’t know you. So, you’re undeserving of any respect from me until you write a thoughtful comment.

    On the other hand, the reason I remain respectful to Jason and Cassandra is because I’d like to consider them both friends with whom I’ve shared drinks and (on occasion) broken bread. I can have a back and forth with them and not get pissy because I know them on that personal level.

    Again, you, on the other hand, until you accept my offer to buy you a few drinks and get to know you outside of these Intertubes, will get nothing but contempt and sarcasm from me.

    Unless you keep complimenting my liveblogs!

  58. anonone says:

    Jason’s is all about Mike Castle now and Mike Matthews is lamenting the loss of “fucking humanity”.

    I think somebody should issue a warning about the water.

  59. fuck…fuck…fuck.

    G’night, all. Especially to you, o anonymous one!

  60. R Smitty says:

    Keep feeding that hate, dude. If nothing else, bias does tend to keep the energy level high.

  61. anon says:

    Sheesh…. who let the dogs out?

  62. anonone says:

    Hey Mike, I hear ya. Maybe we can talk about it sometime. In the meantime, I am gonna go to sleep smiling tonight. Threads like this one – well – you just can’t make this stuff up.

    Good fucking night. 🙂 You too, RSmitty and Cassandra_m!

  63. R Smitty says:

    Nice fucking dreams to you, too, A1.

    Not literally…well, maybe literally. I want good things for all.

  64. FSP says:

    Jason does not know me on a personal level. Also, his judgment and opinion have been rendered moot for a long time now. That’s why it doesn’t upset me.

    As far as the law is concerned, Ledbetter had recourse, and she availed herself of it. This bill was all about keeping the courtroom door open for trial lawyers to find the most lucrative avenue.

  65. jason330 says:

    How this GOP talking points spewing zombie gets through the day is mystery to me.

  66. FSP says:

    This is how I get through the day:

    If you’re doing the wrong thing, it doesn’t matter who praises you. If you’re doing the right thing, it doesn’t matter who criticizes you.

    Plus, being right helps.

  67. cassandra m says:

    As far as the law is concerned, Ledbetter had recourse, and she availed herself of it.

    Well, yes, and was told that she availed herself of it too late. Which this law now fixes — there is now no “too late” and the scales of justice are now way more balanced.

    Which is never a bad thing. So in the end, employers no longer have a window to discriminate in and employees have recourse to address past discrimination. So you are quite right in this instance, being right does help.

  68. anon says:

    I always think people who have this fascination with “trial lawyers” either flunked their LSATS and never got over it, or cling to some old Lee Atwater focus group that found negative responses to the phrase “trial lawyers.”

  69. anonone says:

    Jason’s right – FSP is a wind-up doll of repub talking points, and “trial lawyers” are one of his – and their – bogey men.

    Until they need one.

  70. FSP says:

    “Well, yes, and was told that she availed herself of it too late.”

    Not the EPA part that was designed to address the issue. Ahhhh, but that has caps on damages, which doesn’t really help……..the trial lawyers. But now, they have no statute of limitations and no caps. Party time!

  71. cassandra m says:

    But now, they have no statute of limitations and no caps.

    And now employers have one less place to hide for employment discrimination, because it costs them real money. Justice Time!

    Although we will all stipulate that you think that employers should always have to upper hand with their uppity employees.

  72. FSP says:

    The EPA compensation was plenty damaging for those who choose to break the law. This legislation is judicial jackpot-ism.

    And if you want to see where I stand on the issue, I have an 11-year record as a business owner. Find a female who was paid less than a male for comparable work.

    You have developed a very DL-like behavior lately where you attack the messenger when you start to lose a debate.

    You, Pan & LG were the last people here worth debating. Do I have to cross you off that list?

  73. jason330 says:

    What an idiot. “Keeping the court room door open” was exaclty the point of the bill since Ledbetter makes each paycheck a separate case of discrimination.

    Dave is “debating” in favor of basic unfairness and simply doesn’t get it. Of course he still doess not get the fact that business can avoid being taken to court by doing the right thing.

    Funny how he can’t grasp that basic element with his 11 years of business experience.

    I suppose his family and other wingnuts act as a kind of support system allowing to live an outwardly normal life.

  74. FSP says:

    “I suppose his family and other wingnuts act as a kind of support system allowing to live an outwardly normal life.”

    You’re one to talk, trust fund. How much time will you be spending online today at your job in the family business?

  75. FSP says:

    ““Keeping the court room door open” was exaclty the point of the bill since Ledbetter makes each paycheck a separate case of discrimination.”

    Exactly. No limits on damages. No statute of limitations. A trial lawyer’s dream.

  76. jason330 says:

    Okay. Let’s be clear. Dave doesn’t hate lawyers. Just lawyers that work for working people.

    How much time will you be spending online today at your job in the family business?

    Maybe I’ll just tune in to your make believe “radio” station and double your New Castle listenership.

  77. anon says:

    Exactly. No limits on damages. No statute of limitations. A trial lawyer’s dream.

    Dave has a point. Let’s make it a criminal violation and put these clowns in jail instead. That would take the trial lawyers out of the picture.

  78. jason330 says:

    Second.

    All in favor?

  79. anonone says:

    Dave doesn’t hate lawyers. Just lawyers that work for working people.

    That’s exactly right. Wingnuts like FSP are constantly trying to stop citizens from having their day in court and limiting damages that corporations have to pay for illegal or negligent acts. The idea, of course, is to let corporations determine the maximum it will cost to pay injured people versus the cost of fixing the problem. Then they can take the least expensive route.

    Corporations can’t do this if damages aren’t limited.

  80. anonone says:

    anon,

    But then we’d have to raise taxes to pay for the additional prosecutors! And our jails are already over crowded.

  81. anon says:

    But then we’d have to raise taxes to pay for the additional prosecutors! And our jails are already over crowded.

    Nope… it would actually be way cheaper… after the first few jailings, employers everywhere would begin massive self-audits to assure compliance with the law.

    Note: this is also the solution for illegal immigration.

  82. RSmitty says:

    Ledbetter case aside, we are a litigious-happy society.

    Cases in point:
    Person A driving along, obeying traffic laws, at 50MPH. An opposing driver passes, over double yellow lines, the person in front of them and hits person A head-on, in a 50MPH, each person, collision. Remarkably, neither are killed, but seriously effed up. Other driver is found at fault, never contests that. Person A gets stacks and stacks of medical bills. Other driver has little income and legal minimum liability ins. Other person’s ins meets requirements and is out of picture. Other person can’t effectively be sued for damages, except for the ability for Person A to say, “Booyah, I won in court!” Doesn’t pay the bills. So, Person A goes to Person A’s insurance (who is “on your side”) and gives the skinny. Person A has underinsured coverage, so that should pay the bills. Riight. Insurance Co opposes anything beyond the bills to that point and it goes to binding arbitration. Person A was denied on-going payments for future bills, was awarded what was to-date, but lost big % to attorney. The medical bills had been paid to credit card (took three years to go to arbitration), so shit hits fan. Person A is facing garnishment on those and now existing bills, but garnishment will cause hardship, so now Person A, who should have been relieved of this bull shit may have to fuck his/her life for 10 years and file bankruptcy.

    OK, now Person B goes to McDonalds. Orders coffee, but lid doesn’t state the obvious to dumbass customer: “Warning. Contents are hot, you dumbass granny.” Person B puts coffee in lap and proceeds to drive away from drive through. Person B manages to spill coffee all over her granny lap, blames McDonald’s for not warning her that said coffee was hot and wins millions.

    Yeah, we’re litigious and it’s a really fucked up system. Discrimination does need to be stopped, but rather than a separate suit for each paycheck (I could be wrong on that interpretation), the outcoming penalty remains open and unresolved until the offender meets the requirements. In other words, file once, get a decision, but one that remains open in terms of award payments until the offender gets it right. Multiple lawsuits on the same issue from the same person should not be necessary.

  83. FSP says:

    Come on, Smitty. The poor, poor lawyers gotta eat too.

  84. RSmitty says:

    Oh, by the way, J and D, have at it. I know I wasn’t asked to get into it, but seriously, you two do know each other (albeit not a long, personal thing) and certainly respect(ed) each other. All this shit? Dumb. Entertaining, but dumb. The reason I gave a rats ass is because it looks stupid, childish, and the two of you are better than that when it comes to people you actually know and respect(ed).

    So, J, kick him out of your sandbox. D, take your ball and go home (all figuratively speaking, of course).

    Fuck! (that was for A1)

  85. RSmitty says:

    Come on, Smitty. The poor, poor lawyers gotta eat too.

    Yeah. I have hot coffee in a travel mug right now and nowhere on the mug does it warn me that contents might be hot. I’m thinking the lid will accidentally pop off soon. Not sure why I think that, but it’s a solid preminition.

  86. anonone says:

    Let’s clear up some details:

    – MacDonalds knew the coffee was deliberately too hot to drink – they kept it near boiling because the aroma in the store helped sell more coffee.

    – They handed the women in her car a disposable cup of boiling water which she could not hold because it was so hot. The contents spilled in her lap causing third degree burns of her labia and vaginal area.

    – It was not the first time this had happened – others had settled out-of-court

    – As part of the litigation, MacDonalds agreed to turn down the temperature of the coffee.

    Thought question for you, Rsmitty – how much would someone have to pay you to let them dump a cup of boiling water in your lap while sitting in a car?

  87. RSmitty says:

    Right now, it would take about $40k or so, not millions. It’s a discount program. Catch my barely-cryptic drift?

  88. anonone says:

    Except that wouldn’t cover your doctor’s bill. Or the subsequent malpractice lawsuit. And what about payments to your wife when she sues you for loss of services?

    I do sympathize with your drift, BTW.

  89. RSmitty says:

    Except that wouldn’t cover your doctor’s bill.
    Neither did it for Person A.

    And what about payments to your wife when she sues you for loss of services? Well, not suing the spouse, but the offender. Yeah, Person A saw that brutilized by the defendent and disregarded in the binding arbitration.

    So, sure, I’ll take a boiling cup of water…maybe I’ll go find a slippery sidewalk today, too.

  90. RSmitty says:

    A1 – I just caught the edited part of your comment. Below was done before I saw that.

    I apologize for being a bit biased in this argument. I think it’s clear I am deeply bitter about what I perceive as fairness as a then-27YO person statistically lost approximately 10 years off of an expected life span (serious, this was brought up to Person A) due to something that happened to Person A while doing what Person A was expected to do, within the law. Mr and Mrs Person A now face a financial crossroad that will ripple for years. One will allow breathing room, but will impact for a decade. The other will be tough as freaking hell, if not near impossible, but won’t be as long as 10 years. Imagine what that boiling water would have done in this situation?

  91. jason330 says:

    Off topic:

    Yes I stole today’s poll from kosian “Bill in Portland Maine”

    What are you going to do about it?

  92. anonone says:

    I think I’d take the breathing room.

    If I am reading you correctly, the 10 year impact may not be as severe as you are currently imagining. I think that there are a lot of people that are going to be in the same place (for many different reasons), and that there may be some remedies in a few years to repair things.

    And remember that there are some things money can’t buy or replace.

    Also, please remember, though, I really am an anonymous dem whack-job.

  93. Also, please remember, though, I really am an anonymous dem whack-job.

    Wow you catch on quick. Another sarcastic, eye-winking smiley for you! 😉

  94. RSmitty says:

    Off topic:

    Yes I stole today’s poll from kosian “Bill in Portland Maine”

    What are you going to do about it?

    Call you a fat bastard asswhipe.

  95. RSmitty says:

    Also, please remember, though, I really am an anonymous dem whack-job.
    True. 😛

    Me? I’m simply a whack-job…no adjectives needed.

  96. nemski says:

    Oh my, a post about Mike Castle and which way he’ll vote today has turned into a thread about trial lawyers.

  97. anonone says:

    Hey Jason, Mike is soo sorry:

    “Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del., said there could be as many as 10 to 15 Republicans supporting the package, but added, “If I had to bet, I would bet zero.”

    Castle and other Republicans blamed House Democrats for ignoring their proposals, but they praised Obama for reaching out. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Republicans have had opportunities “to make their views heard and put on the table.”

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/executive/president/2009-01-27-obama-economy_N.htm

    You was pwned.

  98. El Somnambulo says:

    Faced with the opportunity to help address the worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression, a crisis largely caused by W and his Mindless Minions, House and Senate Rethugs have opted instead to place a political bet that the stimulus package will ultimately fail. They have again placed potential political gain against the welfare of the nation.

    Mike Castle has once again demonstrated, as he did in the Clinton Impeachment proceedings, that, when push comes to shove, he is a Rethug first, last and always.

    Has Carney formed his political committee yet?

  99. anon says:

    I predict a 100% party-line GOP vote against.

    House and Senate Rethugs have opted instead to place a political bet that the stimulus package will ultimately fail.

    The reason is even simpler than that. There is nothing for Republicans to lose by voting against the plan, and everything to gain.

    Republicans have not forgotten that they all voted against Clinton’s plan, and instead of penalizing them, voters returned them to power, even as Clinton’s plan was succeeding.

    In 2010, even if there is a modest recovery, plan on Republicans running against Obama’s economy. Like the mother who grumbles to the lifeguard who just pulled her drowning son out of the ocean: “He had a hat…”

    Any remaining unemployment or deficit will be used as a campaign excuse to cut more taxes for the rich. Any surplus will also be used as an excuse to cut taxes for the rich.

  100. jason330 says:

    Obviously I feel like a dolt for thinking Castle was sincere.

  101. anonone says:

    Jason,

    Now that Castle burned you, why don’t you tell us what the “apology” was all about?

  102. liz says:

    Mike Castle is a fraud. He has always voted with the repukes and their “obstructionist tactics”.

    He was “told” how to vote, as he was under the Bush regime….93% of the time. How this guy has any clout or any support from moderates in this state is simply remarkable.

    Jason, I wont beat up on you…will just say you were naive.

  103. liz says:

    Oh here’s a goody for ya! Jan. 22, 2009 Representative Hastings from Florida introduced a bill in the house. Its a bill to have Homeland Security use current and out of date military bases for “holding” people. HR 645 is an activist’s nightmare. I find it interesting that there have been stories for the past 5 years all over the net, warning of “Fema camps” being set up nationwide. KBR was given billions of dollars to start the project. The bill claims the “camps” are to be used for places to house folks in case of a “disaster”, but those who have followed this issue believe its something more sinister…interesting it was brought up in the House the day after Obama was sworn in. Not sure if Hastings is a dem or a repuke.

    Some believe it will be used for the “riots” that are sure to occur when the economy totally collapses and people are hitting the bricks in protest.