The LEO thread

[Leo Lyons]

You can do better. I'm asking you if the board members have committed premeditated murder of they sit around and discuss how to hide a flaw in their product that will kill some people who are correctly using their product.
I'm beginning to think you're squirrelier than a termite in a yo-yo! C'mon billy, you know the meaning of "premeditated". What's the "flaw"? What's to hide? ALL over-the-counter meds and ALL controlled drugs CAN kill you...but what kills one person can be beneficial to 100 more people. Why do you think TV drug ads spend more air time to tell you how their shit can kill you as opposed to helping you? (one that cracks me up: "Don't take this drug if you are allergic to it")

These people know and fully understand that their product will kill innocent people.
Yes, they do. See above. All medications carry a certain degree of risk to the user.
Your use of the word "innocent" is overblown. At what point does prescription drug users become "guilty"? ... So I have to ask, "innocent" or "guilty" of what? Therefore: "These people know and fully understand that their product will kill innocent people."

They also know that revealing the truth will cost them money...And they choose the money.
They do reveal the truth, as I showed above; and I already mentioned the lengthily printed package inserts.

Why isn't this murder?
That would have to be determined in a court of law. It would be murder IF someone in the production process tainted the meds with a deadly substance; even then, it would have to be proven that the manufacturer knew about the sabotage, but failed to report it or take it off the market. Otherwise, big Pharma is selling a product that has had full approval of the FDA. The beneficial effects outweigh the negative effects.

What's the next bait?

[Leo Lyons]

Well, dang, Leo - you do like to shift the parameters as you go along, don't you? If you define your accident down to "no factors the manufacturer has control over" and include only contributing causes that are attributable to the driver, then no, a lawsuit against the manufacturer would not be productive. But that's somewhat of a moot issue anyway because there are very few instances if any where it occurs that an accident totally the fault of the driver results in a suit against a manufacturer.

What I wrote above and you responded to:
Recalls issues and product defects aside, I was referencing careless or drunken driving, inexperience, excessive speed, etc.---forces outside the norm of vehicle operation that the car maker has no control over. Let's say someone plastered a tree at 90 mph in a 45 zone and had to be peeled off the remains of the car. Should the maker of the car be sued?

[Vrede too]

Not true, as usual. Guns are made to shoot things, especially beings and especially people for handguns. The manufacturers do not care if the intent is “for self-preservation” or for crime as long as they get the sale. That is why they oppose all reasonable gun control and safety measures.

Well, dang, Leo - you do like to shift the parameters as you go along, don't you? ...

He's not capable of adult conversation, or of ever admitting screwing up facts or logic. That's why he's a conversational tar baby.

[billy.pilgrim]

You can do better. I'm asking you if the board members have committed premeditated murder of they sit around and discuss how to hide a flaw in their product that will kill some people who are correctly using their product.
I'm beginning to think you're squirrelier than a termite in a yo-yo! C'mon billy, you know the meaning of "premeditated". What's the "flaw"? What's to hide? ALL over-the-counter meds and ALL controlled drugs CAN kill you...but what kills one person can be beneficial to 100 more people. Why do you think TV drug ads spend more air time to tell you how their shit can kill you as opposed to helping you? (one that cracks me up: "Don't take this drug if you are allergic to it")

These people know and fully understand that their product will kill innocent people.
Yes, they do. See above. All medications carry a certain degree of risk to the user.
Your use of the word "innocent" is overblown. At what point does prescription drug users become "guilty"? ... So I have to ask, "innocent" or "guilty" of what? Therefore: "These people know and fully understand that their product will kill innocent people."

They also know that revealing the truth will cost them money...And they choose the money.
They do reveal the truth, as I showed above; and I already mentioned the lengthily printed package inserts.

Why isn't this murder?
That would have to be determined in a court of law. It would be murder IF someone in the production process tainted the meds with a deadly substance; even then, it would have to be proven that the manufacturer knew about the sabotage, but failed to report it or take it off the market. Otherwise, big Pharma is selling a product that has had full approval of the FDA. The beneficial effects outweigh the negative effects.

What's the next bait?

I didn't say anything about drugs, so let's leave the drug makers out of this.

How about an everyday product? Board of directors knows innocent people are being killed while using their product correctly, but instructs lawyers and accountants to estimate if it would be more profitable to quietly pay settlements, or admit the default. They decide to go with letting people die in order to preserve future profits.

The meditation occurred prior to the resulting deaths. Is it premeditated?

[Vrede too]

Ummm, TV drug ads and inserts include the warnings because federal regulations force them to. It’s hilarious that you think that it’s Big Pharma altruism.

Drug makers aren’t successfully sued because of surprise reactions. They lose when they knew or should have known about the harmful effects and covered them up rather than ensuring fully informed choices. In tragic cases of course that’s premeditated murder.

[Leo Lyons]

I didn't say anything about drugs, so let's leave the drug makers out of this.
Yours and my conversation started with your question about Purdue Pharma; O Really and I discussed cars and guns, Vrede jumped in and snipped about whatever; so I continued our comments on drugs. Are you with me so far?

How about an everyday product? Board of directors knows innocent people are being killed while using their product correctly, but instructs lawyers and accountants to estimate if it would be more profitable to quietly pay settlements, or admit the default. They decide to go with letting people die in order to preserve future profits.
Again, "innocent people" is is a ridiculously used term, and I have to say your scenario is ridiculous as well; unless you can provide proof positive that a situation as you describe has actually occurred and malice proven.

The meditation occurred prior to the resulting deaths. Is it premeditated?
No.

Ummm, TV drug ads and inserts include the warnings because federal regulations force them to. It’s hilarious that you think that it’s Big Pharma altruism.
Regardless who's responsible for placing them there, they are there; and the information is there to cover their ass.
Now, your point is?

Drug makers aren’t successfully sued because of surprise reactions. They lose when they knew or should have known about the harmful effects and covered them up rather than ensuring fully informed choices.
In another way, that's what I said. They know of harmful effects; it's in the inserts. FDA knows of the harmful effects vs. the beneficial effects and which outweighs the other. Maybe you should have a nanny to monitor your prescriptions for you?

In tragic cases of course that’s premeditated murder.
No it's not. It's premeditated if they put something on the market with the intent to kill.
Key words here: premeditated and intent. Study them.

[Leo Lyons]

Not true, as usual. Guns are made to shoot things, especially beings and especially people for handguns.
And knives are made expressly to stab people. Rocks are put here to bludgeon people. Bows & arrows WERE made to kill; animals namely, until two-legged animals turned them on each other; self-defense weapons are as old as mankind; guns only perfected self-defense, and unfortunately, ease in killing. Looks like an impasse.

The manufacturers do not care if the intent is “for self-preservation” or for crime as long as they get the sale. That is why they oppose all reasonable gun control and safety measures.
The gun manufacturers DO NOT "oppose all reasonable gun control and safety measures." That's your blind opinion.

Well, dang, Leo - you do like to shift the parameters as you go along, don't you? ...

He's not capable of adult conversation
Only when you're logged in; then I have to come down to a level only you can understand. BTW, don't you graduate third grade this year?

or of ever admitting screwing up facts or logic. That's why he's a conversational tar baby.
I admit when I've erred. I don't have to admit to much though, because in you, we have a complete asshole wrapped in a meatsock to admonish and remind us who it is that knows everything about anything. He calls himself a Superstar Cluckfluster.

[O Really]

The manufacturers do not care if the intent is “for self-preservation” or for crime as long as they get the sale. That is why they oppose all reasonable gun control and safety measures.
The gun manufacturers DO NOT "oppose all reasonable gun control and safety measures." That's your blind opinion.

You may be right, but I can't think of a single piece of legislation or proposed legislation that has been supported by gun makers. I'm pretty sure it would be something the people proposing the legislation would widely tout that manufacturer support. But hey - maybe you have an example of gun manufacturers supporting or suggesting gun control or safety measures.

[billy.pilgrim]

I didn't say anything about drugs, so let's leave the drug makers out of this.
Yours and my conversation started with your question about Purdue Pharma; O Really and I discussed cars and guns, Vrede jumped in and snipped about whatever; so I continued our comments on drugs. Are you with me so far?

How about an everyday product? Board of directors knows innocent people are being killed while using their product correctly, but instructs lawyers and accountants to estimate if it would be more profitable to quietly pay settlements, or admit the default. They decide to go with letting people die in order to preserve future profits.
Again, "innocent people" is is a ridiculously used term, and I have to say your scenario is ridiculous as well; unless you can provide proof positive that a situation as you describe has actually occurred and malice proven.

The meditation occurred prior to the resulting deaths. Is it premeditated?
No.

Ummm, TV drug ads and inserts include the warnings because federal regulations force them to. It’s hilarious that you think that it’s Big Pharma altruism.
Regardless who's responsible for placing them there, they are there; and the information is there to cover their ass.
Now, your point is?

Drug makers aren’t successfully sued because of surprise reactions. They lose when they knew or should have known about the harmful effects and covered them up rather than ensuring fully informed choices.
In another way, that's what I said. They know of harmful effects; it's in the inserts. FDA knows of the harmful effects vs. the beneficial effects and which outweighs the other. Maybe you should have a nanny to monitor your prescriptions for you?

In tragic cases of course that’s premeditated murder.
No it's not. It's premeditated if they put something on the market with the intent to kill.
Key words here: premeditated and intent. Study them.

So, you are saying that discussing (mediating over) putting something on the market that will kill some of the innocent people, who use the product as directed, doesn’t mean that the BoD premediated anything.
Is it because you don’t believe that corporations or their owners can commit murder? Otherwise it’s hard to see that you are doing much more than spewing republican talking points.


Here’s one leo. A bunch of scumbag money makers realized that if they illegally shipped empty and partially filled oxygen cannisters by air, rather than slow shipping by ground, they could more than triple the number of cannisters they could supply to airlines and make bunches and bunches more money without having to buy bunches and bunches of expensive cannisters.

Seems the courts agreed that prosecution didn’t prove that the poor CEO’s didn’t intend to hurt anyone.
I’m sure that the drug dealer doesn’t intend for his customers to OD and die, but we can call that murder.
Or that 14 year old mentally deficient kid in florida who killed his little sister. He had no idea what “killed” meant, but we tried him for murder.

[Vrede too]

Clear English always befuddles Leo Lyons. Or, he just can't ever admit being wrong.

The successful suits against Big Pharma are when they knew or should have known about the harmful effects AND they're NOT cited in the warnings. Apparently, "covered them up rather than ensuring fully informed choices," is too complex a phrase for him.

It's premeditated if they put something on the market with the intent to make money and a lack of concern about killing.
Key words here: premeditated, intent and lack of concern. Study them.

He has this idiotic delusion that Big Pharma is losing lawsuits when they accurately and adequately warned doctors and patients about the negatives that they were aware of. Nope, doesn't happen.

[Leo Lyons]

So, you are saying that discussing (mediating over) putting something on the market that will kill some of the innocent people, who use the product as directed, doesn’t mean that the BoD premediated anything. Is it because you don’t believe that corporations or their owners can commit murder?
Why do you keep baiting the conversation with "innocent people?" You're using O Really's rendition of but..but..but. I gave you my answer, get over it already. No. It is not premeditated murder, and yes someone IN a corporation can commit murder. How in hell is a corporation going to make the big money you harp about, stay in business, and yet, knowingly kill off those who use their product?? Did someone in your family or circle of friends die from an overdose of something and you're pissed off at the drug industry? Geeze billy.pilgrim, get a grip.

Otherwise it’s hard to see that you are doing much more than spewing republican talking points.
Now the true nature of this thread comes out: The liberal hatred toward big business rears it's ugly head. There's you a "spewing republican talking point"...it's all political to you. Or revenge.

Here’s one leo. A bunch of scumbag money makers realized that if they illegally shipped empty and partially filled oxygen cannisters by air, rather than slow shipping by ground, they could more than triple the number of cannisters they could supply to airlines and make bunches and bunches more money without having to buy bunches and bunches of expensive cannisters.
Strawman. It's illegal to ship empty and/or partially filled oxygen canisters by air; at least on a commercial airliner.

Seems the courts agreed that prosecution didn’t prove that the poor CEO’s didn’t intend to hurt anyone.
I’m sure that the drug dealer doesn’t intend for his customers to OD and die, but we can call that murder.
Or that 14 year old mentally deficient kid in Florida who killed his little sister. He had no idea what “killed” meant, but we tried him for murder.
You're rambling. I can't find any credible citations to these points; therefore I can't elaborate. We've worn this thread thin. You've pointed out your arguments and asked your questions; I've answered them. I'm no lawyer, prosecutor, or judge, and I've sat on no jury to decide any of the cases you've described. I've answered your questions to the best of my ability.

[Leo Lyons]

Clear English always befuddles Leo Lyons.
You may be right. I have had to, in a couple of instances, look up the meanings of the big words you use to impress us with your vast vocabulary.

Or, he just can't ever admit being wrong.
I have admitted when I've erred.

The successful suits against Big Pharma are when they knew or should have known about the harmful effects AND they're NOT cited in the warnings. Apparently, "covered them up rather than ensuring fully informed choices," is too complex a phrase for him.
Why, of course!! Vrede said so!! Why didn't I think of that!?
Some people can't take aspirin, or have OD'd on aspirin; should "Big Pharma" be sued?

It's premeditated if they put something on the market with the intent to make money and a lack of concern about killing.
Key words here: premeditated, intent and lack of concern. Study them.
And we all are aware none of the drugs are extensively tested before being presented to the FDA for approval.
The all-knowing, Superstar Vrede told us so.

He has this idiotic delusion that Big Pharma is losing lawsuits when they accurately and adequately warned doctors and patients about the negatives that they were aware of. Nope, doesn't happen.
I've said nothing of "Big Pharma losing lawsuits" ...are you drunk? Oh wait, this is the weekend; that coke-sniffing thingy. I forgot.

[billy.pilgrim]

So, you are saying that discussing (mediating over) putting something on the market that will kill some of the innocent people, who use the product as directed, doesn’t mean that the BoD premediated anything. Is it because you don’t believe that corporations or their owners can commit murder?
Why do you keep baiting the conversation with "innocent people?" You're using O Really's rendition of but..but..but. I gave you my answer, get over it already. No. It is not premeditated murder, and yes someone IN a corporation can commit murder. How in hell is a corporation going to make the big money you harp about, stay in business, and yet, knowingly kill off those who use their product?? Did someone in your family or circle of friends die from an overdose of something and you're pissed off at the drug industry? Geeze billy.pilgrim, get a grip.

Otherwise it’s hard to see that you are doing much more than spewing republican talking points.
Now the true nature of this thread comes out: The liberal hatred toward big business rears it's ugly head. There's you a "spewing republican talking point"...it's all political to you. Or revenge.

Here’s one leo. A bunch of scumbag money makers realized that if they illegally shipped empty and partially filled oxygen cannisters by air, rather than slow shipping by ground, they could more than triple the number of cannisters they could supply to airlines and make bunches and bunches more money without having to buy bunches and bunches of expensive cannisters.
Strawman. It's illegal to ship empty and/or partially filled oxygen canisters by air; at least on a commercial airliner.

Seems the courts agreed that prosecution didn’t prove that the poor CEO’s didn’t intend to hurt anyone.
I’m sure that the drug dealer doesn’t intend for his customers to OD and die, but we can call that murder.
Or that 14 year old mentally deficient kid in Florida who killed his little sister. He had no idea what “killed” meant, but we tried him for murder.
You're rambling. I can't find any credible citations to these points; therefore I can't elaborate. We've worn this thread thin. You've pointed out your arguments and asked your questions; I've answered them. I'm no lawyer, prosecutor, or judge, and I've sat on no jury to decide any of the cases you've described. I've answered your questions to the best of my ability.

The pinto is a much better example of corporate murder, but valuejet ain't bad

Wiki "On May 11, 1996, the ValuJet Airlines McDonnell Douglas DC-9 operating the route crashed into the Everglades about 10 minutes after taking off from Miami as a result of a fire in the cargo compartment caused by improperly stored cargo. All 110 people on board died"

[Leo Lyons]

The manufacturers do not care if the intent is “for self-preservation” or for crime as long as they get the sale. That is why they oppose all reasonable gun control and safety measures.
The gun manufacturers DO NOT "oppose all reasonable gun control and safety measures." That's your blind opinion.

You may be right, but I can't think of a single piece of legislation or proposed legislation that has been supported by gun makers. I'm pretty sure it would be something the people proposing the legislation would widely tout that manufacturer support. But hey - maybe you have an example of gun manufacturers supporting or suggesting gun control or safety measures.

No, I don't either. I'm not NRA, I'm not liberal, Dem, or Repub. I don't follow any of their asinine arguments either.

[O Really]

How in hell is a corporation going to make the big money you harp about, stay in business, and yet, knowingly kill off those who use their product??

Maybe we could ask RJ Reynolds, P Lorrilard, Phillip Morris and see how they managed to do it for decades.

[Leo Lyons]

The pinto is a much better example of corporate murder, but valuejet ain't bad
You forgot the Corvair.

Wiki "On May 11, 1996, the ValuJet Airlines McDonnell Douglas DC-9 operating the route crashed into the Everglades about 10 minutes after taking off from Miami as a result of a fire in the cargo compartment caused by improperly stored cargo. All 110 people on board died"
!996! I had to research this one. No. The actions of SabreTech employees was not premeditated murder; rather it was an act of stupidity based on their lack of training. Investigation and Culpability

[Vrede too]

“liberal hatred toward big business” = yet another wussy straw man.

Maybe we could ask RJ Reynolds, P Lorrilard, Phillip Morris and see how they managed to do it for decades.

And ask the other sleazy companies that have since hired Big Tobacco's PR and legal teams or aped their strategies.

[Leo Lyons]

How in hell is a corporation going to make the big money you harp about, stay in business, and yet, knowingly kill off those who use their product??

Maybe we could ask RJ Reynolds, P. Lorillard , Phillip Morris and see how they managed to do it for decades.
Good point, but we were talking about prescription drugs needed for wellness; not a by-choice, recreational-use product.

And ask the other sleazy companies that have since hired Big Tobacco's PR and legal teams or aped their strategies.

Since you brought up tobacco products, it'll be interesting to see how the legalized-marijuana industry fares in the next couple of decades. In school, we learned at an early age that anything introduced into your lungs other than the air we breathe is detrimental to your health. And to think the Vredeites are furiously creating petitions to lawmakers and creating environmental-themed donation websites to combat dirty air..

“liberal hatred toward big business” = yet another wussy straw man.
Big of you to admit your standing.

[O Really]

The pinto is a much better example of corporate murder, but valuejet ain't bad
You forgot the Corvair.

The 1959 Corvair had insufficient rear suspension creating a roll-over risk. They fixed it the next model year and by the time Nader's hatchet job was published it was as safe and reliable as any other car of that era.

[billy.pilgrim]

The pinto is a much better example of corporate murder, but valuejet ain't bad
You forgot the Corvair.

Wiki "On May 11, 1996, the ValuJet Airlines McDonnell Douglas DC-9 operating the route crashed into the Everglades about 10 minutes after taking off from Miami as a result of a fire in the cargo compartment caused by improperly stored cargo. All 110 people on board died"
!996! I had to research this one. No. The actions of SabreTech employees was not premeditated murder; rather it was an act of stupidity based on their lack of training. Investigation and Culpability

How is it different than driving drunk?

They broke the law knowing people could die.


What about the pinto? You ran away from this example. The BoD discussed future deaths as a-okay.