LOL...
What realistic expectations do you have?
Reminds me of grade school bullies picking on the nerd.
LOL...
What realistic expectations do you have?
He totally didn't get it, did he?
I thought he was trolling about 2 pages ago... now I'm not so sure anymore![]()
What didn't I get? All I see is you guys crying hypocrisy.
Nothing, but while we're at it, what are your feelings on tort reform?
Tort reform is meaningless without good specifics. Just throwing the word around and then comparing the failures of other places to make a difference is a joke.
amazing thread. thanks for the laughs.
Yes, it's so comical when bigoted liberals cannot consider the other four in a lawsuit as having a valid claim because they want to label the other two as hypocrites.
No, he wants an oil industry that is owned by the state.
Good minion. Blind your mind to what they are saying by continuing to repeat that you think he has a valid case.
Never criticize your master.
Ok, last question. How do you feel about the phrase "reasonable attorney's fees?"
I just went through it one more time... borderline classic![]()
Have any of you guys crying hypocrisy read the "facts" starting on page 5 of this:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...er20140220.pdf
I don't like it. "Reasonable" is not quantified and different people think differently of what is reasonable.
I think WC is ready to subsidize some of my poor life decisions ...
Are you practicing already, BTW? I thought last I checked you were still in school?
lol. been practicing for almost 5 years. That was a long time ago.
Good to know that I come across as a law student![]()
God I hope not. That would be beyond stupid.
it's not you, it's me... time flies when you get older...
Why can't you be serious. You know I'm no law student. Granted, the facts in the case are not necessarily facts, but the injunction has been in effect for some time now. I don't think the "facts" in the complaint/case are going to be found incorrect. Do you?
Lets assume for a minute that 3.01 to 3.13 are correct. Would you say that the owners acted in good faith and the water company didn't?
Then what do you want?
Nice one, I had to look that up.
it's called the "tu quoque" fallacy.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)