What a viscerally disgusting person. No one that ugly should have any sort of public facing job.
In addition to her being a minor celebrity (rather than someone in power), is she even a liberal? She’s British, right? Is she even active in American politics?
Wiki describes her activism and charity work thus:
I scanned her Twitter feed (BTW, does Twitter make sense to everyone but me? Christ, it’s impossible to read), and I see a lot of vapid crap, mostly links to other vapid crap on Instagram, but not much politics. Has she revealed her liberal views elsewhere?
Well, she apologized, so she probably is a liberal. A conservative would have doubled-down.
No, we can’t. It’s true that a lot of Latinos clean toilets and do other menial tasks. Nobody is saying that’s all that Latinos do.
Liberals say a lot of dumb things, because you don’t have to be all that smart to be liberal. A conservative, however, has to be creative and flexible to keep all the inner contradictions from clanging into each other or smart enough to explain them away.
Or a stupid enough constituency to accept the lame-assed revisions.
A fair point, but keep in mind, they only need one fairly clever guy to fashion the talking points and spread them around, then all they have to do is memorize and repeat.
It’s very possible she’s not. More likely she is on social issues but maybe not; metal fans and musicians are a lot more conservative than maybe you might think.
(Says the liberal metalhead.)
Well, Hillary opened her yap and spewed stupidity yet again.
Car owners sue carmakers all the time. Maybe you heard about this one recently?
Actually, your cite is pretty stupid, given that guns arent’ designed for the express purpose of killing, so it’s apples and oranges. Mind sourcing the cite for us?
According to my Google-monkey, your quote echos that esteemed source of truth and fact, Breitbart News.
Don’t blame you for being ashamed to link your source. Still, if I hadn’t checked, I wouldn’t know about World’s First Lesbian Bishop Calls for Church to Remove Crosses, to Install Muslim Prayer Space So, thanks for that!
Car makers can be sued, and are sued, sometimes. Sometimes they lose. People are already allowed to sue car companies.
Did you really not know this? And the journalist that wrote your link-free quote is an idiot and should be ashamed for not knowing this (or alternately writing a deceptive article). Pathetic journalism, whoever you are.
Hopefully you, Clothahump, can learn from this, and have higher standards for the journalists you read. Maybe you should bone up on law, too, before making claims about what’s “stupid” regarding what is legally allowed in terms of lawsuits.
No…now that we know what your source is, you just did.
“Clinton said nothing about allowing crash victims and their families to sue Ford, Chevrolet, Toyota, or Mercedes.”
They already can, you know. They can sue pool manufacturers, too.
Yeah, but this SLIOTD stuff is hard!
Yeah, they can if there’s a design flaw or the car malfunctions in some way. I’ve never heard of anyone suing a car company simply because one of their cars was involved in a crash that killed someone.
No car is *designed *to kill people. The manufacturers go to great lengths to try to prevent that, in fact. So the “unreasonably dangerous” consideration in product liability law doesn’t really apply. Only actual legislation excludes guns from that.
1972 Pinto?
Guns aren’t designed to kill people either. They’re designed to deliver bullets. Human beings determine which targets those bullets hit. Most often the the targets are inanimate objects or animals. Rarely are the targets people, and when they are, it’s usually a result of criminal misuse.
I don’t know of any occasion where manufacturers have been held liable for the criminal misuse of their product.