Olbermann Wages ‘Nightly,’ ‘Indefinite’ Battle Against Wal-Mart For Suing Brain-Damaged Employee
Olbermann Wages ‘Nightly,’ ‘Indefinite’ Battle Against Wal-Mart For Suing Brain-Damaged Employee
Eight years ago, Wal-Mart employee Debbie Shank was hit by a semi-truck, leaving her severely brain damaged and confined to a wheelchair. Last September, her son was killed in Iraq — a fact she has to be constantly reminded of since the accident left her virtually without any short-term memory.
Wal-Mart paid for her medical fees, but after Shank won $1 million from a lawsuit against the trucking company, her former employer sued her to recoup its medical expenses, despite the fact the settlement left her only $417,000 after legal fees:
But a clause in the retailer’s benefits agreement says the store can recoup medical fees paid if an injured employee receives damages from a lawsuit. Wal-Mart, which earned more than $11 billion in profits last year, sued Shank for $470,000, and won.
MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann has begun a campaign against Wal-Mart, tagging the company one of his “Worst Persons in the World” for four straight nights. Olbermann says he will keep reminding people of “what they’re supporting when they go to Wal-Mart. And we’ll do it nightly, and indefinitely.”
Watch a compilation of Olbermann’s “Worst Person” designations for Wal-Mart:
Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley, who called Debbie Shank’s case “unbelievably sad,” said in a statement: “Wal-Mart’s plan is bound by very specific rules. … We wish it could be more flexible in Mrs. Shank’s case since her circumstances are clearly extraordinary, but this is done out of fairness to all associates who contribute to, and benefit from, the plan.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
114 Responses to “Olbermann Wages ‘Nightly,’ ‘Indefinite’ Battle Against Wal-Mart For Suing Brain-Damaged Employee”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
In before Darryl tries to claim the moral high ground.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:08 pmAs a previous Walmart customer who spent literally thousands of dollars on worthless crap (clothes, electronics, pet food, pharmacy, I used to buy it all there), I am enormously proud to say I have sworn off of Walmart completely.
I am a reformed Walmartaholic. And it feels so damned good!
April 1st, 2008 at 5:08 pmThere is no moral ground in this case. Rules? Spare me.
Hey Walmart, go Cheney yourself!
April 1st, 2008 at 5:09 pm"...but this is done out of fairness to all associates who contribute to, and benefit from, the plan.”
And to all the big shots at Walmart who benefit from the plan and their refusal to pay living wages.
Boycott Walmart!
April 1st, 2008 at 5:10 pmNo wonder reich-wingers worship Wal-Mart....both are immoral low-life scum.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:11 pmI applaud Keith Olbermann for shining a light on some of these issues. Walmart could go and ask the other employees if they would like to bend the rules for this one person. You might find that they have some notion of charity even if the billionaire owners of this corporation do not.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:12 pmBeing alive and helpless and impovershed is a hell of a benifit to adhere to.......probably a chistain too.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:13 pmThat's a lie. They didn't have to sue her, they chose to sue her.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:14 pmFairness to all associates? Since when did Walmart believe in this? Too many stories of people put on registers before clocking in then not getting that time paid as well as other stories that tell us all Walmart cares about Walmart 1st. Employees are somewhere below that.
Remember when Walmart had the big "Made in America" push? Now try to find something made in America in their stores.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:15 pmI boycott WalMart too. What we need to do is start calling our local WalMart and let them know why we're shopping elsewhere. Hell, send them receipts from Target. Since money is the only thing that matters to the Waltons let them know what their greed is costing them.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:15 pmFYI this just in: Walmart drops lawsuit.
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/apwire/8070d32f3be6f2f25ebf8e4bda56e349.htm
April 1st, 2008 at 5:18 pmReich-wingers, faux, and herr dubyah are going to be furious!!!!
April 1st, 2008 at 5:20 pmI believe this means that Daryll owes Keith O. a debt of gratitude.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:20 pmWTF? Am I reading this right?
Wal-Mart pays $470,000 for Ms. Shank's medical bills. Ms. Shank then wins a lawsuit against the company involved in the accident and clears $417,000. Wal-Mart then sues to get the $470,000 back.
So Ms. Shank, brain damaged and confined to a wheelchair has to turn over her settlement money plus an additional $53,000 to Wal-Mart? WTF?
Someone tell me I'm reading this wrong . . .
April 1st, 2008 at 5:21 pmhellinabucket Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 5:18 pm
FYI this just in: Walmart drops lawsuit.
Great! Now I can rush right over and buy some cheap crap!
April 1st, 2008 at 5:21 pmhellinabucket Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Fairness to all associates? Since when did Walmart believe in this?
_________________________________________
"Fairness to all associates" = "fairness to the Walmart bottom line"
This means that it's OK to ask employees to work off the clock. It's OK to tell employees that if they want health benefits, they should try Medicaid (in Debbie Shank's case, that would have worked out better for her). And it's OK that if your employee wins an injury lawsuit, it's OK to take their money away from them, even if it means they won't be able to pay for their care.
After all, if you give an employee an inch, next thing you know all your employees will want the same inch. And we can't have our employee running out to get injured by trucks just so they can keep the awards from their lawsuits.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:22 pmhellinabucket Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 5:18 pm
FYI this just in: Walmart drops lawsuit.
Wow -- this clearly shows the power of the Olbermann...although the reichwingers and the HellMart management will no doubt spin this as evidence of their "compassionate conservatism"...
April 1st, 2008 at 5:23 pmThere is your proof that reich-wingers have zero compassion. You "people" are pathetic scum. Thanks for proving that.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:23 pmWalmart clearly has a bad benefits plan. But how about the lawyers that took over $580K in fees? Anyone pissed at them? And they were even negligent for not knowing that WalMart's "Benefits" plan had a subrogation clause that would require that they go after a larger, more equitable settlement.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:24 pmFrom the link above:
Sure, sure. That last paragraph didn't factor into their decision at all. Just the big fat kindness of their corporate hearts. Ha!
April 1st, 2008 at 5:24 pmhttp://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/apwire/8070d32f3be6f2f25ebf8e4bda56e349.htm
Does this mean they get a pass from Olbermann tonight?
April 1st, 2008 at 5:25 pmThere are absolutely no legal obstacles under ERISA or within the WALMART plan that would prohibit an exception in this case. Nor is there anything prohibiting the Walmart funds used to assist employees in special circumstances. Hey, the Walton family has a charitable fund that could be used. But none of this has been done. Why? Because the Walmart efforts are meant to be cosmetic. They are unwilling to help this employee and then lie to make it look like they have no choice.
There ought to be limits on recovering medical costs. The military provides health care to service members and dependents who suffer accident. The service then goes after a fair share of the settlement to reimburse its costs. It is done very simply:
1. Determine the reasonable settlement value of the claim.
2. Look at the actual settlement amount minus legal fees to recover.
3. Reduce claimed medical expenses by the ratio.
Walmart (like other plans) acts like a pig. It seeks all the medical costs although the settlement was to reflect loss of earnings, past and future medical expenses as well as pain and suffering. Walmart takes it all so that every cent recovered from the claim after paying the attorney goes to Walmart. Walmart does not even pay a cent towards the litigation costs. The laws can and should be changed to prevent this type of unconsciable clause from being included in ERISA plans.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:26 pmprogressisgood Says:
you are such a fool......I mean, even wal mart has backed down from this stance because it is indefensible......Why do you hate America?
April 1st, 2008 at 5:27 pmOnly a reich-winger could possibly find a way to defend Wal-Mart over the moral, Christian, and right thing to do.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:28 pmI have never shopped at WalFart and will continue to not shop there. Their reputation is ..... well..... less than stellar.
Thank you Keith Olbermann for being the BEST PERSON IN THE WORLD.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:28 pmReply to 21:
Yes, I agree that the law firm which took the risk of receiving nothing should it have lost in the litigation should be the one that reduces its fees while Walmart does nothing. Hey, I bet that law firm had $11 billion in profits.
The fact is that the law firm should not give up anything as long as Walmart takes the position that it has. Great, the mighty Walmart gives nothing while the small firm sacrifices. You really need to get a clue.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:30 pm
hellinabucket Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 5:18 pm
FYI this just in: Walmart drops lawsuit.
They didn't drop the lawsuit, they're simply declining to collect the money -- big difference.
All they have to do is keep renewing the Judgment, and when she dies they'll collect it from the husband.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:30 pmAh, the ol' 'we-are-bound-by-the-rules,' and 'we-have-to-treat-everyone-the-same' arguments. What a chicken-shiz argument for an individual grieving, in pain, and in need.
And associates take note in how Wal-Mart says they are going to treat you if, God forbid, anything like this happens in your life. Lawyer-up and get ready to get screwed.
Perhaps the next thing to do is a general boycott of Wal-Mart, beginning with a specific one-day "I Refuse to Shop at Wal-Mart" campaign. I propose this Saturday, April 5, the 16th anniversary of the death of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton.
Interesting Fact: Did you know that of the Forbes 400 Richest Americans, the Walton's comprise five of the top 10 positions? Total net worth of these five is $77.9 billion. I would think they would not miss $470,000, so perhaps we could take it out of their pockets on April 5.
I'm not shopping there anymore.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:32 pmNo, we would rather be mad at the people who actually perpetrated the crime......without them where would she be right now?
April 1st, 2008 at 5:32 pmI had an idea about how Wal-Mart could make this whole thing right, but my idea is too long to post here. You are welcome to view it at my blog.
And it's more than simply not collecting the money they won in court. It's gone way past that being good enough.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:32 pmMiles Tougeaux Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Walmart clearly has a bad benefits plan. But how about the lawyers that took over $580K in fees? Anyone pissed at them? And they were even negligent for not knowing that WalMart’s “Benefits” plan had a subrogation clause that would require that they go after a larger, more equitable settlement.
_________________________________________________
I agree that any lawyer who takes over half the settlement as fees (and did a poor job, to boot) deserves as much contempt as WalMart is getting. Missing the subrogation clause was inexcusable.
But more importantly, we need to get away from our rock-solid tradition of health insurance through employers. If this had happened under a universal health care system, there would probably still have been a lawsuit for the loss of quality of life for Debbie, but her health costs would have been a moot issue.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:33 pmprogressisgood Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 5:22 pm
I've been trying to ignore this particular poster but.....
This thread is about Countdown showing it. You say it's being spun by TP. Nowhere above does TP add there own "spin". Your statement deflates further due to Walmart stating this case is being dropped.
dropped like your idea.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:34 pm>But how about the lawyers that took over $580K in fees?
Dunno. They supposed to work for free? You do know litigation costs money, right? Thats funny, 580 K would be about a 60 percent contingencey fee, I've never heard of one that high, you happen to have a link to any official court records that show how much they got?
> Anyone pissed at them?
Just people who think they shouldnt exist and that corporatations should be allowed to screw over the little guy willy nilly.
>And they were even negligent for not knowing that >WalMart’s “Benefits” plan had a subrogation clause that >would require that they go after a larger, more equitable >settlement.
Every benefit plan has a subrogation clause.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:36 pmYou happen to have the documentation that says that they got everything they wanted out of the lawsuit? If they got everything they asked for and this situation occured, I agree, but its very likely they got less than they asked for or wanted, in which case they're not negligent simply because things didnt go as planned..
I don't see how anyone could shop at WALMART. Never have, never will.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:37 pmUPDATE: CNN is now reporting that Wal-Mart "said in a letter to the family of Deborah Shank it will not seek to collect money the Shanks won in an injury lawsuit against a trucking company for the accident."
too late... the fact that they sued her for that money is outrageous enough...
damage done... hope it sticks.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:38 pmprogressisgood Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Wal-Mart did the right thing! She sued for damages and won $700,000! From the person responsible for the accident! Wal-Mart was well within the law to do what they did!! Man yall can spin a story
Being "legally right" and being "morally right" are sometimes two different things. Wal-Mart may have had the legal right to do what they did, but morally they have no ground to stand on. None. Their pursuit of this lawsuit was pure greed, nothing more, nothing less. They could not care less what happened to that family and, I would say, they still don't. The only reason they are even thinking of doing what they're doing in opting not to take the money is to make themselevs look better, not to help the Shank family. If they cared one bit about the Shank family, they would not have taken her to court in the first place.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:39 pm>After legal fees were paid, $417,000 was placed in a trust >to pay for Debbie Shank's long-term care.
I think this is deceptively worded, unless her short term care was free, the cost of that would have gotten factored in too... cnn.com is pretty much some right wing mouthpeice these days, they've run some pretty out of context headlines about barack....
April 1st, 2008 at 5:40 pmKaty, I very much doubt Walmart would have changed their stance if it weren't for the likes of Keith Olbermann and many others (yes Daryll, you too) that shot this story thru the web and into mainstream news.
Walmart wants to turn the page on this before someone sheds the light on the many other similar cases they have dealt with.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:41 pmI'm going to go out on a limb and say that Daryll would damn progressisgood.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:42 pm#30, Zooey, please tell me this isn't so. This story is horrific enough without the thought that that poor man could get hammered like that!
April 1st, 2008 at 5:43 pmAdd to Response 36: Yes, the attorneys did know of the subrogation clause. However, Walmart refused to compromise or to assume any of the expense in maintaining the claim. My guess is that the settlement was in part compelled by the fact that the plaintiffs ran out of money. The husband had already divorced his wife to increase medicaid payments and he was already working more than one job. Yes, I am sure that they were threatened with years more of litigation unless they took a lower settlement amount. Walmart should have backed the litigation to force the trucking company down.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:44 pmZooey, then the link is missleading because it states that WalMart is dropping the lawsuit.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:45 pmI don't beleive the dollar terms of settlements are a matter of public record....I'd have to see the specific document and the exact language of the subrogation clause to know whether the lawyers screwed up or not.. but in any situation, i cant see the settlement causing a net loss for the plaintiff...its possible but unlikely..
April 1st, 2008 at 5:46 pmLeporello Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 5:43 pm
#30, Zooey, please tell me this isn’t so. This story is horrific enough without the thought that that poor man could get hammered like that!
Unless Wal-Mart files some sort of Satisfaction of Judgment, or lets the Judgment expire, they can collect -- probably plus interest at the statutory rate at the time of judgment.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:48 pmI believe this woman had more money from the settlement but spent it for her portion of medical expenses and her continued care in a nursing home since. Walmart was only looking to recoup the money they spent, $400,000 which would leave very little money for her continued care. Leave it to a troll to make the attorney out as the bad guy. Not the trucking company that disabled her. How much would they have paid without the attorney, troll?
April 1st, 2008 at 5:48 pm>I guess we now see who pro’s really are! SLIMY LAWYERS!!!
hahaah. right on. soon to be, at least. I guess we can only dare to dream of being respectable corporate executives making childrens pajams out of asbestos, selling mothers lead lined baby bottles to feed thier children out of, and writing themselves multmillion dollar golden parachute while the companies stock tanks and all thier employees lose their 401k?
progloser, can we every hope to be as morally upright and decent as corporate executives like Ken Lay?
April 1st, 2008 at 5:49 pm>Unless Wal-Mart files some sort of Satisfaction of Judgment
We all love it when Zoey talks dirty...
April 1st, 2008 at 5:51 pmOkay, Daryll, you got your wish.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:52 pm>Okay, Daryll, you got your wish.
His wife is getting paid to be a whore?
April 1st, 2008 at 5:53 pmhellinabucket Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Zooey, then the link is missleading because it states that WalMart is dropping the lawsuit.
hellina,
WalMart can't drop the lawsuit, judgment is already entered. They can choose not to collect on the judgment, which is what is happening in the article you posted. However, it will be interesting to watch this case and see if they actually let the Judgment expire (they have to be renewed every five years or so). If they keep renewing the Judgment, that means they have the option of collecting at some point.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:55 pmChocolate Jesus Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 5:51 pm
>Unless Wal-Mart files some sort of Satisfaction of Judgment
We all love it when Zoey talks dirty…
Hey, I didn't bring up Ken Lay... ;)
April 1st, 2008 at 5:56 pmSeeing is not your problem....comprehension is.
If we are anything it is the anti-you
April 1st, 2008 at 5:58 pmI never mocked you Daryll.
April 1st, 2008 at 6:02 pmDaryll
April 1st, 2008 at 6:00 pm
How do you know no one donated to the foundation? No payments to your PayPal account?
April 1st, 2008 at 6:03 pmOne of the worst companies in the world....I worked for them for a very long year...Woulden't buy any of their crap to save my life, been boycotting them for year's....
On a simaler note it appears Nike is having problem's, seems in some country their worker's get paid $59.00 a month and are going on strike for a 20% increase of pay...Can't imagine why they are upset they do get a free lunch on the job..Sarc/ off
April 1st, 2008 at 6:04 pmbluefish @ 15:
Check this out for a look at that perspective:
http://www.hammeroftheblogs.blogspot.com/
April 1st, 2008 at 6:06 pmChill out Daryll. How many times have I simply asked you to advise me on my shellfish problem yet you have not. All I asked for was your thoughts.
April 1st, 2008 at 6:06 pmWe could have a special thread for Daryll, the Mock the Hypocrite thread.
That is what they were mocking, oh believes in the Magical Invisible Faerie in the Sky. The fact that you have posted many times about how you don't think National Health Care should be given to anyone, but along comes a case in point, and all of a sudden Daryll has sympathy for someone, that is what they were mocking, you superstitious fool.
April 1st, 2008 at 6:07 pmIt's clear you are slime. You refuse to rebuke your Commie Wal-Mart for their immoral actions.
April 1st, 2008 at 6:07 pmMiles Tougeaux Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Walmart clearly has a bad benefits plan. But how about the lawyers that took over $580K in fees? Anyone pissed at them? And they were even negligent for not knowing that WalMart’s “Benefits” plan had a subrogation clause that would require that they go after a larger, more equitable settlement.
Sorry, Miles, my comment @ 61 was meant for you.
April 1st, 2008 at 6:09 pmWho died and made daryll thread monater on who can write or not....Hay daryll..go cheney your self...
April 1st, 2008 at 6:10 pmhttp://www.takimag.com/sniperstower/Russell%20Seitz/
I find this graph interesting, politically. Non-politically I would say that that its evenly split.
Daryll, Olbermann, the liberal, has helped this womans cause by simply talking about it, to the tune of 417,000 bucks.
April 1st, 2008 at 6:11 pmDaryll Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 6:10 pm
I donated a significant account from my Everbank Euro Savings account. How about you?
Define "significant." I donated every cent I have.
April 1st, 2008 at 6:14 pmHey Daryll. Please help. They tell me if I refuse to ship the shellfish for religious reasons my job would be jeopardized.
April 1st, 2008 at 6:15 pmDaryll Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 6:13 pm
And I still do not believe in National Healthcare. How are you going to fund it? If you want something equivalent to nationalized healthcare, for those that can’t afford it, take away the annual fee from their income tax return.
I didn't get an income tax return. How would you handle the fee in that case?
April 1st, 2008 at 6:16 pmHow do you fund war and the welfare state that Iraq has become Daryll?
April 1st, 2008 at 6:16 pmPraise be to the Olbermann.
April 1st, 2008 at 6:17 pmHow do we manage to give hundreds of millions, if not billions to other countries before we take care of our own?
April 1st, 2008 at 6:18 pmmisshusseinmolly @ 34,
Don't want to be redundant, but you might want to look at this:
http://hammeroftheblogs.blogspot.com/2008/03/walmartyrs
April 1st, 2008 at 6:18 pmdbadass, you may as well give it up. He ain't gonna answer you on the shellfish thing.
April 1st, 2008 at 6:19 pmmisshusseinmolly'
Sorry. I'm no computer whiz-bang, that's fo' sure:
http://www.hammeroftheblogs.blogspot.com/
April 1st, 2008 at 6:23 pmbecause it is written: be ye holy; for I am holy
April 1st, 2008 at 6:24 pmwoodguy
April 1st, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Linkee no workee :(
April 1st, 2008 at 6:25 pmJeannie See Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 6:19 pm
dbadass, you may as well give it up. He ain’t gonna answer you on the shellfish thing.
Why do you think that is? So religious based nonperformance of your job is cool if you are a pharmacist but uncool if you are a fishmonger?
I didn't give one cent in this case. However, I tutor low income students for free despite the normal rate of 27.00/hour and provide food to numerous needy families on a weekly basis. You know the local I do it because it is the right thing to do sort of thing. Not so I can talk about my alleged rightousness on some website
April 1st, 2008 at 6:26 pmDaryll, I have one of those books you sell:
April 1st, 2008 at 6:27 pmThe holy scriptures for 47 dollars..
It is in our lakeside outhouse......has a lot of pages missing though you know what I mean?
dbadass, I wasn't trying to dis you in anyway. I only meant that he isn't going to give you an answer because any answer he would give you wouldn't be justifiable in his case so he will ignore you.
Sorry, didn't mean any offense.
April 1st, 2008 at 6:31 pmDaryll Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Regarding the shellfish. The Old Testament is used as a guide in life. Our laws are in the New Testament, therefore, continue to eat seafood.
______
Thanks buddy. So I can forget all that homosexual hatred stuff too right?
April 1st, 2008 at 6:32 pmNo problem Jeannie See, I didn't read you any other wat than thoughtful
April 1st, 2008 at 6:33 pmbest-
Daryll Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 6:27 pm
I apologize if you didn’t receive a return, but the fair way to handle this issue is to charge the current year and next year’s annual fee to your next income tax return.
I won't get a return next year either.
Don't apologize for my lack of a tax return, apologize for being a complete wanker.
April 1st, 2008 at 6:33 pmMany religions use the old testament exclusively. Who's right? You or them?
April 1st, 2008 at 6:35 pmWell, I think the shellfish was a allegorical. The purple dye used by royalty came from a shellfish, the murex.
April 1st, 2008 at 6:37 pmThanks to K.O. for helping to keep this one in the spotlight until it became too uncomfortable for them.
More than likely Walmart was shamed into doing the right thing because of the negative publicity it received. That doesn't mean it is changing its ways -- it only means that this case will go away for them.
April 1st, 2008 at 6:39 pmDaryll Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 6:37 pm
dbadass Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Daryll Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Regarding the shellfish. The Old Testament is used as a guide in life. Our laws are in the New Testament, therefore, continue to eat seafood.
______
Thanks buddy. So I can forget all that homosexual hatred stuff too right?
Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
A law against homosexuality exist in the New Testament, as well.
Not true - You sad little brain damaged TARD... The New Testament only has prohibitions against pedophilia and gay prostitution (see pedophilia). Then again, you ignorant TARDS would know Aramaic or Greek vocabulary if it bit you in your racist, homophobic, hate filled bubble heads!
While you're at it, the new testament also permits slavery, so are you ready to resubmit your black *ss to the man again? ROTFL, you're a dumb little tard!
April 1st, 2008 at 6:46 pmDaryll Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 6:38 pm
I say an intercessory prayer for you. Things will get better, if you put him first.
Don't bother. Things are going great in my life.
Do you always use the "tax return" as an indicator of success?
April 1st, 2008 at 6:47 pmDaryll Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Regarding the shellfish. The Old Testament is used as a guide in life. Our laws are in the New Testament, therefore, continue to eat seafood.
Actually the New Testament says that Old Testament laws are all still valid, so that makes you ignorant of your own bible!! ROTFL, you CRAZY CHRISTIANS ARE DUMB!
April 1st, 2008 at 6:48 pmZooey Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Daryll Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 6:38 pm
I say an intercessory prayer for you. Things will get better, if you put him first.
Don’t bother. Things are going great in my life.
Do you always use the “tax return” as an indicator of success?
You forgot his toe-tapping dance session in the local airport mensroom! That's truly Daryll's definition of sucksess!! ROTFL!!
April 1st, 2008 at 6:49 pmDaryll Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 6:37 pm
A law against homosexuality exist in the New Testament, as well.
____
I am sort of rusty on all this. Might you point me to where I might find this law?
April 1st, 2008 at 6:52 pmmolly,
http://www.hammeroftheblogs.blogspot.com/
April 1st, 2008 at 6:52 pm1 Corinthians 6:9-10. " Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
Yet the GOP convention has more prostitutes than the democratic one...As well greed is an equal sin. Seems we have a government of sinners.
April 1st, 2008 at 6:52 pmDaryll, those prohibitions are also not in the New Testament (words of Jesus), but were spoken by the syphilitic lunatic Paul, a man who had used those temple prostitution children himself...
You might want to review these passages as well, which all refer to the "law" (Old Testament), still being valid...
Matthew 5:17–20, Matthew 23:1–3, Matthew 23:23
Why is it the people like Daryll that claim to be Christians are always the ones that know the LEAST about their religion and its history! ROTFL, Daryll, you're one pathetic little dum bass!!! ROTFL!!
April 1st, 2008 at 6:55 pmXisithrus, you forgot Slanderers and Swindlers, Daryll and the GOP qualify on both accounts!! ROTFL!!
April 1st, 2008 at 6:56 pmXisithrus Says:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10. ” Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
"Homosexual" was a word when the Bible was written?
April 1st, 2008 at 6:58 pmActually, it does say slanderers n swindlers =) post 100
April 1st, 2008 at 6:59 pmdbadass, there is an interesting discussion here. They maintain that the evidence is vague enough and heavily dependent on translation from the Greek, and that the "answer" is almost entirely based on your political orientation.
In fact, it's a very interesting site. I loved this paragraph:
April 1st, 2008 at 6:59 pm
“Homosexual” was a word when the Bible was written? -Zooey
Jimmy Creech, former senior pastor of the First United Methodist Church, in Omaha, Nebraska has concluded that: "...there was no understanding of sexual orientation in the culture and time when scripture was written. There was not even a word for 'homosexuality' or 'homosexual' in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, the original languages of scripture. There are biblical references that condemn same-sex sexual behavior, but they are all within contexts related to violence, idolatry, promiscuity and exploitation. Careful reading within the historical setting reveals that it is the violence, idolatry, promiscuity and exploitation that is condemned, not the same-sex sexual behavior. The same condemnation is given to opposite-sex sexual behavior that is violent, idolatrous, promiscuous and exploitative."
April 1st, 2008 at 7:03 pmhttp://www.city-data.com/forum/religion-philosophy/97234-does-your-religious-belief-affect-your-10.html
Many errors were made during translation. As was with the bringer of light, Lucifer, who was not Satan.
April 1st, 2008 at 7:06 pmXisithrus
April 1st, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Thanks, Zep!
April 1st, 2008 at 7:10 pmManbearpig, Eve wasnt Adams first mate.
April 1st, 2008 at 7:10 pmAnd as for LYING, which is a SIN, Manbearpig,about my mental awareness, you are no better than the slanderer
April 1st, 2008 at 7:12 pmHowever, I do find manbearpig amusing, I am brain dead for quoting a pastor.
April 1st, 2008 at 7:14 pmManBearPig Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Daryll,
FYI,
Xisithrus is brain dead.
----
I am thinking not. But your arrival with that tired Adam/Steve deal maybe. Although inconclusive much of the research which has been done on the effects of variation in the sex hormones at key moments of development and their effects on the brain with regard to sexual orientation are quite interesting. Have you ever reveiwed any of these studies?
April 1st, 2008 at 7:15 pmThere's like a bajillion things that went wrong in this situation, but the fault shouldn't all be placed on Walmart. For someone who sustained injuries requiring $470K in medical expanses to sue for an amount that only recovers about 85% of those costs is silly! Her legal team is clearly both incompitent and overpaid. The appropriate suit would have been for "actual medical expenses + $1 MILLION in punative damages", and the legal folks should only take from the punitive award. When you have multiple payers it's entirely reasonable that only the expenses incurred by the injured party should be covered (unless there are PUNITIVE damages). Either your medical coverage, or legal recourse through the court system is designed to cover expenses incurred, and NO MORE. This is a sad case, but it highlights more nuanced problems than Wal-Mart's rampant corporate greed.
- Zathrus
April 1st, 2008 at 7:15 pmThanks gummitch. I only had time for a quick overview but did bookmark that for later.
April 1st, 2008 at 7:17 pmdbadass
April 1st, 2008 at 7:15 pm
You're not serious... :D
April 1st, 2008 at 7:18 pmWalmart has helped to raise 300 million people, the population of America, out of poverty.
Problem is, they werent Americans. Oh sure, Im glad that Chinas people are not suffering as they did before, but we should not ignore the fact that 28 million Americans today now rely on foodstamps to feed their family and that poverty in this country is on the rise.
April 1st, 2008 at 7:22 pmOnce again the thread becomes all about Daryll and what he says he believes.
April 1st, 2008 at 7:25 pmIgnore him.
Oh damn -- I missed The Performance Artist Known as Daryll®. Bummer.
His performances are no longer convincing, but they are entertaining.
April 1st, 2008 at 7:28 pmI don't know if this was addressed before, but I'll say it anyway. The settlement was only for $700,000 so the attorneys only took a little less than $300,000. On the other hand, the lawyer did miss the subordination clause. I'm willing to bet that the lawyer this couple was able to hire wasn't exactly a top tier lawyer and that's probably why the settlement was so little and they missed the clause. That's what happens when you are poor. You can't afford top notch lawyers.
April 1st, 2008 at 7:47 pmNo what do they conclude? Homosexuality is biological?
Exactly.
April 1st, 2008 at 7:48 pmManBearPig Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 7:42 pm
----
No they don't. They suggest that behavior is a complex thing. That's what makes them interesting. Remember when we thought what made the more recent hominids forms special was tool use?
April 1st, 2008 at 7:49 pm"21st Century Biological Freedom Man" would be a cool King Crimson tune
April 1st, 2008 at 8:12 pmNow if this only could be repeated on the health insurance companies!
April 1st, 2008 at 9:16 pmDaryll, unfortunately, I think you are a downright evil man. I would NEVER donate one red cent to anything you might be a part of. You are so offensive to me you make my skin crawl. Hating in the name of Christ. You make me sick. You are the epitome of everything Christ hated (if he was capable of hate).
If anyone does want to donate to the Shanks, WalmartWatch set up a fund for them. You can donate here:
https://secure.walmartwatch.com/page/contribute/helptheshanks
April 1st, 2008 at 11:45 pmThis post is far below the standards for this forum. A big company wants what is has a right to, so that must be bad? All big companies are bad? Is that really what this forum stands for?
May 4th, 2008 at 7:19 amWhat WalMart does is absolutely standard and makes perfect sense.
Basically, you can't recover twice.
Walmart paid for her medical fees, and then she recovered from the truck driver based on those exact same fees.
If there is a problem with her lack of recovery, it is because she had a lousy personal injury lawyer who was only able to get her a poor settlement.