Article: America Has Grounded the Wright Brothers

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote:
Your solution mixes civil and criminal law...a really bad situation.

Yes, but the very concept of "punitive damages" is already an
unhealthy mixture of civil and criminal law. Reserving the punitive
damages for the taxpayers will help to restore the punitive aspect
to its proper sphere.

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
2. punitive damages go to the taxpayers, not to the plaintiff.

Your solution mixes civil and criminal law...a really bad situation.

Quite right. Mixing criminal punishment and civil retribution is a very bad
thing.
That's exactly why punitive damage as a punishment should have no business
in a civil case.

jue

Mark opined

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote:
Your solution mixes civil and criminal law...a really bad situation.

Yes, but the very concept of "punitive damages" is already an
unhealthy mixture of civil and criminal law. Reserving the punitive
damages for the taxpayers will help to restore the punitive aspect
to its proper sphere.

If you really want punitive damages, donate them to charity. A charity that acts
to reduce what ever "caused" the tort. Snell and AOPA air safety are good
examples.

What ever you do, do not let governments get their hands on the monies.



-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Jim,

Two words: Seven Sixtyseven.


Are those the ones they bribed into the USAF tanker deal even though
Airbus was cheaper? That hardly counts as innovative!


Allrighty, then. Try Seven Seventyseven?

--
Jim Fisher

Jim,

Allrighty, then. Try Seven Seventyseven?


Oh, the one where the finally also used fly-by-wire like Airbus after
bad-mouthing the concept for years? Innovation?

This is fun g

Note: My comments are tongue-in-cheek.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

In article ,
wrote:

Allrighty, then. Try Seven Seventyseven?

Oh, the one where the finally also used fly-by-wire like Airbus after
bad-mouthing the concept for years? Innovation?

Apparently Boeing figured out how to make it work properly


This is fun g

Note: My comments are tongue-in-cheek.

indeed.

--
Bob Noel

Mark opined

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote:
Your solution mixes civil and criminal law...a really bad situation.

Yes, but the very concept of "punitive damages" is already an
unhealthy mixture of civil and criminal law.

No, it is not.

Reserving the punitive
damages for the taxpayers will help to restore the punitive aspect
to its proper sphere.

....and make sure the the deep-pockets cases become even more prolific.

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Jim,

Allrighty, then. Try Seven Seventyseven?


Oh, the one where the finally also used fly-by-wire like Airbus after
bad-mouthing the concept for years? Innovation?

Fly-by-wire WAS a bad idea for a LONGGGGG time until they got the kinks
worked out.


This is fun g

Note: My comments are tongue-in-cheek.

Hopefully not foot-in-mouth!!

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Jim,

Two words: Seven Sixtyseven.


Are those the ones they bribed into the USAF tanker deal even though
Airbus was cheaper? That hardly counts as innovative!

Cheaper to buy (after MASSIVE subsidy from the taxpayers...an now Boeing is
getting into that as well), but more expensive to operate (since it was
designed for state run airlines).

Ranks right up there with having your embassy's 'high security rooms'
constructed by a foreign government...
Denny
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Thomas Borchert wrote:

Are those the ones they bribed into the USAF tanker deal even though
Airbus was cheaper?

I doubt they had to bribe anyone. Having your military use combat gear
made by a
foreign country is a *really* bad idea.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually
said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."