The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Politics & Current Events / Political Asylum


Subject:  Re: Elizabeth Warren: Her War on Women. Date:  10/3/2012  2:55 PM
Author:  ModernViking Number:  1820621 of 2016289

There you go. You could have just typed that the first time, but you had to take a shot at SP instead.

Because he was presenting it as if he did know. Why don't you go pressure him for making an unfounded accusation? Or are you just the board babysitter for a nursery full of right-wing-blog copycats that can't back up their own arguments?

Oh, sure. And such an analysis would have included the cost/benefit of going to trial versus pursuing a settlement. And in her capacity of representing Dow Corning, she is required to look at the cost/benefit from DC's point of view of going to trial or not.

Which means she's...advocating on behalf of the Mega Corporation at the expense of the little guy. Thanks. That's game, set and match.

What, you didn't think of that angle yourself?

I'm flattered, though I think you misunderstand. The way you frame it assumes Warren's role was primary to the defense in identifying ways for them to avoid paying a claim. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest this.

In contrast, after reading a bit more about this case it turns out that Warren's involvement came in the early days of