[SentraSE-R]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

And I wouldn't really disagree. But the thing is, I don't really TRUST any of them at all. Rather, I work on what I know of their motivations. A corporation (if its management is intelligent, which is not a given) wants to go on making a profit from me, and from the rest of its customers, which means that it will act in ways which its management believes will maximize profit, and which will allow it to go on making that profit in the future.

The liability lawyer is motivated by a desire to collect maximum damages, and thus is motivated to distort the facts & play on emotions in order to win large judgements. The political activists want to gain power for their faction, and thus have not even the restraint of potentially being cited for contempt to restrain their distortions & outright lies - which ALL political activists resort to, whenever it suits their ends.

You wear rose-tinted glasses when you look at corporations, and take them off when assessing liability lawyers and political activists. History is chock full of corporate maximum profit examples that had no plans whatsoever for the corporation's future. The recent example of PG&E failing to pressure test its gas pipeline that blew up in San Bruno, CA is one. BP's failure to have an operational or backup blowout preventer on the Deepwater Horizon is another. How about Arthur Andersen's classic collapse? Or we can skip the niceties and just use Enron, Earl Jones, Allen Stanford or Bernie Madoff to blow your claim about corporations planning for future profits. I'll bet the list of crooked corporations that made the headlines in the past 3 years would outnumber all the political activist examples you could find in the entire history of the United States.