Edwards!
I just decided who I want to run for president in '08.
John Edwards.
I just caught him on the Daily Show, and man... Funny, witty, liberal, smart, charming, and damn good-looking, for a (former) congressman.
In other words, everything Bush isn't.
Obama or Edwards ftw!
I couldn't agree more. I think Edwards was hands down the way to go in the last election... but I don't see him running again. At least I don't see him running again in the near future. Now my personal favorite is Obama. I think he has a lot to say, but I really hope race or other issues don't come into play. I think he could be a truly great leader.
:D He's slick...;)
In his closing arguments, Edwards spoke to the jury for an hour and a half without referring to notes. It was an emotional appeal that made reference to his son, Wade, who had been killed shortly before testimony began in the trial. Mark Dayton, editor of North Carolina Lawyers Weekly, would later call it "the most impressive legal performance I have ever seen.
Welcome to the Cellar, Brady.
WHOA, I'm honoured, I actually drove someone to sign up and post!
I'm liking the Obama, too.
Ibram, you're just a cellar magnet!
The sad thing is, even after driving people to sign up, breaking the 2000 post mark, and sticking around for seven months, I still feel like a n00b.
Maybe it has something to do with the forum being older than me.
It'll feel worse when you find out you're not a n00b, trust me. ;)
"Sh*t, I'm not the youngest guy around anymore! Aaaagh!"
Oh, and Obama is great n'all, but what the hell has he done?
Ibram, your maturity far surpasses many of the older Cellarites, including me!
He was also on Charlie Rose last night -- this time with a blue tie instead of the red one he wore on Daily Show.
But he is quite refreshingly articulate and amazingly transparent -- and I mean the latter in a good way, I think.
I wonder if the Secret Service will visit him after his "Seat of Heat" question...
WHOA, I'm honoured, I actually drove someone to sign up and post!
Post, yes. Sign up, no.
brady_44
Kinda New Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1
(belated) Welcome brady_44. Don't make us wait for another year to hear from you again, though, please.
Based upon the recent elections, I think the Democratic candidate will win no matter who it is, except Billary Clinton. So all you Democratics need to choose very, very carefully. The republicans will have to do something truly amazing to get anyone reelected and Condi is certainly not gonna do it, so they'll probably toss out another "lamb to the wolves" like Dole, for the '08 elections.
Another "great thing" about the 2-party system: "place-holder" candidates.
I'm sorry, but John Edwards is a fraud. He has a hokey southern accent and all folksy and stuff around his contituents in NC, but get him on the Daily Show and he's a completely different person. Plus, he's a personal injury attorney by trade, so how trustworthy can he really be?
My vote is for anyone who isn't a democrat or a republican.
I'm sorry, but John Edwards is a fraud. He has a hokey southern accent and all folksy and stuff around his contituents in NC, but get him on the Daily Show and he's a completely different person.
Huh? That's exactly how he was on the Daily Show last night.
Huh? That's exactly how he was on the Daily Show last night.
If you see him in a public appearance in NC, he's even more folksy and such. You have to be on his "turf" to see him at his best.
Thanks melidasaur, glad to know I have company. I love being an independent.
Hey whats Perot doin?
(Flint - pic please)
[SIZE="2"]little man[/SIZE] - [SIZE="4"]BIG Bankroll[/SIZE]
If you see him in a public appearance in NC, he's even more folksy and such. You have to be on his "turf" to see him at his best.
I guess I wouldn't put "like that, but more so" in the camp of "completely different person."
I guess I wouldn't put "like that, but more so" in the camp of "completely different person."
He's a personal injury attorney!!! what more needs to be said?!? :Lol:
what more needs to be said?!?
Have you actually "said anything"
yet?Politicians < Personal Injury Lawyer.
Therefore, Edwards would be a step up.
What's wrong with behaving differently in front of different audiences? I don't speak to my friends the same way I speak to my parents, or my boss, or y'all.
As long as the content of the message is the same, who cares about vernacular?
Cardinal rule of public speaking: Know Thy Audience.
He's a personal injury attorney!!! what more needs to be said?!? :Lol:
I guess that line lost its appeal for me after, during the campaign, he got derided as a "jacuzzi lawyer" for successfully suing a pool pump company for a product that sucked the intestines out of children.
..successfully suing a pool pump company for a product that sucked the intestines out of children...
Goddamn that ambulance chasing motherfucker! How dare these
so-called lawyers right wrongs on our behalf!
But seriously, if you don't want to get sued by a personal inju
ry attorney:
don't injure anybody. Either through your negligent business practices or otherwise. Here in Texas we have Tort Reform, yay! Now big business has virtually
no incentive to care about whether we are injured or killed by their attempts to maximize profits.
Remember the recall math from Fight Club? It's not just about cars.
Right. It's about business practices. And, it's about whether "the little guy" has any protection, IE
lawyers. They make it hurt,
in the pocketbook, when you do wrong. And that's the language that gets things done. Take that away and we're fucked.
This
should make you wonder where the anti-lawyer rhetoric really comes from.
I guess I don't appreciate public figures that have to talk differently to different audiences. Just talk as you normally do and be yourself.
For the record, I did live in North Carolina for 5 years and was one of his constituents, so I do have a right to complain about the fakeness of his folksy aires. If he is a folksy person normally, then he should act like that all the time. I've seen him pull the old switcharoo - folksy one minute, and not so much the next.
I talk to everyone in the same manner, so I guess it does bother me. I don't change things up for different audiences. The message, mode and delivery is always the same.
Being a lawyer myself, I don't like those who practice in the field of personal injury. I feel that they:
1) Exploit people's stupidity - always making a mountain out of a mole hill - of course coffee is hot!
2) Clog the court system with ridiculous law suits
3) Really stress the need for tort reform.
So those are my thoughts.
Now if he ran today, he'd probably win, but not with my vote.
if you want to see a knock down drag out put clinton/obama vs mccain/guiliani vs lieberman/colin powell. it won't happen, but it would be fun to watch.
How was it that Kerry won the Democratic nomination in 2004? I was kind of blindsided by that and couldn't figure out how he became the frontrunner. It seemed like he won Iowa somehow, and all the Dems said "he can beat Bush!", and suddenly he was the Democratic candidate.
What was it that I missed, anyway?
I talk to everyone in the same manner, so I guess it does bother me. I don't change things up for different audiences. The message, mode and delivery is always the same.
Being a lawyer myself, I don't like those who practice in the field of personal injury. I feel that they:
1) Exploit people's stupidity - always making a mountain out of a mole hill - of course coffee is hot!
2) Clog the court system with ridiculous law suits
3) Really stress the need for tort reform.
So those are my thoughts.
Now if he ran today, he'd probably win, but not with my vote.
a) Changing style of language and delivery depending on audience is called code-switching and is engaged in by most people at some time; one of the noticeable aspects of interraction amongst illiterate or under educated people is an inability to effectively codeswitch: this leads people to speak in their usual slang/dialect even when it's inappropriate, ie a defendant in court who makes a poor showing of themself because they cannot adopt a more formal language style in an environment where they may be discriminated against for not doing so. You say you don't code-switch, I suspect you actually do. Most of us do it without ever realising we are doing so. It's an automatic response to certain stimuli. Some people do it very consciously, particularly those who make their living through public speaking.
b) Just because a lot of lawyers practising in the field of Personal Injury claims are sharks, does not mean being a Personal Injury Lawyer makes one a shark. There are many very dodgy and unscrupulous lawyers working in the field of divorce, criminal defence and fraud cases, but there are also many who do their job well. If there was no need for Personal Injury lawyers one would wonder why anybody might follow such a profession; alas there patently is a need given that many people are injured through the negligence of companies. There's a big difference between helping someone whose child has been crippled or disfigured get justice and reparations, and someone persuading an unhurt crash victim that they have whiplash.
Being a lawyer myself, I don't like those who practice in the field of personal injury. I feel that they:
1) Exploit people's stupidity - always making a mountain out of a mole hill - of course coffee is hot!
2) Clog the court system with ridiculous law suits
3) Really stress the need for tort reform.
What happens, though, is that damage caps
increase the number of lawsuits . Rather than being able to try big cases, and get big paychecks, these guys have to generate alot more small cases. More cases, clogging the system: what you complained about, made a reality, by tort reform.
The problem is that too many people see it as an opportunity to get money for nothin - they should get a grip and learn to be responsible for their own actions. There is no perfect system - Utopia doesn't exist.
The problem is that too many people see it as an opportunity to get money for nothing ...
Which is not my experience. Problem was not too many people seeking a windfall profit. Not to many court cases. Problem was that we in jury were denied basic facts to assign a numerical value to a judgment. As a result, the judgment was set by auction bidding - number kept increasing until no one submitted a higher number.
I was appalled. Having been denied historical facts; having been denied even court testimony in the jury room, then those who can only reply with logic were then silenced. Those who just know from their feelings would bid that settlement higher.
It amazes me that some immediately assume jury verdicts result only from greed. Again, where are 'their' numbers and facts? Without those numbers and facts, then one starts by saying, "I have not a clue". But just like in that jury room and just like on Rush Limbaugh, speculation is represented as fact.
One fact I did observe - we were shorted information massively so that a number based in logic and historical precedent was not possible.
a) Changing style of language and delivery depending on audience is called code-switching...
Thank you! I did not know that term. Interesting! :)
Problem was that we in jury were denied basic facts to assign a numerical value to a judgment. As a result, the judgment was set by auction bidding - number kept increasing until no one submitted a higher number.
One fact I did observe - we were shorted information massively so that a number based in logic and historical precedent was not possible.
How can you possibly put a numerical value on a limb, an eye or the ability to think, act, walk and so on. Its impossible. The next step would be to say that an artists limb is more valuable than a non-artists. All of this creates a situation that is untenable. There is no clear answer, no solution, nor can there be.
How can you possibly put a numerical value on a limb, an eye or the ability to think, act, walk and so on.
That's exactly what Tort Reform does. It says: a human life, etc. cannot be worth more than X amount, so conduct yourselves accordingly.
The next step would be to say that an artists limb is more valuable than a non-artists.
If working with that limb was part of an income they have lost the ability to generate, then it is more valuable by exactly that amount.
If working with that limb was part of an income they have lost the ability to generate, then it is more valuable by exactly that amount.
Thats the problem - you would increase it by "exactly what amount?" How can you say I wouldn't have needed it or increased my earnings in the future with that appendage?
How can you possibly put a numerical value on a limb, an eye or the ability to think, act, walk and so on. Its impossible. The next step would be to say that an artists limb is more valuable than a non-artists. All of this creates a situation that is untenable. There is no clear answer, no solution, nor can there be.
If you cannot put a value on a limb, eye, etc then you are no where near as ruthless as I am. Think about that for a minute when you consider that, here, I have been called a liberal.
If you cannot put a number on something, then only emotion and chaos results. We even have a number for the value of an average human life. If you are an emotional type, then you don't like it. Too bad. That ruthlessness is also called reality.
Stop using emotion for logic. Everything has a value. That is not disputable. The more difficult part is finding that value. And there is why the jury room needs historical precedents, facts, written testimony, and the many other things necessary to quash emotion.
To tell me that "it is impossible" is ... well you also ran away from another discussion when I asked "what is the purpose of war". I call that being a quitter or too emotional to be trusted. It is not impossible. It is only difficult. If it was impossible, then burn down the courts; they have no purpose.
A reasonable number can be applied only if logic prevails. And yet the jury room cow towed to emotion. Others even represent personal assumptions into hype – such as people only sue for windfall profits. We were not even permitted courtroom testimony in that jury room. Everything was based only on personal recollections. That is a room ripe for decision only based in emotions.
Thats the problem - you would increase it by "exactly what amount?" How can you say I wouldn't have needed it or increased my earnings in the future with that appendage?
Well, it's a hard problem, there's no easy answers. I'm just sayin' I don't think capping damages helps the situation.
Stop using emotion for logic. Everything has a value. That is not disputable. The more difficult part is finding that value. And there is why the jury room needs historical precedents, facts, written testimony, and the many other things necessary to quash emotion.
I call that being a quitter or too emotional to be trusted. It is not impossible. It is only difficult. If it was impossible, then burn down the courts; they have no purpose.
Um, Excuse me? Who the fuck do you think you are and what the fuck is your problem? I don't believe in an actual value on either:
1) A human life
2) A limb, vision or whatever.
Its not an emotional response. Its
my belief. I'm certain that there is an amount of "monetary compensation" to which someone will agree in order to drop a lawsuit. That has nothing to do with what I am saying. You state your opinions or thoughts and I'll do the same. I disagree with you - thats all and "assigning monetary values" on limbs or physical pain just makes it easier for all you lawyers and the system.
You scumbags will simply know whether or not to take a case beforehand cuz you will already know what your
commission will be. And then the poor slob who was actually injured will only get whatever is left after you bleed him dry with fees and shit on top of it. Like $50 to mail an effin letter or $35 to send a freakin fax???? Fuck you - and the broom you rode in on.
You are again posting words only posted by the emotional:
Um, Excuse me? Who the fuck do you think you are and what the fuck is your problem? ... You scumbags will ... Fuck you - and the broom you rode in on.
Of course everything has value. Do you think a life in Darfur is worth more than a life in North America? Reality - and whether you like it or not. A life in Darfur has a value far less than a N American life. You need not like it. But that is only an emotion. Reality: the world does so little to protect a Darfur life. Why? Every life has a value.
You want to change it? Then do something that makes the Darfur life worth more. Increase his value to make it worthwhile to save him. And no, that does not even mean spending money. Value increases simply with an intelligent solution. Currently a life in Darfur has so little value, in part, because no viable solution exists.
An opinion also has value. When your opinions arrive full of emotional tirades and without supporting facts, then your opinion goes to the clearance rack. Again, it is reality. Things have quantitative value - even human life. Using such disparaging adjective tends to lower another quantitative value - your credibility. Sorry. Just reality - without emotion.
my one and only interaction with personal injury lawyers was when i was part of a mock jury, hired (unknowingly) to be the guinea pigs for the attorneys. they went through there case against the state of arizona, showing us photos of auto accidents with fatalities and blah blah blah. in the end they said the state's choice in median barriers caused like 12 deaths (number is hazy with time) during a number of years. they wanted money from the state for these families.
they got seriuosly pissed off when several of us jurors asked why the families were due a single penny from the state. every single accident was caused by excessive speed and/or alcohol. their point was that people died and somebody needed to throw some money at the families and the state seemed the most reasonable.
BS. people died, it was a tragedy, move on.
Um, Excuse me? Who the fuck do you think you are and what the fuck is your problem? I don't believe in an actual value on either:
1) A human life
2) A limb, vision or whatever.
Its not an emotional response. Its my belief. I'm certain that there is an amount of "monetary compensation" to which someone will agree in order to drop a lawsuit. That has nothing to do with what I am saying. You state your opinions or thoughts and I'll do the same. I disagree with you - thats all and "assigning monetary values" on limbs or physical pain just makes it easier for all you lawyers and the system.
You scumbags will simply know whether or not to take a case beforehand cuz you will already know what your commission will be. And then the poor slob who was actually injured will only get whatever is left after you bleed him dry with fees and shit on top of it. Like $50 to mail an effin letter or $35 to send a freakin fax???? Fuck you - and the broom you rode in on.
That is not an emotional response?
Wow... I sure would like to see one if that is your idea of logic and reason.:D
I was in the insurance industry for a long time. You have to come to some conclusion at some point, that is the fact.
You have to be truthful about what is a reasonable amount for both parties and what will set precedent for others in the same situation and how it will affect all others tied to the businesses involved for the long run.
Otherwise, a few will profit and the majority will suffer... end of story, no matter how you try to put empathy into the argument for one side/story alone. It cannot be looked at that way.
That is where it ends... the facts.
I recognize the reality that as a society we have assumed some set values for some things, but let me ask you this - How much is your childs life worth to you? Are you really saying that for X amount of money you would be satisfied or amply compensated for the loss of your childs life due to someone elses negligence? Does it matter what grades he/she got or what activities or sports he/she played? You gotta be kidding me.
I recognize the reality that as a society we have assumed some set values for some things, but let me ask you this - How much is your childs life worth to you?
If corporation X can save .005 pennies per unit by using a cheaper material, that also makes their product slightly less stable, slightly more dangerous, and they do so with the full knowledge that this will increase the risks of death or injury in the consumer by a specific amount, the
they have put a price on your child's life.
If politicians put damage caps on lawsuits, taking away the threat of financial punishment to the corporation, and making it more profitble for them to produce less safe products, then
they have put a price on your child's life.
It isn't a choice you get to make,
they make it for you (so there's no purpose in your feeling squeamish about it, it's out of your hands). The only question is: do you want it to be easy for them to keep harming people? Do you want them to knowingly profit from the death of your child, or someone just like you? Or, do you want to make this happen less often, by having the ability to strike back when wrong has been done?
Edwards is Farked this morning with a story about how his staff tried to convince a local Walmart to get them a PS3 early. Unfortunately for Edwards, the Walmarters remembered that Edwards is anti-Walmart. This is heads-up PR by Walmart, who then gets to craft the following release and get publicity.
They're very good at this:
Yesterday, a staff person for former Sen. Edwards contacted a Wal-Mart
electronics manager in Raleigh, North Carolina to obtain a Sony
PlayStation3 on behalf of the Senator's family. Later that night, Sen.
Edwards reportedly re-told a homespun story to participants of a United
Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union-sponsored call about how his son
had chided a fellow student for purchasing shoes at Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart welcomes Sen. Edwards to visit his local Wal-Mart store and
explore the extensive line of home electronics as well as the Metro7 line
shoes for men and boys.
The Company noted the PlayStation3 is an extremely popular item this
Christmas season, and while the rest of America's working families are
waiting patiently in line, Senator Edwards wants to cut to the front.
While, we cannot guarantee that Sen. Edwards will be among one of the first
to obtain a PlayStation3, we are certain Sen. Edwards will be able to find
great gifts for everyone on his Christmas list - many at Wal-Mart's "roll-back prices."
It's pretty much a non-story for Edwards, who can clearly claim it was the staffer's doing, but it's a funny turnaround nevertheless. Meanwhile
PS3s are $1421 at Walmart. Good god.
For pete's sake...I was all excited I might get a PS2 with my coke rewards points, but they sold out too.
Anyway, I think games have lost so much playability since the older days. Give me
Commander Keen any day!
(Hey, I did it!) :)
If politicians put damage caps on lawsuits, taking away the threat of financial punishment to the corporation, and making it more profitble for them to produce less safe products, then they have put a price on your child's life.
The only question is: do you want it to be easy for them to keep harming people? Do you want them to knowingly profit from the death of your child, or someone just like you? Or, do you want to make this happen less often, by having the ability to strike back when wrong has been done?
I agree - that is MY point also - They cannot be allowed to lessen the burden of those responsible. However, there must be equally stiff penalties for those who attempt to abuse the system.
I agree - that is MY point also - They cannot be allowed to lessen the burden of those responsible.
Sorry, I've been trying to figure out what you were getting at.
However, there must be equally stiff penalties for those who attempt to abuse the system.
This is the common justification for Tort Reform, hence my confusion. What different kind of meaures do you suggest?
Meanwhile PS3s are $1421 at Walmart. Good god.
My son wanted me to wait in line all day yesterday and all night so that we could buy one and then sell it at a profit so we could buy new furniture for our new place. I almost agreed too. Then again maybe I should have. These game prices are nuts - what ever happened to pong anyway?
If corporation X can save .005 pennies per unit by using a cheaper material, that also makes their product slightly less stable, slightly more dangerous, and they do so with the full knowledge that this will increase the risks of death or injury in the consumer by a specific amount, the they have put a price on your child's life.
If politicians put damage caps on lawsuits, taking away the threat of financial punishment to the corporation, and making it more profitble for them to produce less safe products, then they have put a price on your child's life.
It isn't a choice you get to make, they make it for you (so there's no purpose in your feeling squeamish about it, it's out of your hands). The only question is: do you want it to be easy for them to keep harming people? Do you want them to knowingly profit from the death of your child, or someone just like you? Or, do you want to make this happen less often, by having the ability to strike back when wrong has been done?
Well, that sounds like a noble cause..... but not reality.
Personal injury cases don't seek and punish the guilty, they seek the money. Edwards sued the pool drain cover company because he knew there was little chance of a big payout by suing the municipal workers that installed the cover improperly. A jury is more conservative in awarding big bucks from a local community and it's local workers than from faceless evil corporations.
Another case I know personally. A plumbing company wins a contract to install the sprinkler system in a Philly high rise building. The system is designed by the architect, approved by the city code dept and installed as designed. After installation, it's inspected and tested by the general contractor, city code inspectors, and then again by Factory Mutual, an agent for the insurance industry to protect their risk in insuring the building.
Several years later there is a fire on a high floor in which three firemen tragically die.
The General contractor was no longer in business as it in common practice to dissolve after each project is finished. The insurance company paid the building owners the maximum of their liability. The building owners filed bankruptsy.
Who gets sued? The plumbing company, even though they did absolutely nothing wrong.
Again, it's harder to get millions from the city than a faceless corporation.
My disdain for personal injury lawyers is not what they do basically bad, but the way they do it is all about the money and justice be damned. They drive the cost of doing business, sky high. That's why a simple item like a lawn mower, chainsaw or ladder, things impossible to make idiot proof, are more expensive than they should be. :cool:
Who gets sued? The plumbing company, even though they did absolutely nothing wrong.
Again, it's harder to get millions from the city than a faceless corporation.
How did the case turn out? Did
the jury rule against an innocent party? If so, shame on
the jury.
Yes, they bankrupted the plumbing company with an huge award.
When you parade the children of three dead fireman, the jury melts. :(
That's an unfortunate result of people favoring their emotions over their intellect. It sucks, but this is how people are encouraged to be.
It's the source of so much that is wrong. But it's one of those "what are you gonna do?" things. I hate it, every time it rears it's ugly head.
But it's one of those "what are you gonna do?" things.
Perhaps limit the amount of money they can award in damages? :rtfm:
What if the cap were a percentage of the defendant's assets, rather than a fixed dollar amount?
My disdain for personal injury lawyers is not what they do basically bad, but the way they do it is all about the money and justice be damned. They drive the cost of doing business, sky high.
And then we have the complete opposite. In the Beverly Hills Supper Club fire where hundreds died, the Governor’s report blamed the victims for their deaths. The club was bankrupt and no money to compensate the victims. Then an attorney took up the case pro-bono. That is only when we learned about the aluminum wiring, installation in violation of standard practice, etc. So the lawyer went after the electrical contractor, the builders, others who did not really understand the danger, etc. Although they did not get much, at least the victims got some compensation because the lawyer did same thing.
Meanwhile we learned about this disaster being created all across the nation in aluminum electrical wire. Done only because price of copper had increased. Done without any consideration for high risk to human life.
Those in Cincinnati well know about the Beverly Hills Supper Club. Many who don't should learn why the Kentucky state investigation blamed the victims for their own death AND why a lawyer used those same tactics to bring justice. For all we know, that lawyer may have saved your life.
Perhaps limit the amount of money they can award in damages?
What if the cap were a percentage of the defendant's assets, rather than a fixed dollar amount?
Fixed dollar amounts are the way Tort Reform is done, at least in Texas, where you and I live. And it doesn't improve the quality of cases, it
increases the quantity. More cases are
the opposite of what Tort Reform advocates preach, so it just doesn't make sense.
I should add that my uncle is a personal injury attorney. Not the boogey-man you see on daytime TV, but a decent, professional man that serves a legitimate purpose in society that has been crippled by Tort Reform.
Part of the problem is what tw touched on... how the legal system operates.
There is a real need for people to seek redress for injuries from those responsible. That must not be downplayed because of abuses by some.
That said.....the television ads for personal injury lawyers, ruffle my feathers, big time. They're blatantly appealing to the get rich quick, money for nothing, quick buck, scumbags.
They're offering a commission, a piece of the action, for the use of your name/story, in fleecing somebody. It's as if they were soliciting screenplays for a docudrama. :(
... but let me ask you this - How much is your childs life worth to you? Are you really saying that for X amount of money you would be satisfied or amply compensated for the loss of your childs life due to someone elses negligence?
You are assuming a world where everyone has same perspective. Value of that child to you makes zero difference from a perspective called society. Society values that child's life completely different. And society is paying the compensation. Again, you are quantitatively measuring using emotions. That cannot be accomplished. Lives have finite value. Society can be manipulated by emotion to grant more money for that death. That is emotionally gratifying - and wrong. Compensation based in emotion should be miniscule. Human life has a known value - no matter how insulting, cold, or ruthless that may be. How much that value is even changes with the person.
What is the purpose of compensation? The future. So that others need not suffer from the same human failures. It is normal and must be expected that humans will always make mistakes. Designs must continue to advance as solution become available and normal human activity – to make mistakes – becomes less catastrophic. The fact that lawyers are necessary says so much about – are symptoms of - others in society. So many forget the purpose of that compensation - so that others will not die.
Lives have finite value. Society can be manipulated by emotion to grant more money for that death. That is emotionally gratifying - and wrong. Compensation based in emotion should be miniscule. Human life has a known value - no matter how insulting, cold, or ruthless that may be. How much that value is even changes with the person.
What is the purpose of compensation? The future. So that others need not suffer from the same human failures. It is normal and must be expected that humans will always make mistakes. Designs must continue to advance as solution become available and normal human activity – to make mistakes – becomes less catastrophic. The fact that lawyers are necessary says so much about – are symptoms of - others in society. So many forget the purpose of that compensation - so that others will not die.
I understand the purpose of the compensation completely. My point again is that
1) I cannot put a value on such things and
2) Society feels it MUST put a value on such things.
Its a paradox, I realize that. But limiting the amount of compensation is simply telling a corporation that if they put out an inferior product or behave in an unsafe way, that it will cost X in compensation, no more - no less. Said corporation simply factors this "price of business" into their product. That doesn't benefit anyone other than the corporations.
Human life cannot have a known dollar value - that is, simply put, the value of life. - That everything has a monetary value or can be measured in dollars and cents. The mentality that you can factor out some dollar figure to equal a life is the real problem. Once that mentality is allowed to pervade, the society as a whole is doomed. Holding something so precious as a human life and quantifying it into a monetary unit or value cannot be tolerated.
Whether it makes things easier or streamlines the system just belies that the system is already fucked up and needs to be overhauled - capping or setting compensatory limitations is a very futile attempt at rectifying the situation. It's trying to cure a symptom - NOT the problem. Its as useful as putting oil into a car with leaking seals - the system doesn't need oil, it needs an overhaul.
I recognize the reality that as a society we have assumed some set values for some things, but let me ask you this - How much is your childs life worth to you? Are you really saying that for X amount of money you would be satisfied or amply compensated for the loss of your childs life due to someone elses negligence? Does it matter what grades he/she got or what activities or sports he/she played? You gotta be kidding me.
There is no amount of money that can explain what my son's life is to me & that is exactly the amount I would make his life about.
Those who say that they are trying to make a point to a corporation are just greedy. They know statements like that are a lie, both to themselves and the court. Corporations are not entities with consciences you can reason with by suing them... just greed & a sick legacy for their loved ones unless used
ONLY to help other victims of a similar fate/crime and not for family profit if part of an existing policy that
had to litigated.
Corporations are not entities with consciences you can reason with by suing them...
Corporations are business entities that are concerned with being profitable. Losing money is losing profit. Nobody here has stated an intention to "make them feel bad" by suing them. Corporations will change their business practices in order to avoid losing money through lawsuits. It's a "check and balance" against their ingrained purpose to generate more and more money. Remove the ability to punish them financially, and
then you would be left with appealing to their non-existent conscience as your only option.
As stated previously,
they are the ones putting prices on people's heads,
not you.
So, you don't realize they are insured against such suits? The most it will cost them is a slight increase in premium that the company passes on to the consumer. Like a shoplifter, a person looking to cash in beyond their policy payout or settlement is only harming other consumers.
There is no "they".
So why don't premiums go down after Tort Reform is passed? Oops! The insurance companies just keep the money! What I can't figure out is how people are so goddamn naive that they think the insurance companies won't take Tort Reform as a windfall profit, like they demostrably do, every time it gets passed. What do we expect "them" to do, just give the money back voluntarily? Ha! The "harming other consumers" rhetoric does not conform to what actually happens. It's bullshit.
They won't go down because the number of frivolous suits will go up. Ambulance chasers will go for quantity over quality. The option of making less will NOT be an option.
Believe it or not, if you like, not all insurance companies are just out to bleed everyone for everything they can.
I was told, often, to do the right thing for my clients, and always did what was right for my clients. If someone tried to buy too much insurance for their needs or for what they could afford, I told them not to. I did this on a weekly basis. I was present for several sessions where claims adjusters told clients not to sue because they had been indemnified.
The "evil, blood sucking, soulless insurance companies" is a myth. The profit margin for most insurance companies is tiny compared to retail and other businesses.
When looked-at for what it is, it is one of the most altruistic forms of business out there.
The company assuming risk for the individual by investing for them and taking a loss in case something happens to the many in the short-term... that is the business plan. The rates are controlled by the state, "they" do not just raise rates as they like, your elected officials do that. Most companies only put in for a rate change when they have to, if they raise rates and are not competitive people & businesses leave to go to more competitive/cheaper companies... it is not like we get to charge what we want. There is no OPEC of insurance. No one company knows how another underwrites or has their prices like they do and those secrets are held VERY tightly. (This is why Progressive's ad campaign is such a huge lie and joke)
Urban myths fuel the common idea of what insurance companies are.
Whether it makes things easier or streamlines the system just belies that the system is already fucked up and needs to be overhauled - capping or setting compensatory limitations is a very futile attempt at rectifying the situation. It's trying to cure a symptom - NOT the problem.
Well go back to the 1970s when killing people was acceptable. Cited previously was the Beverly Hills Supper Club fire where hundreds of victims were blamed for their own death. Reasons for those deaths and resulting judicial actions were reported deep inside the New York Times because human life was not important. Where we only learned how to maybe save your life because of lawyers filing suit against everyone involved in that building construction.
Same time was the Ford Pinto - a two dollar solution that was not implemented because it cost too much. People burned to death inside a car because the problem and solution was understood long before the first Pinto was ever sold. A lawsuit filed by State of Indiana that also remained buried deep inside the NY Times because human life had so little value - until lawyers started taking on these issues big time.
Same time was the Firestone 500 - a well known problem that was creating paraplegics and quadriplegics all over America. Firestone was paying off these people if they remained silent. Firestone refused to fix the Firestone 500 design because it was cheaper to pay off victims rather than fix a tire design. When government did a study, radial tire failure rates were on the order of 50%. House subcommittee determined that 13 million of 23 million Firestone tires needed immediate recall. So tire companies went to the Supreme Court to have that study quashed. Clarence Ditlow of Center for Auto Safety photocopied (a new high tech machine) and distributed the report to every reporter as fast as possible until handed a copy of the Supreme Court order. Ditlow is why we know how aggressively Firestone tried to kill Americans. That report was buried inside the NY Times. But something radical and new – Consumer Reports – told us including that seven of their own tested tires failed catastrophically. Still Firestone kept selling the 500. Financial damages were minimal.
Meanwhile you do remember the Firestone Wilderness tire that also was defective, Firestone knew it was defective, Ford then demanded Firestone recall all those tires, Firestone refused, and many reading this never learned the complete story. Ford got stuck paying $billions to fix Firestone's intention and MBA inspired murder. A problem that could be fixed only by lawsuit had Ford not been so responsible.
You know each story? You had better before deciding whether lawyers are a problem or a solution.
Tell me about the Macdonald’s coffee. If you have woefully insufficient facts, then you have believed the commonly acknowledged myth. I leave it to you to learn facts in that case - or do you quickly blame lawyers only because you read about it in a tabloid (too much summary and too few details)? After hundreds suffered, finally lawyers sued to get MacDonald’s to fix a well known problem.
So now you would cap judgments? Or would you instead empower juries to make a logical decision? Capping judgments is like blaming judges for ruling on torture and international kidnapping. It neither addresses nor solves the problem. A problem that will worsen as more Americans are trained as Communication majors or MBAs.
Again, facts bluntly said an Iraq invasion was unjustified. Could you see facts logically, or did hype, myths, outright lies, and propaganda confuse you? This post begs you to address the problem – not cure its symptoms.
Is this long? Yes, because logical thought it not found in Daily News tabloid type reasoning. Provided are four examples. You knew each or did you simply fall for highly hyped tabloid propaganda?
Super fucking busy at work. Let me refine my position to say: I think Tort Reform is bullshit, and I think the rhetoric used to support it is bullshit.
BTW... if my posts seem like they are conflicted on this point. They are not.
I am not for Tort Reform as it is currently presented. Across the board caps will simply make for more suits.
Nor are insurance companies the problem. They are the safety-net. Without them, no one would get anything.
We need more, and more strict, guidelines for the lawyers that bring the suits.
There is the source of the problem... not only the source, but The Problem itself.
Again, facts bluntly said an Iraq invasion was unjustified. Could you see facts logically, or did hype, myths, outright lies, and propaganda confuse you? This post begs you to address the problem – not cure its symptoms.
Lets just say that you have left us with a long dissertation without actually discussing THE ISSUE. You simply went on about a few notable cases where wrongs were rectified. There are countless cases on both sides of this argument both for and against.
I never said that lawyers were or weren't the problem - YOU did! Hmmm.
So now you would cap judgments? Or would you instead empower juries to make a logical decision? Capping judgments is like blaming judges for ruling on torture and international kidnapping. It neither addresses nor solves the problem. A problem that will worsen as more Americans are trained as Communication majors or MBAs.
I believe we were trying to do that before getting sidetracked on another tangent again. Just for clarities sake - the issue is tort reform right? And whether it will solve any problems or issues that our current system is dealing with. I simply offered alternatives - not absolutions. I expressed my point of view only to be ridiculed and disparaged. Now you want to challenge me with a statement like that? I don't think I'll bite on that one, no thanks - I maintain my position on the value of a human life. I NEVER said that cap limits were the answer. I am wholly in favor of
QUALIFIED juries making logical and rational decisions. But that is an issue for another thread.
Just for clarities sake - the issue is tort reform right? And whether it will solve any problems or issues that our current system is dealing with.
"Intelligent design" means imposing religion on all others. “Choose life” is spin for anti-abortion. "Tort reform" means blaming lawyers. Politically correct expressions do not change reality. PC expressions are for confusing humans. Apparently you have not separated reality from the politically correct expression. “Tort reform” means blame lawyers. And so some would solve this lawyer problem by capping jury awards?
You were not ridiculed. Points made by you were shredded. Are those points you? Of course not. Those points are not the entity called yesman065. Separate yourself from ‘trial balloons’ that you have posted.
'Tort reform' is the politically correct expression for blame lawyers. Lawyers are not the problem. As each previous example demonstrates, attack reasons for those failures. Obviously tort reform would only protect those who performed intentional criminal actions. Do you also approve of ‘blaming the victims’? ‘Tort reform’ advocates that – even though ‘tort reform’ spin promoters will not admit it. Beverly Hills Supper Club - if you grasp the points of those examples.
Obviously, solution goes right back to empowering and requiring a jury to think logically. "Mission Accomplished" war is a perfect and 'never irrelevant' example if you understood the target of that previous post. We are massacring American soldiers in a “Mission Accomplished” war that cannot be won only because the jury did not do its job AND because the jury was denied all testimony in the jury room.
So what would you do to avoid a future Iraq? ‘Tort reform’? Gag all politicians? Require every military operation be approved by public referendum? 'Tort reform' also promotes restrictions as a solution to lies and spin. 'Tort reform' is how Limbaugh type propagandists spin myths rather than address the problem. Previous post contained numerous examples of the problem. ‘They’ got away with it only because tort law was not a sufficient threat.
But again, you also were not "ridiculed and disparaged". You were challenged with numerous examples because you previously ignored the issue (ie juries denied facts), used a politically correct expression to cast blame elsewhere (‘tort reform’), and now avoid details of that problem (ie. entire court testimony not in that jury room).
I am wholly in favor of QUALIFIED juries making logical and rational decisions. But that is an issue for another thread.
Exactly my point and why multiple examples were provided so that you could not avoid the point. Juries and logical conclusions ARE the issues of this thread. 'Tort reform' is a classic ‘cure symptoms’ solution. The "Mission Accomplished" war is a perfect example of illogical decisions and why such decisions are made also in jury rooms.
It does not help when more Americans in each generation have less math and science education – therefore have too little 'dirt under their fingernails' – therefore have insufficient grasp of reality - are instead educated in MBA and communication degrees. Too many are trained to replace logic with emotion; trained to confuse facts with junk science speculation.
How to obtain a fact and the process of making logical decisions (both in a jury room) IS the subject. Not a solution is some silly political 'ping pong ball' called 'tort reform'. 'Tort reform' is the politically correct expression for blame lawyers. The issue is why juries cannot make accurate, logical, and monetary relevant decisions. That is not “an issue for another thread”. That is the issue right here – complete with reams of relevant examples in a previous post.
‘Show me’ where tort reform would have solved any of those previous and egregious miscarriages of justice. Show me how those quadriplegics created by Firestone would have been saved by ‘tort reform’.
I think there should be a large, mandatory financial penalty to both the plaintiff and their lawyer if a case is thrown out as frivolous.
Tort reform does not mean blame lawyers, despite your strawman examples.
Layers can't be blamed more than the greedy people that misuse them.
Tort reform is simply changing the laws, the framework, that lawyers work under and we all live under.
The discussion should be whether the laws are fair to all parties or should be changed to make them so. That's all, everything else is smoke and mirrors, a distraction from the issue.:cool:
Tort reform does not mean blame lawyers, ...
The discussion should be whether the laws are fair to all parties or should be changed to make them so.
Those same laws in 1970s, well, provided are multiple examples including Firestone 500 and Beverly Hills Supper Club. Did tort laws change? No. What changed?
Tort reform believes we can legislate 'fair' by restricting lawyers. Yes laws could change. For example empower logical members of a jury at the expense of emotional ones. Fill a jury room with facts. Today a jury room is full only of perceptions found inside each brain. That is perfect for those who think emotionally. That is a recipe for unfair.
So where do restrictions on lawyers solve this problem? Where is this reform that would solve 'unfair'? Where are the specific examples? All I see are 'blame the lawyer' posts. Any attempt to restrict lawyers does not solve this obvious problem.
Sorry I was away and couldn't respond earlier, but. . . When did the definition "tort reform = blame lawyers" become a fact. I thought tort reform was going to limit the amount of compensation that could be received by the plaintiff. Thereby creating a known award. This will not blame lawyers, it will simply reduce the rediculous amount that some ill-informed jurys emotionally can award. If the lawyer is just trying to get rich, then yes they will be sadly underpaid. The courts will also have less cases to try as the number of "get rich quick" frivolous lawsuits will vastly diminish. Blaming lawyers has nothing to do with it. Then again, after my experience with lawyers, I'm not so sure thats a bad thing.
I think a larger problem is the people that are sitting on these juries. From what I can gather, they do not represent a fair "jury of peers." Many people get off without serving on juries because of other issues they feel are more important or because their viewpoints are not condusive to one side or the other. This leaves a group of people who cn be easily swayed either way and come up with outrageous and ill-conceived verdicts. One, just one example would be the O.J. Simpson case. There are many many more to support this argument as well.
I thought tort reform was going to limit the amount of compensation that could be received by the plaintiff. Thereby creating a known award. This will not blame lawyers, it will simply reduce the rediculous amount that some ill-informed jurys emotionally can award.
And if that known award can be budgeted for, a corporation can skimp on the safety!
And if that known award can be budgeted for, a corporation can skimp on the safety!
I agree 100% - that point was made earlier and it still holds true. Although it seems that those who have the most to lose (lawyers) are the only ones against reform. Just an observation.
And the ones who have the most to gain (corporations that make potentially dangerous products) are the only ones for reform. Just an observation.
Very good point - begs the question - Where does that leave the rest of us?
Sorry I was away and couldn't respond earlier, but. . . When did the definition "tort reform = blame lawyers" become a fact. I thought tort reform was going to limit the amount of compensation that could be received by the plaintiff. Thereby creating a known award. This will not blame lawyers, it will simply reduce the rediculous amount that some ill-informed jurys emotionally can award.
How do you have a solution without first defining the problem? Do you also fix computers by assuming and then installing more fans? Do you see snow and therefore know 4 wheel drive is safer? Do you know a hurricane will not strike because previous predictions did not occur? Do you run stop signs because you did so previously and no one died? Do you "tort reform" using same logic?
Each example has a common factor. No need to read further if you understand such basics. If not, then continue reading.
Where is a paragraph or long and detailed definition of the problem? How does one cure symptoms and not first define a problem? If you don't blame lawyers, then do you blame juries or judge? Or is problem solved by curing symptoms? Yesman065 - repeated posts and you still have not even defined a problem.
From junior high school science: first a hypothesis that is consistent with current known reality. You did not do that. Then provide experimental evidence. You did not do that either. Instead you arbitrarily assume jury verdicts are too high (without doing what you were taught to define a fact). Even then you make assumptions by violating these basic concepts. Why is speculation (jury verdicts are too high) automatically a fact? Simple principles necessary to establish a fact are violated. Then you follow that speculation by 'curing symptoms'.
Very good point - begs the question - Where does that leave the rest of us?
With safer products than we would otherwise have that cost more money* than they otherwise would.
[SIZE=1]*not counting any increase in medical or other costs resulting from defects[/SIZE]
How do you have a solution without first defining the problem?
Where is a paragraph or long and detailed definition of the problem? How does one cure symptoms and not first define a problem? If you don't blame lawyers, then do you blame juries or judge? Or is problem solved by curing symptoms? Yesman065 - repeated posts and you still have not even defined a problem.
I did not start this post nor did I bring up the subject of Tort Reform - You did. I simply stated my opinion. I believe in an earlier post
I asked you to define the problem. All you have done is assess blame and get defensive. Just like anything in life our system is not perfect and the amounts awarded in many cases are not representative of the "damages incurred." Unlike you, I am not trying to blame anyone.
Please don't lecture me on the scientific method of problem solving. I am well aware of it, thank you.
It seems to me that you have no real defense to some sort of systemic reform and are now trying to dodge the issue with irrelevancies and disparaging remarks.
Now lets try this like adults. You tell me:
Is there a problem with the tort system?
If so, what is the problem?
Is this problem, if any, fixable?
Does the system need to be reformed or modified?
What alternatives are there to rectify the situation?
Funny, witty, liberal, smart, charming, and damn good-looking...
Are you electing a president, or do you just want to sleep with him?
Are you electing a president, or do you just want to sleep with him?
I wouldn't mind sleeping with someone who is witty, charming, smart, liberal, and good-looking, which means I wouldn't ever consider sleeping with GDub!:p
I did not start this post nor did I bring up the subject of Tort Reform - You did. I simply stated my opinion. I believe in an earlier post I asked you to define the problem.
Before you posted, others brought up tort reform, then a problem was defined AND a solution offered. Solution using basic logic as even taught in high school science. Do you read before jumping to conclusions? Instead Yesman065 later responded:
Um, Excuse me? Who the fuck do you think you are and what the fuck is your problem?
Your own words say you have a problem performing basic logic. Use of the word “fuck” says you are a product of extremist conservative training where basic logic is replaced by bullying. So prove me wrong. Surprise me. Use logic. Demonstrate that you can still define a fact using what was taught in junior high school science.
Yesman065 has solutions for 'tort reform'. Impose dictatorial restrictions on all juries. Yesman065 was asked to first define the problem. Is it lawyers, juries, or the judge? How can Yesman065 post a solution when he cannot first define the problem? Did he really forget how to think logically? Or should we "fully expected the "knee-jerk" reaction" from him.
Yesman065 demonstrates a serious problem in America. Yesman065 somehow knows what should be imposed on juries. But Yesman065 cannot first define a problem. By posting
Um, Excuse me? Who the fuck do you think you are and what the fuck is your problem?
Yesman065 uses a political agenda as a replacement for basic logic. Classic Limbaugh logic. Yesman065 forgot to also blame Hilary.
Demonstrated: some American citizens cannot even grasp junior high school science principles. How does a jury with too many Yesman make an informed and logical verdict? They don’t. So how do we legislate this Yesman problem?
Demonstrated by Yesman065 is another problem in juries. People using an extremist political agenda, the word "fuck", accusations based only in emotion, and total disregard for logical thought (as taught in junior high) ... somehow these people have all the answers. Problem first need not be defined. Apparently we don't need tort reform. Apparently we need laws that require one to define a problem before imposing dictatorial solutions. Once, people graduated from junior high school having learned how to form facts and perform basic logic. Laws were not necessary. Hypothesis and experimental evidence. Somehow simple science got lost on Yesman065. He need not even define a problem because he already has solutions – and four letter words to prove it.
Now lets try this like adults. You tell me:
Is there a problem with the tort system?
If so, what is the problem?
Is this problem, if any, fixable?
Does the system need to be reformed or modified?
What alternatives are there to rectify the situation?
Did you miss the above tw??? Or are you above answering others questions? You again come off as some "holier than thou" ass by acting like you are right and there is no other answer. You try again ands see if you can answer the simple questions without a dissertation on your opinions of me, especially since you don't know squat about me.
Did you miss the above tw???
Long before Yesman065 posted a 'four letter word' emotional tirade, a problem was defined and a solution was proposed. Yesman065 - I shall make it simpler just for you.
Which is not my experience. Problem was not too many people seeking a windfall profit. ...
See how it works? A problem is identified. Only then is a solution proposed.
So that Yesman065 need not remain so confused and for a third time: this question defines a problem long before any solution can be proposed:
What is the problem? Juries, lawyers, or the Judge? What is the problem? Yesman065 - can you answer that one question?
One fact I did observe - we were shorted information massively so that a number based in logic and historical precedent was not possible.
So you as a juror know know that you were shorted facts. By whom? The judge, the lawyers or both? Again, you have not specified. Perhaps it is a design flaw within the system. That is not known as you did not address who "shorted you information." In your case it is possible and probable that the award was raised by this unclear withholding of information, but it is not known by whom.
That does not change the fact that most believe the compensation awards are ridiculously large in many cases and do not begin to prevent that for which they were intended. Overtly high awards have left many disenfranchised with "the system", creates an ever increasing number of cases and backlogs the system from concentrating on other cases that most likely deserve more time & attention.
Therefore, I believe that you have not given us all enough information to ascertain where the fault lies. You have only told us that you were "shorted information massively" without informing us by whom.
So you as a juror know know that you were shorted facts. By whom?
Yesman065 - apparently everything posted before your 'four letter word' emotional tirade has been forgotten. Read the post before replying to it.
Meanwhile you are wildly speculating again. You are again posting without first reading previous posts. How do you know - using principles taught in junior high science - that the jury awards are too high? Because Rush Limbaugh told you so? Why did Henry Ford sell Pintos with exploding gas tanks - knowing before the first Pinto was sold that those gas tanks would explode and knowing of a $2 solution to stop tank explosions? Why do you know awards are too high when Henry Ford knew it was cheaper to not install that $2 part? Firestone 500 ... did you read any of those examples or did your eyes glaze over after the first paragraph?
Read those previous posts. Then tell us why jury awards are too high. Yesman065 is wildly speculating without any supporting facts AND in direct contradiction to previous posts he did not bother to read.
A suit over a revealing picture in a New Jersey high school yearbook has become a symposium on education and tort-claim law, and it is teaching a school board and nine former students why it's good to have insurance.
Tyler Bennett of Colts Neck claims he suffered emotional distress because his genitals were partly visible in a basketball game picture in his 2001 school yearbook.
The suit says Colts Neck High School authorities acted slowly to suppress the yearbook, worsening the distress Bennett suffered as a senior the next year.
And there's a novel issue: Does the publisher of such a picture violate child pornography laws if publication was inadvertent?
So far, the answer to that question has been no. Indeed, the whole litigation has been a dud for the plaintiff. In 2005, a trial judge cited Bennett's lack of evidence of psychological harm and found no basis for a suit under the Tort Claims Act. On June 23, an appeals court affirmed the dismissal.
Undeterred, plaintiffs attorney Steven Kessel notified his adversaries this month that he will seek review by the state Supreme Court. He is drafting an appeal that raises the issues anew and will set off a new round of defense briefs in the case, Bennett v. Board of Education, Freehold Regional High School District, Mon-L-4700-03.
Schools occasionally get sued. But Bennett's case is rare because he also named nine students who worked on the yearbook, requiring them to obtain counsel for the long and costly litigation.
"It was awful," says Nathanya Simon of Florham Park's Schwartz, Simon, Edelstein, Celso & Kessler, regular outside counsel to the Freehold Regional High School District, which includes Colts Neck High School. "Some were able to get homeowner's coverage but some of them didn't and had to pay their own attorneys."
Even the plaintiffs counsel is sympathetic.
Kessel concedes there is no testimony to suggest anyone intended to put an embarrassing photo in the yearbook.
But when the book was distributed to seniors on a Friday before school's end, the photo touched off a buzz that Bennett and his mother sought to stifle, the suit says.
They went to the principal on Monday before class and asked him to take action to stop further distribution and to recall yearbooks given to seniors. But he did nothing until Bennett went home in shame during the morning and both his parents returned later in the day, the suit says.
Seniors were told to return their yearbooks, and the offending picture was cut out in every copy that was subsequently distributed.
But Kessel says the action was too slow and some students retained their original copies. "We know for a fact that some of the seniors got them," he says.
Bennett stayed home for the last few days of school and when he returned in September he was subject to constant teasing, in one case by a teacher, in another by a player on a rival basketball team, Kessel says.
According to his theory of the case, the editors violated Bennett's privacy and inflicted emotional distress, and the school is liable too because it failed in its supervisory duty.
More.
For every Firestone, there are hundreds (thousands?) of these. :rolleyes:
Yesman065 - apparently everything posted before your 'four letter word' emotional tirade has been forgotten. Read the post before replying to it.
Read those previous posts. Yesman065 is wildly speculating without any supporting facts AND in direct contradiction to previous posts he did not bother to read.
I reread EVERY post and you have still been unable to answer the simple direct questions put forth to you. You are getting very tiresome and pointless. Just because I refuse to follow your dribble, doesn't mean I am in any way inferior nor less intelligent than you. You have failed repeatedly to provide the necessary information to base an opinion upon. Therefore those of us who still read your posts are forced to guess. Just answer the simple question and lets move on - I've asked several times, yet you refuse to provide any information. I now wonder whether you even have the answers.
I stand by my "four letter tirade" as you put it. The more of your posts I read the more I agree with it. Sounds to me like you are the one getting emotional here as well - could it be that you are actually, dare I say, human?
Oh and YOU
still haven't said WHO SHORTED YOU INFORMATION
Since the initial impression is that the four letters are T, O, R, and another T... well...
Are you electing a president, or do you just want to sleep with him?
I hope you remembered to be offended when Georgie got the cod piece vote last time around.
Are you electing a president, or do you just want to sleep with him?
Why not both?
Oh wait, thats an impeachable offense, isnt it...
Why not both?
Oh wait, thats an impeachable offense, isn't it...
...a/k/a, somebody's getting screwed out of a job. :cool:
Back to the title of this thread - Is he really gonna run?? Do you think he actually has a chance to win? What about Billary?
Hillary makes too many folks skin crawl. Edwards has a fair shot but I want divided government from here on out, so hopefully the GOP will get over the kook phase and start pushing conservatives.
BUMP ... found this wile looking for the other Edwards thread...
fun trip down memory lane ...
I loved Ibram as an early teen prodigy.
He didn't disappoint as a later teen.
Apart from a brief spell of not believing in formal education (because it's a huge regret from my teens).
And as a young adult he is now sexy and intelligent.
I just wish he was happy. Sigh.