1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

is it just me?

Discussion in 'The Dungeon' started by novice52, Mar 20, 2003.

  1. Oh, and one more thing:


    And it's a BIG priority for me, too, despite the fact that I'm not a large corporation (or even a small one). I have watched unbridled civil suits virtually destroy the General Aviation industry, and I've personally seen with my own eyes the three, yes THREE private jet planes owned by one of the big honcho lawyers as a result of his windfall profits from the Tobacco Settlement.
     
  2. Shyster d'Oil

    Shyster d'Oil Gerard Frommage

    Brad is right.:eek: :eek:

    that hurts, but I can take it.;)

    Keep in mind that Clinton got money from Corporate folks and Unions and trial attorneys.

    But Slowand scared, it is true that the Reps have been far more agressive in limiting a corporation's responsibility for causing injury. Its like personal responsibility for caising harm doesn't apply to business, just to the average Joe!!:rolleyes: :rolleyes:


    As you can imagine I have a lot to say about this -- as a lawyer who reps big corps and the little guy i think that I have a unique perspective.

    New thread on this anyone?

    I'm going home to watch the boms on my new sattelite dish!!!!

    Later!!!

    Rodger
     
  3. Rat

    Rat Well-Known Member

    It is true that politicians have been the subject of criticism by the public for a long time. But, I also believe that a concerted effort was waged by the Republicans in the early 1990s to win the seats of incumbent Democrats. Much of their campaign centered on criticism of "lifetime politicians" as they called them, concentrating more on negative campaigns targeting years of service rather than substantive issues. What's the problem? It was a strategy that worked very well and a number of Republican strategists have spoken about and claimed responsibility for the strategy.

    Of course I've read Shakespeare and I am aware that 'barristers' have been criticized at times throughout history. But Shakespeare is a citizen commenting on society, not an organized political party influencing federal law. You cannot possibly deny that the Republican party has aggressively campaigned for reforms in civil settlements - settlements that limit financial rewards for citizens for damages that have been caused by corporations?

    I don't know what political history you read but the facts are the facts. You might not like my interpretation of the facts but I can't help you there.
     
  4. G 97

    G 97 Garth


    Please explain how one would go about protesting FOR something. I don't get it. Geepers, silly me. I just don't understand. :rolleyes:
     
  5. And I totally support their efforts.


    Not quite. The issue is not about eliminating corporate responsibility; it's about curbing the notion that corporations somehow have UNLIMITED responsibility.

    I'll say one word and see how you respond:

    Cessna.
     
  6. SpongeBob WeaselPants

    SpongeBob WeaselPants Bohemian Ass-Clown

    what I meant--there's been a number of marches/demonstrations in support of the president and the war. I don't see them getting ripped on these threads by those who oppose the current war.

    Today Bush commented on the protesters, a very nice move of his, calling them "patriotic citizens" who exercised their right (something to that effect). He, unlike you, recognizes that Americans can demonstrate, voice opposition, and still be patriotic. It's a right, and if you believe in your country it's your duty to speak out when yo think it's moving in the wrong direction.
     
  7. Well, yes, that's what political campaigns are all about! Ref: Civics 101.

    In case you didn't notice, there was a concerted effort waged by the Democrats in both the 2000 and 2002 elections to win the seats of incumbent Republicans.


    And they are claiming responsibility for something they didn't invent. Negative campaigning has been a reality since the first form of elected official was created back in the murky past. Referring to a long-time public servant as a "lifetime politician" is again nothing new. It appears to me that you think all of this stuff is new, but it's not. Something that a few people on this BBS should remember - Chicago Mayor Richard Daley was elected in 1955. By his third term he was being referred to by everyone as "Mayor For Life."

    Come, come! Let's not be specious. I was referring to the public's view of lawyers, which was cemented ages ago. The Republicans had NOTHING to do with Shakespeare writing, "First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."


    Deny it? Hardly! I welcome it! Can't happen soon enough!

    All kinds of stuff. Apparently I read a lot more political history than most people here.
     
  8. SpongeBob WeaselPants

    SpongeBob WeaselPants Bohemian Ass-Clown

    not wasting time & ducking are two different things.
    If you really believe everyone's the same then you really DO NOT listen much... statements like that sure sound close-minded to me
     
  9. Michigan J Frog

    Michigan J Frog Hello, my ragtime gal!

    Uh oh! :eek: Looks like I've been caught with my dunce cap on. Eric Cartman (I have to talk in cartoons, you know) said I was calling the protestors idiots. Well, yes and no. Of course they have the right to protest, but I posted that reply after hearing the news that protestors were blocking the streets and causing chaos in the major cities.

    I was also chastised for saying the war with Iraq is just. Yes, Al Quida was the perpetrator of the 9/11 disaster, but we have known for a long time that Iraq is a major funder of terrorist action. Hence, it would benefit our country to knock out the "boardroom" of the terrorist corporation.

    I wasn't calling anyone names, I wanted clarification. That's why I put a ? after my sentence.


    Froggy
     
  10. Looks like I hit a sore spot! :p

    How many smilies should I have put in there so that you would know it was a tongue-in-cheek response? This many? :) :)
    This many? :) :) :)

    Are all you left-wing assclowns this humorless? ;) ;) ;)
     
  11. SpongeBob WeaselPants

    SpongeBob WeaselPants Bohemian Ass-Clown

    no, just smiley- challenged :D
     
  12. SpongeBob WeaselPants

    SpongeBob WeaselPants Bohemian Ass-Clown

    and short on patience cuz I'm trying to fish a phone line up from the basement in an old house with plaster walls--the rat-bastid kind where they plastered over slats and there's huge hunks of plaster laying at the bottom between the walls. AARRGGGHHHHH!!! Trying not to use a sledgehammer...
     
  13. mad brad

    mad brad Guest

    what you are seeing is this: operation sick and tired of middle easterner's shit.

    iraq has not played within the rules and are being made HUGE examples of right now. screw the rich rag-heads, we buy their oil, they sell it. whe do you think we stock pile our own production, and buy the rest. well here it goes, one day we won't need them, and then you think iraq is suffering now? wait until you see what we do to the entire region. the middle east has been allowed the thwart "world society" for a very long time. their time has come to either get in line, or get out. personally, GW isn't bashing enough heads in that region. but hopefully, this is just the beginning. he told the nation that the war on terrorism will be fought on many fronts. {he wasn't kidding} :D

    on a side note: are any of you hippie clowns going to answer my question? EVER? nope.

    BTW scuds are on the list of weapons that saddam has claimed not to have. ;)
     
  14. Shyster d'Oil

    Shyster d'Oil Gerard Frommage

    Frog said: "we have known for a long time that Iraq is a major funder of terrorist action"

    Frog, there are facts that support the argument for the war, but this is not a fact -- I don't think that even the Bush administration supports this agrument

    Rodger
     
  15. Shyster d'Oil

    Shyster d'Oil Gerard Frommage

    Please note that I have finally figured out how to use the quote button!!!:D




    Slow, there is no legal doctine of unlimited responsibility, so I'm not sure what you mean. If you clarify your thought I'll be in a better position to respond, but here goes anyway:

    Everone has "unlimited responsibility for damages they negligently caused. If you or I run a busload of nuns off a cliff cause we're bombed, our liability could well exceed our insurance coverage and we'd owe say 44 Xs whatever a crippled nun is worth. So, if a corp causes a lot of injuries it be bankrupted just like ou or me.

    Cessna. Our tort system is far from perfect. But it does work relatively well. The small airline industry got hammered no doubt. I have friends who fly adn we talk about this occassionally. Only now is that industry recovering.

    But in the end justice is USUALLY done. Unfortunately, both plaintiffs and defendants sometimes win or lose when they shouldn't have, even after the appeallate courts are done with them.

    But tort reform is just a front for increased profits to corps and evasion of responsibility.

    Got to go -- baby is crying from her nap. WE'll continue I'm sure.

    Rodger
     
  16. Shyster d'Oil

    Shyster d'Oil Gerard Frommage

    And Brad -- I've answered your question twice before and you didn't answer. Want me to post AGAIN??:D
     
  17. mad brad

    mad brad Guest

    yep. how will leaving saddam in power result in peace and justice?
     
  18. Shyster d'Oil

    Shyster d'Oil Gerard Frommage

    POst # 3 for this answer:

    But here is the simple answer to the question –“How will leaving Saddam Hussein in power result in peace and justice?”

    Hold your breath. . . Here’s the answer: It won’t. As we all know Saddam is a brutal dictator that should hang for what he has done to the Kurds, the Shiites, his political opponents, the Kuwaitis and the Iranians. Leaving him in power will result in more bloodshed to his own people, at the very least.

    The real question is: What is the best way to get rid of Hussein? Or “Is this war now the result of Bush’s best effort to get rid of him?”

    I know that some will again call me a traitor but so what? The war has started so let’s focus on the immediate issues at hand..

    I do HOPE that our boys and girls kick the shit out of any opposition that the Iraqis put up, that mass surrenders occur immediately, that Iraqis welcome us with open arms, that Bush doesn’t forget the Shiites and the Kurds and Saddam’s political opposition the way his predecessors did (Bush I and Clinton both) that we suffer little or casualties, that no Iraqi civilians are killed and most importantly THAT SADDAM ENDS UP DEAD OR CAPTURED!!!

    I’m going to hope for all of the above and enjoy the show. I should have the sattelite FINALLY hooked up tonight!! Even in my worst case scenarios at least Saddam will be caught, so I know there is one thing that I will truely relish!!

    {Here's my after the fact comment: But some canadian named Robert (probably on some Communist payroll said it best, and I paraphrase: "We can all agree on the outcome, it is just the method that is in debate."

    And I actually don't debate the method, but I do question the timing and thought that went into the political plan regarding the middle east. The military plan seems to be going well, but as most you I am concerned that if we get bogged down in the cities it could be a bloodbath on both sides.}

    Rodger
     
  19. mad brad

    mad brad Guest

    so nine pages long to say "it won't". thanks. :)

    i have no problem with strong examples being set. {kissing, hugging and understanding hasn't worked in all this time.}
     

Share This Page