Well, it's done

[Charles]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

I'm afraid diarrhea of the keyboard is a professional malady. I am sorry I got carried away. Need to remind myself that there is a delete key.

Regards,

D-Ray

Nah, you're doing fine. Keep up the good work.

Chas

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Finn, If we went to the English rule regarding attorneys fees, only the rich or the very poor (Or corporations of other such collectives) would have access to the courts. There are already rules in place that can make a plaintiff liable for the defendant's attorneys fees - such as when the plaintiff pursues a frivolous claim. When a statue calls for fee shifting in a particular type of action, the courts take several matters into consideration before issuing an award. So limits do exist to prevent over-exposure to frivolous claims.

By the same token, under the English system if you're sued by a shyster you needn't worry about paying a lawyer to defend yourself. I was sued by an unscrupulous landlord in Germany and went to a German lawyer. She was confident in my case and took it on gratis knowing that she'd by paid by the plaintiff in the end. I guess neither system is perfect, but ours just seems to invite lawsuits by anyone who feels they've been wronged by someone with deep pockets.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Charles

I've already got a great campaign slogan.

"Who would you rather vote for, me, or some other sonofabitch?

Chas

If you really are running, I might consider moving to Buggtussell.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by epifanatic

We've already proven that this isn't a true democracy, GWB got elected, right?

Wrong.

John

[Boreas]

[QUOTE=rickr15;23933]What did you want answered? The crap about trashy women? Pelosi should get you reall hot then as she aint nuthin but trash.QUOTE]

Now, that's some really incisive and erudite commentary!

John

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by noonereal

My newbie friend, you may want to read my posts on this subject (there are many) instead of joining the party at the end and demanding that one tired dancer dance again because you arrived.

I've read.

Not only am I unimpressed, I am ridiculously unimpressed.

Your rhetoric deserves an, ahem, "Golden Shower."

Dance, if you can.

Yes: you have been called out.

[Edit: I'm leaving the above up because, well, that's just who I am. Sometimes you re-read and think, "I'm an ass." But edits are for cowards and folks who cannot admit that they -- sometimes -- are. Upon reflection, I could have been less of an ass.]

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by rickr15

Why do you post the crap you do?
More than 50% of Americans did not want this. In a true democracy it would not have happened. BTW, Why do you have such a crush on Sarah Palin anyway? She is nothing to me.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...tive_gall.html

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by rickr15

Just wonder how all this is going to play out in court. Cogress passed this on the premise that they can control interstate commerce. No where does it say they can compel commerce.

No where does it say they can regulate immigration. Doesn't say they can have an Air Force in there either. It doesn't say you have the right to a fair trial or a jury of your peers.

The lawsuites are grandstanding. I doubt anything will come of them.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Zeke

I've read.

Not only am I unimpressed, I am ridiculously unimpressed.

Your rhetoric deserves an, ahem, "Golden Shower."

Dance, if you can.

Yes: you have been called out.

I have been called out have I? Unbelievable.

I have never understood why someone would walk into a room and intermediately pick a fight but your are not the first. There is no accounting for human behavior.

BTW I posted no rhetoric just frustration which I admitted to and apologized for. The sum of all your posts here makes it virtually impossible to understand what you stand for or what you believe.

You claim to have read my posts so tell me what do you disagree with and why? So far all I know about you is that you have a high opinion of yourself, are akin to a bull in a china shop and seem to adopt the democratic party line on this healthcare legislation.


(I have hundreds of posts here on this issue you have one and you tell me I have a shallow critique?)

[merrylander]

So if the government does tort reform does that not infringe upon my rights as defined by the Constitution? I realize that they do call it the "practice" of medicine but one would hope that practice makes perfect.

A doctor operates on someone and due to ignorance, fatigue (you know those 30 hour shifts interns serve), or simple negligence puts that person in a wheelchair for life, or in a coffin. What is proper recompense, $88,000 as has been mentioned? One must take into account the persons age, current salaray, potential earning (or a potential recession due to stupidity of others). In the case of death the care of his dependents? As D-ray has noted we have a jury system and while juries are not perfect all the time I think they have a pretty good track record. Served on one mysely until they decided that being over 70 I was too senile to serve again.

BTW I hear all of this yada yada about tort reform yet not a single whisper about the system that allows doctors to (allegedly) police themselves.