Obama '08?

@Cycloptichorn,

I amended my above post after you posted, to include the fact that my brother was a medical doctor his entire working life. Therefore, I am not exactly in ignorance when it comes to the medical profession. I could care less about insulting you. I am more interested in the truth and what I believe. Just as coincidence, I know someone right now very well that is involved with an ambulance chaser lawyer suing them for a super ridiculous claim, whiplash in an accident that was virtually a non-accident, it involved a slight tap on the bumper at no speed whatsover. Talking to someone the other day, they made the observation that frivolous suits have increased recently because of the recession. I guess lawyers have to make money somehow. It is also hard to ignore the advertisements by local lawyers to call them in case you have a pain somewhere in your body because of somehting that happened to you on the job or anything.

I was not born yesterday, cyclops, there is a reason lawyer jokes are funny. Jokes have to have a grain of truth to work. There are honest attorneys, I know one or two, but unfortunately the profession is laced with crooks and liars as well. That much I think is obvious to most people, even if it isn't to you.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

I amended my above post after you posted, to include the fact that my brother was a medical doctor his entire working life. Therefore, I am not exactly in ignorance when it comes to the medical profession.

You also amended in the words 'I haven't studied the statistics.' Perhaps you should try doing this.

Quote:

I could care less about insulting you. I am more interested in the truth and what I believe. Just as coincidence, I know someone right now very well that is involved with an ambulance chaser lawyer suing them for a super ridiculous claim, whiplash in an accident that was virtually a non-accident, it involved a slight tap on the bumper at no speed whatsover.

Oh, yeah. Everyone who rear-ends someone claims that it was 'nothing.' You think your friend, who hit someone, is a neutral source on this issue?

Quote:

Talking to someone the other day, they made the observation that frivolous suits have increased recently because of the recession.

Have you studied the statistics? I don't believe this is true.

Quote:

I guess lawyers have to make money somehow. It is also hard to ignore the advertisements by local lawyers to call them in case you have a pain somewhere in your body because of somehting that happened to you on the job or anything.

If you're hurt on the job, there's nothing wrong at all with having a lawyer. I don't understand why you think it is.

Quote:

I was not born yesterday, cyclops, there is a reason lawyer jokes are funny. Jokes have to have a grain of truth to work. There are honest attorneys, I know one or two, but unfortunately the profession is laced with crooks and liars as well. That much I think is obvious to most people, even if it isn't to you.

Every profession is laced with crooks and liars. All of them, and the bigger Corporations get, the more of them work for them. There's no point in singling out lawyers.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Every profession is laced with crooks and liars. All of them, and the bigger Corporations get, the more of them work for them. There's no point in singling out lawyers.

Cycloptichorn

No way, in fact the lawyers that worked for the corporation I used to work for were decent and honest people. Some of the most corrupt lawyers reside in Congress and have been in the administrations, most notably Democrat ones. Many are still there. One is president as we speak.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Every profession is laced with crooks and liars. All of them, and the bigger Corporations get, the more of them work for them. There's no point in singling out lawyers.

Cycloptichorn

No way, in fact the lawyers that worked for the corporation I used to work for were decent and honest people. Some of the most corrupt lawyers reside in Congress and have been in the administrations, most notably Democrat ones. Many are still there. One is president as we speak.

Too bad you don't have a single Iota of proof that Obama is corrupt in any way, or you might have an argument.

But, I'm confused. You go from hating lawyers to loving them. What's the deal? Are lawyers corrupt and bad people in general, or only if they don't work for corporations?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

No way, in fact the lawyers that worked for the corporation I used to work for were decent and honest people. Some of the most corrupt lawyers reside in Congress and have been in the administrations, most notably Democrat ones. Many are still there. One is president as we speak.

I don't think you really know the truth (or lack of it) in these rather sweeping allegations. In addition it appears to me that you may be implicitly using a rather elastic definition of corruption that applies different standards to equivalent activities on the two sides of the political asile.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

I am more interested in the truth and what I believe.

In your mind, aren't those two categories the same?

okie wrote:

Talking to someone the other day, they made the observation that frivolous suits have increased recently because of the recession.

QED

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

George, Obama-Alinsky desciples are collectively a huge threat to rescuing America's rule of law. They are best described as nihilists.

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=nihilism
Main Entry: ni•hi•lism
...
1 a : a viewpoint that all traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that all existence is consequently senseless and useless : a denial of intrinsic meaning and value in life b : a doctrine that denies or is taken as denying any objective or real ground of truth; specifically : an ethical doctrine that denies any objective ground of moral principles -- called also ethical nihilism, moral nihilism

According to Alinsky:

Radicals should be “political relativists.” They should take an agnostic view of means and ends;

The radical is not a reformer of the system but its would-be destroyer;

The radical is building his own kingdom, a kingdom of heaven on earth;

The most basic principle for radicals is lie to opponents and disarm them by pretending to be moderates and liberals;

“The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution." The stated cause is never the real cause, but only an occasion to advance the real cause which is accumulation of power to make the revolution;

The standard of the revolution is democracy--a democracy which upends all social hierarchies, including those based on merit.

Alinsky’s heaven on earth:

It is equivalent to a hell and not a heaven on earth, because it disparages and suppresses individual liberty that allows unequal individual achievement;

Obama is an Alinsky disciple and like Alinsky, Obama is a nihilist.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

We've had this discussion before, cyclops, and anyone with any common sense knows you are wrong. When all but about one doctor quits delivering babies in a small city, simply because of liability issues and threat of lawsuits, anyone with an ounce of common sense knows the reason. Only people that constantly apologize for ambulance chasers and their buddies in Congress continue to argue as you do. I have not studied the statistics, but I am not blind in regard to what happens around me. And by the way, my brother was a doctor his entire working life, and has told me much.

This sounds like typical Rep BS. To what city are you referring? At least you admit that you have not looked at the stats, which I understand don't back up your statements.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Please prove your statement that Obama is an Alinsky disciple. There was hardly an association, much less guilt by association.

0 Replies

Tort reform is unlikely to significantly reduce medical costs. However, it is another effort of the right to have the government interfere with private commerce.

http://washingtonindependent.com/55535/tort-reform-unlikely-to-cut-health-care-costs

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

okie wrote:

No way, in fact the lawyers that worked for the corporation I used to work for were decent and honest people. Some of the most corrupt lawyers reside in Congress and have been in the administrations, most notably Democrat ones. Many are still there. One is president as we speak.

I don't think you really know the truth (or lack of it) in these rather sweeping allegations. In addition it appears to me that you may be implicitly using a rather elastic definition of corruption that applies different standards to equivalent activities on the two sides of the political asile.

Its my opinion, okay. I knew some corporate lawyers, and I now have some knowledge of lawyer politicians, including Democrats and Republicans. I believe Obama is corrupt, at least very very dishonest, we have a record on that, and few if any Chicago politicians rise to power there without being beholden to the corrupt politics of Chicago and Illinois. This is well known, George. How do you think Michelle obtained the great paying job that required little to no work? We know the previous Democratic president, Clinton, was also corrupt, perhaps the most corrupt in history. We also know that Democratic leaders in Congress, including Pelosi and Reid, are corrupt, and the list does not stop there.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Quote:

Tort reform is unlikely to significantly reduce medical costs

defensive medicine dollar costs would go down under tort reform. Many more people would be maimed and killed, this is true, so the truth of your statement depends upon the definition of cost.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

okie wrote:

No way, in fact the lawyers that worked for the corporation I used to work for were decent and honest people. Some of the most corrupt lawyers reside in Congress and have been in the administrations, most notably Democrat ones. Many are still there. One is president as we speak.

I don't think you really know the truth (or lack of it) in these rather sweeping allegations. In addition it appears to me that you may be implicitly using a rather elastic definition of corruption that applies different standards to equivalent activities on the two sides of the political asile.

Its my opinion, okay. I knew some corporate lawyers, and I now have some knowledge of lawyer politicians, including Democrats and Republicans. I believe Obama is corrupt, at least very very dishonest, we have a record on that, and few if any Chicago politicians rise to power there without being beholden to the corrupt politics of Chicago and Illinois. This is well known, George. How do you think Michelle obtained the great paying job that required little to no work? We know the previous Democratic president, Clinton, was also corrupt, perhaps the most corrupt in history. We also know that Democratic leaders in Congress, including Pelosi and Reid, are corrupt, and the list does not stop there.

I think George's point, is that any such list about Democrats could just as easily be matched by one about Republicans - and there are quite a few members of your party who are currently in jail for exactly this.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo, your associates' justify their corruption of a free society of people who possess some equal human liberty, by declaring its purpose is the creation of a human society of people who are equal in all economic and social respects.

But conservatives do not justify their associates' or anyone else's corruption of a free society of people, who possess some equal human liberty, in order to obtain more equal human liberty.

Question! How do your associates think they will evolve from their corruption of a free society to an uncorrupted society wherein the people in that society are equal in all economic and social respects?

The answer is your associates do not have a clue how that transition can be accomplished! Why don't they have even a clue how to accomplish that evolution? The answer is such an evolution cannot be achieved until all persons are killed or enslaved except those who possess the power to kill or enslave all the rest. But that's a self-contradictory answer. Those who possess the power to kill or enslave all the rest, cannot relinguish that power without permitting the existence of a society of people unequal in some, if not many, economic and social respects.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

Question! How do your associates think they will evolve from their corruption of a free society to an uncorrupted society wherein the people in that society are equal in all economic and social respects?

I reject the innate assumptions that underlie your question, sir, as it is completely false - and what more, you are well aware of this. Appealing to Extremes as part of your foundation is a poor way to run an argument.

I wouldn't worry about it too much, though, as it won't be long before my associates and I show up to, what was it? Oh yes. 'Kill and enslave' you.

Rolling Eyes

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Tort reform is unlikely to significantly reduce medical costs

defensive medicine dollar costs would go down under tort reform. Many more people would be maimed and killed, this is true, so the truth of your statement depends upon the definition of cost.

You make a statement totally unsupported by any evidence. Think about it hawkeye, do you go to a doctor because he has great malpractice insurance, or is careful out of fear of being sued, or do you go to a doctor because you and your friends judge your doctor to have character, knowledge, and competence, based upon your own experience as well as the experience of those that you know?

We know that the costs are going up due in part to defensive medicine, high liability insurance costs for doctors, and decreased competition among doctors because of many quitting or moving due to intolerable legal / insurance costs. Only someone with no common sense or with their head stuck in the sand would argue that tort reform could not or would not lower the cost of health care, if it is reformed correctly. The primary question to debate should be not "if" it needs reform, but "how" it should be reformed, and at what level. Many conservatives favor the reform be done at the state level. And I think also that it would take a number of years for any reform to be judged accurately and correctly, as it will take time to tweak and adjust the reform, as well as the market needing time to adjust to the conditions.

http://www.heritage.org/press/commentary/ed102009a.cfm

"The Journal of the American Medical Association found that 93 percent of doctors admit practicing defensive medicine. A new study by the Pacific Research Institute estimates that such practices cost $191 billion a year, while a separate study by PricewaterhouseCoopers puts the number even higher -- $239 billion.

Medical-malpractice premiums have risen by more than 80 percent each year in some parts of the country and can cost almost half a million dollars a year in some specialties. The direct costs of medical-malpractice tort claims range from $16 billion according to the Pacific Research Institute to more than $30 billion according to Tillinghast-Towers Perrin. A CBO report requested by Sen. Orrin Hatch admitted that medical-malpractice reform could save $54 billion for the U.S. government alone."

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:
Just as coincidence, I know someone right now very well that is involved with an ambulance chaser lawyer suing them for a super ridiculous claim, whiplash in an accident that was virtually a non-accident, it involved a slight tap on the bumper at no speed whatsover.

Oh, yeah. Everyone who rear-ends someone claims that it was 'nothing.' You think your friend, who hit someone, is a neutral source on this issue?Cycloptichorn

Uh, cyclops, the police report said no damage to either vehicle. It was merely a tap of the bumper. And the occupants said they were not hurt immediately after the incident. Not until weeks / months later did they apparently decide that some money could be made. And just a coincidence cyclops, the lawyer they happened to get to represent them is well known as an ambulance chaser. And he files cases on a percentage basis, I am sure that is just another coincidence that means nothing, right cyclops? Tell me I am wrong cyclops, go ahead, because I know you believe all lawyers are as innocent as the wind driven snow, right cyclops?

1 Reply

@okie,

Okie,

You are correct in that the United States is and has long been a very litigious society, compared to other Western states. Even de Toqueville noted our comparative preference for civil judicial resolution of issues relative to the more authoritarian traditions in Europe (including that of revolutionary France). To a large degree this is an essential part of our character as a state, and overall a very good one in my view.

I'll agree that the combination of the actions of progressive reformers (both Democrat and Republican) and this litigious tradition has opened new doors for a new, unprecedented level of exploitation by the legal profession, and that this has mostly been a bad thing. The exploitation of the Asbestos trust and the class action legislation that permitted lawyers to act (and collect fees) "on the behalf of" unnamed and unknown litigants to claim a share of enormous economic penalties imposed manufacturers and distributers of asbestos, tobacco products and now a proliferating field pf pharmaceuticals and even ordinary consumer products, has vastly enriched a class of exploitive and parasitic tort lawyers who contribute heavily to now mostly Democrat progressives to maintain and expand the domain of their potential exploitation. This is for both groups a marriage of convenience, but it does great harm to the public - compared to other, readily available alternatives in these cases. Other techniques have spun out of this milieu: jurisdiction shopping for selected tort actions is a primary one. This and the specialization in a particular class of "victims" has enriched many lawyers, notably the shyster, John Edwards, he of the noble "progressive" tradition.

This excess is a blot on an otherwise good feature of our socierty and tradition. However the combination of Democrats and lawyers in this case is, in my view, merely an accidental case of aligned self-interest, and not a deeper conspiracy.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Sure I'm correct. Anybody with an ounce of common sense can observe this, George. Of course you make the case and say it more eloquently that I do. It has always struck me that liberals commonly talk about the Republicans in the pocket of big business, lobbyists, etc. They love to talk about Big Oil, Big Pharmaceuticals, Big this, Big that, but they always ignore Big Trial Lawyers, Big Tree Huggers, Big Socialists, Big liberal whatever. And I find this even more disgusting from the standpoint that Big Oil for example, they produce something extremely important at a very economical price, and they do it very very well, as do other big industries, but what do Big Trial Lawyers produce of worth besides suing the bejeebers out of anyone out there that they think has deep pockets, and obstructing progress by blocking any project where something as small as a Preble Mouse may reside. Sure, we are all guaranteed the right to have legal counsel in case we are wrongly accused, but the balance has gone so far in the extreme, that it has reached the point of being totally and absolutely ridiculous.

It has long been known that the Democrats are in the pocket of the trial lawyers. The following graphic helps demonstrate this, from the following website article:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Trial-lawyers-buy-Democrats-in-Congress-8669475.html

"Trial lawyers buy Democrats in CongressNeither of the Obamacare proposals now before Congress includes a medical malpractice reform provision despite the fact that the public wants one -- and that it would cut annual health care costs by $200 billion. A medical malpractice reform provision would protect doctors from expensive lawsuits filed by avaricious class-action plaintiffs' attorneys who have driven malpractice insurance rates into the stratosphere. Judging by Federal Election Commission data on the political contributions of people associated with the top 15 class-action plaintiffs' law firms, it's no accident that malpractice reform is not part of health care "reform": Trial lawyers are investing heavily in their Democratic friends who control the White House and both chambers of Congress".

http://media.sfexaminer.com/images/Picture+31.png

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

You are correct in that the United States is and has long been a very litigious society, compared to other Western states. Even de Toqueville noted our comparative preference for civil judicial resolution of issues relative to the more authoritarian traditions in Europe (including that of revolutionary France). To a large degree this is an essential part of our character as a state, and overall a very good one in my view.

I'm not sure whether you mean it is a good character of your state now in its more complex development or whether it was such when de Toqueville was writing.

By it's more complex development I mean when it begins to reach its tentacles into areas which are not resolvable such as the battle over God and His role.

There is also the problem, and a mighty one it is, that the obsessive litigation causes defensive strategies on the part of those who are the target of the enormous economic penalties to hopefully be imposed on manufacturers and distributers of asbestos, tobacco products and now a proliferating field of pharmaceuticals and even ordinary consumer products. And that the cost of these defensive strategies, non-slip flooring say or safety helmets when inspecting a green-field site with the Govenor for the News bulletin about the proposed nuclear power station, where the safety of the little, hard-working and hard-pressed citizens is paramount in all our thoughts, added to the costs of the litigation which is, of course, of little economic use, if we assume that it is not being used as a motor in the downward distribution of wealth, which I might not assume just as easily as I might, and which might not be economics either, render the US uncompetitive in the Darwinian global market-place, where dog not only eats rat but dog as well, when up against countries where if you complain, say, that the bus stop is in the wrong place because its right next to where the almost permanent big puddle collects on the road and the patiently waiting travellers get drenched when a limousine goes through it on purpose with all its occupants cackling with glee and then you have to work a 10 hour shift in the same clothes sticking Made in China label on boxes coming down a chute by the million and then you complain about the bus stop you get a night in the cells and warning.

I hope that sentence isn't one of those that gives you a pain in the arse. But it does, in a dialectical matter, admittedly a trifle fanciful, shove you up against the balance between safety and productivity. In the twenties Laurel and Hardy showed how to get a piano up some steep flights of stairs, due to land price pressure, the steepness I mean, and the number of them, flights I mean, or across a mountain gorge on a wooden footbridge swinging on fraying ropes over a fast-flowing swollen river of icy water, and Buster Keaton, I think it was, demonstrated how to take lunch on a girder on a 70-story high partially constructed steel skeleton for a skyscraper.

Today, nobody who lived up those flights of steps could afford a piano because of the cost of the crane hire and the attending crew and of getting permission to have a musical instrument from the committee that runs the building in case practicing on it might cause detrimental effects to the other residents. And the steel erectors lunch nowadays will involve a small dining hall with a wide ranging menu, air-conditioned and complete with staff, all going up the building as work progesses. And no self-respecting steel erector today would be seen dead carring a little basket to work with his lunch in it.

So it is not clear whether this view that the "essential part of our character as a state" is a sound view to hold because lawyers are a smart bunch of cookies and they will squeeze until the pips squeak if nothing gets in the way. It might spell economic disaster if nothing does.

It is noted that you put a case for the lawyers. I suppose you know a few. In the Boat Club. Or the Yacht Club, which, if I know my clubs, is one of those places where getting a bit pissed is rendered more respectable by the decor than it is in the tawdry surroundings my low station in life forces me have to put up with.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know