Sure-Fire Way To Become The Next President

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I'm voting for the first person who will do the following:

1. Get the f#@%ing health care situation straightened out in this country!

2. Immediately implement the flat sales tax and eliminate ALL other taxes!

3. Get the illegal immigration deal straightened out!

4. Legislate that whenever the plaintiff loses a civil lawsuit, they must pay the defendant the exact same amount they were suing for - and the plaintiff's attorney must participate in this payment to the tune of the same amount they would accrue if the case were won by their plaintiff.

5. War veterans should be provided with the best health care available at no charge and if a soldier is under 21 - he should damn well be able to drink a beer in this country. :wink:

BD1

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 679 • Replies: 14

No top replies

hold your breath....no don't.

0 Replies

Re: Sure-Fire Way To Become The Next President

baddog1 wrote:

I'm voting for the first person who will do the following:

4. Legislate that whenever the plaintiff loses a civil lawsuit, they must pay the defendant the exact same amount they were suing for - and the plaintiff's attorney must participate in this payment to the tune of the same amount they would accrue if the case were won by their plaintiff.

So, let's say a hospital kills one of your relatives through criminal negligence, and you sue them for $10 million. They hire very expensive attorneys and manage to wriggle out of it on some evidentiary technicality. Your idea of justice is that you pay them $10 million, right?

0 Replies

Re: Sure-Fire Way To Become The Next President

baddog1 wrote:

I'm voting for the first person who will do the following:

1. Get the f#@%ing health care situation straightened out in this country!

2. Immediately implement the flat sales tax and eliminate ALL other taxes!

I like the crazy mixture of socialism and libertarianism.

0 Replies

baddog
I resent the claim that there is such a thing as a "bad dog." People are worse than dogs. Politions are even worse.

BBB :wink:

0 Replies

Re: baddog

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

I resent the claim that there is such a thing as a "bad dog." People are worse than dogs. Politions are even worse.

BBB :wink:

Polit-ions: The elementary particles that make up one's political persuasion. R and D polit-ions have the strange property of being mutually repulsive, yet strangely attractive to one another.

0 Replies

Re: baddog

DrewDad wrote:

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
I resent the claim that there is such a thing as a "bad dog." People are worse than dogs. Politions are even worse.

BBB :wink:

Polit-ions: The elementary particles that make up one's political persuasion. R and D polit-ions have the strange property of being mutually repulsive, yet strangely attractive to one another.

Darn you, DrewDad, you posted before I could correct my typo.

You are a buttinsky!

BBB Laughing

0 Replies

Re: Sure-Fire Way To Become The Next President

Brandon9000 wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
I'm voting for the first person who will do the following:

4. Legislate that whenever the plaintiff loses a civil lawsuit, they must pay the defendant the exact same amount they were suing for - and the plaintiff's attorney must participate in this payment to the tune of the same amount they would accrue if the case were won by their plaintiff.

So, let's say a hospital kills one of your relatives through criminal negligence, and you sue them for $10 million. They hire very expensive attorneys and manage to wriggle out of it on some evidentiary technicality. Your idea of justice is that you pay them $10 million, right?

The "technicality-issue" is a separate one that should be altered as well. Perhaps the judge's name and a public issuance of his/her reasoning for the technicality would be in order.

And your example here is also a clear case for the appeals-process; which was designed for the purpose of cases such as this that you describe. If a "whacko" and/or "crooked" judge were to find in favor of the hospital - I would appeal. The chances of running into 1,2 or 3 bad judges is highly remote - and under these guidelines - becomes even more remote.

0 Replies

Re: Sure-Fire Way To Become The Next President

Brandon9000 wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
I'm voting for the first person who will do the following:

4. Legislate that whenever the plaintiff loses a civil lawsuit, they must pay the defendant the exact same amount they were suing for - and the plaintiff's attorney must participate in this payment to the tune of the same amount they would accrue if the case were won by their plaintiff.

So, let's say a hospital kills one of your relatives through criminal negligence, and you sue them for $10 million. They hire very expensive attorneys and manage to wriggle out of it on some evidentiary technicality. Your idea of justice is that you pay them $10 million, right?

Why would you sue them for $10 million. Money doesn't bring a loved one back. I think to sue and get the person kicked out of the medical profession would be more punishment. It isn't going to cost the Dr. any money other then a raise in medical insurance and that is already going through the roof.

0 Replies

I have to agree with Larry about suing over the death of a loved one. My mother was mis diagnosed and suffered for several years until being sent to the Leahy clinic where she was diagnosed with hodgkins in about three minutes. By then it was too late. We both agreed that blood money was not worth having though, and so no malpractice suits were brought.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

I have to agree with Larry about suing over the death of a loved one. My mother was mis diagnosed and suffered for several years until being sent to the Leahy clinic where she was diagnosed with hodgkins in about three minutes. By then it was too late. We both agreed that blood money was not worth having though, and so no malpractice suits were brought.

We made the same decision with our youngest son who is now deaf. We are 95% postitive that he became deaf because of his 9 month shots when he was a baby. It is hard to prove but we know he was hearing at birth. It wasn't worth the stress and strain for a law suit. Life happens and they don't tell you that these shots when they are babies that a fever isn't the worst, death is the worst that can happen, but they don't tell you this. I now pass this information along to all new parents as a warning to question their DR's more then they question their car mechanics.

0 Replies

Re: Sure-Fire Way To Become The Next President

Baldimo wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
baddog1 wrote:
I'm voting for the first person who will do the following:

4. Legislate that whenever the plaintiff loses a civil lawsuit, they must pay the defendant the exact same amount they were suing for - and the plaintiff's attorney must participate in this payment to the tune of the same amount they would accrue if the case were won by their plaintiff.

So, let's say a hospital kills one of your relatives through criminal negligence, and you sue them for $10 million. They hire very expensive attorneys and manage to wriggle out of it on some evidentiary technicality. Your idea of justice is that you pay them $10 million, right?

Why would you sue them for $10 million. Money doesn't bring a loved one back. I think to sue and get the person kicked out of the medical profession would be more punishment. It isn't going to cost the Dr. any money other then a raise in medical insurance and that is already going through the roof.

It's long been customary to sue for for punitive damages, and this is irrelevant to my point, which was that if the defendant in an unsuccessful suit were forced to pay the amount he sued for, monumental injustices could result. The effect would be to make the powerful immune to lawsuits no matter how terrible their behavior, because ordinary people would fear to sue them.

0 Replies

Hi Baldimo,

How old is your son now?

Can I ask why you think the shots are responsible? And why you're certain he was hearing at birth?

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Hi Baldimo,

How old is your son now?

Can I ask why you think the shots are responsible? And why you're certain he was hearing at birth?

He's 7.

We know he was hearing at birth because the state of Cali has mandatory testing at birth for site and hearing. They work off of the no news is good news. After his 9 month shots he started a slow slip into nonresponse. We didn't notice till he was almost a year old. I shouldn't say slow slip, because we noticed when we had to stomp on the ground to get his attention. ! month after his 1st b-day we got the news. His deafness is all nerve damage and not a deformation of his ear bones or ear canal.

He never had an ear infection till he was almost 3 when we started sending him to a deaf school to start learning ASL.

0 Replies

Thanks for the info.

I ask because the newborn testing is notoriously unreliable, unfortunately. It's better that it exists than that it doesn't exist, but there are a lot of false positives and false negatives. As in, even if the testing indicated he could hear, that's not actually conclusive.

That's wonderful that you got him started on ASL so early! Many parents wait much longer.

How's he doing now?

0 Replies

Sure-Fire Way To Become The Next President

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know