View Full Version : Bush Launches Battle to Limit Your Rights in Court
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-05-2005, 06:15 PM
Shielding the super rich from liability his primary goal
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=30&u=/nm/20050105/ts_nm/bush_lawsuits_dc
Bush launches an uphill battle on Wednesday to limit medical malpractice lawsuit awards that he says drive up health care costs, seeking to protect the super-rich from accountability.
The battle pits powerful groups against each other: trial lawyers against insurance companies and doctors who whine that rising premiums for malpractice insurance are driving them out of business.
Legislation to cap malpractice awards for pain and suffering passed the House last year but stalled in the Senate. Bush is hoping the larger Republican majority will lead his plan to victory this year
If you go in for a vasectomy and they amputate your feet, Bush says the doctor shouldn't be held accountable because the medical lobby gives him tons of money every year.
If your family burns to death in a poorly-designed car or truck, Bush wants you to "get over it" because Ford and GM need to make more so they can give him more.
http://www.bartcop.com/liberty-boot.jpg
alkemical
01-05-2005, 06:58 PM
Why limit court costs?
Where does some limit come to having our rights as consumers protected?
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-05-2005, 07:16 PM
Where does some limit come to having our rights as consumers protected?
From the big insurance company lobbyists who line Dim Son's pockets.
enjolras
01-06-2005, 07:50 AM
This is a very serious problem, not only should the amount of liability be capped but the scope of what can be sued for should be changed as well.
My dad is a Dentist and I'm very well aware what medical malpractice costs these people. It's mind boggling, often reaching tens of thousands of dollars a year. That's money that has to be made up somewhere, and it generally comes directly out of your pocket.
The vast majority of medical malpractice suits are not of the far reaching variety (removing an incorrect organ), but rather of the very mundane. Yet the awards are almost universally huge. Until we limit (or ideally eliminate) punitive damages, society will continue to pay the price.
This is one thing on the Bush agenda I definitely support.
Bush probably won't win this fight, since the Trial Lawyer's Association (just about the biggest political contributor) and the TLA's underlings, the Democratic Party, will fight a major war to keep the dollars flowing to lawyers' pockets and thus on to the Democrats.
No way a serious and dangerous lobby like the TLA is going to risk losing multibillion dollar settlements (with the resulting multimillion lawyer paychecks) just so the rest of us can have a more sane legal system.
For example:
Toilet Brush Warning Wins Consumer Award
Thu Jan 6, 7:31 AM ET
By DAVID N. GOODMAN, Associated Press Writer
DETROIT - The sign on the toilet brush says it best: "Do not use for personal hygiene."
That admonition was the winner of an anti-lawsuit group's contest for the wackiest consumer warning label of the year.
The sponsor, Michigan Lawsuit Abuse Watch, says the goal is "to reveal how lawsuits, and concern about lawsuits, have created a need for common sense warnings on products."
The $500 first prize went to Ed Gyetvai, of Oldcastle, Ontario, who submitted the toilet-brush label. A $250 second prize went to Matt Johnson, of Naperville, Ill., for a label on a children's scooter that said, "This product moves when used."
A $100 third prize went to Ann Marie Taylor, of Camden, S.C., who submitted a warning from a digital thermometer that said, "Once used rectally, the thermometer should not be used orally."
This year's contest coincides with a drive by President Bush (news - web sites) and congressional Republicans to put caps and other limits on jury awards in liability cases.
"Warning labels are a sign of our lawsuit-plagued times," said group President Robert Dorigo Jones. "From the moment we raise our head in the morning off pillows that bear those famous Do Not Remove warnings, to when we drop back in bed at night, we are overwhelmed with warnings."
The leader of a group that opposes the campaign to limit lawsuits admits that while some warning labels may seem stupid, even dumb warnings can do good.
"There are many cases of warning labels saving lives," said Joanne Doroshow, executive director of the Center for Justice and Democracy in New York. "It's much better to be very cautious ... than to be afraid of being made fun of by a tort reform group."
The Wacky Warning Label Contest is in its eighth year.
On the Net:
Michigan Lawsuit Abuse Watch: http://www.mlaw.org
Center for Justice & Democracy: http://www.centerjd.org
Copyright © 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
alkemical
01-06-2005, 11:57 AM
My whole issue is you have people that sue for stupid things, but you also have a lot of doctors who screw up.
Why should just the consumer pay the price, or good doctors pay the price?
My whole issue is you have people that sue for stupid things, but you also have a lot of doctors who screw up.
Why should just the consumer pay the price, or good doctors pay the price?
Ask the TLA - they rake in the bucks regardless of the merits of the case. Howzabout having all costs incurred by lawsuits adjudged frivolous paid by the attorney that brought it, and cap attorney's fees depending on the award - for example, no more of these $N hundred million lawsuits against large corporations from which the attorneys stand to gain $N ten million in fees. The problem caused by attorneys basically shaking down big-pocketed defendants in order to greatly enrich themselves (and oh, BTW, maybe even the plaintiffs get a few bucks too) is too widespread and needs to be corrected.
alkemical
01-06-2005, 12:52 PM
Ask the TLA - they rake in the bucks regardless of the merits of the case. Howzabout having all costs incurred by lawsuits adjudged frivolous paid by the attorney that brought it, and cap attorney's fees depending on the award - for example, no more of these $N hundred million lawsuits against large corporations from which the attorneys stand to gain $N ten million in fees. The problem caused by attorneys basically shaking down big-pocketed defendants in order to greatly enrich themselves (and oh, BTW, maybe even the plaintiffs get a few bucks too) is too widespread and needs to be corrected.
Yeah i guess big corporations who dick people over have nothing to do with it either.
Yeah i guess big corporations who dick people over have nothing to do with it either.
"Trial Lawyers Inc" is a big corporation that is dicking us all over. Who do you think pays for the costs created by bogus cases? You and me, since those costs are passed onto us as consumers in the form of higher prices.
For example, do you think McDonald's just ate the costs of the lawsuit brought by that old ditz who spilled their hot coffee on her crotch?
enjolras
01-06-2005, 02:37 PM
I've always found it fascinating that the only professions truly shielded from malpractice style lawsuits are:
Lawyers and politicians
Conquistadita
01-06-2005, 02:39 PM
"Trial Lawyers Inc" is a big corporation that is dicking us all over. Who do you think pays for the costs created by bogus cases? You and me, since those costs are passed onto us as consumers in the form of higher prices.
For example, do you think McDonald's just ate the costs of the lawsuit brought by that old ditz who spilled their hot coffee on her crotch?
Going back to that McDonald's case... that case wasn't actually frivolous. I looked it up a bit back, and apparently the coffee was so hot that it burned through her skin within a few seconds and required a week of in-patient treatment before she could return to her everyday life. That's not even the worst part, though; there were hundreds of cases prior to that on the exact same charges, and McDonald's inexplicably and criminally neglected to change the temperature of their coffee in spite of having had for years the knowledge that it was dangerously hot.
Going back to that McDonald's case... that case wasn't actually frivolous.
It was quite frivolous. How is serving coffee hot, with the customer knowing that it is hot, a negligent act? Yes, the ditz was badly burned - doesn't mean that she wasn't entirely at fault for the burn. Can I sue GE because I burned the crap outta my finger once on the stove? Gee, it's hot - exercise due care and concern.
That's not even the worst part, though; there were hundreds of cases prior to that on the exact same charges, and McDonald's inexplicably and criminally neglected to change the temperature of their coffee in spite of having had for years the knowledge that it was dangerously hot.
I like my coffee piping hot - it tastes better that way.
In any case, out of the millions, if not tens of millions (hundreds of millions?) of cups of coffee that McDonald's served over those years, they had "hundreds" of complaints that it was "too" hot? What's the complaint rate? 1 cup out of every tens of thousands or so? That's pretty damned low.
Besides, what about the "Caution: Hot Beverage" notice on the lid?
Sorry, despite what the predatory lawyers who brought the suit alleged, McDonald's was in no way negligent for serving their coffee hot, even extremely hot. For Chrissakes, coffee is supposed to be hot!
alkemical
01-06-2005, 02:52 PM
Wags,
Since you like to pick and choose your court cases, why not defend eli lilly
Conquistadita
01-06-2005, 03:08 PM
It was quite frivolous. How is serving coffee hot, with the customer knowing that it is hot, a negligent act? Yes, the ditz was badly burned - doesn't mean that she wasn't entirely at fault for the burn. Can I sue GE because I burned the crap outta my finger once on the stove? Gee, it's hot - exercise due care and concern.
I like my coffee piping hot - it tastes better that way.
In any case, out of the millions, if not tens of millions (hundreds of millions?) of cups of coffee that McDonald's served over those years, they had "hundreds" of complaints that it was "too" hot? What's the complaint rate? 1 cup out of every tens of thousands or so? That's pretty damned low.
Besides, what about the "Caution: Hot Beverage" notice on the lid?
Sorry, despite what the predatory lawyers who brought the suit alleged, McDonald's was in no way negligent for serving their coffee hot, even extremely hot. For Chrissakes, coffee is supposed to be hot!
Found the web site: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
Please briefly skim through that that so that you understand the case details. If you refuse, I can summarize the important points for you.
Since you like to pick and choose your court cases, why not defend eli lilly
Against what? Saving the lives of thousands, and making the quality of the lives of many many more, better via their products?
I'm not going to argue that deep pocket corporations are never negligent, or don't commit outright criminal acts from time to time. What I will argue, however, is that while lawyers often like to paint themselves as fighting for the poor little guy against the big rich bad corporation, lawyers are also a big rich corporation (of sorts) and they definitely enrich themselves, often hugely, at our expense, via lawsuits anyone with common sense would deride as stupid and motivated merely by attorney greed.
The too-hot McDonald's case is somewhat borderline, but if you go to the Stella Awards website, you'll find ample evidence of the sort of abuse that lawyers perpetrate on us each and every day.
Conquistadita
01-06-2005, 03:15 PM
The too-hot McDonald's case is somewhat borderline, but if you go to the Stella Awards website, you'll find ample evidence of the sort of abuse that lawyers perpetrate on us each and every day.
Speaking of which, the Stella Awards web site itself has a page on the McDonalds case.
http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html
Found the web site: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
Please briefly skim through that that so that you understand the case details. If you refuse, I can summarize the important points for you.
Oh, I understand the case details. I found the same URL you did. On the other hand, from http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/000589.html:
[...]
To summarize, the problems with the Liebeck case are as follows:
1) a product that, through open and obvious consequences, injures one in 24 million people is not "unreasonably dangerous";
2) the fact that billions of cups of McDonald's coffee are sold should be per se proof that it was serving its coffee at a temperature that consumers desired, rather than "too hot." No one was forced to buy the hotter McDonald's coffee instead of the lukewarm coffee supposedly served elsewhere; if McDonald's coffee was really undesireably "too hot," it would be punished in the marketplace for this flaw. Instead, there is public policy by jury, and the millions of customers who, for whatever reason, prefer McDonald's coffee, are out in the cold;
3) a defendant who is not the proximate cause of an injury should not be held liable for that injury;
4) there is no principled construction of tort law that holds McDonald's liable for failing to prevent injury in the case of a foreseeable coffee spill, but not a clothing manufacturer for failing to prevent injury in the case of a foreseeable coffee spill, and one can agree that the latter scenario is an absurd proposition for liability;
5) a defendant should not be subject to punitive damages because the jury did not understand that "statistically insignificant" is a technical statistical term, and not an insult; and
6) punitive damages were assessed against McDonald's based on their coffee sales, which is a punishment for selling a lot of coffee, rather than because of their behavior.
[...]
alkemical
01-06-2005, 03:42 PM
Against what? Saving the lives of thousands, and making the quality of the lives of many many more, better via their products?
I'm not going to argue that deep pocket corporations are never negligent, or don't commit outright criminal acts from time to time. What I will argue, however, is that while lawyers often like to paint themselves as fighting for the poor little guy against the big rich bad corporation, lawyers are also a big rich corporation (of sorts) and they definitely enrich themselves, often hugely, at our expense, via lawsuits anyone with common sense would deride as stupid and motivated merely by attorney greed.
The too-hot McDonald's case is somewhat borderline, but if you go to the Stella Awards website, you'll find ample evidence of the sort of abuse that lawyers perpetrate on us each and every day.
Basically wags, you are for corporations to be negligent. I didn't say that lawsuits are sometimes stupid, as in the hot coffee case. But since you like to pick and choose, drug companies that produce drugs that cause major side effects in the name of profits - is something i notice you like to side step.
Basically wags, you are for corporations to be negligent.
Rather sweeping generalization there.
I didn't say that lawsuits are sometimes stupid, as in the hot coffee case. But since you like to pick and choose, drug companies that produce drugs that cause major side effects in the name of profits - is something i notice you like to side step.
Depends on the side effect and the nature of the ailment the drug is supposed to treat, before I'd say that a pharma company is being negligent. Aspirin can cause problems with coagulation. But if taking an aspirin a day reduces the chance of a heart attack, well, the patient needs to judge the risk and benefit. Some painkillers are habit-forming - but if someone is dying of terminal illness and is in unbearable agony, who cares if they become addicted?
Do I deny that the side-effects of some drugs are underplayed or ignored by some drug companies? No. But the risk of those side-effects needs to be judged by those who take the drugs, assuming that they can get correct information, of course.
Sorry, but your claim that I side with negligent corporations is just plain false, amesj.
alkemical
01-06-2005, 04:40 PM
Rather sweeping generalization there.
Depends on the side effect and the nature of the ailment the drug is supposed to treat, before I'd say that a pharma company is being negligent. Aspirin can cause problems with coagulation. But if taking an aspirin a day reduces the chance of a heart attack, well, the patient needs to judge the risk and benefit. Some painkillers are habit-forming - but if someone is dying of terminal illness and is in unbearable agony, who cares if they become addicted?
Do I deny that the side-effects of some drugs are underplayed or ignored by some drug companies? No. But the risk of those side-effects needs to be judged by those who take the drugs, assuming that they can get correct information, of course.
Sorry, but your claim that I side with negligent corporations is just plain false, amesj.
You always agrue for corporations in the name of capitalism. But you never really define which version of capitalism you are for. You often argue more or less for corportism.
Conquistadita
01-06-2005, 05:08 PM
Oh, I understand the case details. I found the same URL you did. On the other hand, from http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/000589.html:
[...]
To summarize, the problems with the Liebeck case are as follows:
1) a product that, through open and obvious consequences, injures one in 24 million people is not "unreasonably dangerous";
2) the fact that billions of cups of McDonald's coffee are sold should be per se proof that it was serving its coffee at a temperature that consumers desired, rather than "too hot." No one was forced to buy the hotter McDonald's coffee instead of the lukewarm coffee supposedly served elsewhere; if McDonald's coffee was really undesireably "too hot," it would be punished in the marketplace for this flaw. Instead, there is public policy by jury, and the millions of customers who, for whatever reason, prefer McDonald's coffee, are out in the cold;
3) a defendant who is not the proximate cause of an injury should not be held liable for that injury;
4) there is no principled construction of tort law that holds McDonald's liable for failing to prevent injury in the case of a foreseeable coffee spill, but not a clothing manufacturer for failing to prevent injury in the case of a foreseeable coffee spill, and one can agree that the latter scenario is an absurd proposition for liability;
5) a defendant should not be subject to punitive damages because the jury did not understand that "statistically insignificant" is a technical statistical term, and not an insult; and
6) punitive damages were assessed against McDonald's based on their coffee sales, which is a punishment for selling a lot of coffee, rather than because of their behavior.
[...]
I take umbrage with claims 1-4. I don't have time to make a full argument, but there is very little base logic. For instance, proximity is not a requirement for responsibility or liability, and there's a difference between hot and hot enough to kill a frog in seconds, in addition to a difference between lukewarm and reasonably hot.
I will say that I think the jury awarded too much. The $20,000 settlement price was unassuming.
RaiderH8r
01-06-2005, 09:00 PM
Lawyers fighting the good fight to the tune of 30 percent contingency plus retainer. But the corporations are the ONLY ones full of sh#t. I've got a bridge to sell some of you schmucks.
enjolras
01-06-2005, 09:40 PM
My reply apparently got swallowed by board demons:)
A much shorter version: In the McDonalds case, McDonalds WAS negligent. They served coffee hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns. That's serious stuff and is beyond all means of normal expectations about how hot coffee should be. We're not talking about spilling a bit on yourself and getting a little skin burn.. we're talking about burns generally reserved for those who fall into a campfire.
The number of cups of coffee they sold is irrelevant. They where negligent when they served THAT cup of Coffee. The status of the rest is more or less irrelevant.
To me the more interesting question is that of punitive damages in general. I agree with the concept of punitive damages. It's a way for the populace to hold companies liable for their harmful actions. However, awarding a victim huge amounts of money is just stupid in my opinion. It creates incentive for people to be victims. Instead I think we should only award victims true compensatory damages (cover costs incurred due to negligience) and assess punitive damages for the greater good. Companies should be forced to pay damages to government approved charities or public works programs (hell maybe even social security), rather than putting money in a victims pocket. We certainly need to remove the incentive to sue as a means of personal gain, and return it to a means of making companies responsible for their actions.
Most European nations simply don't award punitive damages at all.. and I often wonder if they're better off for it.
I take umbrage with claims 1-4. I don't have time to make a full argument, but there is very little base logic. For instance, proximity is not a requirement for responsibility or liability,
I don't have any real experience of law or business law specifically, but my common sense (another concept nearly gone from the US legal system) tells me that proximity in space and time ought to have some weight. I can think of many examples of non-proximity that would probably fail some attorney's standard for filing a suit and looking forward to a juicy fee.
and there's a difference between hot and hot enough to kill a frog in seconds, in addition to a difference between lukewarm and reasonably hot.
I'm a reasonable person, and I make my coffee at a temperature very near boiling. Common sense, again, tells me to be very careful with hot, especially very hot, liquids in rather flimsy containers with weak lids. I don't put them between my legs, for one. I'm surprised that some attorney didn't think to sue the auto manufacturer for being negligent for failure to put in more cupholders, or, failing to put in a huge warning sign telling occupants to use cupholders instead of their legs to hold cups.
I will say that I think the jury awarded too much. The $20,000 settlement price was unassuming.
This particular case is borderline, like I said - not a really gray area, but not entirely clear. There are other cases at Stella that are far more indicative of the depth to which attorneys sink. I like the one about the grocery store employees who sued the company because a customer came in with thin white shorts and no underwear. Apparently they felt his package constituted some sort of harassment, and the inevitable pain and suffering.
The number of cups of coffee they sold is irrelevant. They where negligent when they served THAT cup of Coffee. The status of the rest is more or less irrelevant.
On this point I disagree. If billions of other cups of coffee, identical in almost every aspect, were sold and drunk without incident, what was it that made this particular cup negligent on McDonald's part? It can't be the temperature, because the extreme rarity of the burning problem. There was nothing else about this specific cup that was the source of the suit, so what else is there?
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-07-2005, 12:49 AM
W*GS is one confused little puppy.
He rails at the notion that the Democratic Party is somehow beholden to the TLA and to (gasp, horror!) the teachers' union, etc.
But what does he say by way of criticism of the administration that is the most beholden to special interests of any administration in US history, viz., BushCorp?
Absolutely nuttin!'
http://www.bartcop.com/seating-chart-2005.jpg
(That's W*GS in the front left row.)
He rails at the notion that the Democratic Party is somehow beholden to the TLA and to (gasp, horror!) the teachers' union, etc.
"Somehow beholden"?
Go to opensecrets.org and find out how much the TLA and public sector unions give to the GOP and Dems, and then find out the percentage that the Dems get. Prove to us that you've done so by providing the top 10 entries of the table of all-time top donors. Thanks.
But what does he say by way of criticism of the administration that is the most beholden to special interests of any administration in US history, viz., BushCorp?
Prove it.
enjolras
01-07-2005, 09:46 AM
On this point I disagree. If billions of other cups of coffee, identical in almost every aspect, were sold and drunk without incident, what was it that made this particular cup negligent on McDonald's part? It can't be the temperature, because the extreme rarity of the burning problem. There was nothing else about this specific cup that was the source of the suit, so what else is there?
In turn I disagree:)
It most certainly can be the temperature. If a cup of coffee (even if it's just one cup) is served at temperatures that cause 3rd degree burns.. then yes, that is negligient. It's that simple really. There is zero doubt that the cup of coffee in question was too hot (see: 3rd degree burns). Thus, serving that cup of coffee was valid grounds for a lawsuit. I think a customer has a reasonable expectation that spilling some coffee on yourself will not result in 3rd degree burns.
There IS some logical limit to this. If I spill coffee on myself and get a minor burn.. that's my fault. Coffee is hot. Once again, the sheer amount of injury caused in this case shows a gross disrespect for the saftey of their patrons. Outside of the normal expectations for the temperature of coffee and that bit them..
Let's cut to the chase.
If a cup of coffee (even if it's just one cup) is served at temperatures that cause 3rd degree burns.. then yes, that is negligient.
Coffee at that temperature can cause severe burns - but billions of other identically-hot cups did not cause burns because those who purchased them were more careful than Stella.
That one person is injured does not mean negligence on McDonald's part, IMHO. But then again, I'm just using common sense, not the "sense" that attorneys smelling blood use.
Conquistadita
01-07-2005, 12:31 PM
I don't have any real experience of law or business law specifically, but my common sense (another concept nearly gone from the US legal system) tells me that proximity in space and time ought to have some weight. I can think of many examples of non-proximity that would probably fail some attorney's standard for filing a suit and looking forward to a juicy fee.
Your common sense fails you here because causality does not require proximity. I can perform lots of crimes from remote locations, but it doesn't make me any less criminal.
Your common sense fails you here because causality does not require proximity. I can perform lots of crimes from remote locations, but it doesn't make me any less criminal.
Causality is the key, not proximity - makes sense.
Question is, where does the line of causality (and thus responsibility) get drawn? Some attorney somewhere has probably fantasized about nailing the elderly (rich) parents for their offspring's actions, since clearly the parents are the cause of their descendent's existence.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-07-2005, 02:57 PM
Your common sense fails you here....
Get used to it, Conquistadita.
For W*GS, common sense failure is as regular an occurrence as the chiefs missing the playoffs. ;)
RaiderH8r
01-08-2005, 08:32 AM
Your common sense fails you here because causality does not require proximity. I can perform lots of crimes from remote locations, but it doesn't make me any less criminal.
So clearly McDonald's is also responsible for the obesity problem in our country due to the fat and cholesterol content in the food they serve.
Conquistadita
01-08-2005, 09:16 AM
So clearly McDonald's is also responsible for the obesity problem in our country due to the fat and cholesterol content in the food they serve.
Well, yes, but not legally. You need more than causality and responsibility to be criminally negligent.
In fact, they are the proximate cause in the fat & cholesterol case, to the best of my knowledge. :kiddingme
RaiderH8r
01-09-2005, 08:22 AM
Well, yes, but not legally. You need more than causality and responsibility to be criminally negligent.
In fact, they are the proximate cause in the fat & cholesterol case, to the best of my knowledge. :kiddingme
I was referring more to the corporate entity that is McDonald's vs. the regular schmuck flipping the burgers from restaurant to restaurant. Because the case can be made that the McDonald's corporation has made a conscious decision to serve food that may not be in the health interests of people to gain a profit and are therefor negligent in this case for 1. serving the food and 2. not informing the people that the food may be bad for you. See Phillip Morris.
MistrSynistr
01-10-2005, 05:46 AM
"Somehow beholden"?
Go to opensecrets.org and find out how much the TLA and public sector unions give to the GOP and Dems, and then find out the percentage that the Dems get. Prove to us that you've done so by providing the top 10 entries of the table of all-time top donors. Thanks.
Prove it.
Why do voters who disregard factual information that suits them always want everyone to "prove" it? How can you possibly prove something to someone who doesn't want to hear certain facts anyhow...This is how they will always win L.A. Bronco fan, don't you see by now?
Why do voters who disregard factual information that suits them always want everyone to "prove" it?
In this instance, LABF is the one disregarding factual information, which the data located at opensecrets shows.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-11-2005, 04:00 AM
In this instance, LABF is the one disregarding factual information, which the data located at opensecrets shows.
In that case, let me take a page from W*GS' playbook:
I haven't actually seen the information first-hand, but I already know it's bullsh*t.
;D
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-11-2005, 05:52 AM
http://www.bartcop.com/by-shadow3.jpg
I haven't actually seen the information first-hand, but I already know it's bullsh*t.
Are you afraid of what opensecrets shows?
Garcia Bronco
01-11-2005, 09:52 AM
Shielding the super rich from liability his primary goal
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=30&u=/nm/20050105/ts_nm/bush_lawsuits_dc
Bush launches an uphill battle on Wednesday to limit medical malpractice lawsuit awards that he says drive up health care costs, seeking to protect the super-rich from accountability.
The battle pits powerful groups against each other: trial lawyers against insurance companies and doctors who whine that rising premiums for malpractice insurance are driving them out of business.
Legislation to cap malpractice awards for pain and suffering passed the House last year but stalled in the Senate. Bush is hoping the larger Republican majority will lead his plan to victory this year
If you go in for a vasectomy and they amputate your feet, Bush says the doctor shouldn't be held accountable because the medical lobby gives him tons of money every year.
If your family burns to death in a poorly-designed car or truck, Bush wants you to "get over it" because Ford and GM need to make more so they can give him more.
http://www.bartcop.com/liberty-boot.jpg
What's sad are the people that abuse the system so that we have to have this kind of reform. Sorry....but I agree with the President...we need to but trial lawyers the abuse the system...out-of-business.
orangeatheist
01-11-2005, 10:41 AM
Shielding the super rich from liability his primary goal
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=30&u=/nm/20050105/ts_nm/bush_lawsuits_dc
Bush launches an uphill battle on Wednesday to limit medical malpractice lawsuit awards that he says drive up health care costs, seeking to protect the super-rich from accountability.
The battle pits powerful groups against each other: trial lawyers against insurance companies and doctors who whine that rising premiums for malpractice insurance are driving them out of business...
As I read this "quote" from LABF and noticed the source, something just didn't add up. Would a supposedly non-biased source use words like "super-rich" and "whine"? So I clicked on the link and found the real article. Compare it to LABF's spin above. I will red font what LABF altered:
President Bush (news - web sites) launches an uphill battle on Wednesday to limit medical malpractice lawsuit awards that he says drive up health care costs, seeking to fulfill a popular re-election promise.
The battle pits powerful groups against each other: trial lawyers against insurance companies and doctors who say rising premiums for malpractice insurance are driving them out of business.
How do you justify that? How do you justify using altered sources? I just can't understand how anyone can do this. I battle Christians (particularly creationists) damn near everyday who engage in this kind of dishonesty and every one of them claim they are champions of the truth. You claim the same thing. You think you are some "voice crying in the wilderness" and yet you get caught red handed altering your sources.
If I had any reason to read your posts --to listen to your side of the story-- it has evaporated now. Any credibility you may have had vanished with your lack of integrity. I will now filter all your messages.
Sideburn
01-11-2005, 11:27 AM
As I read this "quote" from LABF and noticed the source, something just didn't add up. Would a supposedly non-biased source use words like "super-rich" and "whine"? So I clicked on the link and found the real article. Compare it to LABF's spin above. I will red font what LABF altered:
How do you justify that? How do you justify using altered sources? I just can't understand how anyone can do this. I battle Christians (particularly creationists) damn near everyday who engage in this kind of dishonesty and every one of them claim they are champions of the truth. You claim the same thing. You think you are some "voice crying in the wilderness" and yet you get caught red handed altering your sources.
If I had any reason to read your posts --to listen to your side of the story-- it has evaporated now. Any credibility you may have had vanished with your lack of integrity. I will now filter all your messages.
This deserves a hearty Baaaazzziiiinnnnggggg!
Rascal
01-11-2005, 11:37 AM
As I read this "quote" from LABF and noticed the source, something just didn't add up. Would a supposedly non-biased source use words like "super-rich" and "whine"? So I clicked on the link and found the real article. Compare it to LABF's spin above. I will red font what LABF altered:
How do you justify that? How do you justify using altered sources? I just can't understand how anyone can do this. I battle Christians (particularly creationists) damn near everyday who engage in this kind of dishonesty and every one of them claim they are champions of the truth. You claim the same thing. You think you are some "voice crying in the wilderness" and yet you get caught red handed altering your sources.
If I had any reason to read your posts --to listen to your side of the story-- it has evaporated now. Any credibility you may have had vanished with your lack of integrity. I will now filter all your messages.
If I was God that post just earned you a temporary reprive from being condemned to hell :)
Repent now!!
LOL!!
That was an awesome post. Before I give any thought to LABF I read what the link says...he's been caught in lies before and never admits to it. Hence the reason he hates Wigs so much...Wigs catches him almost daily. Hence the reason I appreciate Wigs posts even though we disagree potically.
alkemical
01-11-2005, 04:18 PM
Really, without any sort of damages to the corporations, this is a victory for them. They limit how much we, can get out of them, for causing liable products.
MistrSynistr
01-12-2005, 07:35 AM
As I read this "quote" from LABF and noticed the source, something just didn't add up. Would a supposedly non-biased source use words like "super-rich" and "whine"? So I clicked on the link and found the real article. Compare it to LABF's spin above. I will red font what LABF altered:
How do you justify that? How do you justify using altered sources? I just can't understand how anyone can do this. I battle Christians (particularly creationists) damn near everyday who engage in this kind of dishonesty and every one of them claim they are champions of the truth. You claim the same thing. You think you are some "voice crying in the wilderness" and yet you get caught red handed altering your sources.
If I had any reason to read your posts --to listen to your side of the story-- it has evaporated now. Any credibility you may have had vanished with your lack of integrity. I will now filter all your messages.
It's ok, most of us have filtered your logicless posts out as well from the "Orange Atheist" who "believes" in George Bush's lies and spin, but doesn't "believe" in the lies and spin of organized religion, when G.W.'s are much more easy to prove.
What's worse? "Altered sources" or just plain ignorance and idiocy? Have fun in la-la land with your illogical intelligence. :stupid:
How do you justify using altered sources? I just can't understand how anyone can do this.
LABF does it all the time. He can't tell a story straight - he often chooses to insert words of his choosing. He still doesn't get it that doing so just shoots his cred all to hell.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-12-2005, 06:04 PM
It's ok, most of us have filtered your logicless posts out as well from the "Orange Atheist" who "believes" in George Bush's lies and spin, but doesn't "believe" in the lies and spin of organized religion, when G.W.'s are much more easy to prove.
What's worse? "Altered sources" or just plain ignorance and idiocy? Have fun in la-la land with your illogical intelligence. :stupid:
Once again, MistrSynistr puts the WWF smackdown on OA, W*GS, and the usual cast of bush lemmings.
I think I'm gonna like this guy! ;)
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-12-2005, 06:11 PM
As I read this "quote" from LABF and noticed the source, something just didn't add up. Would a supposedly non-biased source use words like "super-rich" and "whine"? So I clicked on the link and found the real article. Compare it to LABF's spin above. I will red font what LABF altered:
How do you justify that? How do you justify using altered sources? I just can't understand how anyone can do this. I battle Christians (particularly creationists) damn near everyday who engage in this kind of dishonesty and every one of them claim they are champions of the truth. You claim the same thing. You think you are some "voice crying in the wilderness" and yet you get caught red handed altering your sources.
If I had any reason to read your posts --to listen to your side of the story-- it has evaporated now. Any credibility you may have had vanished with your lack of integrity. I will now filter all your messages.
Do you suppose OA and Kenneth Starr are related?
In his zeal to "get" me, OA seems to be on quite the fishing expedition (or perhaps "making mountains out of mole hills" would be a more apt metaphor.)
So I "alter" sources by changing "President Bush" to "Smirk," etc?
You might have a point had I actually altered the substance of some claim or another, but, alas, I have not.
Have fun resurrecting Whitewater.
:laugh:
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-12-2005, 06:13 PM
Are you afraid of what opensecrets shows?
Are you afraid of what Fahrenheit 9/11 shows?
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-12-2005, 06:23 PM
...I battle Christians (particularly creationists) damn near everyday
Yeah, I think we all get this.
Your entire identity is dependent on your opposition to anyone who believes in God. (If not, then why the need to "battle" something that so self-evidently doesn't exist?)
Odds are you are one of those people who had religion shoved down your throat in their formative years and who compensate by attacking religion for the rest of their adult lives.
Are you afraid of what Fahrenheit 9/11 shows?
Not at all. I simply have no interest in pathetic agitprop.
Over time, who are the biggest campaign contributors, and, to which party do they donate? LABF, can you answer those two questions?
Find some facts to support your contentions, for a change.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-13-2005, 05:59 PM
Not at all. I simply have no interest in pathetic agitprop.
There you go judging/labeling a film you haven't seen again.
Don't you see the intellectual dishonesty in this?
There you go judging/labeling a film you haven't seen again.
I've seen Moore's other work, and unless he's radically changed his methods, F9/11 is more of the same tripe. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Don't you see the intellectual dishonesty in this?
You're in absolutely no position to lecture anyone on integrity or honesty, liar.
Over time, who are the biggest campaign contributors, and, to which party do they donate? LABF, can you answer those two questions?
Find some facts to support your contentions, for a change.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-14-2005, 12:21 AM
I've seen Moore's other work, and unless he's radically changed his methods, F9/11 is more of the same tripe.
And "unless" you've seen F 9/11 you'll never know (and we'll continue to hear you make this sort of conditional statement.)
You're in absolutely no position to lecture anyone on integrity or honesty, liar.
Look who's back to name-calling. I guess this means W*GS is on the ropes and getting flustered again.
Over time, who are the biggest campaign contributors, and, to which party do they donate? LABF, can you answer those two questions?
See W*GS deflect wildly.
What does this have to do with Moore?
At any rate, I was the one who produced documents which compared contributions to Gore with those to Dim Son a long, long time ago.
Did you forget?
Hint: Smirk got 2-3 times as much $$$ from every major donor than Gore (what a surprise.)
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-14-2005, 12:25 AM
I've seen Moore's other work...
Yep - all we have to do is look at your avatar to understand your visceral hatred of Moore (based on his "other work.")
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-14-2005, 01:05 AM
http://www.bartcop.com/tort-message.jpg
And "unless" you've seen F 9/11 you'll never know (and we'll continue to hear you make this sort of conditional statement.)
You mean to tell me that F9/11 is full of uncontestable facts and is indeed a genuine documentary? Even Moore's most ardent supporters (except you) won't agree with that.
Look who's back to name-calling. I guess this means W*GS is on the ropes and getting flustered again.
It's not name-calling if it's accurate.
It's a lie when you use quote marks and yet the material inside is not an actual quote. You've done that with news articles you've posted (as orangeatheist and myself have noted) as well as (on the old DPO) something you made up that appeared to have been made by me. The term "liar" accurately describes what you are, on a regular basis.
See W*GS deflect wildly.
You didn't answer the first time (as usual) so I asked again.
At any rate, I was the one who produced documents which compared contributions to Gore with those to Dim Son a long, long time ago.
Integrate over time. Go to opensecrets and see which of the two parties is truly beholden to "special interests". Besides, let's get current - in the 2004 election:
"Mr Bush's $40m advantage over Mr Kerry in fund-raising was more than offset by the spending power of shadow groups. Democratic-leaning “527s” spent $292m compared with $113m for their Republican rivals, and trade unions spent $192m compared with a mere $17m by business groups."
Care to offer different facts, liar?
Yep - all we have to do is look at your avatar to understand your visceral hatred of Moore (based on his "other work.")
Care to debate the merits of gun control yet?
After all, as a "Clinton democrat", certainly you see value in it.
MistrSynistr
01-14-2005, 10:57 AM
I've seen Moore's other work, and unless he's radically changed his methods, F9/11 is more of the same tripe. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Wow, atleast you got this right. Not even your dope of a president you constantly stick up for could spill this one out properly. Congrats! :woowoo: