anabolicrhino
Well-known member
Invalid Link Removed
Obama Kicks It Up A Notch !!!
- Thread starter anabolicrhino
- Start date
Tiberius
Member
Yeah that's gonna hose him. Most of America is made of people who would rather we launch first, ask questions later.
joecski
Board Supporter
It really is an issue that is pretty divisive in America, especially the Cuba part. People, particularly here in Florida, HATE Castro. I remember a few months ago when Castro was rumored to have been close to death, Miami was planning huge celebrations.
Obama is being naive, although I don't disagree totally with his wanting to change foreign policy, the other candidates will eat him alive for this stance. I think he is at the end of his rope right now and is clutching at anything to reenergize his campaign.
BTW, Bush refused to directly negotiate with North Korea, and the results were favorable. He refused to negotiate with Iran, and we're heading down the same path with them. I don't see how this facet of his foreign policy has been unsuccessful.
Tiberius
Member
Wait. When you say pro-tort-reform you mean put a cpa on the amount lawyers can sue for and stuff right? How is that bad? I mean, people sue for some really stupid stuff all the time and get ridiculous settlements.
joecski
Board Supporter
The tort reform I've seen consists of several programs, limiting dollars awarded and limiting what you can sue for. What it really strives for is suing for ACTUAL damages ONLY. So, that means that people hurt in car accidents can only sue for actual damages, not pain and suffering. So, if someone runs a red light and takes me out, puts me in the hospital, and out of work, I can sue them to recover actual losses and nothing more. It doesn't matter that I had my quality of life permanently changed by their negligence.
The same would apply to medical malpractice, and even companies selling tainted products. You could sue for actual damages only. So, if you had your testicles removed instead of your tonsils, guess what, you could only recover the actual loss, meaning you would be reimbursed for the operation and given a tonsilectomy for free. Under tort-refrom I've seen, you could not sue for future pain and suffering, or any pain and suffering caused. So, your would live life with no balls and the doctors/hospital execs would probably make jokes at your expense while golfing.Tort-reform is another way of catering to insurance companies and big businesses while limiting the rights of the people.
CryingEmo
Well-known member
Indeed. Well said!
Tiberius
Member
I think it's pretty easy to show that if you had your testicles removed, there was ACTUAL damage of:
no longer being fertile
lack of testosterone requiring lifetime HRT
depression
the list goes on
Those aren't "pain and suffering" those are "actual damages." So I'm relaly not seeing thsi the way you are. Really all this means is you can't say "my feelings were hurt" or "I was psychologically traumatized and can no longer use spoons to eat soup" and get paid millions of dollars. You can't get money because "you felt a lot of pain." You can only get money to try to put your life back to the way it was. So for the above example, you'd get all your therapy sessions paid for, HRT paid for in full, etc. cost of adoption paid for, etc.
In other words, lawsuit awards are no longer lottery jackpots, they are only equalizers.
For example, let's say I was a professional sprinter. I could very easily show actual damages equalling the lifetime amount of money I could reasonably obtain as a professional runner. This was my career and it is no longer my career as a DIRECT result of the accident. These are actual damages. What I can't do is say "I was so depressed cus I couldn't run and wanted to kill myself and only $100,000,000 will make me feel better!"
CryingEmo
Well-known member
It's puntative and economic damages. Bush wants to limit the puntatitive damages to 250k. IMO you can't put a price on health. It's highly ironic when you consider the fact they want to limit what you're worth while a the same time the FCC is charing radio DJ's 500k for saying a "bad word."
It's easy to avoid the issue entirely if doctors work on the quality issue.
Oh and I believe corporations are much more likely to sue than an individual.
Tort reform is another phony crisis. Oh, quick, change the system, somethings wrong. Just like there was something wrong with Iraq... they had alot of oil and oil corporations needed 40 billion dollar profits. But I digress.
It's easy to avoid the issue entirely if doctors work on the quality issue.
Oh and I believe corporations are much more likely to sue than an individual.
Tort reform is another phony crisis. Oh, quick, change the system, somethings wrong. Just like there was something wrong with Iraq... they had alot of oil and oil corporations needed 40 billion dollar profits. But I digress.
Tiberius
Member
Maybe tort reform would put a stop to the RIAA. They've had a bad habit of sueing dead women, and old retired veterans who don't even own a computer. Those greasy ****s specifically target people who they don't think can afford a lawyer to defend themselves. Lawyers are provided in criminal cases but not civil. So if the RIAA sues you for 3 grand and it will cost 10 grand in legal fees to fight it, you're better off paying the 3 grand even if you are 100% innocent. Extortion, plain and simple.
Tort reform limited the ability for them to bring a lawsuit to court in the first place would be awesome.
anabolicrhino
Well-known member
While I think that plan is a good idea, I don't know how well that would go over as limiting recovery will limit how much money lawyers and law firms can earn. Most legislatures have one common thread running through their memberships , which is they are all lawyers !
joecski
Board Supporter
I agree that people such as the one who sued McDonald's for spilling her hot coffee on herself are abusing the system - but it's not the systems fault, it is the fault of the jury who granted her the award!
My mother in law was in a car accident, she was not driving, and she has pretty constant pain in her back for the past five years. Everyday she wakes up sore and stiff, some days it's bearable and some not, and there is nothing they can do for her except prescribe medication for pain, which she doesn't want to take. She had therapy,went to a chiropractor, the whole deal. She sued for pain and suffering and got a settlement, not a large settlement, and one she would gladly trade back to be pain free. Under the suggested tort-reform I've seen, she would NOT be able to sue for pain and suffering. Is that fair?
Some lawsuits, such as the one recently filed against a dry cleaner for over $50 million, are frivolous. In that case, it was heard and the dry cleaner was found to be not negligent, and the guy who sued the dry cleaner was responsible all legal bills incurred by the dry cleaner. That is the way it should be...
zbtboy
Anabolic Innovations Rep
The issue here isnt whether the US should directly talk with other countries, its whether and/or when the President of the USA gets personally involved in those discussions. If Obama goes down to Cuba in a way he is legitimizing Castro's regime and it gives Castro a bit of steam. Sending him a low level state department rep doesnt give him that. Its all about how you play game of International Diplomacy with other heads of state.
Another example of this game is how Bush will invite those he actually likes or considered close and important allies to the Crawford Ranch or their ranch in Maine. If he doesnt think or feel the same way about other leaders he meets them at the white house. Every president in our history has played this game as well as every other leader around the world.
I really like Obama but i dont think he's quite ready yet. Thankfully he'll have 8 years as VP under Hillary to get that experience.
joecski
Board Supporter
I really like Obama but i dont think he's quite ready yet. Thankfully he'll have 8 years as VP under Hillary to get that experience.
Dude, the "8 years under Hillary" gave me an awful mental picture...I think I may be scarred for life....even Bill doesn't deserve this punishment. :lol:
Tiberius
Member
The issue here isnt whether the US should directly talk with other countries, its whether and/or when the President of the USA gets personally involved in those discussions. If Obama goes down to Cuba in a way he is legitimizing Castro's regime and it gives Castro a bit of steam. Sending him a low level state department rep doesnt give him that. Its all about how you play game of International Diplomacy with other heads of state.
Another example of this game is how Bush will invite those he actually likes or considered close and important allies to the Crawford Ranch or their ranch in Maine. If he doesnt think or feel the same way about other leaders he meets them at the white house. Every president in our history has played this game as well as every other leader around the world.
I really like Obama but i dont think he's quite ready yet. Thankfully he'll have 8 years as VP under Hillary to get that experience.
There's no way Hilary would ever pick Obama as a running mate. The Clintons have a Clinton insider in mind for a running mate, and that is NOT Obama.
joecski
Board Supporter
I agree, Barack and Hillary don't play nice together at all.
Tiberius
Member
Actually, if anything, Hillary is more than likely to find a fairly popular moderate REPUBLICAN as a runningmate (mixed ticket has happened a number of times in the past).
Having a mixed ticket is kind of necessary for Hillary to get Republican votes since she is so hated by them.
Having a mixed ticket is kind of necessary for Hillary to get Republican votes since she is so hated by them.
joecski
Board Supporter
It helps that he's from NM and the southwest is being touted as the decider in this election...plus he's a governor, and gov's are way more successful than senators when it comes to elections. He also has the hispanic angle, since he is hispanic, although many people don't realize this. I like Richardson as the candidate for Pres, I just don't see it happening. So, VP is next best...
Tiberius
Member
Richardson has almost no support in the hispanic/latino community according to the polls.
joecski
Board Supporter
His campaign is working hard against this, and I think if he got the nod for VP, it would become a bigger issue for him.
Tiberius
Member
Catch 22 for him. He won't get the support unless he gets the nod. He won't get the nod unless he already HAS the support because otherwise there'd be no benefit to giving him the nod.
Folks need to remember, it is EXTREMELY rare for the Presidential nominee to pick as a running mate someone who was a rival in the primary. 2004 was a bizarre incident that only occurred because of Edwards' amazing popularity. Kerry figured Edwards would have gotten extra votes. The problem was, it was the same people who would have voted for him anyway. If he had been smart he would have tried to get Clark instead. No one could have claimed Kerry would be soft on the war with a General as his runningmate.