Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: redmenace on October 27, 2006, 07:57:54 pm
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15446658/
It is stuff like this that makes me hesitant to vote Democrat. Not that Republicans bothered with Tort Reform over these years.
-
It's that thing we really need and are never going to get. Since a law degree is somehow mandatory to being a politician...
-
But honestly though, it is something that should happen at the state level not at the federal level. The Federal Gov't shouldn't interfere with how the states conduct and treat lawsuits unless they violate fundamental rights such as equal protection.
-
I think the whole liability system for things such as this is ludicrous. If some dumb ass tries to jump off the roof of my house, then sues me for it, it should be his fault for trying to jump off the damn roof. I shouldn't have to put up "Do not jump off my roof" signs.
-
It is stuff like this that makes me hesitant to vote Democrat.
*Looks at article*
I don't see any political party being mentioned as supporting or being against this. Say what you will, but the state of the legal system you can't blame on the Dems despite how much the Republicans tout the "personal responsibility" card. (of course then we have cheery examples of that in the form of Enron, Foley, etc.)
-
I am pretty sure that the democrats would not be in any hurry to change liability systems. Especially since, iirc trial lawyers, support the democratic party.
-
Well, is it the trial lawyers fault that the judges keep handing out these fat rewards? They are just trying to leech off of a cash cow.
-
I am pretty sure that the democrats would not be in any hurry to change liability systems. Especially since, iirc trial lawyers, support the democratic party.
Are you making up a hypothetical and then using it to oppose Dems?
Please.
-
I am deducing such from past actions and current platform. They would never want to do something that goes against their "premice" and would hurt a source of income. Those being trial lawyer.
-
I am deducing such from past actions and current platform. They would never want to do something that goes against their "premice" and would hurt a source of income. Those being trial lawyer.
Prove this and show us your reasoning.
-
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_16_53/ai_76915714 Shows the money
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1006-22.htm Demonstrates how the Core of the Democratic Party feels about Tort Reform.
These are two very biased sources. In opposite directions of course.
-
politicizing this lawsuit in this fashion is assinine and immature.
-
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_16_53/ai_76915714 Shows the money
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1006-22.htm Demonstrates how the Core of the Democratic Party feels about Tort Reform.
These are two very biased sources. In opposite directions of course.
oh puhleeze - those were about the democrats view of a certain method of tort reform*.. this thread is ****ing assinine - find me a democrat who doesn't think the award in the above article was ****ing assinine.
* which intentionally went to far and toward shielding the corporations from lawsuits - it would shield them from legitimate ones! [and the article at CD - a group i rarely agree with - demonstrates why the bush-tort reform was absolutely wrong]
-
Third parties FTW.
-
I liker tort cosit's cake/pn the other hand - STEAK!
-
Third parties FTW.
yes because third parties are totally going to solve ths problem
hint: they're not
-
If you're going to have a debate, shouldn't you be using a bit more elucidation than 'FTW' and 'they're not'?
Y'know, because I like the whole intellectual stimuli of reasoned and evidenced argument :)
-
this thread it quite clearly not a debate - it started out with a huge non sequitur
-
It's not a debate if it gets turned into Punch and Judy, no.
Nonetheless I'd like to see some more meat on the bones to sate my curiousity.
-
well i did challenge redmenace to find me a democrat who didn't find the above settlement bollocks
-
I didn't say that other people would approve of this, other than the Trial Lawyer scum that represent these people, but I did say that I do not think that democrats would be willing to tackle the issue as it might not be totally in their best interests. The republicans version of tort reform is unacceptable, period. And even so, they do not even mention the issue outside of the campaigns.
This whole thread though underlies the feelings of disgust with both "mainstream" parties. When or if democrats gain control it will be 12 years of getting nothing accomplished, like the republicans, and then the congress will change hands.
-
you express disgust for both mainstream parties, and yet to single out the democrats based on a non-sequitur and bare assertions
color me skeptical
-
I said that the republicans hadn't even gotten it accomplished. And I doubt democrats will work to get things changed. I have plenty other reasons not to trust republicans as well.
-
but that does't make you hesitant to vote for them
-
republicans? It does, but there are a whole host of other issues that I have with them as well. Virginia Senate being an example. Or the leaderships handling of the Foley scandle.
-
then why did you single out democrats, there isn't even a third party who would do anything *positive* on the subject
-
I also clearly singled out republicans as having being enept on the subject and democracts being unwilling to touch it either at least IMO.
-
yet you have no rational basis to assert that the democrats wouldn't touch the subject
-
Outside of the fact that I don't seeing them doing something that would necessarily hurt them.
-
which requires you to be able to rationally justify the following assertion:
1) Limiting frivolous lawsuits would harm the democratic party
which you CANNOT do
-
Limiting how much can be collected on lawsuits would. Such as limiting insano punitive damages
However, in the end of the day, it isn't a matter of justifying. It is a matter or trust and faith. None of which I have in the Democrats nor the republicans.
-
you have no rational basis upon which to make that assertion either.
stop shifting the subject and just admit that you have no rational basis for that and your singling them out is absolutely assinine
-
Past performance going all the way up the loss of congress is the rational basis. A 70% top tax rate. A failed rescue attempt of the hostages in Iran. Insane welfare state created by LBJ. Vietnam. Limiting how close protesters can be to abortion clinics. Bay of Pigs. These are more than rational basis not to trust democrats. War in Iraq, the Folley nonsense, allowing lobbiests to write legislation etc are reason not to trust Republicans.
-
Past performance going all the way up the loss of congress is the rational basis.
oh yeh.. since they lost congress once.. they must be absolutey teh suck
A 70% top tax rate.
that will never be reinstated, that tax hasn't existed since the early 1980s
A failed rescue attempt of the hostages in Iran.
yeah.. because the special forces messing up a rescue is the politicians fault
Insane welfare state created by LBJ.
*i hear the sound of massive whining* "omg, we couldn't possibly help the poor for short periods!!"
How long is the average welfare recipient on welfare?
less than 6 months - the VAST majority are on it less than 6 months, and only once in their life
Vietnam.
yeah... because the democrats are ever going to support that kind of a war ever again
Limiting how close protesters can be to abortion clinics.
yeah, because the protestors were interfering with the rights of women via intimidation, they were also killing doctors and bombing clinics
Bay of Pigs.
a mistake... wow because like.. the republicans never make mistakes.. and those nutjobs the Libertarians are any better than the republicans
These are more than rational basis not to trust democrats.
if these are the best you got... then you have no claim to rational objection
War in Iraq, the Folley nonsense, allowing lobbiests to write legislation etc are reason not to trust Republicans.
now those are actual objections that are current - let's add
corporate welfare
theocratic dreams
violation of minority rights
homophobia and other bigotry
....
-
Limiting how close protesters can be to abortion clinics.
So stopping terrorists from vandalizing and bombing them is a bad thing? I could go on about your other points, but Kazan beat me to it.
-
Protesters=Terrorists!
Yes. That makes perfect sense. I see no logical contradiction at all.
-
Protesters=Terrorists!
Yes. That makes perfect sense. I see no logical contradiction at all.
Terrorists have been known to protest in the past. It's a good way to get into the target.
That is, of course, ignoring the protestors who taunt, threaten and verbally abuse both patients and staff going into abortion clinics, which is in itself terrorising those people (lest we forget what 'terrorist' means).
-
Two things, where does freespeach and the right to assembly and protest end? And where does terrorizing begin. Is talking to individuals who might be going into a clinic wrong?
Second issue is that not all protesters commit civil disobedience. Only a small percentage of those would ever commit murder, bomb a clinic, place raw meat into the ceilings etc. And if people were being 'terrorized' then have local law enforcement present to prevent any interference that could be considered harrassment. However, it does infringe on the rights of those wanting to protest. For example, would we ban unions from striing outside a place of work on the off chance that they would hire scabs and that these scabs might be harrased by strickers? Or that strickers might damage property there in. Or how about we ban enviromental protesters from demonstrating in front of GM and other car manufacturers because the off chance that there might be a member of the Earth Liberation Front, or NAMBLA, waiting to carry out terrorists acts. Telling people that they cannot demonstrate and protest in certain places diminishes and handicaps their message. Thus impacting their message. But I guess it is ok to do so as long as you disagree with them? Also, it is worth pointing out that, IIRC, that this legislation was protested and opposed by the ACLU for this very reason.
Ultimatly, I don't think this had anything to peoples safty. It had more to do with the abortion lobby, NOW and pandering.
-
Two things, where does freespeach and the right to assembly and protest end? And where does terrorizing begin. Is talking to individuals who might be going into a clinic wrong?
Second issue is that not all protesters commit civil disobedience. Only a small percentage of those would ever commit murder, bomb a clinic, place raw meat into the ceilings etc. And if people were being 'terrorized' then have local law enforcement present to prevent any interference that could be considered harrassment. However, it does infringe on the rights of those wanting to protest. For example, would we ban unions from striing outside a place of work on the off chance that they would hire scabs and that these scabs might be harrased by strickers? Or that strickers might damage property there in. Or how about we ban enviromental protesters from demonstrating in front of GM and other car manufacturers because the off chance that there might be a member of the Earth Liberation Front, or NAMBLA, waiting to carry out terrorists acts. Telling people that they cannot demonstrate and protest in certain places diminishes and handicaps their message. Thus impacting their message. But I guess it is ok to do so as long as you disagree with them? Also, it is worth pointing out that, IIRC, that this legislation was protested and opposed by the ACLU for this very reason.
Ultimatly, I don't think this had anything to peoples safty. It had more to do with the abortion lobby, NOW and pandering.
So it's ok for protestors to block doors?
There is, I acknowledge, a thin line between protection and censorship. But there is also a thin line between 'talking to' and intimidating or threatening. Even a softly spoken threat is still a threat. At the time this law was enacted, I believe there were huge protests outside abortion clinics, including 'rushing' of patients and staff as well as criminal damage; co-ordinated to try and close down medical facilities providing a vital medical service. That's the most severe instances, of course - but isn't pressing leaflets onto people, calling the murderers, or shouting through glass door entrances harassment? Not to mention physical confrontations when police are absent.
You might compare striking staff outside a GM plant - but what if protestors were blocking a police station, a fire station, or a hospital entrance?
Fine, though. Let them protest. Just give every person going in and out of that clinic a police escort and protection from harassment, and let those police establish a protective zone that allows free access without the harassment that forced this law in the first place.
And why do the protests need to be right outside the clinic, anyways, if not for the purposes of intimidation? Why not have rallies on a park the same way most other religious or political protests do?
EDIT; terrorism is simply attempting to coerce through threats. Inspiring fear and terror through intimidation. Hence terrorism.
-
Civil Disobedience is still disobedience.
A hospital and a women's clinic are hardly the same thing. An abortion is hardly a necessary medical service either. It is also worth stating, that these clinics give medical facilities a bad name. Unsually the way that abortion clinics get closed down is for FLAGRANT violations of medical regulations and in some more or less rare cases bonafied murder and neglect.
Protesting outside a clinic has the purpose of getting the message to the targeted audience. There is a line between intimidation and persuation. Challenging what someone is about to do isn't wrong. Being abusive, pushy and threatening is. Just like protesting outside a GM plant or protesting outside a car dealership, why do groups need to protest outside these locations? Why can't they strike or protest in the middle of the park some where? We wouldn't want them to 'intimidate' scabs or someone want to by an Hummer? If you do it for one group based on fears of 'intimidation' than you should equally be applied to all. To some extent, this at its core might even violate equal protection as it seeks to and directly names a specific industry instead off applying to all IIRC. I could be wrong. I don't know the specifics of the law.
-
Civil Disobedience is still disobedience.
A hospital and a women's clinic are hardly the same thing. An abortion is hardly a necessary medical service either. It is also worth stating, that these clinics give medical facilities a bad name. Unsually the way that abortion clinics get closed down is for FLAGRANT violations of medical regulations and in some more or less rare cases bonafied murder and neglect.
An abortion is a necessary medical service for many women, otherwise abortion as an issue would not exist. In any case, it is undoubtedly a medical service whether you agree on necessity or not, and thus one which is being obstructed.
The standard of various abortion clinics has absolutely no relevance I can see to this topic; protestors do not perform the act of medical inspection and regulation, regardless of whether 1, 10 or 100 feet away and I'm not sure why you bring this up.
If you wish to make a case for closing down abortion clinics/banning abortion based on medical standards, then by all means do so, but don't try and slap it onto the bum of the civil liberties/right to protest debate here.
Protesting outside a clinic has the purpose of getting the message to the targeted audience. There is a line between intimidation and persuation. Challenging what someone is about to do isn't wrong. Being abusive, pushy and threatening is. Just like protesting outside a GM plant or protesting outside a car dealership, why do groups need to protest outside these locations? Why can't they strike or protest in the middle of the park some where? We wouldn't want them to 'intimidate' scabs or someone want to by an Hummer? If you do it for one group based on fears of 'intimidation' than you should equally be applied to all. To some extent, this at its core might even violate equal protection as it seeks to and directly names a specific industry instead off applying to all IIRC. I could be wrong. I don't know the specifics of the law.
This is the Freedom of Access to Clinics Entrances Act law; http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/facestat.htm. It also protects places of worship as well as reproductive health centres. My understanding is that individual states also opted to add distance clauses (you'll note the absence of any here).
-
i had a nice point-by-point refutation of your nonsense going redmenace... and then my browser beserked because i bumped the wrong key and i lost it
freepseach and right to assembly end at the following places: when you cross the line into verbal assault and harassment (which 95%+ of abortion clinic protestors do), private property
verbal assault and harassment are not civil disobedience, civil disobedience is resistance to the government - not to other people getting medical treatment they desire.
the fact that a only a small percentage are physically violent is irrelevant (most still engage in physical intimidation) - almost the entire rest engage in verbal assault and harassment - they cross the line of the limits of free speech.
We have banned union blockaiding in the past, and have infact escorted scabs into places of business with national guard troups.
what the **** does NAMBLA have to do with environmentalists? you're starting to become irrational
environmental protestors don't have a history of crossing the line and becoming verball abusive, harassing, physically intimidating.
Telling people that they cannot demonstrate and protest in a place because they've engaged in verbal abusive, harassment and physical intimidation is MANDATED by the requirement to protect the rights of individuals.
But i guess it is ok to do so as long as you disagree with them?
stop trolling
Yes, the ACLU even fights for people they find distasteful - the fact that the ACLU fought something isn't a sure-fire sign it's unconstitutional - only that they thought it may have been. Apparently they were ruled against.
Ultimatly, I don't think this had anything to peoples safty. It had more to do with the abortion lobby, NOW and pandering.
you're completely incorrect - we have a court that has consisted of 7 conservatives and 2 liberals for longer than this law has existed, the conservative justices found in favor of the law being constitutional.
protestors DON'T have the right to verbally assault patients.
------------------
And why do the protests need to be right outside the clinic, anyways, if not for the purposes of intimidation?
EDIT; terrorism is simply attempting to coerce through threats. Inspiring fear and terror through intimidation. Hence terrorism.
BINGO!
--------------------
Civil Disobedience is still disobedience.
civil disobedience is against the government, not other people.
[quite]A hospital and a women's clinic are hardly the same thing.[/quite]
irrelevant, and many abortion clinics are inside hospitals
An abortion is hardly a necessary medical service either.
right... so just because people who are reproductive fascists and think they get to control the bodies of other's assert that something isn't necessary, it's not neccessary now?
yeah.. it's not like being pregnant ever threatens the life of women... oh wait.. it does
It is also worth stating, that these clinics give medical facilities a bad name.
only to people who cannot deal with other people having the right to medical choice.
Libertarian my ass.
Unsually the way that abortion clinics get closed down is for FLAGRANT violations of medical regulations and in some more or less rare cases bonafied murder and neglect.
never heard of a single incident of this happening. Stop pulling **** out of your ass
Protesting outside a clinic has the purpose of getting the message to the targeted audience.
no, it has the purpose of intimidation, verbal assault, and harassment
There is a line between intimidation and persuation.
yes there is, and abortion clinic protestors not only cross it- they go flying by it at mach 4
Challenging what someone is about to do isn't wrong. Being abusive, pushy and threatening is.
challenging what another private citizen is about to have done medically isn ot your business, and being abusive, pushy and threatening is exactly what all the protestors are doing.
Just like protesting outside a GM plant or protesting outside a car dealership, why do groups need to protest outside these locations?
stop acting like abortion clinic protestors behave anyway like these protestors - these protestors aren't 1/10th as abusive.
*redmenace continues on with his false analogy*
To some extent, this at its core might even violate equal protection as it seeks to and directly names a specific industry instead off applying to all IIRC. I could be wrong. I don't know the specifics of the law.
you are wrong, and clearly don't know the details of the entire situation.
------------
Aldo > redmenace
-
In regaurds to the state of clinics, you made references to groups closing down clinics using intimidation etc. I also do take issue with considering them repubable medical facilities.
-
http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/nation/15236078.htm
Clinic Shutdown
http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/114803062048470.xml&coll=2
Again.
Hence they give medical facilities a bad name.
Also, I admit I don't know enough about it. You should do the same.
Aldo > redmenace
Leave it up to you to start to become belittling and mean, CONVERSATION OVER, PERIOD.
-
In regaurds to the state of clinics, you made references to groups closing down clinics using intimidation etc. I also do take issue with considering them repubable medical facilities.
Somehow I doubt protesters only target medically deficient clinics.
What on earth does whether you consider them reputable have to do with anything. They are medical facilities - full stop. If you think they need tighter regulation, then fine. But I fail to see the connection between your perception of the medical quality of (all?) clinics and the issue of protest distance. In essence the closest - tenuous at best - connection I can see is a thread of blaming/criticising the 'victim'.
And in any case, why does linking to two news stories count? I bet you could find countless stories for hospitals, GP surgeries, etc of the same ilk. There was a case in Scotland of a girl being given a lethal radiation overdose at the Beatson Cancer Clinic - does that make all cancer clinics disreputable? Does the Alder Hey scandal make all hospitals disreputable? Bring me statistics showing a large amount of negligence in abortion clinics, then we can talk.... but only about tighter regulation by the appropriate medical authorities.
-
Terrorists have been known to protest in the past. It's a good way to get into the target.
That is, of course, ignoring the protestors who taunt, threaten and verbally abuse both patients and staff going into abortion clinics, which is in itself terrorising those people (lest we forget what 'terrorist' means).
Perhaps, but we're not supposed to operate on a guilty until proven innocent basis.
I suppose I was objecting to Kosh's statement being non sequitor at its finest, really. Terrorism does not necessarily follow from protesting. In fact, had I been in a particularly cruel mood, I would have accused him of using terrorism as a hot button like he complains Bush does.
-
Terrorists have been known to protest in the past. It's a good way to get into the target.
That is, of course, ignoring the protestors who taunt, threaten and verbally abuse both patients and staff going into abortion clinics, which is in itself terrorising those people (lest we forget what 'terrorist' means).
Perhaps, but we're not supposed to operate on a guilty until proven innocent basis.
I suppose I was objecting to Kosh's statement being non sequitor at its finest, really. Terrorism does not necessarily follow from protesting. In fact, had I been in a particularly cruel mood, I would have accused him of using terrorism as a hot button like he complains Bush does.
Aren't security cordons around, say, government buildings and politicians equally decryable as 'guilty until proven innocent', then?
What is the need to have protestors right up at the door of the clinic? I'm not talking about herding them into 'protest zones' or such, of course, but what's wrong with having them just far enough to allow people to pass peacefully through to the clinic without harassment? I see these clinics, being medical premises and often providing services to vulnerable and traumatised young women, as being worthy of special protection. It's surely not that much different to moving funeral protestors (http://abcnews.go.com/US/Politics/story?id=1728788&page=1) away, is it?
-
funeral protestors (http://abcnews.go.com/US/Politics/story?id=1728788&page=1)
But that's not fair! Just because a few funeral protesters are insultingly despicable doesn't mean we should hinder everyone's right to protest at funerals! Imagine how unfair it would be if they started telling strikers where they could protest outside a GMC Plant? It's the same thing, honest![/redmenace]
:rolleyes:
-
Leave it up to you to start to become belittling and mean, CONVERSATION OVER, PERIOD.
you're one to talk
I also do take issue with considering them repubable medical facilities.
You are not a doctor, or a medical examiner
[edit]
hey aldo.. take me off ignore so i can send you a pm pls
-
I also do take issue with considering them repubable medical facilities.
You are not a doctor, or a medical examiner
Definitely. :nervous: