Old Tort laws made more sense.

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Dinosaur, Apr 23, 2017.

  1. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,302
    Interestingly, this is all I know of The Washington Examiner:

    "When it came to the editorial page, Anschutz's instructions were explicit—he 'wanted nothing but conservative columns and conservative op-ed writers,' said one former employee." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Examiner#Editorial_stance
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    As a more recent example, some female on the left accused Sean Hannity, who is a top right wing talk show host, of sexual harassment. Most the left wing rags, including the NY times, ran with the story, without even checking the validity of the source. Luckily for Hannity, he has lawyers for protection against the leftist fascist scam artists and all the rags that support them. The rags are now trying to mend fences to avoid legal action. In a few days a list will come so everyone can get an idea of just how widespread the fake news and coordinated lying was, under the guise of journalism and politics.

    Since you are from the left, I assume you take these same people at face value. Why would they lie or not do their job? If Hannity has not fought back with lawyers, you would have assumed the worse, and help to persecute an innocent man based on liberal deception. You may be honest but your information source is not.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,302
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Here is an interesting statistic. This was published in the Washington Times, which tends to lean left. The same data can be found in right leaning news centers since it is public record.

    When 96% of media donations goes to one candidate and that candidate loses, the media may not be good sports about losing, This lose impacted their credibility and therefore the livelihood of their industry. Their credibility is an all time low. The media assumes it has power over public opinion. They feel can make and break stars, and if they all chant the same chant, the majority of people will go along and recite the same.

    Trump burst their bubble. The bubble heads, instead of learning something, have decided to double down with negativity in an attempt to manipulate public opinion and get even with Trump. Their news is not reliable but is based on revenge.

    As proof of this, news story counting, has shown that in the first 100 days, 86% of the Trump news reported is negative. There is no benefit of the doubt being given during the 100 day presidential grace period. President Obama got 86% positive and even a Nobel prize for doing nothing. It is all about media manipulating public opinion.

    Trump owns casinos and when gamblers lose, they are given comps, which are freebies to help offset some of their loss. Trump may be comping the sore losers, since he still wants them to come back and gamble. Trump gives them comps through Twitter. These comps allow the sore losers to vent, until they can release their repressed anger, for being so naive. They are all playing high stacks poker, betting it all; 86%, on their ability to brain wash the majority. They may win or go bust, but Trump is encouraging them to make that wager, since the house tends to win in the long term.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2017
  8. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,302
    Why don't you post this stuff in another thread.
     
  9. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    This would be a good tread starter, but it would get side tracked and detoured, like happened to this topic.

    Let me get back on topic, which is tort reform. I previously presented data that showed that the biggest donor class in top level politics are lawyers, with the lions share of lawyer donations going the Democrats. It is the Democrats who refuse to allow tort reform because they are paid to do so. They will scam a good con to make it appear like they care. But they would not do it without the money.

    My last post showed how 96% of media donations went to Hillary. The Democrats also protect the media. They will not say anything about fake news or lying, as long as it helps with the quip pro quo.

    The liberal masses assume journalism and protecting the little guy against evil doctors are righteous. But most appear unaware of the conflict of interest, behind the scenes, where money is exchanged ,to make cases, which benefit the donors.

    Lawyers and Media have even become weaponized. The leftist masses don't understand they are being played, and not paid, to be henchmen. It is business relationship, at the top, that involves slave labor to make it work. You should unionize and get paid.
     
  10. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,056
    Sean Hannity tried to sexually harass Trump? Because I thought those two were an item, since Hannity has the whole fawning and mooning things one does when one begins a relationship with a dominant figure...

    In all seriousness though, the behaviour of Hannity, as described by the victim, is sexual harassment by any definition. Inviting someone to one's hotel room, and then informing them that failure to attend one's hotel room will result in her employment, if you will, being terminated, in this case, she would no longer be invited on his show, is sexual harassment.

    No, they aren't. They reporting this story as she described the incident with Hannity. From what I hear, it is Hannity who now faces the possibility of defamation lawsuit from the victim, after he said some pretty awful things about her in response to her claims about his sexual harassment... His victim, by the way, is a right wing nutbag, just like he is..

    You mean the same type of lawyers who donated to the Democrats?

    You know, if you are going to whine about lawyers and the evil left, it would help if you did not then start praising said lawyers, who were "used" by your rightie idols..
     
  11. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,122
    True. Then we just turn FOX News off and go about our day...
     
    Bells likes this.
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,092
    That's a startling and bizarre claim, and possibly not trivial as a sign: The Washington Times is among the most flagrant rightwing propaganda outlets masquerading as news in the country. It no more "leans left" than Fox television or Clear Channel radio.

    And I know that this poster doesn't come with this stuff on his own - so what's the deal there?
     
  13. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    I stand corrected, I meant the Washington Post. I was thinking of the NY times.

    This topic is about tort reform. The fact that lawyers donate so much money to politics; at the top, but mostly to Democrats, allows us to investigate if there is a correlation between donor money and political activism. This is how the swamp works. Obama Care did not address tort reform, because that would have kill the golden goose. It could have saved money, and maybe even made Obama Care feasible, but there would have been conflict of interests for the leaders who like donations.

    The Republicans are more likely to address this. However, it is not clear whether this based on intellectual honesty, or whether this position is there to leverage future donations, so the lawyers have to pony up to Republicans, to create a change of heart. The wild card is Trump, who does not need the money and is less beholden to the donor class. He is a businessman and looks for cost savings. Trump may push for tort reform, while donor cost will need to increase, to help push back, since the Democrats are not all that useful out of power.

    The main problem I have with lawyers, is they get to police themselves, while doctors are policed by lawyers via malpractice cases. Malpractice is not usually criminal, but is mostly civil. Lawyers are not perfect, either, so why are there not a similar amount of lawyer malpractice law suits? Why don't lawyers need to have malpractice insurance? It is because lawyers already have tort reform in their own profession. It saves everyone money.

    Say a skilled lawyer is able to get someone off for crime A. Another lawyer, who is not as good, has a similar case , but he is unable to pull it off, so his client goes to jail. The question is, how does this differ from two doctors, performing a similar complicated operation, with one doctor being successful and other not quite so, leading to complications for their client? Both lawyers and both doctors tried their best, at a difficult task, but two different skill levels led to different outcomes.

    Lawyers will not sue each other in this case, due to lawyer on lawyer tort reform. I believe in fairness and if we leave malpractice for doctors on the table, we also need to do it for lawyers so they can understand how this can get unfair. Picture how easy it would be to shake down accused lawyers, in front of jurors, especially if large law firms are known to have deep pockets. The sharks will eat the barracuda. I would watch that on TV.
     
  14. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,122
    You were right the first time - which is why you should give links and stop making things up to suit your narrative:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/17/journalists-overwhelmingly-donate-clinton-trump/

    It's from an analysis by the Center for Public Integrity. Which brings us back to Ice's point:
    What's the matter wellwisher, the Washington Times too liberal for you these days?

    That's what happens when you spend all your time sucking at the teats of Breitbart and InfoWars...
     
  15. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    Nonsense. Lawyers don't sue lawyers over failure to win because there never was any such tort. Clients sometimes sue lawyers for incompetent lawyering, because they are the one being harmed.
     
  16. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    Such statistics can be distorted by just one large contributor. cf. https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=C1100
    Factors which may render the analysis misleadingly vivid were the large number of Republican primary candidates and Trumps much-touted self-financing which may have dissuaded people from contributing earlier in the campaign. Trump donated 66.1 million dollars to his own campaign. “Some of Trump's biggest donors didn't give until late in the campaign.” https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/
     
  17. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,601
    Whatever, the whole world laughs about the Americans having to drink cold coffee now. My coffee is always 100 degree Celsius if I make him, and, as an adult, I have no problem to live with the corresponding risks. If something happens: Cold water helps a lot.
     
  18. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,056
    There is a difference between hot coffee and scalding hot coffee.

    Your coffee is male?

    And 100 degrees Celsius?

    Really?

    You are ruining your coffee.

    And when there is no cold water available?

    Then again, if you are burning your coffee like you just claimed you are if you make coffee as you just described, something has already happened and probably deserves to be in your lap.
     
  19. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,601
    Yes, "der Kaffee" in German.
    Maybe, I'm not a gourmand.
    Bad fate.
     
  20. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,122
    And? I agree, but what's your point?

    Do you find it extraordinary that CPI might fail to disclose these potential distortions? If it even did, I haven't bothered to dig into the methodology...

    Historically, CPI has a stellar reputation but there were allegations of impropriety a few years back:

    Something fishy?
    John Solomon had grand plans for the digital future of the Center for Public Integrity. But there was always a catch...
    http://archives.cjr.org/feature/something_fishy.php

    Did CPI coordinate with Greenpeace?
    But was it really coordinated? Yes and no, say Greenpeace and CPI.
    http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/0811/Did_CPI_coordinate_with_Greenpeace.html

    Nothing substantive seemed to arise though...

    Is the Center for Public Integrity’s work advocacy or journalism?
    As for CPI, the proof is in the pudding. It says it is independent and it doesn’t coordinate with advocacy groups as a practice. Until that’s proven false, I take its spokesman at his word.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...9/gIQAJEnrwJ_blog.html?utm_term=.432173731b13
    Perhaps you expected the Washington Times to identify the possibility of skewing in their article?

    Surely you're not surprised that wellwisher would snap it up hook, line and sinker, regardless?
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2017
  21. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    George Soros is a contributor, while only the Koch brothers are subject to investigation. Both are about as shady, but only one sha
    I am not much of a reader. I am more of a writer who develops my own ideas. I have never read Breitbart. I did go to their site once, when I heard the buzz word, just to see what the left was afraid of. I did not see any boogey man, just another POV.

    The fact that liberal campuses cannot handle opposing views, tells you that the left's positions are not very secure; fact and reality. A secure position is like a championship team, ready for any competition. It does not have to trash talk, avoid teams and boycott games.

    Whatever happened to the Russian connection and Trump? That was big leftist news for weeks. The real news was how Rice exposed America citizens during foreign data collection, with those citizens exposed being political adversaries.

    The excuse used to justify this would have been like Nixon saying we broke into DNC offices to help them do spell check. It had nothing to do with trying to get dirt they could use. That wiretapping was worse than Watergate and people should go to jail. What has been the position of the center of public integrity? This will tell us who pays for their integrity.
     
  22. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    My guess is Susan Rice did not act alone, wiretapping the Trump team, under the guise of monitoring a foreign national. I would guess there is also a Valery Jarrett connection, since she was the henchman for President Obama. I would even guess there is a Hillary connection, since she was their preferred candidate, who was expected to win and who could cover up their efforts. Shouldn't the center of public integrity investigate this?

    They spend months exploring the Trump-Russian claim with no smoking gun. Why not investigate the Rice, Jarrett and Clinton and for the same amount of time?



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    I hate to interject a few facts into your right wing victimization fantasies again Wellwisher, but I will. First, the lady in question is a right wing blogger who describes herself as the to the right of Attila the Hun. That's far from being on the left, unless you are so far to the right you think old Attila was a left winger. She is a Republican she ran for Congress as a Republican, and she is a frequent guest on Fox News. Now all of a sudden when she accuses that idol of conservatism, Sean Hannity, of wrong doing she suddenly becomes a "leftie"?

    Two, where is your evidence "left wing rags" a) did something wrong, and b) are now trying to mend fences to avoid legal action and c) her accusations against Hannity are wrong? You have none. Yet you just mindlessly believe whatever Hannity says.

    This is what Hannity's accuser who is an attorney says about Hannity's attorneys, ""He's not going to sue me," Schlussel, who describes herself as "to the right of Attila the Hun," told NBC News later Monday. "It wouldn't be a smart idea. It he did, it could spur other people to come forward and he wouldn't want that."

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...t-wing-blogger-s-sex-harassment-claim-n750211

    Furthermore, Hannity will not sue any of the media organizations who have reported this issue for the same reasons: a) he has no evidence he has been slandered and b) Hannity doesn't want to draw any additional attention to his miscreant behaviors. He doesn't want advertisers to do to him what they did to O'Reilly.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2017

Share This Page