EBSB52

I can't tell if this post is more about legal ignorance or hate for makng doctors pay punitive damages. Obviously, your version of the punitive and pain and suffering are correct, and I agree, but but isn't it a bit of an Ad Hominem to say that punitive damages in the medical area need to be capped because this author is unaware of the difference between the two? I don't care about some author, but I do like litigation and the option of unabridged punitives. It's funny how the same crowd that hates punitives also loves the idea of criminal deterrence - they're the same but on opposite sides of the fence. Point is, if heavy criminal penalties deter crime, then heavy civil penalties should deter civil misconduct and deter gross negligence. Furthermore, if we're going to regulate the litigious apsect of medical practice, then we need to regulate the business of medical practice by way of regulating fees to be be fair - you can't pull the tablecloth down on one side only; you must pull it down on both sides simultaneously.

Bush Budget cuts EPA funding.....WHY? Without reading the entire thread, the reason he cut the funding and raised the allowable limits of arsinic in drinking water is for corporate profits. That's what Capitalistic countries do, they put corporate profits before people. I just wonder why it took Facism so long to take hold.

Wow......I thought Ward Churchill was the only one that bought in to that Bought into what? Not entirely accurate............but if that's truly what you want to believe,you go right ahead Ok, I made an assertion, you disagree and support it with.... ZERO. Please, tell me where the great pioneers didn't do as I stated. Where did I err, was it oly 5 million, was it 7???? Pick any society and I will show you the barbarism of each........ So here we go with this; let's compare the US to China. I know, let's compare the US to Sweeden or many other parts of Europe. so U S history BY COMPARISON is no better or no worse than others I don't agree withthat, we're better than some, worse than others, but the major differenc eis that we mask and/or justify our imperialism with the crap about beacon of liberty and freedom, so we kind of establish a standard then fail to live up to it. and I'm not Anglo by the way.......but most of my ancestors were from various parts of the British Isles Your origin isn't really important for the sake of this argument, nor is mine. What is important is what we understand the history of the US to be, and the current state of affairs. And the fact that you are able to form such a hypotheses indicates to me a free-thinking U S society..... Marc You assume there will be no repercussion now or ever for such free thinking....

I possibly over-reacted what lead to an easy misunderstanding of my point. (OK, to be honest - there was no point in my post.) First: I dislike this guy and thing let him run after a few years would be an totaly bad idea. This guy is dangerous! But not dangerous to "the freedom" or "the free world". He is dangerous for the community of human beings. Second: I would sentence him for attempted murder in as many cases as persons where on board of the plane. And put him to a closed psychiatric institution. So he would not see freedom again when I was the judge. What I dislike is the following: What for did he get a life sentences? Here you only get a whole life in prison when you committed a murder. There is no other way. So whom did he kill? He tried to do so and should be punished for trying to do so. He probably is dangerous so he should stay in custody after his sentence for the security of the people around him. What I also dislike very much are sentences like "He fucking said he'd never stop trying to destroy freedom." Can someone quote where he said that? I just read that he felt threaded by western states and that he is a fanatic person. This sentence sounds like "Everyone who is against us is against freedom!" Hey, wake up! People are of different opinions how "freedom" looks like! correct would be "He fucking said he'd never stop trying to destroy the United States of America and maybe some more." USA = Freedom? I do think that this guy should stay locked up all his life as well but I sometimes have the feeling that some people don't lock him up thinking "sad but there is no other way" but "Fu*ck you and go to hell". Revenge is nothing a community should be based on in my eyes. Hope this made some points clearer. Best wishes to _all_ the world Benedikt What I dislike is the following: What for did he get a life sentences? Here you only get a whole life in prison when you committed a murder. There is no other way. You get life here for many things, which is why we have one of the highest rates of incarrcearation in the world. 1:150 Americans are in prison, so that means the rate is almost twice that, or half that (1:80) for males. Does that scare anyone? There was a guy that received 200 years for downloading and viewing child porn. I think he's a SOB and should get some jail time and be watched via lifetime registerring as an offender, but 200 years? That is fucked. But don't worry, prisons are run by corporations that profit from his labor and will expolit him, so that is part of the real agenda. Revenge is nothing a community should be based on in my eyes. The US judicial system is based upon that; we call it retribution which is a concept from the Old Testament. Then we hide behind the concept of deterrence, which is unproven to be effective. If it was imperically provable, then why does crime seem to maintain or rise as punishments seem to esacalte by number and severity? The US is a bullshit place and I will be in your country, brother. Funny thing is, this angers my current countrymen and women.... go figure, I would think they would enjoy different opinions leaving.

Ya, we (Anglo pioneers) came over here from the UK in search of freedom, killed approx 6 million occupants of what is now called the USA, and took over their country. We allowed the ones to live that would buy into and assume our ethnicity, hence Indian Schools. Yes, we are the beacon of liberty and freedom. We have a funny way of defining liberty and freedom, but we are the best spin doctors when it comes to writing history.

Is the USA totally getting mad? I decided not to put a foot on US-Territory a few months ago and nearly every week I read about a new reason why this still is a good idea. Happy to be in "old europe" Benedikt That sentence is fitting for this lawn-shitting waste of space. Would you rather we withhold his pudding for a few weeks or spank him? He fucking said he'd never stop trying to destroy freedom. Why does Europe insist on coddling criminals? Why do Europeans think we care about what they think of how we prosecute crime? Putting this dickhead in jail for the rest of his existence denies him the martyr status he so wanted, and proves that one ought not fuck with the US, lest you enter a world of shit. And the world is going after Scandinavian countries. Start shit and someone will be there to engage - the US has started shit pretty much every place on Earth and has the gall to be offended when they strike back.

Is the USA totally getting mad? I decided not to put a foot on US-Territory a few months ago and nearly every week I read about a new reason why this still is a good idea. Happy to be in "old europe" Benedikt Yes our gov is. See, no one is here to say, "that's enough" as we and aour allies did to Japan, Germany and Italy in WWII. Now N Korea is arming to disuade us from going after them next - some say it's a bluff.

YAWN - more rhetoric. We are not afraid of any of your terrorist co-conspirators, Mr. Reid. If not, then why the drastic measures with the TSA and Patriot Act? We can'thave it nboth ways; scared then not scared. I know your response - we are being prepared and secure. My reply would be that the conservs use this fear mongering to pass this kind of legislation. So, are we scared? Selectively. ...as human beings we reach out for justice. Tell that to the people you execute for juvenile crimes, judge. Tell that to the innocent adults you've executed and their families, judge. It sounds so John Wayne to espouse this shit, but the truth is that we're a rung or two above China when it comes to our justice system. My comments have nothing to do with Reid, who needs to be jailed forever. I've read this rhetoric from this sentencing before and it struck me the same way. Here in this court where we deal with individuals as individuals... No preference for economic class or other preferences... You are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. Pure perspective. To his country he is a combatant. But since we usually win, we write history. To give you that reference, to call you a soldier gives you far too much stature. And we're here to demoralize you, just as we did at Abu Graib. And we do not negotiate with terrorists. Unless our Fascist in Chief tells us to via Iran-Contra.

Classism is just a figment of our imaginations. There is a relative component between amount of hard work and amount of reward. .... This, of course is bullshit; we are a classist nation that as of the last 25 years has modified of Socioeconomic and political agenda to Fascism. This reminds me of when we worked at Boeing and some CFO lady came in for a number months, and was then paid millions for it while we were paid shit. Get used to it or get out. Governmental and corporate America care not about the current demographic of America. As far as they're concerned the current status quo can leave and be replaced by Mexican Nationals that will gladly work for minimums and not complain. I say to give them what they want. There used to be an ethic amongst all Americans at all economic levels to maintain a certain standard for all Americans. Since the Fascist Reagan era, that is gone, labor unions are gone, and corporations are running country for the greatest margin of prifit. What do the poor and middle class conservative Americans do? They fasciilitate it. Unconscionable.

EU may ban Nazi symbols... No more American flags...

Were both - a representative Democracy. All Democracy is is a form of government that allows the people to vote. In the case of America we've bastardized it down to a representative democracy where we vote crooks into making those decisions for us. A, "True Democracy" is where the people vote for all important substantive issues, not just the liars that do them for us. A True Democracy is more utopian than real, but it's a high standard that would be more realized in a Socialist country than Communist or Capitalist.

Some defense lawyers saw the case as a government warning to attorneys to tread carefully in terrorism cases. And those who defend poor and unpopular people. To argue the right is for the Bill of Rts is ridiculous. The 6th is being cautioned here. Just because you don't like the reference to the classism that is present here, don't discard it as your best argument. I would also like to hear more of this case, especially in regard to priv communication, which ut appears this case teeters on. But she also testified that she believed violence was sometimes necessary to achieve justice: "To rid ourselves of the entrenched, voracious type of capitalism that is in this country that perpetuates sexism and racism, I don't think that can come nonviolently." She martyred herself withthis statement, which I'm sure added to her conviction. Videotape of prison conversations between Stewart and the sheik also were played for jurors -- recordings the defense denounced as an intrusion into attorney-client privilege. This is what I'm talking about. Shit on the Const in the name of fear of terrorism - what a waste.

This should be taken very seriously in any democracy. Ya, good thing for him it's only the US.

total horseshit. The record is clear. As mayor, Feinstein pushed and passed legislation that banned guns in SF. Proved to be illegal, however, and was killed. Only a liar would say that she is for gun rights, but just interested in banning "assault weapons." (BTW, she doesn't give a shit about the entire bill of rights either) A non partisan would recognize that gun control was one of the issues that cost the Democrats the White House in 2000, and why they've run from the issue as much as possible since then. The party has allowed some of the safe district types to blare out about it some, but that's it. I haven't figured out why Bush has lied and said he would sign an extension. The GOP certainly does not support such an action - the 1994 passage was a key factor in the GOP taking over Congress. He'll sign that legislation around the same time he'll admit taking down Iraq was a bad move. total horseshit. The record is clear. As mayor, Feinstein pushed and passed legislation that banned guns in SF. Proved to be illegal, however, and was killed. Illegal? You mean unConstitutional? Doesn't NYCity have a law against guns withinthe city, or at least handguns? Legality and Constitutionality are different. Only a liar would say that she is for gun rights, but just interested in banning "assault weapons." OK, the issue raised is that both parties make moves to revoke gun rights, not that the Dems are for them. I'm not sure if you're trying to sway the issue or just got sidetracked. (BTW, she doesn't give a shit about the entire bill of rights either) Ok, what has she done to oppose the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, or 8th? Generally, these are protected by the Dems/libs and gone after by the conservs. Conversely, the Dems are more aggressive over the 2nd, but they both legislate and go after the 2nd - examples have been given above. A non partisan would recognize that gun control was one of the issues that cost the Democrats the White House in 2000, and why they've run from the issue as much as possible since then. It wasn't the fact that the Governor of Florida was the presidential candidate's brother, Katherine Harris was on the same's campaign and secretary of state of Florida, or the fact that the same US Sup Ct was stcked by Bush1 and Reagan (1 from Noxon too) amidst serious claims of "dirty pool" by the Florida poll workers and the high court ignoring it. No, couldn't be that. A nonpartisan would surely know that. Truth is, aside from Clinton, who really straightened out the economy and general well-being of the US, the Dems have been losing ground since LBJ lost many southern Dems after his signing of civil rights legislation. Also, the religious right and the fiscally conservative right have joined forces to amount to what is a lot of people that the libs/Dems can't overcome. I haven't figured out why Bush has lied and said he would sign an extension. What makes you think he lied? His daddy had his card yamked by the NRA for some ofthe same. Wake up and smell the coffee; I did while in college in 97 when I realized I bought into a facade with the Republican Party's smokescreen of liberty. They want to lower wages, revoke rights, especially the 4th, and revoke your right to sue HMO's so they can act irresponsibly, and that's not mentioning shifting social security retirement to private corps so they can gamble with it. What a prime form of Fascism, and corps have proven to be so responsible with our money - Enron, Wordlcom, Lincoln Saving and loan, the list goes on and on... The GOP certainly does not support such an action - the 1994 passage was a key factor in the GOP taking over Congress. I think that was 92, wasn't it? There was a lot more than that to do with the Repub takeover in 92. Didn't the Brady Bill and Assault Weapon Ban have to go through Congress? Well, the Repubs could have objected and Fillibustered if they really objected and tied up the legislation forever. Truth is, they acquiesced and used it for fodder to stack Congress in futer years, but still traded it for seats, right? He'll sign that legislation around the same time he'll admit taking down Iraq was a bad move. So you admit he's a liar for stating he would sign future Assault Weapon Bans. Either he's a liar for stating that or that he would sign it and is against unobscured private gun ownership, right? OK, a liar or a rights revoker - fair enough; that's a start. Then he must be lying by not admitting Iraq was a bad move then too, right? Too much thread drift - if you and bill want to do some fishing, start a new one. Come on, don't run and hide - just answer them all or you will have obviously conceeded

total horseshit. The record is clear. As mayor, Feinstein pushed and passed legislation that banned guns in SF. Proved to be illegal, however, and was killed. Only a liar would say that she is for gun rights, but just interested in banning "assault weapons." (BTW, she doesn't give a shit about the entire bill of rights either) A non partisan would recognize that gun control was one of the issues that cost the Democrats the White House in 2000, and why they've run from the issue as much as possible since then. The party has allowed some of the safe district types to blare out about it some, but that's it. I haven't figured out why Bush has lied and said he would sign an extension. The GOP certainly does not support such an action - the 1994 passage was a key factor in the GOP taking over Congress. He'll sign that legislation around the same time he'll admit taking down Iraq was a bad move. total horseshit. The record is clear. As mayor, Feinstein pushed and passed legislation that banned guns in SF. Proved to be illegal, however, and was killed. Illegal? You mean unConstitutional? Doesn't NYCity have a law against guns withinthe city, or at least handguns? Legality and Constitutionality are different. Only a liar would say that she is for gun rights, but just interested in banning "assault weapons." OK, the issue raised is that both parties make moves to revoke gun rights, not that the Dems are for them. I'm not sure if you're trying to sway the issue or just got sidetracked. (BTW, she doesn't give a shit about the entire bill of rights either) Ok, what has she done to oppose the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, or 8th? Generally, these are protected by the Dems/libs and gone after by the conservs. Conversely, the Dems are more aggressive over the 2nd, but they both legislate and go after the 2nd - examples have been given above. A non partisan would recognize that gun control was one of the issues that cost the Democrats the White House in 2000, and why they've run from the issue as much as possible since then. It wasn't the fact that the Governor of Florida was the presidential candidate's brother, Katherine Harris was on the same's campaign and secretary of state of Florida, or the fact that the same US Sup Ct was stcked by Bush1 and Reagan (1 from Noxon too) amidst serious claims of "dirty pool" by the Florida poll workers and the high court ignoring it. No, couldn't be that. A nonpartisan would surely know that. Truth is, aside from Clinton, who really straightened out the economy and general well-being of the US, the Dems have been losing ground since LBJ lost many southern Dems after his signing of civil rights legislation. Also, the religious right and the fiscally conservative right have joined forces to amount to what is a lot of people that the libs/Dems can't overcome. I haven't figured out why Bush has lied and said he would sign an extension. What makes you think he lied? His daddy had his card yamked by the NRA for some ofthe same. Wake up and smell the coffee; I did while in college in 97 when I realized I bought into a facade with the Republican Party's smokescreen of liberty. They want to lower wages, revoke rights, especially the 4th, and revoke your right to sue HMO's so they can act irresponsibly, and that's not mentioning shifting social security retirement to private corps so they can gamble with it. What a prime form of Fascism, and corps have proven to be so responsible with our money - Enron, Wordlcom, Lincoln Saving and loan, the list goes on and on... The GOP certainly does not support such an action - the 1994 passage was a key factor in the GOP taking over Congress. I think that was 92, wasn't it? There was a lot more than that to do with the Repub takeover in 92. Didn't the Brady Bill and Assault Weapon Ban have to go through Congress? Well, the Repubs could have objected and Fillibustered if they really objected and tied up the legislation forever. Truth is, they acquiesced and used it for fodder to stack Congress in futer years, but still traded it for seats, right? He'll sign that legislation around the same time he'll admit taking down Iraq was a bad move. So you admit he's a liar for stating he would sign future Assault Weapon Bans. Either he's a liar for stating that or that he would sign it and is against unobscured private gun ownership, right? OK, a liar or a rights revoker - fair enough; that's a start. Then he must be lying by not admitting Iraq was a bad move then too, right?

My comments were directed at this (bolding is mine): "Both parties want the guns out of the hands of the people." We may be interpreting differently what he meant by "the guns". I presumed that he meant all guns by that comment. Your comment was directed at only a small sub-class of guns. You can find lots of people who want some type of gun banned. But you can find relatively few people who want all guns banned. Right, what ^ he said. In thegeneral essence of gun ownership and 2nd A rights, both parties have no issues with more restriction, the left might be a little more obvious about it, but legislation bears no innocense.

Yepperoony - don't be fooled by the smokescreen.

Probably, but he used to be a symbol for the right wing, so he carries weight in politics even though he hasn't the sack to run for office. I think the difference bewteen the 2 other exaples you gave is that thise 2 are labeled as comedy and Limbaugh is not - maybe we failed to read the obvious label that Rush is a joke too. After all is said and done, Limbaugh, Donovan and the rest are multi-millionaires and we go to work everyday.

Guns? I think you're looking at the wrong party on that one. Well, not exclusively. Did you her/read that Bush would sign the extension to the Assualt weapon ban if Congress put it before him? Bush Sr had his NRA card yanked for pissing them off. Both parties want the guns out of the hands of the people.

"Later! As far as I am concerned, individuals who give up on the US can leave whenever they so choose. I plan on fighting for my rights, including those written in the Bill of Rights and others afforded by the constitution...When someone just gives up and says they want to or plan to leave because they don't like what they see or hear...well, good riddance to bad rubbish...... " You called me "bad rubbish" - please show me where I lashed out at you. Show me where I threw barb at anyone in this thread.

What did I write to be included in that? I let the 3rd grade thing roll off, even though it is an attack. Considering "RoadRash" called me "bad rubbish," the 3rd grade comment is mild. "Later! As far as I am concerned, individuals who give up on the US can leave whenever they so choose. I plan on fighting for my rights, including those written in the Bill of Rights and others afforded by the constitution...When someone just gives up and says they want to or plan to leave because they don't like what they see or hear...well, good riddance to bad rubbish...... " I said I'm looking at leaving the US one day, he replied by writing that people who want to give up and leave are bad rubbish. On a lighter note, I laughed when I read that Keneddy wanted me to ignore his posts right after he answered mine and then saying he ignores me.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=communism OK, so maybe I don't hate being the one to tell you you're wrong. If you are even farther out there than I thought, and you actually believe socialism does not represent more government control and intervention, then you are beyond discussion and I'll leave to do as you will. There appear to be as many definitions as there are dictionaries. You site is apparently a repository of biblical reference also, which explains its slant toward hating Socialism. Here is the home page from your site: http://dictionary.reference.com/help/about.html The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc. WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, © 1993-2001 Denis Howe Jargon File 4.2.0 CIA World Factbook (1995) Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary Hitchcock's Bible Names Dictionary U.S. Gazetteer, U.S. Census Bureau CIA, Bible dictionary, Bible names, etc.... a real bastion of objectivity. Here's an internet resource that I objectively found: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=socialism 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done Between Capitalism and Communism. The government collects the property to be be redistributed to the people in a fashion that is beneficial to the whole, as in socialized medicine. In Communism the idea is to collect and control the assets of the government for the benefit of the government. Hell, there is a collection process here that ends up being 40% including sales tax and we don't get socialized medicine, so how does that differ? We must be Socialists or even Communists then. Fuerthermore, there are so many applications and interpretations of Socialism that it can't be painted with a broad brush; here are more: http://www.britannica.com/search?query=socialism&submit=Find&source=MWTEXT Truth is, contemporaryt Socialism is the control and collection of a country's assets for redistribution for the people. Our taxes aren't that much lower, so you hype is unfounded. Here's another deficition: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved. http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/socialism So the state does not own the property, they are in charge of redistribution. Also, the second reference indicates that dictatorship of the proletariat (working slob) has not be achieved, meaning that Communism has not been achieved. Many countries enjoy this state of being between Capitalism and Communism w/o leaning either way, so control of the people is not the agenda. Ultimately I disagree with your biblically misguided version of Socialism and think that I have supported that your version more resembles Communism. OK, so maybe I don't hate being the one to tell you you're wrong. Why would you, I'm not. If you are even farther out there than I thought, and you actually believe socialism does not represent more government control and intervention,... Intervention yes, control no.

So you can sit back, snipe, pick at each word choice, and generally tear down anyhtign written without offering anyhting enw or positive of your own? No thanks, if it interests you, or you really want to hijack the thread, go ahead and spout off. Let's see, you brought the social concelts in, modified their meaning, I refuted thema nd you think I'm hijacking. Okaaaay. You brought in the concept of a new thread, so 2 of us asked you to start a thread that you introduced and this is what we get. Look, your points are invalid by way of definition and you can't even gracefully bow out. I know you want Communism to be Socialism an vice versa, bit that's just not the case. They do have some similarities, but they are vastly different. Please, just answer my posts - all of the points.

How about this 3rd grade word with definition? Acquiescence: Passive assent or agreement without protest. I noticed you post to pretend you have a reply, but when you avoid any substantive reply you are acquiescing. Really, the defintions of the words you provided for your intial arguments disprove your very argument. It isn't valid to modify the definitions of words for your convenience.

I was trying to say "socialist and heavy handed government" side, not liberal meaning Democrat. Both the American "right" and "left" are guilty of advocating socilist policies. Oh, most teachers I know and that my family work with are plent political when it comes to contract and election time. ...And people wonder why I have issues with public education. Start a new thread on that and I can easily and powerfully refute your claims. Start a new thread on that and I can easily and powerfully refute your claims. You start one and make your claims of the right wing and its love of mass communication and absolute freedom/proliferation of the press.