Gravitymaster

Another life disrupted by a scumbag lawyer who cared nothing except what the "value of the case" was.

Just to be argumentative?

What does that have to do with this discussion?

I agree. The twits who post their entire life and all their thoughts for all to see are also opening themselves up for some possible negative blowback.

So if he gets called to testify do you think he will start jumping up and down on the witness chair? JerryBaumchen And screaming.... "You can't handle the truth"................

Presidents I have voted for: Reagan-Not a Lawyer Bush-41 Not a Lawyer Bush-43 not a Lawyer Presidents I have not voted for: Carter-Not a Lawyer Clinton-Lawyer Obama-Lawyer I'm not saying to not vote for someone because they are or are not a lawyer. I'm just saying don't bitch about the judicial system and then vote for a fox to guard the henhouse. Lawyers are paid to lie, parse words and skew the truth. When you elect them, don't expect them to change. Why do you think tort reform was not included as a way to reduce medical costs? Do you have any idea what a physician has to pay for liability insurance? OB/GYNs pay as much as $200,000 per year. General Surgeons pay as much as $175,000 per year. I'd say we are getting exactly the kind of government we vote for.

Are you insinuating this isn't true?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/274881-obama-hopes-to-enact-new-gun-control-measures-in-2013

What would stop this lawsuit craziness is if juries would stop awarding damages where none are warranted, and if insurance companies would stop "settling" so many frivolous claims because it is cheaper to settle than to fight. That's short term thinking that just encourages more frivolous lawsuits. Just like the situation with our politicians, where we get the ones we vote for, we "the people" have inflicted this lawsuit situation on ourselves by so often awarding "something" to undeserving plaintiffs for no better reason than that the "big corporation/doctor/school district/whatever" can afford it. If lawsuits were about actual restitution for actual damages, and not about "winning the lottery", there would be no incentive to take frivolous cases to court. Some limits on "punitive damages" would also make sense, I think, as long as there is also some criminal sanctions for reckless behavior that causes harm to others. If a company behaves in a manner that causes harm, and that harm was foreseeable, then company officials (i.e. real people) who approved that decision should stand trial. Awarding triple damages or whatever to the victim just encourages lawsuits over trivial matters, and it may not discourage the behavior if the damages are cheaper for the company than the cost of doing things safely, especially if monetary damages are passed on to shareholders who were not responsible for the reckless behavior. Don I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, as long as we continue to elect lawyers to political positions, this will continue to get worse. Most of them are nothing more than ambulance chasers who actively seek out clients so they can enrich themselves. Typically, these lawsuits are filed based on what the lawyer(s) determines the "Case is Worth". There will never be any type of tort reform as long as we continue to elect lawyers. Want to know one of the main reasons medical insurance is so expensive? Of course, the crocodile tear-jerkers will proclaim they are not the ones responsible for the large awards. But they use jury consultants to run psychological profiles on members of the jury's so they know exactly how to play on their emotions and get those big paydays. It's the proverbial Fox guarding the henhouse.

It's not exactly an isolated incident now, is it? We have plenty of info from other mass shootings perpetrated by crazy people who had way too easy access to guns. How many of those could have been averted by passing more laws? Who said the answer was more laws? Fewer, better and more consistent laws are what we need. What needs to be changed?

It's not exactly an isolated incident now, is it? We have plenty of info from other mass shootings perpetrated by crazy people who had way too easy access to guns. How many of those could have been averted by passing more laws?

What does that mean? Are you suggesting he should have used a gun against the cop? How could this be made better by putting more guns in the mix? Don You probably haven't noticed but we are living in an Orwellian Style Police State. "Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - Mohandas Gandhi,

Just one more reason why we have the 2nd Amendment. It's not just about hunting deer.

Hmm You seem to think it is if your tax dollars are used to protect children And yet another fabrication from rushmc. So you support your tax dollars being used to protect children in school? I support taxes in general in a developed society like ours. They are not punishment. I support taxes on tobacco to help pay for smoking related health problems, taxes on gas to help pay for roads, taxes on aviation fuel to help pay for ATC, and taxes on guns to help pay for the costs of gun violence. Since you enjoy all the benefits that can be derived by handing over more of your money to the government, have you started voluntarily paying more taxes than you owe? You know, just to show your patriotism and support for your fellow man.

Yes, there could always be an argument about anything. That is what judges are for. I was having dinner with my attorney-son this evening ( he has about 3 guns at home ) and we got talking about this. It is our understanding that YOU/ME/WE cannot own a RPG, we cannot own a Howizter, etc. There are lots of armament that the average Joe Citizen cannot own. As to what might become illegal, who knows; but my money is on something is going to change in this country. There was a Letter to the Editor of my newspaper yesterday, the writer owned a number of guns; for hunting and shooting at the gun range. He wrote that if the gun owners in this country do not get on-board with some changes, then they will see things changed that they really do not want. YMMV, JerryBaumchen If some of these politicians try and make changes in the gun laws, they just might see some changes they don't expect. They just might find out the real reason we have the 2nd amendment.

But Gregory derides the NRA for suggesting that the rabble kids should have the same opportunities. That's the problem. I'm surprised that you and rushmc have become so socialist all of a sudden. Where will it end, do you want taxpayers to pay for your yachts too? What is the number 1 job of the POTUS? Come on...I know you can noodle that one out. Section. 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. Since its obvious you don't know, why not just say so instead of trying to deflect ignorance by posting non sequitur gibberish? Hint, while not written in the Constitution, Obama has stated it is his greatest responsibility.

But Gregory derides the NRA for suggesting that the rabble kids should have the same opportunities. That's the problem. I'm surprised that you and rushmc have become so socialist all of a sudden. Where will it end, do you want taxpayers to pay for your yachts too? What is the number 1 job of the POTUS? Come on...I know you can noodle that one out.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/benghazi_penalties_are_bogus_ncP7RZx5uTIgDPbTp5WtoN?utm_medium=rss&utm_content=International The four officials supposedly out of jobs because of their blunders in the run-up to the deadly Benghazi terror attack remain on the State Department payroll — and will all be back to work soon, The Post has learned. The highest-ranking official caught up in the scandal, Assistant Secretary of State Eric Boswell, has not “resigned” from government service, as officials said last week. He is just switching desks. And the other three are simply on administrative leave and are expected back. The four were made out to be sacrificial lambs in the wake of a scathing report issued last week that found that the US compound in Benghazi, Libya, was left vulnerable to attack because of “grossly inadequate” security. State Department leaders “didn’t come clean about Benghazi and now they’re not coming clean about these staff changes,” a source close to the situation told The Post., adding, the “public would be outraged over this.” US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Sept. 11 attack, originally blamed on a spontaneous demonstration against a US-made anti-Islam video that got out of hand. That version was dismissed by an Accountability Review Board headed by retired Ambassador Thomas Pickering. In response to questions from The Post, the State Department would only reissue the carefully crafted statement put out last week. Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton “has accepted Eric Boswell’s decision to resign as assistant secretary for diplomatic security, effective immediately.” What Nuland omitted was that Boswell gave up only the presidential appointment as assistant secretary, not his other portfolios. The other officials — Deputy Assistant Secretaries Charlene Lamb and Raymond Maxwell, and a third who has not been identified — were found to have shown “performance inadequacies” but not “willful misconduct,” Pickering said, so they would not face discipline. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) told The Post this is “yet another ruse about the tragedy of Benghazi.” “State Department officials proclaimed . . . that heads would roll . . . Now we see that the discipline is a lie and all that has happened is the shuffling of the deck chairs.”

So there is a HUGE loophole that allows disqualified people to buy firearms without a NICS check. Calling it anything but a loophole is intellectually dishonest. How many deaths can be attributed to your "loophole"?

Funjumper still posts here. Or was he/she finally banned for good?

This is why a conversation is impossible. They're not people you disagree with; they're "whiney little..." and "jackals". Hey, you forgot to call their mothers whores! You might as well; it advances the discussion the same amount. Funny You dont complain about Amazon or funjumper How does it go..."If the facts are on your side, Dershowitz says, pound the facts into the table. If the law is on your side, pound the law into the table. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table. I would say the table is being pounded, here.

Don't bother. The concept or the speaker is personally vilified. There can be no true conversation.

This is why a conversation is impossible. They're not people you disagree with; they're "whiney little..." and "jackals". Hey, you forgot to call their mothers whores! You might as well; it advances the discussion the same amount. Truth hurts, doesn't it?

Check out the clip from 1990. http://www.businessinsider.com/1990-budget-negotiations-perfectly-echo-the-fiscal-cliff-2012-12 Some things never change.

Yes, and it's all Obamas fault.