The New Responsible Political Thread

[David Panzer]

[starbound]

Hey Willie That's Cool!

I monitored many of my brother's law classes and enjoyed them very much, actually. I truly understand the difficulty an attorney has when (supposedly) everyone is entitled to representation regardless of their crime. That would be tough for anyone to swallow.

I don't hate attorneys, without them we would all be in a world of hurt as they are our primary protection against the major bullies in or society. One does get awfully jaded in that line of work, though. Of course, that's understandable, because you're right...some people are idiots...and some are much worse.

I do find it kind of funny that the R-wingers really hate them when they're working for the people (you know, the "frivolous" lawsuits that protect grandpa) but LOVE them when their working for big business!

It's all a matter of perspective really!

[starbound]

Standard of Living

"HOW DARE YOU TRY TO RAISE THE STANDARD OF LIVING ELSEWHERE!!"

Or is this a spot where "Dey took our jobs!" would fit best?

Now that is REALLY funny! Yeah, we're really raising the standard of living elsewhere with our slave wages and horrendous working conditions! That must be why other countries love us so much.

Sure they need the job , now, but as soon as they get enough food in their bellies so that they can think straight, they'll demand real wages and then the corps will have to move somewhere else. In the meantime, think of all the goodwill our "slave housing" has created. Lovely!

Of course, that doesn't even touch the initial reasoning...cheap foreign labor breaks the back of the American Labor Unions and terrifies those without one into submission and acceptance of unliveable wages for lack of choice.

Meanwhile, the Lords of the Realm are buying yachts, islands and retiring with golden parachutes, while their workers are told a 25 Cent per hour raise will destabilize the company...now that's sick! (Real Christian too!)

[Der Mike]

Yes, "slave wages". Our poor manage to have a car and mulitple television sets. I'm sure the slaves of the 19th Century would truly pity just how bad our current poor have it. Our poor today don't know hardship the way slaves knew hardship.

Sure they need the job , now, but as soon as they get enough food in their bellies so that they can think straight, they'll demand real wages and then the corps will have to move somewhere else. In the meantime, think of all the goodwill our "slave housing" has created. Lovely!

Because, as we all know, training people is such a cheap undertaking. Takes no time and money. Companies often just let people go because training people is such an easy, easy process.

Seriously, try and understand business a little, would ya?

Of course, that doesn't even touch the initial reasoning...cheap foreign labor breaks the back of the American Labor Unions and terrifies those without one into submission and acceptance of unliveable wages for lack of choice.

Considering that nobody outside of the NE wants to be in a union, no work is needed to "break the back" of unions. Their backs were broken long before and their impact on the workforce is pretty well non-existant.

Funny, at my company, I have a better deal than the tiny number of union employees get. Weird, huh?

Meanwhile, the Lords of the Realm are buying yachts, islands and retiring with golden parachutes, while their workers are told a 25 Cent per hour raise will destabilize the company...now that's sick! (Real Christian too!)

Your clear lack of knowledge what CEO's actually have to deal with is impressive. I know, you wish to believe that they don't actually do anything --- but anybody with ANY level of managerial experience quickly recognizes the panacaea of calm and relaxation a low-level job is when compared to a management position.

You know what generates wealth? The amount of risk one takes and the scarcity of one's talents. Seems like a really good system for rewarding people.
-=Mike

[Karachi Vyce]

I do find it kind of funny that the R-wingers really hate them when they're working for the people (you know, the "frivolous" lawsuits that protect grandpa) but LOVE them when their working for big business!

If this were any other board, I'd be beginning to question whether you were just a gimmick poster.

I find it incredibly hilarious - brutally patronizing of you, of course, though I expect no less, but yes, hilarious - that you just throw that out there as a cold, hard fact. I forget sometimes, it's only the liberals who are for the LITTLE GUY, and all of us conservative-minded people applaud whenever big business sticks it to the people, as we stand outside the courthouse and laugh whilst we twirl our Snidely Whiplash moustaches. And after that, if we have time, we'll tie a maiden to a railroad track. A BLACK maiden, or maybe a GAY one, just so we get maximum oppression going on. Waste not, want not.

And really, let's be honest - you really don't like lawyers. Or, wait, I take that back: you like the lawyers who do things you approve of, like represent the 'little guy' who's fighting big business. Kind of ignores the fact that big business has just as much right to have adequate representation to defend itself in our legal system, because that is only EQUITABLE. I don't bear you any ill will over feeling this way. Most people feel that way about lawyers.

[David Panzer]

[starbound]

Lawyers

Guess you didn't read the part about how "we'd be in a world of hurt without them".

And really, let's be honest - you really don't like lawyers. Or, wait, I take that back: you like the lawyers who do things you approve of, like represent the 'little guy' who's fighting big business. Kind of ignores the fact that big business has just as much right to have adequate representation to defend itself in our legal system, because that is only EQUITABLE. I don't bear you any ill will over feeling this way. Most people feel that way about lawyers.

Everyone deserves equal representation, I just don't think it's fair when big business employs gagles of them and beats up on mom & pop who can barely afford one! It's also hypocritical as hell to say that a suit that protects the public is "frivolous" when protecting businesses that endanger their employees is somehow justified.

I don't dislike lawyers on the whole...I just don't like inequity. One of the first things my brother learned in law school was that equal representation was a fallacy. His professors used to laugh about the "poor and inevitably guilty". And before you tell me that this isn't so...don't bother, I have seen too many people crushed by a legal system that politely called them "under-represented".

I don't dislike you though...I think your humor is hysterical, even though you are obviously looking down a very long nose at me (or maybe a short turned up one...no matter).

[starbound]

Willie Steals The Show and How

O.k....now That's Funny...but Mean!

[Shadow-Sentient]

Guess you didn't read the part about how "we'd be in a world of hurt without them".

No. They probably did. But as was said to me "Argue points I make and not ones you want me to make." Guess this only applies to us.

Everyone deserves equal representation, I just don't think it's fair when big business employs gagles of them and beats up on mom & pop who can barely afford one! It's also hypocritical as hell to say that a suit that protects the public is "frivolous" when protecting businesses that endanger their employees is somehow justified.

Agreed. My Grandfather was injured on the job at McDonnell-Douglas back in the 80's while working on landing gear. The landing gear bay door collapsed under him and he fell to the ground severely damaging his spine. When he went into the hearing to argue a settlement, McDonnell-Douglas had fifteen lawyers sitting on their side of the table to my grandfathers one. The accident was not ruled as his fault, in fact, the LG doors are supposed to be able to support twenty times his weight and mechanics often worked up inside them to get to the landing gear. He was never able to work in that capacity again and suffered recurring pain throughout the rest of his life. So, not only were his finances affected, he was unable to physically do what he was trained and qualified to do, yet somehow they managed to prevent him from getting any significant settlement. He was in his 50's at the time of the accident.

So take what you will from this. But you are correct when you say it's hypocritical as hell to say that suits protecting the public are frivoulous when suits protecting companies are justified. Good on you for standing up for yourself SB.
It's funny, when someone debates you so one-sidedly, your counter-arguments tend to go extremely the opposite whether or not you wish to fall on that side. But the tactic here has been to push you as far left as possible and then screm what a Liberal, leftist or whatever label they are trying to paint you as. Then they decry all of your arguments are Liberal or leftist. The point has not been to discuss anything, it's about backing you and I up to a wall and derailing the entire thread.

[Karachi Vyce]

Agreed. My Grandfather was injured on the job at McDonnell-Douglas back in the 80's while working on landing gear. The landing gear bay door collapsed under him and he fell to the ground severely damaging his spine. When he went into the hearing to argue a settlement, McDonnell-Douglas had fifteen lawyers sitting on their side of the table to my grandfathers one. The accident was not ruled as his fault, in fact, the LG doors are supposed to be able to support twenty times his weight and mechanics often worked up inside them to get to the landing gear. He was never able to work in that capacity again and suffered recurring pain throughout the rest of his life. So, not only were his finances affected, he was unable to physically do what he was trained and qualified to do, yet somehow they managed to prevent him from getting any significant settlement. He was in his 50's at the time of the accident.

That's a sad story......but what are you arguing here? That what happened here was wrong because McDonnell-Douglas was able to afford more lawyers?

That's the way of things. That's just life. I don't really know of ANY civilized nation on the planet with a moderately advanced legal system that doesn't favor the party that has the most resources at their disposal in a civil case, so it's not as if this is a unique American problem. What should we do? Pass laws that say that only two attorneys, one for each party, should duel it out? Supply the equal number of lawyers for the disadvantaged party?

So take what you will from this. But you are correct when you say it's hypocritical as hell to say that suits protecting the public are frivoulous when suits protecting companies are justified. Good on you for standing up for yourself SB.

Hey, congrats on arguing against a point of view that no one here was actually making.

Who said that suits for the benefit of the public are frivolous? Who said that at all? Starbound just seems to be whining about "big business" and their ability to win cases due to their wealth and resources. No one has said that their might makes right here. The only one who really addressed her specific comments about business was Mike, who never claimed that suits protecting companies are justified, but (accurately) pointed out that no matter how much she bitches about big business and calls them 'bullies', those business companies are important to our economy and most of the stuff that they do is done to remain profitable, not purposefully screw over the lower class just for jollies.

All I've seen is starbound coyly propose that the system is INTENTIONALLY designed to screw the little guy. It's not at all. The legal system is absolutely neutral. It's almost Darwinian, in a sense, in that the strongest often will prevail because they can afford to hire the best lawyers and pay big legal bills.

And now that I looked over some of her earlier comments again, some of them are just utterly ridiculous. As if two lawyers who might normally be friends now have to become bitter enemies OUTSIDE of the courtroom just because they (or their firms) might be representing opponents in a certain suit. This ain't the goddamn Civil War, where we have to choose sides. Business is business; outside of business, in our personal lives, we shouldn't be expected to be at each other's throats under some horribly misguided belief that THAT is what's equitable for our clients.

It's funny, when someone debates you so one-sidedly, your counter-arguments tend to go extremely the opposite whether or not you wish to fall on that side. But the tactic here has been to push you as far left as possible and then screm what a Liberal, leftist or whatever label they are trying to paint you as. Then they decry all of your arguments are Liberal or leftist. The point has not been to discuss anything, it's about backing you and I up to a wall and derailing the entire thread.

You can present someone like Mike as the bad guy here, but it's STARBOUND who's throwing out insulting shit like claiming all right-wingers just LOVE when the 'little guy' is fucked over by big business.

To which I responded earlier. As ol' Mr. Grady might say, she's a very willful girl. She had to be......corrected.

[David Panzer]

An insult on the internet?

Teh internets is falling apart!

[Shadow-Sentient]

That's a sad story......but what are you arguing here? That what happened here was wrong because McDonnell-Douglas was able to afford more lawyers?

That's the way of things. That's just life. I don't really know of ANY civilized nation on the planet with a moderately advanced legal system that doesn't favor the party that has the most resources at their disposal in a civil case, so it's not as if this is a unique American problem. What should we do? Pass laws that say that only two attorneys, one for each party, should duel it out? Supply the equal number of lawyers for the disadvantaged party?

Actually, you hit the nail on the head. I was saying it was SAD that things like this happen. In a way, I was reinforcing her point about the hypocrisy of saying that someone trying to protect themselves from a much larger opponent is frivoulous while finding it wholly justifiable that businesses seem somehow exhonerated from this. (This does not justify sueing McDonalds for spilling hot coffee that you ordered on your lap ... that's just idiocy).
Also, I agree with your point. I am not anti-corporate. Not wholly. I feel that Big business has too many advantages. But in the interest of remaining competative, I also realize that they have to have certain advantages. It's where that line is drawn that has always been of concern to me.
But you bring up an interesting point. Money will always be an overriding factor in this society. People who can afford the kind of justice tha they want and not the justice that they deserve will often buy their way out. Unless you think O.J. was innocent. Not guilty is one thing, innocent is wholly something else. But were he any other man with less money to afford the power-team he had representing him ... I doubt the verdict would have been the same. But then, that's just my opinion..

Who said that suits for the benefit of the public are frivolous? Who said that at all? Starbound just seems to be whining about "big business" and their ability to win cases due to their wealth and resources.

The use of the word 'whining' is just abusive rhetoric because you don't like what she has to say. The same could be said of any statement you put forth that you feel strongly about.

No one has said that their might makes right here. The only one who really addressed her specific comments about business was Mike, who never claimed that suits protecting companies are justified, but (accurately) pointed out that no matter how much she bitches about big business and calls them 'bullies', those business companies are important to our economy and most of the stuff that they do is done to remain profitable, not purposefully screw over the lower class just for jollies.

I agree that business is important to our economy, that is an undeniable fact and is how our economy continues in this world and it is what keeps us competative. I addressed that in the earlier paragraph. However, where is the line drawn? What is it okay for them to get away with at the expense of the well being of the people crushed under their wheels? How much injustice is okay? Is there acceptable loss? Or do you believe that if you get screwed in the process, well, too bad for you?

All I've seen is starbound coyly propose that the system is INTENTIONALLY designed to screw the little guy. It's not at all. The legal system is absolutely neutral. It's almost Darwinian, in a sense, in that the strongest often will prevail because they can afford to hire the best lawyers and pay big legal bills.

That may be her argument. But you are speaking of the neutrality of the legal system ... which, ideally it is. However, you pointed out exactly how it isn't neutral. Those who can afford more justice, get it. That hardly sounds neutral. If justice, as you are implying, can only be purchased, then are you contending that it is perhaps not designed to screw the little guy, but that is the end result?

And now that I looked over some of her earlier comments again, some of them are just utterly ridiculous. As if two lawyers who might normally be friends now have to become bitter enemies OUTSIDE of the courtroom just because they (or their firms) might be representing opponents in a certain suit. This ain't the goddamn Civil War, where we have to choose sides. Business is business; outside of business, in our personal lives, we shouldn't be expected to be at each other's throats under some horribly misguided belief that THAT is what's equitable for our clients.

Even with as many Lawyers as I know, I can't comment on this. I simply don't know the dynamic of a Lawyers personal life. Save my Uncle. He's probably the most black and white person I know. I don't see him taking personal any of the events of the day.

You can present someone like Mike as the bad guy here, but it's STARBOUND who's throwing out insulting shit like claiming all right-wingers just LOVE when the 'little guy' is fucked over by big business.
To which I responded earlier. As ol' Mr. Grady might say, she's a very willful girl. She had to be......corrected.

I think she was generalizing. I doubt she means all right wingers.

Many of the same friends that Mike said I was being unfair to are staunch supporters of the 'little guy'. Some of them are small business owners and they do not rejoice when they see people getting screwed by 'big business'. As I previously stated they are conservatives. However, most of them are alligned against companies like Wal-mart because of the damage done to their small businesses. I won't continue on with them because apparently, anything I say about them is irrelevant without their being here to 'yea' or 'nay' my comments ... but I thought it might ease Mike to know that I know them as more than caricatures. Many of them are decent people despite some of the off-color remarks that I have been privy to.
The comments made by Liberals about minorities are reprehensible to say the least. It is worse that they were made publicly. I recieved a letter from MoveOn.org:

"On Friday, Republican Senator George Allen sank to a new low. At a campaign stop the senator singled out the only non-white member of the audienceùS.R. Sidarth, a young Indian-American volunteering for his opponent and called him "macaca" (a racial slur meaning 'monkey').1 He went on to say, "welcome to America." As it happens, Mr. Sidarth was born and raised in Virginia.

Republicans have used racism to try to win over voters for decades, but this kind of pandering has absolutely no place in our politics. That's why we're standing with Color of Change to ask the Republican National Committee to withdraw support from Sen. Allen. We need to send a strong message that America won't tolerate bigotry."

I sent a response after reading what Mike had shown me saying that I would only agree to sending that message if the left were to clean up it's act as well. I cannot conscienably tell someone to stop ethnically motivated slurs if the Left is unwilling to stop it within their own ranks. It is one area where I wholeheartedly agree. Racism is ridiculous and epithets have no place in politics.

[Towelmaster]

Weird as it may seem, this atheist here would like to refer to Matthew 7:3,5.
Especially that one famous line.

[Der Mike]

Also, I agree with your point. I am not anti-corporate. Not wholly. I feel that Big business has too many advantages. But in the interest of remaining competative, I also realize that they have to have certain advantages. It's where that line is drawn that has always been of concern to me. But you bring up an interesting point. Money will always be an overriding factor in this society. People who can afford the kind of justice tha they want and not the justice that they deserve will often buy their way out.

Ken Lay was LOADED. Even after Enron's collapse, he didn't lack money.
Ditto Skilling.
Ditto Fastow.

They hired outstanding lawyers.

They didn't get away with nothing.

Bill Clinton was the President and was STILL disbarred by the SCOTUS and lost his Arkansas law license.

Sometimes, the big guy deserves to win. Sometimes he deserves to lose. I'll use a line from John Roberts' confirmation hearing when he was asked if he'd rule for "the little guy". He said, roughly:

"Senator, I'll rule for those whom the law dictates I should rule for."

Vyce is WELL aware of my critiques of the legal community and my desire for a loser-pays system. That being said, our system is still the best system on the planet.

I agree that business is important to our economy, that is an undeniable fact and is how our economy continues in this world and it is what keeps us competative. I addressed that in the earlier paragraph. However, where is the line drawn? What is it okay for them to get away with at the expense of the well being of the people crushed under their wheels?

But, what if it is not their fault the accident happened?

In life, sad as it may be, accidents occur.

How much injustice is okay? Is there acceptable loss? Or do you believe that if you get screwed in the process, well, too bad for you?

Sometimes, making somebody pay for your mistake IS the injustice.

That may be her argument. But you are speaking of the neutrality of the legal system ... which, ideally it is. However, you pointed out exactly how it isn't neutral. Those who can afford more justice, get it. That hardly sounds neutral. If justice, as you are implying, can only be purchased, then are you contending that it is perhaps not designed to screw the little guy, but that is the end result?

No, it's that money purchases quality.

You keep mentioning OJ. Do you honestly think it was his attorneys' legal prowess that got him acquitted?

Hardly. It was incredibly inept prosecution and a jury composed of absolute idiots (which, yes, the defense played a LARGE role in selecting).

You get the right JURY and you'll be acquitted of anything. It's not really fair to blame lawyers for the idiocy of juries.

Well, somewhat. They DO weed out intelligent jurors, but that is the system in place and any attempts to correct it leads to whining. But, still, it's JURIES who make these asinine verdicts.

Many of the same friends that Mike said I was being unfair to are staunch supporters of the 'little guy'. Some of them are small business owners and they do not rejoice when they see people getting screwed by 'big business'. As I previously stated they are conservatives. However, most of them are alligned against companies like Wal-mart because of the damage done to their small businesses.

Selling goods to people at lower prices.

Those ASSHOLES!

Since when has it become noble to support people who sell merchandise for more money?

Wal-Mart has been demonized by people who, honestly, LOATHE the lower class. You don't see lower to middle-class families protesting. You see the wealthy elites doing it. You see union guys, whose pay has a tendency to outscale their USEFULNESS protesting because they want a piece of the pie.

And I'm actually quite impressed with your reply to Moveon.org. I mean, Allen doesn't bug me as I don't take him seriously as a candidate and if you're going to use as obscure an epithet as "macaca" (which, let's be honest, nobody even KNEW was an epithet until about a week ago), then you deserve to not get 3% of the vote in a primary.
-=Mike