RICK PERRY, a talking points robot.!

[The Other Side]

Rick Perry just finished his announcement speech and it was nothing more than the typical Talking points of every other candidate in the field. Same old hidden messages that right wingers applaud but dont understand.

10 mins of talking points and no substance. NO IDEAS expressed on HOW to fix anything, just more of the same.

I really enjoyed how he bragged about Frivilous lawsuits that he "stopped". Many applauded loudly when he stated that, but what does that mean? Simply put, he and the republicans want to protect corporations, doctors and lawyers from being sued.

They pass laws that limit the types of awards that can be awarded to persons who sue for damages. If you are injured by medical professional and permanently injured, you are capped at less than 100K. If you lose your case, and you will LOSE in TEXAS, you PAY for ALL COSTS.

This is what happens when you STACK the courts with right wing nuts. In Texas, if you get a case to court, the republican judges will NEVER side with you and if you win a case in front of a jury and it goes to an appellate court, the republicans on those courts will REVERSE the award and you will be forced to pay ALL COSTS.

Thats Rick Perrys idea of helping americans. It also happens to be the same idea of helping americans that the republican party is trying to do the same thing in every state of the union. The same old "TORT REFORM" idea that screws americans.

There is a great documentary on the subject called "HOT COFFEE" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rbKywI3ww8
if you have HBO or can access HBO to go, sign up and watch this documentary.

Perry said nothing today. A long winded speech chocked full of right wing talking points.

Perry will lose steam in a few months when he actually has to answer real questions.

Peace.

 

[Catatonic]

He's not as good at it as Obama but he may get better!
Obama did this very, very well in 2008 and that was a major factor in his winning.
A politician who cannot do this will not rise very high.
Just a fact of life in the Political Arena.

 

[moreluck]

He already knows how to fix things because he's actually done it....Texas has had one of the best jobs growth of any other state.

We already know that Obama can speechify, but he's all talk and no action. America gets that now.

I'm excited to hear about tort reform and loser pays......it will free up the courts from frivolous law suits. You think twice about suing if you might lose and have to pay for the costs. However, if you are in the right, no problem.

Obama is the king of flowery speeches with no substance !! He can go do motivational talks like Tony Robbins.

 

[The Other Side]

He already knows how to fix things because he's actually done it....Texas has had one of the best jobs growth of any other state.

We already know that Obama can speechify, but he's all talk and no action. America gets that now.

I'm excited to hear about tort reform and loser pays......it will free up the courts from frivolous law suits. You think twice about suing if you might lose and have to pay for the costs. However, if you are in the right, no problem.

Obama is the king of flowery speeches with no substance !! He can go do motivational talks like Tony Robbins.

Moreluck, as in usual fashion, you support something you dont understand.

Tort Reform doesnt help AMERICAN CITIZENS. It helps doctors, lawyers and corporations. It penalizes the citizen for bringing a lawsuit against a company. If you are injured and you sue in a state with a STACKED court of republican judges, you are guaranteed a LOSS. And that loss, no matter how strong a case you present, will ultimately cost you thousands of dollars.

You will lose your case in Texas. Nobody wins against this system. This system hurts americans who are injured by either a doctor or employer. If you are injured at work and sue your company in texas, you dont stand a chance of compensation and will further your loss by having to pay all costs.

You said: "However, if you are in the right, no problem." There is a problem Moreluck, under TORT REFORM, there is NO RIGHT. Thats what youre missing.

The loser will always be the citizen and yet you support it like its a wonderful thing. Free up the courts? From what? All you hear is the "buzzword" frivilous and you think its some goofy case of nonsense brought against a company. In fact, the "buzzword" frivilous means ALL CASES.

Loser pays is a threat intended to prevent you from suing in the first place. If a court is stacked with right wing republicans, how can you win? There is no history of wins in republican courthouses. Look at the appellate levels. Republican judges overturn every judgement of lower courts. Thats a fact.

This is where you are devoid of understanding. Watch the documentary I listed, see how the court systems work, see who is behind the tort reform movement, see how it could affect you, dont take my word for it.

Educate yourself. Nothing in TORT REFORM is in YOUR best interest.

I hope you take the time to watch.

Peace.

 

[moreluck]

If tort reform keeps people like John Edward from becoming bazillionaires....I'm for it. The courts are crammed with garbage suits. I'd like to see that all cleared away and the courts's time used for mre important stuff.

Don't begin to tell me what i understand or don't understand. You take after your friend The Great One......self centered and knows everything...so much so that you call others stupid and unable to grasp concepts. So what, we just bask in your omnipotent radiation now ???

 

[The Other Side]

If tort reform keeps people like John Edward from becoming bazillionaires....I'm for it. The courts are crammed with garbage suits. I'd like to see that all cleared away and the courts's time used for mre important stuff.

Don't begin to tell me what i understand or don't understand. You take after your friend The Great One......self centered and knows everything...so much so that you call others stupid and unable to grasp concepts. So what, we just bask in your omnipotent radiation now ???

I dont have to tell you what you know, you demonstrate it yourself.

You said "If tort reform keeps people like John Edward from becoming bazillionaires....I'm for it. " Tort Reform has nothing to do with trial lawyers like John Edwards. He gets paid no matter what the outcome. Lawyers dont work for free.

What if you got sick, or one of your family members. You go to the hospital and have a surgery and the doctors mess up and injure you during the surgery. Are you willing to walk away injured without compensation? Oh wait, youre going to tell me you have a case, right? But Not in tort reform. You will be capped at below 100K and your attorney will take 44% of that. You are stuck with the injury and less than 25K after everyone takes their cuts.

Whats the benefit to you?

What if you are driving down the road to the next tea party rally and a greyhound bus crashes into your car and injures your whole family? Would you consider not suing because you would lose automatically in a republican controlled court and be faced with paying all court costs and attorneys fees?

YOU ARE STILL THE LOSER. Why does John Edwards income help you?

GRASP THE CONCEPT.

Peace.

 

[moreluck]

On my last jury duty, we had a case where adult children were suing the docter saying he didn't do everything for their mom and she died. It was clearly a bunch of opportunistic brats wanting money and they thought they saw a way to get it. The docter did nothing wrong and followed accepted procedure to the letter. Those kids got $0 !!

This was not a legitimate law suit....IMO. But the lawyers representing the kids saw dollar signs and went for it. They could've checked the records to see procedure was followed. Guess what the lawyers get paid regardless.................that's the pay I want to see stopped and I used John Edwards because he was an ambulance chaser.. They should've never agreed to take the case. It was frivolous.

 

[wkmac]

He already knows how to fix things because he's actually done it....Texas has had one of the best jobs growth of any other state.

Be careful in jumping to conclusions as these may be nothing but illusions as seen here and here and here!

How does Perry propose to limit the size and scope of gov't when under his watch in Texas, the appearance of prosperity was achieved on the taxpayer's nickle? How is this form of welfare different from the stereotyped welfare queen form?

 

[moreluck]

Be careful in jumping to conclusions as these may be nothing but illusions as seen here and here and here!

How does Perry propose to limit the size and scope of gov't when under his watch in Texas, the appearance of prosperity was achieved on the taxpayer's nickle? How is this form of welfare different from the stereotyped welfare queen form?

Extremely hard question.........what's Obama's answer??

 

[wkmac]

Extremely hard question.........what's Obama's answer??

This isn't about Obama, this thread is about Rick Perry. Stay on point.

Focus! Focus! Focus!

 

[moreluck]

Aha, another who won't hold Obama responsible for anything!!

 

[wkmac]

Aha, another who won't hold Obama responsible for anything!!

WOW! Nothing gets past that steel cage mind of yours!

 

[Jones]

This isn't about Obama, this thread is about Rick Perry. Stay on point.

Focus! Focus! Focus!

C'mon now mac, she's just giving the same answer that Perry would

 

[wkmac]

C'mon now mac, she's just giving the same answer that Perry would

Now that was good!

 

[moreluck]

Now that was good!

Until a couple weeks ago, I didn't know who Rick Perry was..........I know his state took good care of Warren Jeffs........no mamby pamby crap for criminals there......and they don't leave them on death row too long. I also think a candidate from a 'border state' can better understand the immigration problem than some city slicker from Chicago.

 

[wkmac]

After a brief diversion of fun at More's expense, on the subject of Tort Reform, I question it at the federal level. While on the one hand decrying larger federal power, republicans do often enough when it comes to Tort Reform turn a blind eye and see no problem with a larger federal state overpowering individual state and local authority. From a limited gov't if not radical libertarian position, there is reason to question the attempts of Tort Reform at the Federal level of gov't.

At the same time, many scream about so-called malpractice cases and in some they may have a point. However, there are also exceptions to that rule so before you head down a road so certain that you'd blow up the bridges behind you, understand you might be cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Besides, if the medical establishment were far more open to real free market competition from alternative medicine instead of using the State as it's own form of Pinkerton Agents, I might be more willing to hear their cries of "POOR POOR ME!"

 

[Babagounj]

Without tort reform , you have doctors leaving the medical profession simply because the cost of insurance is too high.
In Mass. our prison system is overrun by state prisoners who complain about every little thing and sue the state, visit our prisons and you will see everyone wearing the latest fashionable sneakers paid by the state.
If the system were to change to loser pays, just that thought would free up half of the courts and help clear up the HUGE backlog of pending cases.
Anyone who can't see that benefit is totally unaware of just how dumb the current system is.
Our law schools turn out too many lawyers currently.
I can think of two former lawyers who both after waiting years to achieve their licenses , both lost them within a short time period, and currently call the White House home.

 

[trplnkl]

Moreluck, as in usual fashion, you support something you dont understand.

Tort Reform doesnt help AMERICAN CITIZENS. It helps doctors, lawyers and corporations. It penalizes the citizen for bringing a lawsuit against a company. If you are injured and you sue in a state with a STACKED court of republican judges, you are guaranteed a LOSS. And that loss, no matter how strong a case you present, will ultimately cost you thousands of dollars.

You will lose your case in Texas. Nobody wins against this system. This system hurts americans who are injured by either a doctor or employer. If you are injured at work and sue your company in texas, you dont stand a chance of compensation and will further your loss by having to pay all costs.

You said: "However, if you are in the right, no problem." There is a problem Moreluck, under TORT REFORM, there is NO RIGHT. Thats what youre missing.

The loser will always be the citizen and yet you support it like its a wonderful thing. Free up the courts? From what? All you hear is the "buzzword" frivilous and you think its some goofy case of nonsense brought against a company. In fact, the "buzzword" frivilous means ALL CASES.

Loser pays is a threat intended to prevent you from suing in the first place. If a court is stacked with right wing republicans, how can you win? There is no history of wins in republican courthouses. Look at the appellate levels. Republican judges overturn every judgement of lower courts. Thats a fact.

This is where you are devoid of understanding. Watch the documentary I listed, see how the court systems work, see who is behind the tort reform movement, see how it could affect you, dont take my word for it.

Educate yourself. Nothing in TORT REFORM is in YOUR best interest.

I hope you take the time to watch.

Peace.

Funny how you speak of facts bit offer no proof.

 

[moreluck]

I don't know frivolous ?????????? How about when the theif who breaks into your house to rob you slips on your floor and sues your butt......that's frivolous!!

You let your brat kids run all over the restaurant and one of them hits their head on one of the stands with a serving tray on it and you sue the restaurant........that's frivolous!!!!

I read stuff like this all the time........ridiculous stuff that happens that you bring upon yourself.

I'm devoid of understanding???? Remember what a record is?? The needle is stuck on yours.


Here are some more......
Frivolous Lawsuit Cases
1. The television show "Jackass" is being sued by a Montana man for plagiarizing his name, copyright and trademark infringement and defamation of character as well. In 1997, this Montana man legally changed his name to Jack Ass in order to raise public awareness about the perils of drunken driving. Mr. Jack Ass is seeking $10 million in damages.

2. A former Houston ambulance driver stopped for doughnuts while taking an injured youth to Ben Taub Hospital. The youth's mother filed a complaint against the driver and the driver is suing the city for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

3. A woman who attended 'Halloween Horror Nights' at Universal Studios is suing for $15,000 in damages for extreme fear, emotional distress and mental anguish.

4. Barney the Dinosaur sues the San Diego Chicken. The San Diego Chicken is a sports stadium mascot who, while doing a routine, pummeled a Barney look-alike. The judge threw out the case saying that the act was clearly parody and would not cause trademark confusion.

5. A New York City woman was awarded $14.1 million by a state supreme court jury after she was hit by a subway train as she was patiently laying on the tracks in an apparent suicide attempt. Later, the reward was cut 30 percent, to a mere $9.9 million, because of her "comparative negligence."

6. A California couple sued Bally Health Club for loss of consortium and emotional distress for a cyberspace romance on the man's part. Apparently, the man cut his hand on the towel dispenser at the health club sending him home for a few days where he decided to roam in an online romance.

7. A man is suing the Utah State Prison, saying the prison is violating his right to practice his religion by failing to provide him with a "vampire" diet. The man also filed a complaint that he was denied a conjugal visit with his "vampress" and denied to right to the sacrament of drinking blood.

8. In a "liar, liar no pants on fire case", a California nudist sued an event organizer when he burned his feet while doing a fire walk, after being told the activity may be dangerous.

 

[wkmac]

I don't know frivolous ?????????? How about when the theif who breaks into your house to rob you slips on your floor and sues your butt......that's frivolous!!

I've heard this claim so often but so far I've been able to find a single case of such suit. My wife's law office has LexisNexis and WestLaw so maybe sometime I got nothing else to do I might go over and do a search and just see what pops up on this. So far this appears to be more and more an urban myth probably started and kept alive by political operatives and self serving lawyers whose real goal is something else entirely different.

At LegalZoom from 2007', they have a piece entitled the Top Ten Frivolous Lawsuits and no mention there of robber suing homeowner either which in my mind would qualify.

Here is a piece by a Boston law firm on the legal issue of slips and falls and in one part, the infamous cat burgler slipping and falling is mention.

The same sort of commonsense rules and distinctions govern other cases. Generally speaking, a property owners will owe a much greater duty to prevent a slip-and-fall if they profits from or benefit by foot traffic on their property. So a mall, a merchant or an amusement park must take greater precautions to prevent a slip-and-fall from occurring on its property than a homeowner must take to prevent a traveling salesman from slipping on her front steps. And of course that same homeowner won’t face any liability if sued by an outright trespasser – like a cat burglar – who slips and falls on her stairs.

Maybe that's why I can't find any cases after all!

I read stuff like this all the time

I believe you!