Recent Poll Numbers

[robprunzit]

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

My god so much drivel to sort through where to start? I like to keep informed but almost hate to get involved in politics because it becomes so consuming. I?m only going to go into a few things as I?ve actually got other things to do today.

I can appreciate that and the time you put in, and others to respond to my 'drivel'. Sadly, I hardly have the time to respond to all here or all of you.
But, I really do appreciate your time to respond to what I have posted.


First, as far as McDonalds and coffee go, its a responsibility issue for me. I'm personally sickened by the lessons being taught today to blame someone else first for our mistakes. The lady may be old, who cares, she was stupid. It was really her fault for putting the coffee between her legs and driving away. Everyone with half a brain should know coffee is hot, and its possible to spill it driving.

Second, on the SS and privatization. It just doesn't add up. You can run the #'s in many ways, and I'm sure someone can find a way to make you lose, but excuse me, but stock market returns just don't add up to lose in the long run. Most young people today agree.

The govt only wants to keep it so they can use it for their own spending, and its going to run out. Soon enough, 2 to 1 will not pay for you and me when we are old enough to draw on it. And it wasn't meant to be an investment anyway, and never intended to be kept as long as it has now. We could do better with our money, thats all I'm saying.

And good that your invested since 19, you will do well, but not because of the SS. My numbers are not askew, your changing the subject.

Third, all your quotes from the Wash Post and Newsweek. I simply don't believe half of what they write. Sorry, I don' follow that garbage and the slant they write.

As far as WMD's go. Saddam had them, he never showed where they went or that they were destroyed. So where are they? How come just because we couldn't put our hands on them, that means they were not moved to Syria for example, or Iran, or just buried in the sand, or an underground bunker, like one the found a couple weeks ago. Stupid logic. Kind of like, since my mom never actually caught me smokin pot, it means I never did it.

Typically though, if someone makes a claim the liability is on them to prove it, not the other way around, i.e., if I say I?m physic its not believed by default that I am, leaving others to disprove it. Bush and co. made that claim, but no one has backed it up.

Forth, I had to follow this one up because its so far off base.

I suppose you have forgotten that Saddam himself said he had them, he used them to kill 300,000 kurds, and the whole world community including the UN said he had them. Where is your thinking? If this is an example of how you come up with all the 'facts' you post here, I don't even want to waste my time. Clear example of re-writting history to change facts to make a false story and manipulate peoples thought process. Typical left-sided trickery, and you all do this all the time. So I personally struggle to take time away from spending time with my children to respond to this garbage.

Remember the 'USS COLE', or the World Trade Center -1st bombing, or the US Embassy in Africa? How did Clinton respond to those small scale attacks? With weakness!!!

[9/11 Commission Report, 3/24/04 (B)]

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&startpos=100

The only people who seemed not to be taking action were Bush and co.

*Note* Articles linked to http://www.cooperativeresearch.org also have the cited articles cached at the site.

Thats just plain ridiculous. Clinton cut the military so much that it could hardly respond to any major action needed. Bush stepped into a mess and had to deal with it quickly. Again, re-writting history to change the facts, and misguide the public for the sake of protecting your god, the liberal side of our political structure.

The 9/11 report was so afraid to lay blame that it is almost worthless, but is good to have anyhow.

As far as the rest of what you have here, I simply cant read it all now. At 10pm after working a 12 hour day and not seeing my kids, I really cant spend all night here too.

So you guys who want to blame me for not responding to everything you have all posted, sorry, I only have so much time. So kiss my butt, and thanks for the post. The debates are fun, whether anyones mind is changed or not.

I just wish people would think in a larger scale about issues, and not respond to emotional issues without thinking first and researching from both sides for a fully balance view. To many liberal have come over to a more middle of the road view and some to a more right of center view for a reason. But the educators, media, over zealous politicians, and liberal deadhead bluehairs want to make us a 'socialized' country.

Socialism is not the way for me. We are headed in that direction even though much of the country is red. Thats scary for our future in my opinion, if we want to stay an economic powerhouse and lead this world in the ways that we have in the past 150 years. In ways like hitting meteors 80 million miles away with a copper projectile. We are incredible because of our democracy, not the democratic or republican party. We are bound to lose that edge over the world if we don't wake up and see what is happening here. :cry:

[robprunzit]

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

Lastly, if you think that liberals control the media, how do you explain all the republicans with their own shows?

Wolf Blitzer
Tim Russert
Bob Scheifer
Lou Dobbs
Judy Woodruff
Paula Zahn
Tucker Carlson
Joe Scarborough
Hannity
O'Leilly
Brit Hume
Dennis Miller
Kudlow

This is just off the top of my head.

Rob- you have been brainwashed. Have you read 1984?

Well, as I've said I appreciate your time here, and I cant spend much more time here. So I will only waste more time on the above to further prove my points mentioned so many times before.

You did good to come up 13 names. Thats great. But where are all the Republican Politicians? You just don't hear much from them. They really are not the attack dogs like the left, and they can't even defend themselves or their side well. I am ashamed and frustrated by that fact.

But think about those 13 names. I could add another 13 probably, so that would make 26, give or take.

Now compare that with, ...
1. all the democratic politicians everyday saying something.
2. all the newspapers across the country, most of which have a slant. Whether or not you want to admit it.
3. all the local news outlets, city to city, state to state, across the nation, most of which have a leftish slant. Whether or not you want to admit it.
4. NPR, the govt funded and nationally recognized radio outlet. Again, left sided. Whether or not you want to admit it.
5. CNN. Broadcasted worldwide. I don't have to say it, ... do I?
6. Al Jazira, forgive my spelling. You ever heard anything pro-american come out of that one. Fuel on the fire, and left sided.
7. Socialist govts like Germany, France, now Spain, etc, etc. But funny how the post Communist countrys are on the Free Iraq and Pro American side.

Thank you for your list of 13. There are so many against the truly LOUD voices of the world wide media today. Glad you could give them credit for their jobs well done.

[pacific493]

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

You can thank Lawyers, and every stupid American who sues for every reason under the sun, whether right or wrong. Burn you crotch with hot coffee, and sue McDonalds for a million ... AND WIN!?!!!

Straight from Fox News to your ears to your keyboard. Sorry Rob, but lawyers ain't the problem. And you clearly know nothing about the McDonald's coffee case...perhaps you should read a little more about it. Perhaps you would feel differently if your wife suffered third degree burns on her genitals from coffee that was heated beyond the point of safety so that the smell would permeate the store and induce more people to buy coffee.

Anyway, recent studies have shown that verdicts in medical malpractice actions have not been driving the rise in health care. Part of my practice is defending doctors in medical malpractice actions and, from experience in my state, I can tell you that verdicts in medical malpractice actions have no correlation to the steady increase in the cost of healthcare in my state. We have been seeing far more defense verdicts than plaintiffs verdicts these days and yet health costs continue to increase. Sorry, but in this instance lawyers ain't the problem...even though the republicans have worked mightily to convince you otherwise.

The point is she wasn't willing to take responsibility for putting hot coffee next to her crouch in the car. Always someone elses fault for stupidity.

And my coffee always brews past the point of boiling at home. That the way its made ... hot. So at Starbucks, I put 3 ice cubes in it with milk and its perfect for me.

It was her fault, not McDonalds.

I see, so responsibility always falls on the shoulders of the injured party and not the corporate party that contributed to the injury??? If the coffee had not been heated beyond the point of safety, she would not have suffered third degree burns on her genitals.

You do realize that at the start of that case her lawyers contacted McDonalds and offered to settle for her medical expenses which were around $20,000. McDonalds said no and the case ensued.

Even if she bears some amount of responsibility for the accident (a premise which I can accept), McDonalds is not without liability.

Have you read any of the articles about that case or are you continuing to bury your head in the sand like you do with everything else?

[pacific493]

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

The lady may be old, who cares, she was stupid. It was really her fault for putting the coffee between her legs and driving away.

That's a myth...she wasn't driving.

Second, on the SS and privatization. It just doesn't add up. You can run the #'s in many ways, and I'm sure someone can find a way to make you lose, but excuse me, but stock market returns just don't add up to lose in the long run. Most young people today agree.

But you're not looking at the whole picture. Social security is a money in-money out system where money going in today is used to pay the money going out today. After the reform in the 1980s, the surplus money was put into the "trust fund" to fund the inevitable shortfall in money coming in when the boomers retired. Now, if we follow Bush's plan and start to take some of that money coming in and divert it to private accounts, that money will not be available to go out today...when the boomers hit, there will be an increased shortfall because Bush has said that the system will not change for them. So you have the same amount of money going in, the same amount of guaranteed benefits, but less money to go out. That's the fundamental problem I have that no one has explained. There will be a period of time when there will be massive shortfalls...that's not a recipe for solvency.

Also, do you know how the "private accounts" work? They are sold in a way that makes it seem like you and I will get a private bank account that we can do what we want with when the time comes, but it is not so simple. We will continue to get a defined SS benefit and the private account will be used to top that benefit off. I've read about the proposed structure and it's just plain stupid. If it were really structured as a private account whereby you and I would be guaranteed to receive a bank account with X amount of dollars in it when we retire, I would be more on-board with that.

Rob, one other problem with Bush's plan is that he argues that SS will go bust based on pessimistic economic projections, but that private accounts will "save" SS based on optimistic economic projections. You can't have it both ways.

We could do better with our money, thats all I'm saying.

Problem is, you will not have the option to do anything with your own money. The government will still control it and will only give you a few options of how you can invest it...and those options will be conservative.

Third, all your quotes from the Wash Post and Newsweek. I simply don't believe half of what they write.

Even if you only believe half, that half is enough to show that Bush's SS plan is not all it's cracked up to be.

I suppose you have forgotten that Saddam himself said he had them, he used them to kill 300,000 kurds, and the whole world community including the UN said he had them.

He actually killed around 5000 and that was in 1988. I think the point is whether he had them in the lead up to war.

Clear example of re-writting history to change facts to make a false story and manipulate peoples thought process.

You're doing a bit of the same. Whether Saddam had chem weaps in the 1980s really has no bearing on whether we should go to war in 2003.

Thats just plain ridiculous. Clinton cut the military so much that it could hardly respond to any major action needed. Bush stepped into a mess and had to deal with it quickly. Again, re-writting history to change the facts, and misguide the public for the sake of protecting your god, the liberal side of our political structure.

Typical conservative BS...Clinton: all bad; Bush: all good. Both bear blame Rob and you lack credibility because you fail to recognize that neither is the angel or devil that the other side tries to portray them as.

So you guys who want to blame me for not responding to everything you have all posted, sorry, I only have so much time.

Your decisions on what to respond to are very telling.

I just wish people would think in a larger scale about issues, and not respond to emotional issues without thinking first and researching from both sides for a fully balance view.

You're joking right??? Were you looking in the mirror when you wrote that?

[toasty]

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

Even if she bears some amount of responsibility for the accident (a premise which I can accept), McDonalds is not without liability.

Indeed, she was found largely responsible -- 80% -- and her recovery was reduced accordingly. That, by the way, happened after the judge reduced the amount of the verdict as disproportionate to the evidence, so she really didn't end up clearing all that much at all. In other words, the system worked as it should have, but that's not particularly sensational or newsworthy, so nobody ever hears about what happened after the jury rendered its verdict.

There's so much about the McDonald's case that never made its way into the public eye. For christ's sake, that coffee was only about 30 degrees from being coffee vapor, and was well over the recommended drinking temperature contained in McDonald's own documents. The end result is actually not all that outrageous at all.

[pacific493]

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

Even if she bears some amount of responsibility for the accident (a premise which I can accept), McDonalds is not without liability.

Indeed, she was found largely responsible -- 80% -- and her recovery was reduced accordingly. That, by the way, happened after the judge reduced the amount of the verdict as disproportionate to the evidence, so she really didn't end up clearing all that much at all. In other words, the system worked as it should have, but that's not particularly sensational or newsworthy, so nobody ever hears about what happened after the jury rendered its verdict.

There's so much about the McDonald's case that never made its way into the public eye. For christ's sake, that coffee was only about 30 degrees from being coffee vapor, and was well over the recommended drinking temperature contained in McDonald's own documents. The end result is actually not all that outrageous at all.

I forgot about that little tidbit of the case. Thanks filling that in.

The reason why the McDonalds case gets so much attention is that it makes a great soundbyte for folks like Rob. It just sounds so ridiculous that someone sued over coffee being too hot. When you scrape the surface off of the soundbyte, though, it has a lot more substance.

A similar thing happened with the fast food lawsuits. Everyone raised a huge fuss about how ridiculous those lawsuits were (there was even legislation introduced to exempt fast food makers from liability). What was overlooked was the fact that the suits were thrown out of court at the first available opportunity. So, again, the system worked as it should have.

[toasty]

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

Now compare that with, ...
1. all the democratic politicians everyday saying something.
2. all the newspapers across the country, most of which have a slant. Whether or not you want to admit it.
3. all the local news outlets, city to city, state to state, across the nation, most of which have a leftish slant. Whether or not you want to admit it.
4. NPR, the govt funded and nationally recognized radio outlet. Again, left sided. Whether or not you want to admit it.

In a discussion about whether or not the media is liberal, isn't it circular to support that argument by asserting that the media is liberal, "whether we want to admit it or not?" Kinda defeats the purpose of even having the discussion, if we are to presuppose that the media as a whole is liberal, doesn't it?

We've had this discussion a million times before on this board, and I doubt that any minds have been changed, so I'm not going to rehash my thoughts on the fallacy that is the idea of a "liberal media." Clearly, though, an argument that "the media is liberal because, look, whether or not you think it is, the media is liberal" will not carry the day.

[toasty]

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

Oh, and isn't Carl Rove a democrat? How about Zell Miller?

[pacific493]

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

But where are all the Republican Politicians? You just don't hear much from them.

Rob, what planet do you live on? Republican politicians are all over the news. Turn on CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc., rep pols are all over the place.

They really are not the attack dogs like the left, and they can't even defend themselves or their side well. I am ashamed and frustrated by that fact.

Again, what planet are you on? Republicans are far superior in defending their positions and advancing their point of view than democrats/liberals are. They're also a heck of a lot better at attacking dem/lib positions. J.D. Hayworth, J.C. Watts, McCain (although I'm sure you're in the McCain ain't no republican camp), Santorum and any number of other republicans kick the shit out of the lefties on a regular basis.

You may have a point that there are more outlets that slant left, although you use so many generalities, you really are just speculating rather than stating facts, but in terms of quality, the republicans win almost every time. Who do you think is more effective Alan Colmes or Sean Hannity?

[toasty]

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

Since there's been some discussion in this thread about how rising health care costs are all the fault of lawyers, I thought I'd share this recent study that found that insurers are basically gouging doctors and vastly overcharging them relative to the amount actually paid out:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/68006B01AFE5741586257038001A0688?OpenDocument

Highlights:

Malpractice insurers are inflating rates, study says
By Michael Sorkin
Of the Post-Dispatch
07/07/2005

A new study by Missouri's former top insurance regulator concludes that insurers are vastly overcharging physicians for malpractice premiums.

Doctors readily agree they are being overcharged. Many blame juries in malpractice cases for causing the cost of insurance to go so high that some physicians have gone out of business.

Jay Angoff blames insurance companies.

His study found that medical malpractice insurers paid out just 30 cents of every dollar that doctors paid in premiums last year.

"That is shockingly low," said Angoff, an attorney who was Missouri insurance commissioner from 1993 to 1998.

Insurers say such studies are worthless because they often don't take into account estimated future claims.

Angoff said his study did take those into account.

He found that insurers paid out just 40 cents of every dollar they expected to pay out in the future.

"That is unconscionably low," Angoff said.

In March, Angoff was examining one insurer's annual statement. He said he found that claims were heading dramatically down at the same time premiums were shooting up.

...

The leading malpractice insurers took in three times as much in premiums last year as they paid out in claims.

Among the insurers that substantially increased premiums was Medical Assurance Inc., with regional offices in Missouri. It increased premiums 89 percent, while claims fell by a third. It paid out 10 cents in claims for each premium dollar collected. A company official did not return calls for comment.

...

This adds yet further support to my position that insurance companies are taking advantage of a perceived but nonexistent "malpractice litigation crisis" as justification for gouging doctors on their med malp premiums.

I'd love to see some legislation that made insurers justify their rates. Odd, but predictable, that with all the legislation that has been bandied about for the last few years designed to help keep doctors' premiums low, none of it has placed any restrictions on the insurance industry at all or even breathed the word "insurance."

All smoke and mirrors...

[pacific493]

Re: Recent Poll Numbers

What really should be done is comprehensive reform legislation. There are definitely some things that should be done on the litigation side of things...expert review requirements, heightened pleading standards, mandatory mediation, fee-shifting provisions, etc. are all solid ways to help weed out frivolous cases. Damage caps are not. They really only do one thing and that is help the insureres commoditize their risk.

There should also be greater oversight of the med mal insurers...I don't know enough about how that whole industry works to know what the best types of solutions are, but they have certainly increased premiums to make up for investment losses when the economy slowed.

[neoee]

Insurance companies make most of their money by investing what they recieve as premuims. Being that the market hasn't been so great the last 5 or so years they are raising rates as a means of profiting.

Secondly it almost seems like a never ending cycle-
1) Insurance companies raise malpractice insurance rates
2) The doctor in turn passes on these increases to his patients who,
3) oddly enough pay using insurance monies.
4) GOTO 1