So I'm Seriously Considering Running For Congress - Page 3

sackdance99 · 12-11-2008, 10:55 AM

[QUOTE=Vilma;2905079]Wow. This by no means in a personal attack. But your way of thinking is so toxic, and sadly, so many other people are just as serious as you are with these words.[/QUOTE]

Coming from someone who is lost I can understand your way of thinking. Your mind has been cut off of all the things of God. It's called total depravity.

Ha Ha Ha · 12-11-2008, 11:09 AM

[QUOTE=sackdance99;2905097]Coming from someone who is lost I can understand your way of thinking. Your mind has been cut off of all the things of God. It's called total depravity.[/QUOTE]

Yup.

Thank God I've been totally cutoff from all things of God. :D

Oh how I wish we had a member on JI who shares your zeal from the Muslim faith.....would make for some great debating dontcha think?

HessStation · 12-11-2008, 11:28 AM

[QUOTE=doggin94it;2903411]Anyone want to donate to the campaign fund? :D

Seriously, though - I live in Oceanside, which is partially in Carolyn McCarthy's Third Congressional District and partially in Peter King's Fourth Congressional District. King just announced he intends to run for Hillary Clinton's soon to be reoccupied Senate seat in 2010 - which means there's suddenly no incumbent.

So, knowing what you know about me, would you vote for me? And if I were running in your district, what issues would you be interested in hearing my positions on?[/QUOTE]

Hmm, I choose C. First, I need to know your thoughts on Hitler, RoevWade, Why can I only have a [I]clear[/I] water bottle on the beach in your district, why is it illegal to jump off the empire state building? Hmmm. Your thoughts on the Senate passing a resolution to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the Brooklyn Dodgers' 1955 world championship? What's up with that??? Would also like to know where you stand on capital punishment, budget reform, and what's your favorite color?

ReleasetheAnimal · 12-11-2008, 12:02 PM

[QUOTE=sackdance99;2905067]That's because it's people like doggin and you who have perverted the things Christ said. Go ahead, keep storing up wrath on yourselves which you will drink up on your big day. Christ is a the forefront of every issue. Deal with that.[/QUOTE]

How did you get out of the nuthouse?

brady's a catcher · 12-11-2008, 12:20 PM

Only if you promise to ban everyone to hell that does not subscribe to your beliefs.

But seriously Doggin, from what little I know of you from this board, you would seem to have many qualities that most career politicians lack: a strong intellect, integrity and fairness, racial and religous tolerence, and humility.

I undertsand why a previous poster said that you should run from politics like your hair is on fire, but imo, that attitude just leaves it to the usual suspects, which means business as usual.

Go for it and good luck!

sackdance99 · 12-11-2008, 03:16 PM

[QUOTE=Vilma;2905122]Yup.

Thank God I've been totally cutoff from all things of God. :D

Oh how I wish we had a member on JI who shares your zeal from the Muslim faith.....would make for some great debating dontcha think?[/QUOTE]

I wish, they wouldn't last long. Debating Muslims is great. I usually start of with "So, explain this - if that wasn't Jesus up on the cross who in the world was it?" Then I'd move to "Did you know that Muhammad was a pervert, and beheaded many people in his time" :eek:

brady's a catcher · 12-11-2008, 03:54 PM

[QUOTE=sackdance99;2905772]I wish, they wouldn't last long. Debating Muslims is great. I usually start of with "So, explain this - if that wasn't Jesus up on the cross who in the world was it?" Then I'd move to "Did you know that Muhammad was a pervert, and beheaded many people in his time" :eek:[/QUOTE]

I'd put you on ignore, but sometimes what you post is so astoundingly stupid that it's entertaining. This is one of those times.

ReleasetheAnimal · 12-11-2008, 04:05 PM

[QUOTE=brady's a catcher;2905864]I'd put you on ignore, but sometimes what you post is so astoundingly stupid that it's entertaining. This is one of those times.[/QUOTE]

:yes::yes::yes::yes::yes:

JCnflies · 12-11-2008, 04:06 PM

I would say it would take a tough opponent to get me to vote against you .....

You seem pretty balanced to me:) I think you have the conscience of one who believes there is right and wrong. While we don't agree on all, when we disagree, you have fair and respectable reasons.

If we voted for Secretary of State, I'd vote for you!

Queens Jet Fan · 12-11-2008, 10:04 PM

Yes. A Republican with common sense who also appears to be competent. Got my vote. The only part I have a problem with was how every time Palin came forth as a bonehead you agreed, but said it didn't matter anyway as you don't vote for VP. Was scratching my head with that stuff.

doggin94it · 12-11-2008, 10:14 PM

[quote=jetswin;2904935]Frankly I don't see the motivation for the thankless job of being a politician. You and your family will be scrutinized and harassed, and you will sucked into things that you would otherwise never have in your life. You are an intelligent thoughtful person if you want to use that for the betterment of your fellow man think of another way. As big an asset as you feel you could be as a politician there are probably other ways to accomplish things you want.[/quote]

Yeah, there's that. But I think I could actually do some good, and I certainly sit on the sidelines complaining enough to have the "money where your mouth is" thing egging me on.

doggin94it · 12-11-2008, 10:23 PM

[quote=HDCentStOhio;2904972]Tort reform.[/quote]

Not something I've thought about in much depth, so I can certainly be persuaded to change my mind (in either direction) by further evidence, but here's where I am:

1) No cap on actual damages for physical injury or out of pocket losses (including for future expenses such as cost-of-care)

2) Some reasonable cap on non-physical damages (pain and suffering, loss of consortium, etc.) which aren't really, by their nature, really compensible by means of money - but only where such damages are claimed in addition to an injury truly compensible by money (med mal, car accident, wrongful death, etc.), not where non-physical injury is the main claim (libel/slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc.)

3) Punitive damages redirected from the plaintiff to a charity of the plaintiff's choice (no conflict of interest allowed unless charity is directly related to claimed injury - i.e. no donating to a charity you, your family, or your lawyer are involved in unless the charity was set up based on the injury [i.e. lose a kid to drunk driving and you start a drunk driving awareness program])

4) Attorneys may not include amount of punitive damages in contingency fee calculations.

So . . . how'd I do?

JetsFan2012 · 12-11-2008, 10:45 PM

[QUOTE=doggin94it;2906770]

3) Punitive damages redirected from the plaintiff to a charity of the plaintiff's choice (no conflict of interest allowed unless charity is directly related to claimed injury - i.e. no donating to a charity you, your family, or your lawyer are involved in unless the charity was set up based on the injury [i.e. lose a kid to drunk driving and you start a drunk driving awareness program])

[/QUOTE]

I like this.

How about immigration -- a topic largely ignored during the Presidential campaign.

doggin94it · 12-11-2008, 10:48 PM

[quote=HessStation;2905163]Hmm, I choose C. First, I need to know your thoughts on Hitler, RoevWade, Why can I only have a [I]clear[/I] water bottle on the beach in your district, why is it illegal to jump off the empire state building? Hmmm. Your thoughts on the Senate passing a resolution to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the Brooklyn Dodgers' 1955 world championship? What's up with that??? Would also like to know where you stand on capital punishment, budget reform, and what's your favorite color?[/quote]

Hitler? I refer you to Anthony Zirkle . . . if it will help slay the Tyrant King Porn Dragon . . . (ref: [url]http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/25/zirkle-rails-against-the-great-porn-dragon-and-its-influence-over-jews/[/url] ) (I just read this yesterday by utter accident and I'm still in shock. You have no idea how many people at work wondered why I was laughing so loud)

Roe v. Wade: Not the most well founded decision in the Supreme Court's history but the decision has stood for so long that attempting to change it is doomed to failure, and I wouldn't want to anyway. I'd be in favor of a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion post-viability and allowing it up to viability. Whatever my religious opinion of abortion, there's no clear-cut answer from a legal perspective. There are three at least theoretically legitimate/defensible views of when a human life is cognizable - birth, viability and conception - and viability strikes me as the best solution.

Clear water bottle: Why do you need opaque, hmmm?

Empire state building: Danger to pedestrians

Senate resolution: Waste of taxpayer time and money

Capital punishment: with former Illinois Gov. Ryan - it's ok in theory, but in practice, given human fallibility, I'm not in favor of a non-reversible punishment. My only exception would be where a criminal confesses to a murder and is evaluated by a psych and found sane (i.e. like a terrorist who publicly takes credit for the crime).

Budget reform: Good idea :D

Favorite color: Green, of course :jets_sign

HDCentStOhio · 12-11-2008, 10:48 PM

[QUOTE=doggin94it;2906770]Not something I've thought about in much depth, so I can certainly be persuaded to change my mind (in either direction) by further evidence, but here's where I am:

1) No cap on actual damages for physical injury or out of pocket losses (including for future expenses such as cost-of-care)

2) Some reasonable cap on non-physical damages (pain and suffering, loss of consortium, etc.) which aren't really, by their nature, really compensible by means of money - but only where such damages are claimed in addition to an injury truly compensible by money (med mal, car accident, wrongful death, etc.), not where non-physical injury is the main claim (libel/slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc.)

3) Punitive damages redirected from the plaintiff to a charity of the plaintiff's choice (no conflict of interest allowed unless charity is directly related to claimed injury - i.e. no donating to a charity you, your family, or your lawyer are involved in unless the charity was set up based on the injury [i.e. lose a kid to drunk driving and you start a drunk driving awareness program])

4) Attorneys may not include amount of punitive damages in contingency fee calculations.

So . . . how'd I do?[/QUOTE]
Not bad, although not being a lawyer, honestly you lost me on number #2 with the legal-speak. Like #3 and #4. I personally think our current legal system is a big detriment to the small business owner. Have a little success, you become a target.

doggin94it · 12-11-2008, 10:50 PM

[quote=pauliec;2906796]I like this.

How about immigration -- a topic largely ignored during the Presidential campaign.[/quote]

Glad you approve. I'm guessing you aren't going to like this one, though. I'm in favor of amnesty and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already here and without a criminal record (beyond being illegal in the first instance) in conjunction with increased border security and some financial penalties (like back taxes owed, for instance).

doggin94it · 12-11-2008, 10:51 PM

[quote=brady's a catcher;2905864]I'd put you on ignore, but sometimes what you post is so astoundingly stupid that it's entertaining. This is one of those times.[/quote]

For the benefit of those of us who already have him on ignore, could you at least only quote him when he reaches that point?

doggin94it · 12-11-2008, 11:30 PM

[quote=HDCentStOhio;2906803]Not bad, although not being a lawyer, honestly you lost me on number #2 with the legal-speak. Like #3 and #4. I personally think our current legal system is a big detriment to the small business owner. Have a little success, you become a target.[/quote]

Thanks. On number 2:

Basically, when a jury awards damages, they award money to compensate the plaintiff for the injury they suffered. Sometimes, that's money to compensate you for actual or expected losses of money: things like out of pocket costs (medical expenses actually incurred), expected future expenses (cost of expected future care or needs [for example, you were paralyzed, so you need to refit your house with ramps or elevators]), monetary losses (time off work), future lost profits (you used to be a professional football player and now are wheelchair bound, so you've lost future salary).

IMO, that type of damage should not be capped - the damages are meant to make you whole, to replace money you lost (or will lose) as a result of being injured, and an artificial cap may wrongly limit that recovery and leave plaintiffs with a net loss despite proving to a jury that the defendant was responsible. For instance, lets say that all damages were capped at $5,000,000, and the plaintiff was a 6mo. old who will, as a result of his injuries, need constant nursing care for the rest of his expected 60 year life expected to cost $6,000,000. And saying "well, make the cap higher" doesn't help, because there's always some possible scenario where the actual money loss to the plaintiff will exceed the artificial cap, and the damages will not have actually made the plaintiff whole monetarily. And that's not a result I can get behind.

On the other hand, there's a separate species of damages meant to compensate not for monetary loss, but for non-monetary loss. Things like pain and suffering, loss of consortium (basically, compensating someone for the loss of the companionship of the directly injured person), emotional distress. These are varieties of damage that absolutely should exist (people should be compensated for their pain and other non-monetary injuries) but these types of damages are inherently a rough approximation and can't actually make the plaintiff whole. As such you don't have the same problem with imposing an artificial cap - that there might be cases where the plaintiff isn't made whole.

On the other hand, when it comes to suits where the main claims are inherently non-monetary in nature (so things like libel or slander, where damages are to compensate for an injury to reputation), I wouldn't be in favor of an artificial cap because there isn't as much need for it - like I said, I haven't studied it, but as far as I know those cases don't tend to be the ones with outrageous damage awards.

Jason423 · 12-11-2008, 11:33 PM

I would definitely encourage you to do it if you feel you have the people in place to at least start getting your name out. I think its also hard to win if it is your first time running and would hope you would have the conviction to use this as a way to get the name out in the event you lost and would pursue it again in the future, provided you could financially do it. We have a few friends who were involved with local level politics, one of whom was actually pretty well connected at one point with the national Republican party heads. I think it can definitely be really rewarding to do.

Obviously I couldn't vote for you since I do not live there, but what would be your position on representing (for lack of a better term) national party interests over those of your actual constituency? That is one of the things that annoys me to no end. I think too many people in the political circle have completely lost sight of representing the best interests of those who voted for them and represent the best interests of a political party instead. In some cases those positions certainly are similar but in many cases they really are different.

BTW, I like what you posted above about tort reform.

JetsFan2012 · 12-11-2008, 11:46 PM

[QUOTE=doggin94it;2906805]Glad you approve. I'm guessing you aren't going to like this one, though. I'm in favor of amnesty and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already here and without a criminal record (beyond being illegal in the first instance) in conjunction with increased border security and some financial penalties (like back taxes owed, for instance).[/QUOTE]

I'm not necessarily against your position here, as it would be unfair to toss out every law-abiding, hard-working illegal immigrant. At the same time, the problem is way out of the control, and the non law-abiding immigrants (gang-bangers and drug smuggles, for instance) know this and exploit it.

Thus, how important is increased border security and immigration reform to you?

View Poll Results: Would you vote for me?
Yes	16	59.26%
No	6	22.22%
Undecided/depends on opponent	5	18.52%
Voters: 27. You may not vote on this poll

12-11-2008, 10:55 AM	#41
sackdance99 Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: The Jersey Shore Posts: 3,073	[QUOTE=Vilma;2905079]Wow. This by no means in a personal attack. But your way of thinking is so toxic, and sadly, so many other people are just as serious as you are with these words.[/QUOTE] Coming from someone who is lost I can understand your way of thinking. Your mind has been cut off of all the things of God. It's called total depravity.

12-11-2008, 11:09 AM	#42
Ha Ha Ha Board Moderator Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Brooklyn Heights Posts: 2,459	[QUOTE=sackdance99;2905097]Coming from someone who is lost I can understand your way of thinking. Your mind has been cut off of all the things of God. It's called total depravity.[/QUOTE] Yup. Thank God I've been totally cutoff from all things of God. :D Oh how I wish we had a member on JI who shares your zeal from the Muslim faith.....would make for some great debating dontcha think?

12-11-2008, 11:28 AM	#43
HessStation All Pro Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 9,902	[QUOTE=doggin94it;2903411]Anyone want to donate to the campaign fund? :D Seriously, though - I live in Oceanside, which is partially in Carolyn McCarthy's Third Congressional District and partially in Peter King's Fourth Congressional District. King just announced he intends to run for Hillary Clinton's soon to be reoccupied Senate seat in 2010 - which means there's suddenly no incumbent. So, knowing what you know about me, would you vote for me? And if I were running in your district, what issues would you be interested in hearing my positions on?[/QUOTE] Hmm, I choose C. First, I need to know your thoughts on Hitler, RoevWade, Why can I only have a [I]clear[/I] water bottle on the beach in your district, why is it illegal to jump off the empire state building? Hmmm. Your thoughts on the Senate passing a resolution to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the Brooklyn Dodgers' 1955 world championship? What's up with that??? Would also like to know where you stand on capital punishment, budget reform, and what's your favorite color?

12-11-2008, 12:02 PM	#44
ReleasetheAnimal is living in a van down by the river. All League Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Wilton, CT Posts: 2,745	[QUOTE=sackdance99;2905067]That's because it's people like doggin and you who have perverted the things Christ said. Go ahead, keep storing up wrath on yourselves which you will drink up on your big day. Christ is a the forefront of every issue. Deal with that.[/QUOTE] How did you get out of the nuthouse?

12-11-2008, 12:20 PM	#45
brady's a catcher R.I.P Goofy Maloof All Pro Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Alexandria, VA Posts: 6,696	Only if you promise to ban everyone to hell that does not subscribe to your beliefs. But seriously Doggin, from what little I know of you from this board, you would seem to have many qualities that most career politicians lack: a strong intellect, integrity and fairness, racial and religous tolerence, and humility. I undertsand why a previous poster said that you should run from politics like your hair is on fire, but imo, that attitude just leaves it to the usual suspects, which means business as usual. Go for it and good luck!

12-11-2008, 03:16 PM	#46
sackdance99 Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: The Jersey Shore Posts: 3,073	[QUOTE=Vilma;2905122]Yup. Thank God I've been totally cutoff from all things of God. :D Oh how I wish we had a member on JI who shares your zeal from the Muslim faith.....would make for some great debating dontcha think?[/QUOTE] I wish, they wouldn't last long. Debating Muslims is great. I usually start of with "So, explain this - if that wasn't Jesus up on the cross who in the world was it?" Then I'd move to "Did you know that Muhammad was a pervert, and beheaded many people in his time" :eek:

12-11-2008, 03:54 PM	#47
brady's a catcher R.I.P Goofy Maloof All Pro Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Alexandria, VA Posts: 6,696	[QUOTE=sackdance99;2905772]I wish, they wouldn't last long. Debating Muslims is great. I usually start of with "So, explain this - if that wasn't Jesus up on the cross who in the world was it?" Then I'd move to "Did you know that Muhammad was a pervert, and beheaded many people in his time" :eek:[/QUOTE] I'd put you on ignore, but sometimes what you post is so astoundingly stupid that it's entertaining. This is one of those times.

12-11-2008, 04:05 PM	#48
ReleasetheAnimal is living in a van down by the river. All League Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Wilton, CT Posts: 2,745	[QUOTE=brady's a catcher;2905864]I'd put you on ignore, but sometimes what you post is so astoundingly stupid that it's entertaining. This is one of those times.[/QUOTE] :yes::yes::yes::yes::yes:

12-11-2008, 04:06 PM	#49
JCnflies All Pro Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 1,709	I would say it would take a tough opponent to get me to vote against you ..... You seem pretty balanced to me:) I think you have the conscience of one who believes there is right and wrong. While we don't agree on all, when we disagree, you have fair and respectable reasons. If we voted for Secretary of State, I'd vote for you!

12-11-2008, 10:04 PM	#50
Queens Jet Fan All Pro Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Roslyn Posts: 6,790	Yes. A Republican with common sense who also appears to be competent. Got my vote. The only part I have a problem with was how every time Palin came forth as a bonehead you agreed, but said it didn't matter anyway as you don't vote for VP. Was scratching my head with that stuff.

12-11-2008, 10:14 PM	#51
doggin94it Hall Of Fame Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,432	[quote=jetswin;2904935]Frankly I don't see the motivation for the thankless job of being a politician. You and your family will be scrutinized and harassed, and you will sucked into things that you would otherwise never have in your life. You are an intelligent thoughtful person if you want to use that for the betterment of your fellow man think of another way. As big an asset as you feel you could be as a politician there are probably other ways to accomplish things you want.[/quote] Yeah, there's that. But I think I could actually do some good, and I certainly sit on the sidelines complaining enough to have the "money where your mouth is" thing egging me on.

12-11-2008, 10:23 PM	#52
doggin94it Hall Of Fame Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,432	[quote=HDCentStOhio;2904972]Tort reform.[/quote] Not something I've thought about in much depth, so I can certainly be persuaded to change my mind (in either direction) by further evidence, but here's where I am: 1) No cap on actual damages for physical injury or out of pocket losses (including for future expenses such as cost-of-care) 2) Some reasonable cap on non-physical damages (pain and suffering, loss of consortium, etc.) which aren't really, by their nature, really compensible by means of money - but only where such damages are claimed in addition to an injury truly compensible by money (med mal, car accident, wrongful death, etc.), not where non-physical injury is the main claim (libel/slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc.) 3) Punitive damages redirected from the plaintiff to a charity of the plaintiff's choice (no conflict of interest allowed unless charity is directly related to claimed injury - i.e. no donating to a charity you, your family, or your lawyer are involved in unless the charity was set up based on the injury [i.e. lose a kid to drunk driving and you start a drunk driving awareness program]) 4) Attorneys may not include amount of punitive damages in contingency fee calculations. So . . . how'd I do?

12-11-2008, 10:45 PM	#53
JetsFan2012 Waterboy Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 0	[QUOTE=doggin94it;2906770] 3) Punitive damages redirected from the plaintiff to a charity of the plaintiff's choice (no conflict of interest allowed unless charity is directly related to claimed injury - i.e. no donating to a charity you, your family, or your lawyer are involved in unless the charity was set up based on the injury [i.e. lose a kid to drunk driving and you start a drunk driving awareness program]) [/QUOTE] I like this. How about immigration -- a topic largely ignored during the Presidential campaign.

12-11-2008, 10:48 PM	#54
doggin94it Hall Of Fame Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,432	[quote=HessStation;2905163]Hmm, I choose C. First, I need to know your thoughts on Hitler, RoevWade, Why can I only have a [I]clear[/I] water bottle on the beach in your district, why is it illegal to jump off the empire state building? Hmmm. Your thoughts on the Senate passing a resolution to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the Brooklyn Dodgers' 1955 world championship? What's up with that??? Would also like to know where you stand on capital punishment, budget reform, and what's your favorite color?[/quote] Hitler? I refer you to Anthony Zirkle . . . if it will help slay the Tyrant King Porn Dragon . . . (ref: [url]http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/25/zirkle-rails-against-the-great-porn-dragon-and-its-influence-over-jews/[/url] ) (I just read this yesterday by utter accident and I'm still in shock. You have no idea how many people at work wondered why I was laughing so loud) Roe v. Wade: Not the most well founded decision in the Supreme Court's history but the decision has stood for so long that attempting to change it is doomed to failure, and I wouldn't want to anyway. I'd be in favor of a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion post-viability and allowing it up to viability. Whatever my religious opinion of abortion, there's no clear-cut answer from a legal perspective. There are three at least theoretically legitimate/defensible views of when a human life is cognizable - birth, viability and conception - and viability strikes me as the best solution. Clear water bottle: Why do you need opaque, hmmm? Empire state building: Danger to pedestrians Senate resolution: Waste of taxpayer time and money Capital punishment: with former Illinois Gov. Ryan - it's ok in theory, but in practice, given human fallibility, I'm not in favor of a non-reversible punishment. My only exception would be where a criminal confesses to a murder and is evaluated by a psych and found sane (i.e. like a terrorist who publicly takes credit for the crime). Budget reform: Good idea :D Favorite color: Green, of course :jets_sign

12-11-2008, 10:48 PM	#55
HDCentStOhio longing for the days of Ronald Reagan Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Long Island & Section 337 Posts: 4,859	[QUOTE=doggin94it;2906770]Not something I've thought about in much depth, so I can certainly be persuaded to change my mind (in either direction) by further evidence, but here's where I am: 1) No cap on actual damages for physical injury or out of pocket losses (including for future expenses such as cost-of-care) 2) Some reasonable cap on non-physical damages (pain and suffering, loss of consortium, etc.) which aren't really, by their nature, really compensible by means of money - but only where such damages are claimed in addition to an injury truly compensible by money (med mal, car accident, wrongful death, etc.), not where non-physical injury is the main claim (libel/slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc.) 3) Punitive damages redirected from the plaintiff to a charity of the plaintiff's choice (no conflict of interest allowed unless charity is directly related to claimed injury - i.e. no donating to a charity you, your family, or your lawyer are involved in unless the charity was set up based on the injury [i.e. lose a kid to drunk driving and you start a drunk driving awareness program]) 4) Attorneys may not include amount of punitive damages in contingency fee calculations. So . . . how'd I do?[/QUOTE] Not bad, although not being a lawyer, honestly you lost me on number #2 with the legal-speak. Like #3 and #4. I personally think our current legal system is a big detriment to the small business owner. Have a little success, you become a target.

12-11-2008, 10:50 PM	#56
doggin94it Hall Of Fame Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,432	[quote=pauliec;2906796]I like this. How about immigration -- a topic largely ignored during the Presidential campaign.[/quote] Glad you approve. I'm guessing you aren't going to like this one, though. I'm in favor of amnesty and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already here and without a criminal record (beyond being illegal in the first instance) in conjunction with increased border security and some financial penalties (like back taxes owed, for instance).

12-11-2008, 10:51 PM	#57
doggin94it Hall Of Fame Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,432	[quote=brady's a catcher;2905864]I'd put you on ignore, but sometimes what you post is so astoundingly stupid that it's entertaining. This is one of those times.[/quote] For the benefit of those of us who already have him on ignore, could you at least only quote him when he reaches that point?

12-11-2008, 11:30 PM	#58
doggin94it Hall Of Fame Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,432	[quote=HDCentStOhio;2906803]Not bad, although not being a lawyer, honestly you lost me on number #2 with the legal-speak. Like #3 and #4. I personally think our current legal system is a big detriment to the small business owner. Have a little success, you become a target.[/quote] Thanks. On number 2: Basically, when a jury awards damages, they award money to compensate the plaintiff for the injury they suffered. Sometimes, that's money to compensate you for actual or expected losses of money: things like out of pocket costs (medical expenses actually incurred), expected future expenses (cost of expected future care or needs [for example, you were paralyzed, so you need to refit your house with ramps or elevators]), monetary losses (time off work), future lost profits (you used to be a professional football player and now are wheelchair bound, so you've lost future salary). IMO, that type of damage should not be capped - the damages are meant to make you whole, to replace money you lost (or will lose) as a result of being injured, and an artificial cap may wrongly limit that recovery and leave plaintiffs with a net loss despite proving to a jury that the defendant was responsible. For instance, lets say that all damages were capped at $5,000,000, and the plaintiff was a 6mo. old who will, as a result of his injuries, need constant nursing care for the rest of his expected 60 year life expected to cost $6,000,000. And saying "well, make the cap higher" doesn't help, because there's always some possible scenario where the actual money loss to the plaintiff will exceed the artificial cap, and the damages will not have actually made the plaintiff whole monetarily. And that's not a result I can get behind. On the other hand, there's a separate species of damages meant to compensate not for monetary loss, but for non-monetary loss. Things like pain and suffering, loss of consortium (basically, compensating someone for the loss of the companionship of the directly injured person), emotional distress. These are varieties of damage that absolutely should exist (people should be compensated for their pain and other non-monetary injuries) but these types of damages are inherently a rough approximation and can't actually make the plaintiff whole. As such you don't have the same problem with imposing an artificial cap - that there might be cases where the plaintiff isn't made whole. On the other hand, when it comes to suits where the main claims are inherently non-monetary in nature (so things like libel or slander, where damages are to compensate for an injury to reputation), I wouldn't be in favor of an artificial cap because there isn't as much need for it - like I said, I haven't studied it, but as far as I know those cases don't tend to be the ones with outrageous damage awards.

12-11-2008, 11:33 PM	#59
Jason423 All Pro Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 9,671	I would definitely encourage you to do it if you feel you have the people in place to at least start getting your name out. I think its also hard to win if it is your first time running and would hope you would have the conviction to use this as a way to get the name out in the event you lost and would pursue it again in the future, provided you could financially do it. We have a few friends who were involved with local level politics, one of whom was actually pretty well connected at one point with the national Republican party heads. I think it can definitely be really rewarding to do. Obviously I couldn't vote for you since I do not live there, but what would be your position on representing (for lack of a better term) national party interests over those of your actual constituency? That is one of the things that annoys me to no end. I think too many people in the political circle have completely lost sight of representing the best interests of those who voted for them and represent the best interests of a political party instead. In some cases those positions certainly are similar but in many cases they really are different. BTW, I like what you posted above about tort reform.

12-11-2008, 11:46 PM	#60
JetsFan2012 Waterboy Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 0	[QUOTE=doggin94it;2906805]Glad you approve. I'm guessing you aren't going to like this one, though. I'm in favor of amnesty and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already here and without a criminal record (beyond being illegal in the first instance) in conjunction with increased border security and some financial penalties (like back taxes owed, for instance).[/QUOTE] I'm not necessarily against your position here, as it would be unfair to toss out every law-abiding, hard-working illegal immigrant. At the same time, the problem is way out of the control, and the non law-abiding immigrants (gang-bangers and drug smuggles, for instance) know this and exploit it. Thus, how important is increased border security and immigration reform to you?