Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: What Can Billions Buy You?

  1. #1

    What Can Billions Buy You?

    An election? We know that. How about the freedom to pollute as we please....

    [B][SIZE="4"]EPA wears the bull's-eye [/SIZE][/B]

    By: Jonathan Allen and Erica Martinson
    June 20, 2012 09:21 AM EDT

    This election year the EPA is toxic.

    The Senate is voting on whether EPA planes can take pictures of farms ó after it was mistakenly reported that drones were flying over the heartland. House Republicans want to cut the agency's funding to pre-1998 levels. And the president has threatened to veto a House bill, due up Wednesday, that would restrict Clean Air Act rules.

    Oh, and there were at least 10 ó count 'em 10 ó Capitol Hill hearings and markups on environmental matters Tuesday.

    Forget drones, EPA could use a missile shield.

    This week is just the latest round of a Republican attack that has forced the White House to hold back on new environmental regulations, lawmakers say ó at least for now.

    "They have slowed down some of that stuff, but it's only until after the election," Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) said. "After that, it's going to be scary."

    Even some Democrats say the White House has responded to political reality in slowing down environmental regulations.

    "The unrelenting attacks by the Republicans on environmental protection, I think, have caused people in the administration to be careful to pick their fights," said California Rep. Henry Waxman, the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

    To Republicans, the agency is the very embodiment of what they see as the worst of President Barack Obama and, as they see it, his liberal policies: big government reaching into the minutia of businesses.

    And the drone rumor follows a list of other strange accusations plaguing the agency this year, like talk that it would start regulating farm dust (which it had no plans to do) and spilled milk (a trumped up version of reality).

    "They are just an intimidating, overreaching, regulatory body," Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.) said of EPA. Rahall's state recently held a symposium on EPA's "War on Coal," a response to regulations now in effect and in the pipeline that could damage the coal industry.

    Mitt Romney has hammered Obama over EPA policies during campaign stops in coal country. For his part, Obama has warned that a Romney administration would roll back existing regulations to the detriment of public health, and his campaign has pointed to instances of Romney reversing past support for environmental regulations.

    "Itís not that people donít care in Missouri about the environment and itís not that they donít want some basic rules to make sure we have clean air and water," Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) told POLITICO. "Itís they donít want the overreach. And I think thatís been a political talking point on the other side that has taken root particularly in the rural part of the state.Ē

    There are currently 25 EPA-generated rules held up in the review stage of the White House's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, more than any other Cabinet department or agency, according to the Office of Management and Budget. HHS, charged with implementing the president's health care law, has just 17 in that pipeline.

    The full list of EPA rules in various stages of regulatory purgatory is much longer. They include mandates on coal ash, gasoline sulfur standards, Clean Water Act jurisdiction and industrial boilers. Gina McCarthy, the EPA's air chief, said Tuesday she doesn't know when the new boiler rule will be finalized.

    "Still working on it," she told POLITICO. "Still working on it."

    Last week, EPA sent a letter saying it isnít prepared to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from planes, and that it wonít do so for engines on ships and other off-road vehicles and machines.

    Some environmental groups say the agency should fight harder.

    "The best defense against political attacks on the Clean Air Act is ambitious implementation of all its successful clean air programs, because they save lives and protect the climate. But when the EPA drags its heels on clean air implementation, big polluters and their lobbyists just sense weakness and redouble their attacks," said Kassie Siegel, the director of the Climate Law Institute at the Center for Biological Diversity.

    But the stalled regulations don't tell the whole story. The Obama administration has finalized several significant environmental regulations ó most under court orders ó that have provided fodder for congressional cannons. They include greenhouse gas limits for new power plants, the mercury and air toxics rule at existing power plants, requirements to cut methane emissions at hydraulically fractured natural gas drilling sites, and a heavy hand overseeing mountaintop mining.

    [B]Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) is one of the few Republicans to embrace environmental regulations. He is a fan of a rule requiring costly power plant upgrades that would stop mecury and other toxins from getting into the air, and one that tries to protect downwind states from other states' pollution.

    "That's what should have been done years ago. These pollutants were identified in the law in 1990, and 20 years later we're just getting around to doing what the courts have ordered EPA to do,Ē Alexander said.[/B] :yes:

    But for most Republicans and some Democrats the politics are clear: It's best to kick the EPA when it's down. Some are trying to block regulations that the administration is no longer pursuing.

    McCaskill and Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) offered an amendment to the farm bill that would have stopped the EPA from implementing a farm dust rule that had been abandoned. (That amendment didn't make it onto the final list of 73 amendments being debated on the floor this week.) And McCaskill is proud of her efforts to block a child labor regulation from the Labor Department.

    "I want to make sure no one forgets I had a part in killing both of them," she said.

    For many environmental protection advocates, the battle is a partisan one. The Republicans who defended the EPA in the 1980s and 1990s are now gone. Waxman and Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) published a report on Monday listing 247 votes the Republican-led House has taken since January of 2011 that they say would hurt environmental or public health policy.

    And some on the left note that the House Republicans haven't really won many battles.

    "The toxic cloud of anti-EPA rhetoric from congressional Republicans has had limited effect because the Senate and the president have kept most of their nasty little bills to gut our health and environmental protections from becoming law," David D. Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council said. "All this anti-EPA venom appeals to their base, but it is out of step with the majority of the American people, who consistently say they want EPA to do its job and they want Congress to keep its hands off the laws that protect our health and our environment."

    But Republicans made clear late Tuesday that they have no intention of giving even an inch to the EPA. House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and several members of his committee sent a letter to EPA and the White House suggesting that the federal government is overreaching in its research and regulation of hydraulic fracturing, also known as "fracking."

    Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), who is forcing a Wednesday vote on repealing the EPA's rule limiting mercury and other air pollutants from power plants, sent a letter to the agency's inspector general asking for an investigation into a controversial natural-gas enforcement case in Texas.

    And the White House is fighting back against congressional Republicans. OMB issued a veto threat Tuesday against a House energy bill that it says would block implementation of rules associated with the Clean Air Act.

    [url]http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=20D7210D-8100-4FD2-8CB7-5BCF11AF6F6C[/url]

  2. #2
    OUT OF CONTROL!!!!!!!!!!

  3. #3
    We don't need the EPA anyway because big corporations will police themselves. As an example, without the fear of government oversight these companies will do the right thing when it comes to waste cleanup/management and spend the extra money to dispose of toxic waste properly. And those shareholders will understand why they are receiving less profit because it is the right thing to do.

    And the next thing that needs to be done is major tort reform so we can make it almost impossible to sue. Those pesky citizens are looking for a quick buck because there happens to a little arsenic in the drinking water :zzz:

    [url]http://ecowatch.org/2012/8-5-million-pounds-of-toxic-chemicals-dumped-into-new-jerseys-waterways/[/url]

    [IMG]http://corpreform.typepad.com/photos/corpreform/tortreformdefined.gif[/IMG]

  4. #4
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4496744]We don't need the EPA anyway because big corporations will police themselves. As an example, without the fear of government oversight these companies will do the right thing when it comes to waste cleanup/management and spend the extra money to dispose of toxic waste properly. And those shareholders will understand why they are receiving less profit because it is the right thing to do.

    And the next thing that needs to be done is major tort reform so we can make it almost impossible to sue. Those pesky citizens are looking for a quick buck because there happens to a little arsenic in the drinking water :zzz:

    [url]http://ecowatch.org/2012/8-5-million-pounds-of-toxic-chemicals-dumped-into-new-jerseys-waterways/[/url]

    [IMG]http://corpreform.typepad.com/photos/corpreform/tortreformdefined.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE]

    What we don't need is a giant, bloated, autocratic. monolithic bureaucracy that even when they're wrong will still spend millions to prove they're right.

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=acepepe;4496749]What we don't need is a giant, bloated, autocratic. monolithic bureaucracy that even when they're wrong will still spend millions to prove they're right.[/QUOTE]

    True, let the polluters spend millions to pretend [I]their[/I] right.

    [IMG]http://www.adbusters.org/files/downloads/jpgs/adbusters_corporate_flag.gif[/IMG]

  6. #6
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4496757]True, let the polluters spend millions to pretend [I]their[/I] right.

    [IMG]http://www.adbusters.org/files/downloads/jpgs/adbusters_corporate_flag.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE]

    WASHINGTON — Several Supreme Court justices are criticizing the Environmental Protection Agency for heavy-handed enforcement of rules affecting homeowners.

    The justices were considering whether to let a North Idaho couple challenge an EPA order identifying their land as “protected wetlands.” Mike and Chantell Sackett(REALLY EXXON) of Priest Lake wanted to build their house on the land. But the EPA says the Sacketts([B]REALLY MONSANTO[/B])can’t challenge the order to restore the land to wetlands or face thousands of dollars in fines.

    Justice Samuel Alito called EPA’s actions “outrageous.” Justice Antonin Scalia noted the “high-handedness of the agency” in dealing with private property. Chief Justice John Roberts said that the EPA’s contention that the Sacketts’ land is wetlands, something the couple disagrees with, would never be put to a test under current procedure.

    The Sacketts([B]REALLY VISA[/B]) were filling in a lot near Priest Lake in 2007 to construct a house when EPA officials shut down the project, saying the couple had filled in wetlands without getting a permit.

    Seven months after the visit, the EPA issued a compliance order, telling the couple to restore the property or risk fines of up to $32,500 per day. The Sacketts([B]REALLY THE HUNTMAN BROS[/B].) wanted a day in court to argue that their lot wasn’t a wetland.

    Attorneys say the case is really about judicial process – whether the Sacketts can challenge the wetlands designation on their property before the EPA seeks enforcement action against the couple through the courts.
    [B]
    The Sacketts (REALLY WALMART[/B]) are being represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation, a Sacramento-based group that advocates for private property rights and limited government.

    Numerous legal briefs from other organizations have been filed in the case. The National Homebuilders Association filed a brief supporting the Sacketts([B]REALLY DOW[/B])’ position. The Natural Resources Defense Council, which also filed briefs in the case, has called it a corporate-backed effort to weaken regulations of the Clean Water Act.

    The justices will rule by summer.
    Last edited by acepepe; 06-20-2012 at 08:27 PM.

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4496744]We don't need the EPA anyway because big corporations will police themselves. As an example, without the fear of government oversight these companies will do the right thing when it comes to waste cleanup/management and spend the extra money to dispose of toxic waste properly. And those shareholders will understand why they are receiving less profit because it is the right thing to do.

    And the next thing that needs to be done is major tort reform so we can make it almost impossible to sue. Those pesky citizens are looking for a quick buck because there happens to a little arsenic in the drinking water :zzz:

    [url]http://ecowatch.org/2012/8-5-million-pounds-of-toxic-chemicals-dumped-into-new-jerseys-waterways/[/url]

    [IMG]http://corpreform.typepad.com/photos/corpreform/tortreformdefined.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE]

    Tort reform is a scam? Tell that to the small businessman that was sued because he sent a fax to a client that had called in asking to be informed when the product they were looking for became available. Oh yes that was me. Apparently the Government passed a law banning the sending of faxes to anyone unless you can establish a prior business relationship with. Thanks to your precious tort lawyers we first battled and won the case in State court. Then the scumbag refiled it in Federal court. We battled and won again. The max fine for sending the fax was $1500. But the scumbag attorney (no offense Doggin) tried to turn it in to a class action lawsuit. They wouldn't even accept a $1500 payoff. Well IJF your precious tort attorneys cost my business $15,000 in legal fees. All for sending a fax to a customer that requested it.

    Then your precious Democraps allowed these same scumbag tort attorneys to craft legislation called Paycheck Fairness. This was part of the Democrats campaign to paint Republicans as anti-women. They passed a basic version called Lilly Ledbetter act which in itself was unnecessary and harmful to women and business. That wasn't enough. The tort attorneys wanted blood and they were seeing green. So they crafted this new piece of legislation which would allow attorneys to examine the books of companies and look for numerical discrepancies between the wages men and women were making for similar jobs. This would lead to class action law suits against companies where the numbers don't line up evenly. Sounds great to a liberal. Particularly one that never had a job or owned a business.

    The problem? Many women are also moms. They value flexible work schedules over higher pay. They want the ability to work less hours, work from home on occasion and take extra time off when the kids are sick etc. Many companies accomodate working moms with this type of flexible scheduling. If that law had passed that would have changed. Working moms would be faced with the choice of working longer hours and spending less and less time with their kids or quitting their jobs. The Republicans opposed that legislation on a party line vote. I applaud them for saving working moms, already feeling guilty about being away from their children more then they like, from having to make the unmakable choice between working or being a mother.

    Thanks to the GOP they don't have to make that decision now. For your tort attorneys that you seem to love this was a major blow. This was however a major win for Women, working moms, and the companies that accommodate and value working women and moms.

  8. #8
    Know the laws and who the F1ck still uses fax machines?

    Woman are still paid less than men because it's accepted behavior.


    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4496850]Tort reform is a scam? Tell that to the small businessman that was sued because he sent a fax to a client that had called in asking to be informed when the product they were looking for became available. Oh yes that was me. Apparently the Government passed a law banning the sending of faxes to anyone unless you can establish a prior business relationship with. Thanks to your precious tort lawyers we first battled and won the case in State court. Then the scumbag refiled it in Federal court. We battled and won again. The max fine for sending the fax was $1500. But the scumbag attorney (no offense Doggin) tried to turn it in to a class action lawsuit. They wouldn't even accept a $1500 payoff. Well IJF your precious tort attorneys cost my business $15,000 in legal fees. All for sending a fax to a customer that requested it.

    Then your precious Democraps allowed these same scumbag tort attorneys to craft legislation called Paycheck Fairness. This was part of the Democrats campaign to paint Republicans as anti-women. They passed a basic version called Lilly Ledbetter act which in itself was unnecessary and harmful to women and business. That wasn't enough. The tort attorneys wanted blood and they were seeing green. So they crafted this new piece of legislation which would allow attorneys to examine the books of companies and look for numerical discrepancies between the wages men and women were making for similar jobs. This would lead to class action law suits against companies where the numbers don't line up evenly. Sounds great to a liberal. Particularly one that never had a job or owned a business.

    The problem? Many women are also moms. They value flexible work schedules over higher pay. They want the ability to work less hours, work from home on occasion and take extra time off when the kids are sick etc. Many companies accomodate working moms with this type of flexible scheduling. If that law had passed that would have changed. Working moms would be faced with the choice of working longer hours and spending less and less time with their kids or quitting their jobs. The Republicans opposed that legislation on a party line vote. I applaud them for saving working moms, already feeling guilty about being away from their children more then they like, from having to make the unmakable choice between working or being a mother.

    Thanks to the GOP they don't have to make that decision now. For your tort attorneys that you seem to love this was a major blow. This was however a major win for Women, working moms, and the companies that accommodate and value working women and moms.[/QUOTE]

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=cr726;4496863]Know the laws and who the F1ck still uses fax machines?

    Woman are still paid less than men because it's accepted behavior.[/QUOTE]

    Women are not paid less then men. There have been laws against that for years. They tend to work fewer hours because many are working moms. Hour for hour all the studies show women make slightly more on average.

  10. #10
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4496868]Women are not paid less then men. There have been laws against that for years. They tend to work fewer hours because many are working moms. Hour for hour all the studies show women make slightly more on average.[/QUOTE]

    Really? What studies would those be?

  11. #11
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,962
    [QUOTE=cr726;4496863]Know the laws and who the F1ck still uses fax machines? [/QUOTE]

    lolz...

    Anytime we get a fax at the office, I throw it on the garbage. If the person is so dumb as to send a fax, we obviously do NOT want to have anything to do with them.

  12. #12
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Cutchogue
    Posts
    2,123
    Although this thread has devolved from the initial post into a discussion
    on tort reform, I would like to return to the initial point:

    [B]The power of the EPA.[/B]

    Back before the days of intelligent arguments like:

    A: "Democrats are always right on everything."
    B: "No, Republicans are always right on everything."

    Real intellectuals debated the basis of government in light of the failings of humans.
    These included Plato, Hobbes, Locke, de Montesquieu, Marx and others.

    To my personal belief, Charles de Montesquieu, made one of the most
    profound contributions. He championed the principle of dividing the
    powers of government into three different functions:

    [LIST=1][*]Make the Laws (legislative)[*]Enforce the Laws (executive)[*]Interpret the Laws (judicial)[/LIST]

    His writings that preceded our constitution by only a short period (lived 1869-1755)
    are believed by many to be one of the strongest influences on our constitution
    realized explicitly in the three branches of government. Combining these
    powers into a single entity invariably results in injustice.

    Although our federal government reflects this principle, we have developed
    agencies that operate as lawmaker, enforcer, and judge in a single unit.
    The EPA is a prime example of this.

    The goals of the EPA are high ones: save the planet.
    The implementation of the EPA builds the entity on the slippery slope to tyranny.

    This leads us to the following "modern" arguments:

    A: Anyone who questions the EPA wants to destroy the environment.
    B: No, everyone who supports the EPA wants socialism or communism.

    REALITY CHECK:
    The full spectrum of decisions required by the EPA spans
    no-brainers (must regulate), grey area, to no-brainers (way too far).

    We must have an honest discussion about where in the grey area to draw
    the line without simply calling each other names.

    How about we discuss WHAT is right rather than WHO is right?

  13. #13
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    7,232
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4496850]Tort reform is a scam? Tell that to the small businessman that was sued because he sent a fax to a client that had called in asking to be informed when the product they were looking for became available. Oh yes that was me. Apparently the Government passed a law banning the sending of faxes to anyone unless you can establish a prior business relationship with. Thanks to your precious tort lawyers we first battled and won the case in State court. Then the scumbag refiled it in Federal court. We battled and won again. The max fine for sending the fax was $1500. But the scumbag attorney (no offense Doggin) tried to turn it in to a class action lawsuit. They wouldn't even accept a $1500 payoff. Well IJF your precious tort attorneys cost my business $15,000 in legal fees. All for sending a fax to a customer that requested it.

    Then your precious Democraps allowed these same scumbag tort attorneys to craft legislation called Paycheck Fairness. This was part of the Democrats campaign to paint Republicans as anti-women. They passed a basic version called Lilly Ledbetter act which in itself was unnecessary and harmful to women and business. That wasn't enough. The tort attorneys wanted blood and they were seeing green. So they crafted this new piece of legislation which would allow attorneys to examine the books of companies and look for numerical discrepancies between the wages men and women were making for similar jobs. This would lead to class action law suits against companies where the numbers don't line up evenly. Sounds great to a liberal. Particularly one that never had a job or owned a business.

    The problem? Many women are also moms. They value flexible work schedules over higher pay. They want the ability to work less hours, work from home on occasion and take extra time off when the kids are sick etc. Many companies accomodate working moms with this type of flexible scheduling. If that law had passed that would have changed. Working moms would be faced with the choice of working longer hours and spending less and less time with their kids or quitting their jobs. The Republicans opposed that legislation on a party line vote. I applaud them for saving working moms, already feeling guilty about being away from their children more then they like, from having to make the unmakable choice between working or being a mother.

    Thanks to the GOP they don't have to make that decision now. For your tort attorneys that you seem to love this was a major blow. This was however a major win for Women, working moms, and the companies that accommodate and value working women and moms.[/QUOTE]

    You make good points Chief, and you case is just absurd. Still there needs to be an opportunity for people who are seriously harmed to seek recompense. I recommend the doc Hot Coffee, not if you're looking to be cheered up though.

    [url]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1445203/[/url]

  14. #14
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,564
    [QUOTE=GreenGeek;4496973]Although this thread has devolved from the initial post into a discussion
    on tort reform, I would like to return to the initial point:

    [B]The power of the EPA.[/B]

    Back before the days of intelligent arguments like:

    A: "Democrats are always right on everything."
    B: "No, Republicans are always right on everything."

    Real intellectuals debated the basis of government in light of the failings of humans.
    These included Plato, Hobbes, Locke, de Montesquieu, Marx and others.

    To my personal belief, Charles de Montesquieu, made one of the most
    profound contributions. He championed the principle of dividing the
    powers of government into three different functions:

    [LIST=1][*]Make the Laws (legislative)[*]Enforce the Laws (executive)[*]Interpret the Laws (judicial)[/LIST]

    His writings that preceded our constitution by only a short period (lived 1869-1755)
    are believed by many to be one of the strongest influences on our constitution
    realized explicitly in the three branches of government. Combining these
    powers into a single entity invariably results in injustice.

    Although our federal government reflects this principle, we have developed
    agencies that operate as lawmaker, enforcer, and judge in a single unit.
    The EPA is a prime example of this.

    The goals of the EPA are high ones: save the planet.
    The implementation of the EPA builds the entity on the slippery slope to tyranny.

    This leads us to the following "modern" arguments:

    A: Anyone who questions the EPA wants to destroy the environment.
    B: No, everyone who supports the EPA wants socialism or communism.

    REALITY CHECK:
    The full spectrum of decisions required by the EPA spans
    no-brainers (must regulate), grey area, to no-brainers (way too far).

    We must have an honest discussion about where in the grey area to draw
    the line without simply calling each other names.

    How about we discuss WHAT is right rather than WHO is right?[/QUOTE]

    This post is like a refreshing watermelon salsa on a hot day.

    Where have you been, GG? POST HERE MORE.

  15. #15
    [QUOTE=GreenGeek;4496973]Although this thread has devolved from the initial post into a discussion
    on tort reform, I would like to return to the initial point:

    [B]The power of the EPA.[/B]

    Back before the days of intelligent arguments like:

    A: "Democrats are always right on everything."
    B: "No, Republicans are always right on everything."

    Real intellectuals debated the basis of government in light of the failings of humans.
    These included Plato, Hobbes, Locke, de Montesquieu, Marx and others.

    To my personal belief, Charles de Montesquieu, made one of the most
    profound contributions. He championed the principle of dividing the
    powers of government into three different functions:

    [LIST=1][*]Make the Laws (legislative)[*]Enforce the Laws (executive)[*]Interpret the Laws (judicial)[/LIST]

    His writings that preceded our constitution by only a short period (lived 1869-1755)
    are believed by many to be one of the strongest influences on our constitution
    realized explicitly in the three branches of government. Combining these
    powers into a single entity invariably results in injustice.

    Although our federal government reflects this principle, we have developed
    agencies that operate as lawmaker, enforcer, and judge in a single unit.
    The EPA is a prime example of this.

    The goals of the EPA are high ones: save the planet.
    The implementation of the EPA builds the entity on the slippery slope to tyranny.

    This leads us to the following "modern" arguments:

    A: Anyone who questions the EPA wants to destroy the environment.
    B: No, everyone who supports the EPA wants socialism or communism.

    REALITY CHECK:
    The full spectrum of decisions required by the EPA spans
    no-brainers (must regulate), grey area, to no-brainers (way too far).

    We must have an honest discussion about where in the grey area to draw
    the line without simply calling each other names.

    How about we discuss WHAT is right rather than WHO is right?[/QUOTE]

    This.

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=brady's a catcher;4496976]You make good points Chief, and you case is just absurd. Still there needs to be an opportunity for people who are seriously harmed to seek recompense. I recommend the doc Hot Coffee, not if you're looking to be cheered up though.

    [url]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1445203/[/url][/QUOTE]

    Yeah,but, Who the fck uses faxes anymore? And, you should know the laws (that the Govt. changes daily). I throw faxes in the trash when I get them. I have now elevated this discussion to GENIUS LEVEL!:yes:
    Last edited by acepepe; 06-21-2012 at 08:48 AM.

  17. #17
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,553
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4496944]lolz...

    Anytime we get a fax at the office, I throw it on the garbage. If the person is so dumb as to send a fax, we obviously do NOT want to have anything to do with them.[/QUOTE]

    I am in the middle of an IRS audit and they not only require I fax documents...the agent asks that I call first so he can be at the machine.

    Dooshy government.

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4496850]Tort reform is a scam? Tell that to the small businessman that was sued because he sent a fax to a client that had called in asking to be informed when the product they were looking for became available. Oh yes that was me. Apparently the Government passed a law banning the sending of faxes to anyone unless you can establish a prior business relationship with. Thanks to your precious tort lawyers we first battled and won the case in State court. Then the scumbag refiled it in Federal court. We battled and won again. The max fine for sending the fax was $1500. But the scumbag attorney (no offense Doggin) tried to turn it in to a class action lawsuit. They wouldn't even accept a $1500 payoff. Well IJF your precious tort attorneys cost my business $15,000 in legal fees. All for sending a fax to a customer that requested it.

    Then your precious Democraps allowed these same scumbag tort attorneys to craft legislation called Paycheck Fairness. This was part of the Democrats campaign to paint Republicans as anti-women. They passed a basic version called Lilly Ledbetter act which in itself was unnecessary and harmful to women and business. That wasn't enough. The tort attorneys wanted blood and they were seeing green. So they crafted this new piece of legislation which would allow attorneys to examine the books of companies and look for numerical discrepancies between the wages men and women were making for similar jobs. This would lead to class action law suits against companies where the numbers don't line up evenly. Sounds great to a liberal. Particularly one that never had a job or owned a business.

    The problem? Many women are also moms. They value flexible work schedules over higher pay. They want the ability to work less hours, work from home on occasion and take extra time off when the kids are sick etc. Many companies accomodate working moms with this type of flexible scheduling. If that law had passed that would have changed. Working moms would be faced with the choice of working longer hours and spending less and less time with their kids or quitting their jobs. The Republicans opposed that legislation on a party line vote. I applaud them for saving working moms, already feeling guilty about being away from their children more then they like, from having to make the unmakable choice between working or being a mother.

    Thanks to the GOP they don't have to make that decision now. For your tort attorneys that you seem to love this was a major blow. This was however a major win for Women, working moms, and the companies that accommodate and value working women and moms.[/QUOTE]


    You think that's bad? There's a father and son team who successfully lobbied congress to include a private right of action in the Indian Arts and Crafts Act. They now have a cottage industry of suing and extracting settlements from businesses that use anything remotely native american in a product name - even where it is clearly not confusing any customers into thinking the product was made by Native Americans (such as a design style called "Cherokee Trail").

    Bottom line is, there are some unscrupulous people out there just looking to take advantage. But honestly, that's not a tort reform issue - and nor is your case. Tort reform should be looking at tamping down on non-economic damages and punitive damages in all but the most egregious cases.

  19. #19
    [QUOTE=brady's a catcher;4496976]You make good points Chief, and you case is just absurd. Still there needs to be an opportunity for people who are seriously harmed to seek recompense. I recommend the doc Hot Coffee, not if you're looking to be cheered up though.

    [URL]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1445203/[/URL][/QUOTE]


    [url]http://listverse.com/2009/01/28/top-10-bizarre-or-frivolous-lawsuits/[/url][B]

    My favorites:

    [/B]The family who sued Sea World for wrongful death after their 27 year old son managed to hide from security guards long enough to stay after closing, sneak into the Killer Whale's tank, and take a swim (with predictable results)

    The city suing a Taser company because an idiot cop drew her gun and shot a suspect in custody when she meant to simply tase him

    PETA members suing NJ for allowing too many deer to live, resulting in one hitting their car and damaging it . . . as they were driving back from an anti-deer hunting protest

    The woman who sued and won for an incorrect weather forecast (check the oddly penile picture associated with that one)

  20. #20
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4497027]You think that's bad? There's a father and son team who successfully lobbied congress to include a private right of action in the Indian Arts and Crafts Act. They now have a cottage industry of suing and extracting settlements from businesses that use anything remotely native american in a product name - even where it is clearly not confusing any customers into thinking the product was made by Native Americans (such as a design style called "Cherokee Trail").

    Bottom line is, there are some unscrupulous people out there just looking to take advantage. But honestly, that's not a tort reform issue - and nor is your case. Tort reform should be looking at tamping down on non-economic damages and punitive damages in all but the most egregious cases.[/QUOTE]

    I'd like to see loser pays legislation to mimic the British system. For me to sue the scumbag to recover legal fees and such will cost me even more money in a case I'm not assured of winning. It should be an automatic thing that loser pays court fees and defendants legal expenses. That would solve the problem of extortion based suits.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us