Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Crimson Ghost who wrote (79183)	11/16/2000 9:30:37 AM
From: Jon Cave	Respond to of 95453

re: tort reform Litigation in this counrty is the #1 enemy for capitalism in my opinion. We have more litigation in this country than any other. Only a very few win the big lawsuits and the rest of us will pay higher prices for goods and services because of the large settlements being paid. If I was thinking about starting a manufacturing plant in the US, litigation would be my #1 concern. We have too many darn lawsuits in this country. It is costing us jobs and money. Only the lawyers win in this current system. You had better find a better argument than "tort reform". Or somebody who can argue better than I is going to have you for lunch! I do agree that both parties have their faults.

To: Crimson Ghost who wrote (79183)	11/16/2000 10:21:42 AM
From: kodiak_bull	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 95453

George, One scarcely knows where to begin with a post like yours. Ask any small or medium business how they feel about the power of the trial lawyers and you will get an education. Your naivete about how the trial lawyers work (just another set of extortionists, like Jesse Jackson and his crowd) is astounding. But tort reform has nothing to do with democracy, so I don't even know why you brought it up. Let me give you my view of democracy and, say, tobacco. Either tobacco is an inherently dangerous substance or it is not. That is, it either is so dangerous that it should not be permitted to be manufactured and sold (and therefore become a "controlled" substance like morphine or cocaine) or it belongs to a group of items for which the consumer, appropriately warned, assumes the risk. Like alcohol, Pop Tarts, driving on the interstates and high angle mountaineering gear. Who gets to decide in a democracy? (Answer, George, is The People.) The People have decided, through lack on any proscribing legislation other than advertising restrictions and increasingly, one might say ridiculously, severe warnings that tobacco products are to be a legally produced and distributed (oh, yes, and taxed) manufactured good for private consumption. But the Democrats have decided, in Their Infinite Wisdom, or infinite cupidity, that democracy, representative democracy, is not good enough, and now the shareholders of tobacco companies must pay extortion money, up to the full value of their investment, to the commissars. "Big Tobacco" is our current government's Hun. And the armies of the DOJ, the states' attorneys general and private hyenas are descending on the carcass, making up arguments as they go. But be careful when you allow property rights to be trampled like this; today it's Philip Morris' property rights, tomorrow it's Merck's, but later it might simply be yours. Why not? Eventually it will simply become a question of degree. For the record, I own no tobacco stocks, don't smoke, would never patronize a restaurant where smoking was permitted nor let anyone smoke in my house. I despise cigarettes and cigarette smoke in all its forms, down to the butts those idiots fling all over the streets and parks. But until the country is ready as a democratic entity to vote further democratic restrictions on tobacco manufacture or use, I will sit tight. Now you may expand my view, that it is the people who, through their representatives, are entitled to make the laws, to all the other Democrat hot buttons today: suing the gun manufacturers, ripping off the pharmaceutical companies, etc. We, the people, are the government. It doesn't say, We the Judges are the government, or we the Trial Lawyers are the government. You're as wrong headed as you can be, imho.

To: Crimson Ghost who wrote (79183)	11/16/2000 11:59:00 AM
From: Winkman777	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 95453

OT: George, about 20 years ago I had a consulting engineering practice. I was sued for a significant sum of money - treble damages were sought. The case had no merit. The Plaintiff went through 3 sets of lawyers, the last at least refusing to work on contingency. After almost 2 years, the judge threw out the case. After that experience, I favor a system where the loser pays the "winner's" legal fees. If he can't afford to then his lawyer pays. Will such a system ever come about? Who are most of our legislators? IMO while many lawyers do useful work, at least as many are strictly a drain on the productive people of our economy. My only satisfaction was that I never paid my lawyer the last 25% of his bill. (G) Take care. Winkman

To: Crimson Ghost who wrote (79183)	11/16/2000 3:54:13 PM
From: chowder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

Hello George! I thought Kodiak's response to John was excellent. I printed it for safe keeping since he articulates my beliefs better than I can. You too George bring up an excellent point. >> But lets not pretend that morality has anything to do with it. << Bingo!, George. I couldn't agree more. I was brought up as a democrat. I tired of the us vs them mentality. I tired of the take from those who have and "give" to those who don't. Big corporations may be greedy and overstuffed but most of us depended on them for jobs at some point in our life. A lot of people who are anti-business hold index funds in their retirement plans. If big business doesn't maintain their greed, a lot of people will lose money. I'm not interested in attacking big business. I'm interested in letting them keep theirs, but help us get our little piece of the pie too. I don't care what they get. I have no control over that. I care about what I can get and all I want is for government to leave me alone and allow me the dignity of fending for myself. When we attack big business, big business attacks back. We can extort all the money we want out of them but they will respond by raising prices and terminating people. Who wins in that scenario? Big business and government, the ones who propose they are helping us. Democracy for me is allowing me the opportunity to make decisions for myself and my family. I've had enough people, during my life, telling me what to do, I don't need government doing it too. If all of this colors me as being hypocritical, then I suppose I'm a product of our environment. <VBG> All the best George! dabum