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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: hmaly who wrote (157386)	1/3/2003 7:17:23 PM
From: steve harris	Respond to of 1580545

hmaly, re:lawyers I agree with most of what you said and we both disagree with Helen. I think you and GW and myself believe there is a problem with the current system of getting paid a lot of money for pouring coffee on yourself; methods to try to change it will vary. Steve

To: hmaly who wrote (157386)	1/4/2003 5:17:48 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1580545

Steve Re..Liberal's hate of Bush seems to be more important than what is right for this country. Steve, normally I agree partially or mostly with your posts. However, you and GW seem to have gone off the deep end on this. Here's what's so off about Harris's statement......its not the hate of Bush that has liberals so bent out of shape. If that were true, I would not be concerned at all.......just wait out the 4 years and then in 2004, do your best to get him out. Earlier in 2002, I wondered why he bothered me so much more than his father or Reagan. Is it because I was younger or I was having too many personal problems or my political sensitivity was more muted then, or was it because Clinton's political ideologies were similar to mine and I grew comfortable with a Clinton WH. I finally concluded it was a little bit of the latter but mostly it had to with Bush's policies......specifically his foreign policy. I think in foreign matters he is inappropriate most of the time. I believe the role he is carving out for the US is very wrong and I think other liberals agree. I believe his vision is so different than that of most liberals that it proves to be extremely threatening and provides a flashpoint from which a vehement reaction can be expected from liberals. Yes, I am sure there are some liberals playing this for political gain but I bet you its a small bunch. I think many simply find his actions offensive. What this country needs is not less but more tort cases. Where, you say. What type of business or profession needs reform in this country more than the lawyers themselves. The lawyers, because they have exempted themselves from being sued for punitive damages, have not enjoyed the benefits we all have received. Every lawyer who brings in an expert witness who says in my opinion, and then later is proven wrong should be sued for damages, just as that doctor whose opinion, while it may have been right 99.9 percent of the time, may have been wrong in this instance; so too should that expert witness be liable, if he causes a murderer to be released, who happens to kill, contrary to his opinion. I agree things are out of whack. But lets not throw the baby out with the wash. Some good is accomplished under the current system...that needs to remain and the rest reformed. ted

To: hmaly who wrote (157386)	1/4/2003 10:51:08 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580545

So I say to GW the more the merrier, but don't forget to include the lawyers themselves in the benefits. Surely, it isn't only all of those hateful, mean doctors who need to be taught a lesson. GW, who claims to read the bible, should remember this saying. " Never do unto others you wouldn't do to yourself " should apply that maxim to the ones who could use it the most. A great concept, but unfortunately, totally unworkable. You can't get a lawyer to sue another. Period. Even if you could, it would be a case of the big firm whipping the smaller firm every time. The problem is contingency fees. As a CPA, we were (and still are, I think) banned from taking work on a contingent fee arrangement, specifically for the reasons that have turned the legal profession into what it is. I think there must be some alternative funding arrangement for small plaintiffs to be able to get their cases heard. If you ask me, a capping of the lawyers' fees at something approximating true time & expenses, plus a "risk allowance" of some kind, would be more sensible. Otherwise, there is no end to the ridiculousness of suits. My customers who are surgeons and OB/GYNs have been KILLED with malpractice insurance premiums increasing by a multiple of 10 this year, causing some to literally go out of business, and others to sell out hospitals, etc. It is bad public policy to allow this crap to continue.