Something is wrong with the way they think.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Feb 2 2006, 09:00 PM']OK, let's. He said:

I said:

I summarized, based in large parts on the parts of Ironmonk's post quoted above. Was I wrong in my assessment of Ironmonk's intent with the post? My (sarcastic) comment in reply was intended as a response to IM's apparent belief that Apple could bear no responsibility for the injury due to misuse of their product.

I don't agree that companies are always guiltless in matters such as these. Not having read any of the pleadings in this case, I can't reasonably form an opinion about this particular case at this juncture. Neither can Ironmonk, but he apparently is unwilling to let the facts get in the way of his opinion. Perhaps I should have fleshed out my argument a little more fully. Instead, I opted for sarcasm.
There are bad apples in every barrel. No argument from me on that one.
Again, right back to you. I'm soooooooo tired of seeing the ranting. It's ridiculous. Just attacking "liberals" and their supposed motivations does nothing for me or anyone else except unnecessarily polarise people. This is supposed to be a debate board, and instead it's been a soapbox forum. We routinely have threads just like this one that rant against "liberals" and any attempt at intelligent discourse on the topic is immediately quelled by more ranting. I just got tired of it.
[right][snapback]873913[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Looks like your quarrel is more with Max than me. Sorry I butted in.

However I do think he raises some valid points and you're changing the subject.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Feb 3 2006, 05:16 AM']In your view, is it even [i]possible[/i] for someone who's conservative to file such a suit? So if someone filed such a suit, wouldn't they by (your) definition be "liberal"? If a conservative couldn't file such a suit, then it's no wonder you know of no conservatives making or encouraging them.
[right][snapback]874192[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Well I think this pretty much gets straight to the point.

Sure, someone who calls himself "conservative" could file such a frivolous suit - but then he would not be acting as a conservative and his conservatism would be hypocritical.

(Much as it would be possible for one calling himself a "Christian" to frequent a whorehouse.)

The fact is that it is the philosophy of liberalism, not conservatism, that has bred this current litigious society with all its absurd and frivolous lawsuits.

Liberals tend to emphasize victimhood and an ever-growing list of "rights," and see lawsuits or new legislation as the solution to all our problems.

Thus people see that someone else must pay from everyone's mishaps, hurt feelings, and stupid actions - whether it's listening to one's music too loud, or being "offended" by a Christmas chreche.

Conservatives emphasize personal responsibility, and generally believe in fewer laws and less litigation.

This is reflected in the fact that a solid majority of American lawyers are Democrats - and I'm sure the percentage involved in these sorts of lawsuits is even higher.

Society over the past decades has grown evermore dominated by increasingly complex, absurd, and restrictive laws - and this has led to the growth of a "nanny-state" which treats adult citizens like small children in need of government protection from themselves.

A return to common sense, morality, and personal responsibility will solve our problems. More litigation and legislation will not.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Norseman82' date='Feb 3 2006, 07:07 AM']Hey, there's a novel concept - if it's too loud, turn down the volume!
[right][snapback]874218[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Nah, we all know it's much more fun to file lawsuits and rail about "corporate greed"!

[Socrates]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' date='Feb 3 2006, 12:14 AM']Come, come...we've all heard the opening lines...
"Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of liberals?"

So-Crates knows!!
[right][snapback]874162[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 3 2006, 08:27 PM']Looks like your quarrel is more with Max than me.  Sorry I butted in.
[right][snapback]874948[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Ya think?

[Winchester]

Chesterton gleefully called himself a liberal. I think his understanding of the word is superior to the current one.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Feb 3 2006, 01:16 PM']Actually it's BECAUSE I read that I know that corporations often don't hold up their end of the bargain. That's why well-written abatements come with penalties attached -- but those penalties can be difficult to enforce, esp. if companies go bankrupt.

You really should read more before you believe the utopia the Rs paint.
[right][snapback]874443[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


LOL

There is no such thing as utopia. In fact that is the meaning of utopia - no such place.

Maybe you should research your sources. You do not know what you talk about. You mention the exception instead of the norm. It's obvious you haven't read much on the topic. How many corporations do you deal with on a daily basis? I deal with anywhere from a handful to dozens. A corporation can be a small business with one owner, it can be a medium business with a few owners... it can be a huge public corporation. The big corporations are a minority percentage of corporations in America. Giving corporations tax cuts for expanding works for creating jobs. The way to get people out of poverty is to get them a job. Like it or not, these are facts.

Most corporation owners are people like me. I have had (and have) ownership in three corporations.

Corporations with more than 50 employees that get tax cuts to expand, work at creating jobs. i.e. What to help people in Ohio get jobs, then get the local governments to give tax breaks to corporations who build factories and offices there. Then corporations will expand there. Corporations get the tax cuts after the fact not because they say they will. If you think it only takes the announcment that they will expand to get a tax cut then you have been reading fantasy.

Instead of reading leftist liberal fantasy, I live in the real world.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Winchester' date='Feb 5 2006, 12:59 AM']Chesterton gleefully called himself a liberal. I think his understanding of the word is superior to the current one.
[right][snapback]876093[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes, "liberal" fifty years ago meant something totally different from what it means today.

[Mercy me]

I'm a Darwinist!! If someone wants to max out the sound on a personal device let them! Everyone knows the result. It is not a secret. I say the the dumb be deaf!

[Mercy me]

I'm a Darwinist on this one!! If someone wants to max out the sound on a personal device let them! Everyone knows the result. It is not a secret. I say let the the dumb be deaf!

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='Mercy me' date='Feb 5 2006, 02:06 PM']I'm a Darwinist!!  If someone wants to max out the sound  on a personal device let them!  Everyone knows the result.  It is not a secret.  I say the the dumb be deaf!
[right][snapback]876339[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]Deafness, in general, does not result in death nor the inability to reproduce...so, Darwin doesn't have too much to do with this one. Sorry

[journeyman]

once they're deaf, they won't hear the blaring iPods held by (or the thundering hoofbeats of) the mob on the way to the courthouse,
Since they didn't hear the mob, they will get run down,

thus the iPod causing their deafness was the direct and proximate cause of their death

and their estate will sue for wrongful death . . .


causation and damages . . . watch out for the ambulance chasers

[Sojourner]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Feb 5 2006, 01:25 AM']Maybe you should research your sources. You do not know what you talk about. You mention the exception instead of the norm. It's obvious you haven't read much on the topic. How many corporations do you deal with on a daily basis? I deal with anywhere from a handful to dozens. A corporation can be a small business with one owner, it can be a medium business with a few owners... it can be a huge public corporation. The big corporations are a minority percentage of corporations in America. Giving corporations tax cuts for expanding works for creating jobs.
[right][snapback]876110[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I've been writing about small businesses (100 employees or less) for the past three years. My sources are business owners. I really don't need the tutorial on "what constitutes a corporation." I not only know what constitutes a corporation, but also how different types of corporations can be set up. Want me to share that? Is this going to become a pissing contest?

On top of that, I've worked for corporations my entire career, up to four at a time. And I'm not convinced that abatements are "the" way to spur job growth. Who's to say that companies getting abatements wouldn't have grown in the first place?

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Feb 5 2006, 01:25 AM']The way to get people out of poverty is to get them a job. Like it or not, these are facts.
[right][snapback]876110[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
You're really oversimplifying the situation. It's not just "get a job."

In order to "get a job," you have to have "skills." You have to have "education." You have to have "child care." You have to have "transportation." You have to "have enough to eat." You have to "have appropriate clothing." You have to "have a place to live."

Just getting companies to create jobs is not enough. You have to have workers able and skilled enough to [i]do the work[/i]. A job without an able, qualified workforce is worthless.

Like it or not, those are the facts.
[quote name='ironmonk' date='Feb 5 2006, 01:25 AM']Most corporation owners are people like me. I have had (and have) ownership in three corporations.
[right][snapback]876110[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Got a point, or is this just bragging?

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Feb 5 2006, 01:25 AM']Corporations with more than 50 employees that get tax cuts to expand, work at creating jobs. i.e.  What to help people in Ohio get jobs, then get the local governments to give tax breaks to corporations who build factories and offices there. Then corporations will expand there. Corporations get the tax cuts after the fact not because they say they will. If you think it only takes the announcment that they will expand to get a tax cut then you have been reading fantasy.
[right][snapback]876110[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'm well aware of how tax abatements work.

Companies do not always follow through. Hence the need for enforcement clauses.

And again, who's to say these companies would not have grown in the first place? Tax abatments are bribes -- they don't spur growth, they spur growth [i]in a specific locale.[/i] The growth is going to happen regardless, it's just a matter of where.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Feb 5 2006, 05:50 PM']In order to "get a job," you have to have "skills." You have to have "education." You have to have "child care." You have to have "transportation." You have to "have enough to eat." You have to "have appropriate clothing." You have to "have a place to live."

[right][snapback]876590[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I can understand the skills, education, transportation, place to live, appropriate clothing part, but could you please expand on the child care part? I'd like to see an economic situation in which we minimize the cases in which two parents should have to work outside the home. I believe idiot lawsuits (like what this thread is originally about) are factored into the cost of things, driving up the cost of living. Sure, it's not the only factor, but it is a part of it. Remember what the late Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen said? "A million here, a million there, soon we're talking real money".

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Norseman82' date='Feb 5 2006, 08:29 PM']I can understand the skills, education, transportation, place to live, appropriate clothing part, but could you please expand on the child care part?
[right][snapback]876609[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Our society tends to frown on parents leaving kids home alone for hours at a time. It's called "neglect" and can be a felony. In order for a parent to be able to take time to work it's necessary to have a reliable, trustworthy person to watch the chilluns.

[quote name='Norseman82' date='Feb 5 2006, 08:29 PM']I'd like to see an economic situation in which we minimize the cases in which two parents should have to work outside the home.  I believe idiot lawsuits (like what this thread is originally about) are factored into the cost of things, driving up the cost of living.  Sure, it's not the only factor, but it is a part of it.  Remember what the late Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen said?  "A million here, a million there, soon we're talking real money".
[right][snapback]876609[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
So would I.

However, the reality of the situation is that lower paying jobs simply don't pay enough to support a family. And, if we're talking about impoverished families, often those are single parent (woman-headed) families.

There is a lot of talk about tort reform and how frivolous suits hamper business ... I have heard pretty strong arguments on both sides, but I tend to lean towards providing more protection towards those least able to protect themselves (the plaintiffs). There will always be frivolous lawsuits filed; the trick is to minimize those while still leaving room for legitimate suits. Automatically giving corporations the benefit of the doubt is a dangerous road to take.