quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife



The only president to put the US in a position of private industry ownership has been Obama; by definition a Fascist act.

quote:



• Pending home sales rise in June for the fifth straight month
WASHINGTON – Pending U.S. home sales rose in June for the fifth straight month, another encouraging sign of life for the embattled U.S. housing market, the National Association of Realtors reported Tuesday.

For June, the Realtors group said its pending home sales index rose 3.6 percent to 94.6, from an upwardly revised reading of 91.3 in May. The last time there were five consecutive monthly gains was July 2003.

The results were far better than analysts expected. Economists surveyed by Thomson Reuters expected the index to come in at 91.2.

quote:


A Bush Administration economist being relied upon for positive projections? Interesting. I thought the economy was Bush's fault? Would faith in his chief economic adviser be wise?

quote:


In looking for the Greenspan reference I found that the current Treasury Secretary doesn't think current policy decisions have been felt enough. He says the job market will get worse.

quote:


The numbers could hardly be more stark: Tax receipts are on pace to drop 18 percent this year, the biggest single-year decline since the Great Depression, while the federal deficit balloons to a record $1.8 trillion.

.

quote:


And does this possibly relate to the fact we have had the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Maverick481

Yes, but even for that 10% that MIGHT get thrown out the doctor has to cover himself for those instances. I've talked to Doctors who tell me about lawsuits brought against them that are settled just to make them go away and they are frivilous lawsuits. Alot of Doctors settle these things out of court instead of dragging their name through the mud and ruining the practice and costing them money when they have to appear in court. If we had tort reform and the loser had to pay I know from the Doctors I have talked to they would fight more of the cases because they know they would win and it would cost the plantiff money that most of them can't afford. The fact that you say there are not a lot of frivilous lawsuits shows how out of touch with reality you are in this matter. Have you talked to Doctors about this issue? Do you have friends that are Doctors that can tell you about this issue.

Some of the lawsuits that I have heard about from Doctors are just insane. But hey, what the hell. It's an easy payday for someone and it doesn't hurt anyone but those rich greedy Doctors who spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to become a Doctor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

Orly Taitz Melts Down On MSNBC, Blames MSM "Brownshirts" (VIDEO)

The conventional wisdom is that August is the slowest month for news, thus it's tailor-made for the "Birther" movement -- crazies that come hand-delivered to the media in their month of need, like barrel-dwelling fish that shoot themselves. Today, they're waving around a supposed "Kenyan birth certificate" for President Barack Obama without regard to the fact that it would have to have come from an alternate reality where Kenya became Kenya before Kenya was Kenya, and on which Obama is said to have been born in a city that was actually part of Zanzibar at the time of his birth.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/03/orly-taitz-melts-down-on_n_250441.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

My brother was an optometrist, not even a doc. His malpractice premiums were ridiculously high even before he had a settlement. A patient came in, was referred to an MD immediately for glaucoma. The guy didnt bother to go, and 2 years later sued my brother, and despite having clear contemporaneous records of the referral, his insurance company settled well into 5 figures.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Maverick481

quote:

ORIGINAL: MmeGigs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Maverick481
You are absolutely correct we need tort reform. And one step further. Loser pays!

That part right there will get rid of a ton of frivilous lawsuits. I don't have a problem with being able to sue but I have a problem with some of the lawsuits that are frivilous and tie up the court systems.

Except that there aren't a ton of frivilous lawsuits. A study found that in 90% of malpractice cases, the plaintiff was actually injured, and that the vast majority of injured folks don't sue. It also found that the 10% of frivilous cases don't tie up the court system, they get thrown out.

Tort reform is a distraction in the health care debate. The U of Mich hospital was able to cut its malpractice costs by 2/3 by studying injury cases to make sure they don't repeat those mistakes, and apologizing when they screwed up and trying to make it right. That's way more of a savings than any kind of tort reform has been claimed to be able to deliver.

Yes, but even for that 10% that MIGHT get thrown out the doctor has to cover himself for those instances. I've talked to Doctors who tell me about lawsuits brought against them that are settled just to make them go away and they are frivilous lawsuits. Alot of Doctors settle these things out of court instead of dragging their name through the mud and ruining the practice and costing them money when they have to appear in court. If we had tort reform and the loser had to pay I know from the Doctors I have talked to they would fight more of the cases because they know they would win and it would cost the plantiff money that most of them can't afford. The fact that you say there are not a lot of frivilous lawsuits shows how out of touch with reality you are in this matter. Have you talked to Doctors about this issue? Do you have friends that are Doctors that can tell you about this issue.

Some of the lawsuits that I have heard about from Doctors are just insane. But hey, what the hell. It's an easy payday for someone and it doesn't hurt anyone but those rich greedy Doctors who spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to become a Doctor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
My brother was an optometrist, not even a doc. His malpractice premiums were ridiculously high even before he had a settlement. A patient came in, was referred to an MD immediately for glaucoma. The guy didnt bother to go, and 2 years later sued my brother, and despite having clear contemporaneous records of the referral, his insurance company settled well into 5 figures.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

Orly Taitz Melts Down On MSNBC, Blames MSM "Brownshirts" (VIDEO)

The conventional wisdom is that August is the slowest month for news, thus it's tailor-made for the "Birther" movement -- crazies that come hand-delivered to the media in their month of need, like barrel-dwelling fish that shoot themselves. Today, they're waving around a supposed "Kenyan birth certificate" for President Barack Obama without regard to the fact that it would have to have come from an alternate reality where Kenya became Kenya before Kenya was Kenya, and on which Obama is said to have been born in a city that was actually part of Zanzibar at the time of his birth.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/03/orly-taitz-melts-down-on_n_250441.html

She's completely round the bend.

The Supposed Kenyan birth certificate is a photoshop of an Australian birth certificate available on some guy sgenealogy site.
http://washingtonindependent.com/53658/is-this-the-source-of-the-forged-kenyan-birth-certificate

quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas

Most such reports about lawsuits are urban legend - the infamous McDonalds hot coffee lawsuit is the best-known such example.

Could you share the exact case citation so I can look up the details of what really happened? I notice that you only say that the patient "sued your brother" but did not actually say what he sued your brother for, nor what state that was in. Since you say that his malpractice insurance was already high, how many malpractice lawsuits has your brother had before?

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
My brother was an optometrist, not even a doc. His malpractice premiums were ridiculously high even before he had a settlement. A patient came in, was referred to an MD immediately for glaucoma. The guy didnt bother to go, and 2 years later sued my brother, and despite having clear contemporaneous records of the referral, his insurance company settled well into 5 figures.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
What about McDonalds was a myth?

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

A plan designed by Democrats and passed by Democrats...once they got enough Republican votes so they could share the inevitable blame for its failure.

quote:


If you want to credit Obama with this "turnaround" then you would also have to credit him for the foreclosures that make up 40% of the sales and the continuing drop in the median price of those sales (except for pockets of Orange County...yay!)

quote:


Misses the point. In fact sharing the blame for Greenspan would have been met with "Bush kept him", so spare us the faux indignation. Greenspan is trying to protect his legacy.

quote:



Nice selective memory. Obama says economy is sound

quote:


And does this possibly relate to the current administrations self admitted failure to recognize the extent of the problem and failing to provide stimulus when it is needed, instead of timed for 2010 elections?

quote:

McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.

McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.

McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)

McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.

McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.

quote:

What the jury didn't realize initially was the severity of her burns. Told during the trial of Mrs. Liebeck's seven days in the hospital and her skin grafts, and shown gruesome photographs, jurors began taking the matter more seriously. "It made me come home and tell my wife and daughters don't drink coffee in the car, at least not hot," says juror Jack Elliott.

Even more eye-opening was the revelation that McDonald's had seen such injuries many times before. Company documents showed that in the past decade McDonald's had received at least 700 reports of coffee burns ranging from mild to third degree, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.

Some observers wonder why McDonald's, after years of settling coffee-burn cases, chose to take this one to trial. After all, the plaintiff was a sympathetic figure—an articulate, 81-year-old former department store clerk who said under oath that she had never filed suit before. In fact, she said, she never would have filed this one if McDonald's hadn't dismissed her requests for compensation for pain and medical bills with an offer of $800.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

My brother was an optometrist, not even a doc. His malpractice premiums were ridiculously high even before he had a settlement. A patient came in, was referred to an MD immediately for glaucoma. The guy didnt bother to go, and 2 years later sued my brother, and despite having clear contemporaneous records of the referral, his insurance company settled well into 5 figures.

If the insurance company settled they settled for a reason.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Bush pushed hard for the AIG and banking bailout with his usual doomsday scenarios.

Do I really need to pull up the links?  I mean, it's not like it was so long ago that everyone has forgotten, except those who intentionally try to do so.

quote:

And the DJIA steadily climbing back to the 10,000 mark, gaining 1300 points since the inauguration?

I'm sure there is some Limbaugh-like explanation for that as well.

quote:

quote:


Misses the point. In fact sharing the blame for Greenspan would have been met with "Bush kept him", so spare us the faux indignation. Greenspan is trying to protect his legacy.

Definitely, I missed whatever point you are trying to make.

Bush did keep him, so if you are trying to blame Greenspan then Bush is to blame as well.

quote:



Compare these two statements.


Obama from your link:

"There's a reason why even in the midst of this economic crisis you've seen actual increases in investment flows here into the United States," Obama said. "I think it's a recognition that the stability not only of our economic system, but also our political system, is extraordinary.

"I think that not just the Chinese government, but every investor, can have absolute confidence in the soundness of investments in the United States," he added.


Bush on September 15th:

"In the short run, adjustments in the financial markets can be painful - both for the people concerned about their investments and for the employees of the affected firms," said President Bush. "In the long run, I'm confident that our capital markets are flexible and resilient, and can deal with these adjustments."

The president's comments came after the investment company Lehman Brothers was forced to file for bankruptcy protection. At the same time, the world's largest brokerage firm, Merrill Lynch, was sold to Bank of America for a fraction of what it was worth just one year ago.

Both firms have been crippled by a series of bad investments related to the troubled U.S. mortgage market.

President Bush says that while he sympathizes with investors and employees of these two financial institutions, his administration is focusing its attention on the overall health of the financial system.(Bush Voices Confidence in US Economy)


See any difference?



Obama is acknowledging a problem exists while trying to insure investors of the overall stability of the US economic system while Bush is dismissing what was happening as a minor market correction as late as mid-September.

quote:

quote:

And does this possibly relate to the current administrations self admitted failure to recognize the extent of the problem and failing to provide stimulus when it is needed, instead of timed for 2010 elections?

Wait, I thought you were against the stimulus package?

You know, that whole socialism thing?

But hey, welcome back from the dark side. 

Always nice to have a new convert.

quote:

ORIGINAL: darchChylde

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
your president

I don't give a flying f*ck about who you voted for, if you are still a citizen of these here United States; He's your president too.  If you don't like it, move.  As long as you swallow and spread everything spooned down your throat, without taking the time and energy to research and develop your own opinion instead of reflecting someone else'; the you and we would be better off if you did move.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Slavehandsome

How's this for Change? LOL Yet, we have to remember that America uses electronic voting, so, this may not be the new president that America voted for. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZws98jw67g

quote:

ORIGINAL: lynk09

Iran has proven that you don't need sophisticated machinery to steal an election, just a lot of baseball bats...and guns