bushwacked Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Sorry, Irish... but posting forwarded emails and internet rumors as truth is one of my biggest pet peeves. It contributes very strongly to the dummification of America that folks like yourself will post blatantly false information and believe it without doing any fact checking for themselves. It's not people posting on a board that is the main problem...from the contraceptive jelly post on snopes: The circulation of this legend by the media in the form cited above can no doubt be attributed to the undue amount of credibility afforded to newspaper articles (or items purporting to be newspaper articles), and the public's sense of moral outrage being stirred up by yet more seemingly frivolous litigation initiated by persons whose losses were caused by a lack of basic common sense (much like the recent spate of lawsuits against restaurants over burns caused by people who spilled hot coffee on themselves). A brief mention of the legend (related as a "true story") was made in an article about medication errors that appeared in the Charleston Post and Courier in January 1997, both Rush Limbaugh and Jay Leno reported this item as a real incident on their shows (on 6 June 1997 and 27 June 1997, respectively), and Ann Landers ran this as an example of a real "crazy lawsuit" in her column of 5 October 1997. How many millions of people believed it because Rush and Ann Landers deemed it so while detesting the liberal media in their next breath? More than just the Grunt/cerwin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Republicans increase the size of government overall and increase it in yer personal life. So yer a panty sniffer? You prefer government intrusion into yer panties instead of yer pocketbook? You love corporations over Americans? I am the opposite of you. I saw better Democratic candidates in 2000 and 2004. Neither would have sent us to Iraq. I know you served there and I am sure you honor the experience--you should. But it was not good overall strategy. Corporations are built on innovation, and by Americans themselves. I love Americans and I love what America is founded upon. Republicans are not for an all-out invasion of privacy by our government. In fact, our US Constitution is founded on those very amendments so that is doesn't happen. However, as proven by our history, both Democrat and Republican presidents have pushed this to the limit in a time of war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 (edited) Republicans are not for an all-out invasion of privacy by our government. In fact, our US Constitution is founded on those very amendments so that is doesn't happen. However, as proven by our history, both Democrat and Republican presidents have pushed this to the limit in a time of war. What? The last 6 years of Republican contol in Congress and specifically in the executive branch has resulted in a disregard of the constitution never experienced by our nation. Federal govt. has grown at historical levels and personal rights have been comprimised. "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together." Who said that, when did he say that, and what did he do before he said it? Edited February 20, 2007 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 What? The last 6 years of Republican contol in Congress and specifically in the executive branch has resulted in a disregard of the constitution never experienced by our nation. Federal govt. has grown and personal rights have been comprimised at historical levels. Grunt, you seem like a good enough kid, but you clearly keep shatting out your mouth and its wearing thin. Who said that, when did he say that, and what did he accomplish before he said it? February 19, 1942: President Roosevelt signs Executive Order 9066, giving Secretary of War authority to designate "military areas" from which to exclude certain people. Sets into motion eventual incarceration of 120,000 Japanese, aliens and citizens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9066 FEBRUARY 19, 1942 Authorizing the Secretary of War to Prescribe Military Areas Whereas, The successful prosecution of the war requires every possible protection against espionage and against sabotage to national defense material, national defense premises and national defense utilities as defined in Section 4, Act of April 20, 1918, 40 Stat. 533 as amended by the Act of November 30, 1940, 54 Stat. 1220. and the Act of August 21, 1941. 55 Stat. 655 (U.S.C., Title 50, Sec. 104): Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, l hereby authorized and direct the Secretary of War, and the Military Commanders whom he may from time to time designate, whenever he or any designated Commander deem such action necessary or desirable to prescribe military areas in such places and of such extent as he or the appropriate Military Commander may determine, from which any or all persons may be excluded, and with respect to which, the right of any person to enter, remain in, or leave shall be subject to whatever restriction the Secretary of War or the appropriate Military Commander may impose in his discretion. The Secretary of War is hereby authorized to provide for residents of any such area who are excluded therefrom. such transportation, food, shelter, and other accommodations as may be necessary, in the judgment of the Secretary of War or the said Military Commander and until other arrangements are made, to accomplish the purpose of this order. The designation of military areas in any region or locality shall supersede designation of prohibited and restricted areas by the Attorney General under the Proclamation of December 7 and 8, 1941, and shall supersede the responsibility and authority of the Attorney General under the said Proclamation in respect of such prohibited and restricted areas. I hereby further authorize and direct the Secretary of War and the said Military Commanders to take such other steps as he or the appropriate Military Commander may deem advisable to enforce compliance with the restrictions applicable to each Military area herein above authorized to be designated. including the use of Federal troops and other Federal Agencies, with authority to accept assistance of state and local agencies. I hereby further authorize and direct all Executive Department, independent establishments and other Federal Agencies, to assist the Secretary of War or the said Military Commanders in carrying out this Executive Order, including the furnishing of medical aid, hospitalization, food, clothing, transportation, use of land, shelter, and other supplies, equipment, utilities, facilities and service. This order shall not be construed as modifying or limiting in any way the authority granted under Executive Order 8972. dated December 12.1941, nor shall it be construed as limiting or modifying the duty and responsibility of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, with response to the investigation of alleged acts of sabotage or duty and responsibility of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice under the Proclamation of December 7 and 8, 1941, prescribing regulations for the conduct and control of alien enemies, except as such duty and responsibility is superseded by the designation of military areas thereunder. Franklin D. Roosevelt The White House, February 19,1942. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 (edited) February 19, 1942: President Roosevelt signs Executive Order 9066, giving Secretary of War authority to designate "military areas" from which to exclude certain people. Sets into motion eventual incarceration of 120,000 Japanese, aliens and citizens. And was that historically viewed as the right decision, or did our govt. try to make that up somehow? Edited February 20, 2007 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Grunt, if you don't want bigger government, then you should be PRO lawsuit... not anti-lawsuit. Without the people's ability to decide to sue companies run by people, to be decided on by a jury of people... you'd have to have massive government regulation of everything. The government would need to regulate business more. The government would be deciding who was right and who was wrong instead of juries of citizens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MojoMan Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 It was actually me! Great work guys, I knew that we could get full circle with this. I'm pretty busy right now, but I'll post the link when I have time. I got the idea from the suit about a guy that used to wiped his ass with a cactus. He sued and got millions. I'll try and find that one too, but I think the case cite is Cliaz v. The Mojave Desert . Great post DO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isleseeya Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Grunt, if you don't want bigger government, then you should be PRO lawsuit... not anti-lawsuit. Without the people's ability to decide to sue companies run by people, to be decided on by a jury of people... you'd have to have massive government regulation of everything. The government would need to regulate business more. The government would be deciding who was right and who was wrong instead of juries of citizens. This is good info ...we are at pt that govt is big enough and has influenced itself more than necessary in the day to day lives of american Control is out of control In ny their is a congressman who wants to make it a law and punishable offense for peoplk to cross the street with thir ipod on ...they would have to shut it off and take it off befor they cross the street ...enough already Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Grunt, if you don't want bigger government, then you should be PRO lawsuit... not anti-lawsuit. Without the people's ability to decide to sue companies run by people, to be decided on by a jury of people... you'd have to have massive government regulation of everything. The government would need to regulate business more. The government would be deciding who was right and who was wrong instead of juries of citizens. I am very much pro lawsuit. Just because I feel that some cases are pretty crazy doesn't mean that I am not pro lawsuit. And even the crazy lawsuit, if the jury finds the defendant in the wrong, then they are more than likely correct. Everything you just mentioned is correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Can you get into trouble for trying to sue someone for something totally absurd (is there an actual law against that), or does it just get thrown out or dismissed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Skins... Furd...? I am pretty sure it just gets thrown out, but because I said that I have a feeling skins will want to jump in and say you can get in trouble. The case will just get dismissed or thrown out. Final Answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Can you get into trouble for trying to sue someone for something totally absurd (is there an actual law against that), or does it just get thrown out or dismissed? A lawsuit can be filed against you if it was ruled that you had a frivilous lawsuit against them. an example of one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 A lawsuit can be filed against you if it was ruled that you had a frivilous lawsuit against them. an example of one Good post! That's what I figured the only trouble you can get into if you go out and simply start sueing people over nothing. I don't think the state will actually do anything to punish you, but chances are you might get sued back. But I don't think there is an actual law against frivolous lawsuits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 (edited) Can you get into trouble for trying to sue someone for something totally absurd (is there an actual law against that), or does it just get thrown out or dismissed? Skins... Furd...? I am pretty sure it just gets thrown out, but because I said that I have a feeling skins will want to jump in and say you can get in trouble. The case will just get dismissed or thrown out. Final Answer. In federal court a judge can impose sanctions on a party and their attorney for filing and pursuing what could be considered a "frivolous" lawsuit (Rule 11). Doesnt happen much, but it can be done. There are state law equivalents. Edited February 20, 2007 by skins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 In federal court a judge can impose sanctions on a party and their attorney for filing and pursuing what could be considered a "frivolous" lawsuit (Rule 11). Doesnt happen much, but it can be done. There are state law equivalents. I'm wrong again. If I ever need a lawyer for something then I know who talk to. That is of course until my brother becomes a lawyer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 (edited) Skins... Furd...? I am pretty sure it just gets thrown out, but because I said that I have a feeling skins will want to jump in and say you can get in trouble. The case will just get dismissed or thrown out. Final Answer. Well, in Michigan, there is a court rule and a statute which provide that, if a court finds a civil action or a defense to a civil action frivilous, then a court shall award the prevailing party costs and fees against the nonprevailing party and their attorney. Frivilous is defined as at least 1 of the these conditions being met: (i) The party's primary purpose in initiating the action or asserting the defense was to harass, embarrass, or injure the prevailing party. (ii) The party had no reasonable basis to believe that the facts underlying that party's legal position were in fact true. (iii) The party's legal position was devoid of arguable legal merit. There is also a court rule that allows the court to sanction an attorney for signing a pleading or other paper if the document is not well grounded in fact or law or if it is interposed for a proper purpose. Lastly, there are the rarely used causes of action of abuse of process or malicious prosecution, which are seperate claims altogether. Edited February 20, 2007 by Furd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Well, in Michigan, there is a court rule and a statute which provide that, if a court finds a civil action or a defense to a civil action frivilous, then a court shall award the prevailing party costs and fees against the nonprevailing party and their attorney. Frivilous is defined as at least 1 of the these conditions being met: (i) The party's primary purpose in initiating the action or asserting the defense was to harass, embarrass, or injure the prevailing party. (ii) The party had no reasonable basis to believe that the facts underlying that party's legal position were in fact true. (iii) The party's legal position was devoid of arguable legal merit. There is also a court rule that allows the court to sanction an attorney for signing a pleading or other paper if the document is not well grounded in fact or law or if it is interposed for a proper purpose. Lastly, there are the rarely used causes of action of abuse of process or malicious prosecution, which are seperate claims altogether. This is great! I love learning, and aside from making an attempt to stir up arguments about law, I really do enjoy the whole aspect of it. So this is all good info. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 This is great! I love learning, It actually sort of seems like you like throwing out a bunch of uninformed statements and then watching them get torn apart by people who actually do know what they are talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 It actually sort of seems like you like throwing out a bunch of uninformed statements and then watching them get torn apart by people who actually do know what they are talking about. Please explain. A lot of the time I am right, however, some of you insist that I am not. What gives? I realize that I can be wrong at times, but I think the main problem is that some people like to assume information that was not given. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Please explain. A lot of the time I am right, however, some of you insist that I am not. What gives? I realize that I can be wrong at times, but I think the main problem is that some people like to assume information that was not given. Like when you make absolute statements such as "the private industry is always much more efficient" and the rest of us assume that you really mean what you say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Like when you make absolute statements such as "the private industry is always much more efficient" and the rest of us assume that you really mean what you say? And I explained the minor error I had made.... Wiegie pictures correct. There are a small percentage of government run businesses that are more reliable than privatized. Going with what Bushwacked said, the US postal service is probably when of the best forms of insurance you can have when receiving/sending a letter. The punishment for tampering with such material, or attempt at stealing such material is nothing less than extraordinary. The second you close that envelope and put a stamp on it you can be rest-assured the government will take care of it. I'm speaking more on the lines of how effective and efficient a private industry will be in utilizing money over most government businesses. I'd rather donate money to a private company, where I know exactly how they'll spend it (once again, for the most part), over having more taxes so that the government can decide where my money goes. Obviously there are roads and certain infrastructures that our government is required to maintain. But the government isn't in the business of competing. When you have two private companies that compete, the results are more often than not much better for the people they are competing to win over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 And I explained the minor error I had made.... Yes, I don't think anyone is claiming you don't take stuff back or come across stubborn. You have a habit, or tendency if you will, to make rather simplisitc all encompassing statments that are often completely wrong or erroneous. When people start ripping it you often pedal backwards as fast as you threw the stuff out there in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Yes, I don't think anyone is claiming you don't take stuff back or come across stubborn. You have a habit, or tendency if you will, to make rather simplisitc all encompassing statments that are often completely wrong or erroneous. When people start ripping it you often pedal backwards as fast as you threw the stuff out there in the first place. This is true... I'll admit my faults. I'm still young, so I'm still trying to figure out where my strong points are. And I find that when I make quick judgements it can backfire on me. However, when I have time to think about it and clarify what my intentions are, then I am more often than not on the right page. I still believe that I am rarely completely wrong, but I will admit certain erroneous comments can and do happen. This I am sure everyone is guilty of. Given the simplistic idea of a message board, it's impossible for everyone to grasp written context with emotion; I can be very sarcastic or facetious at times, and it is difficult to fully exemplify this sarcasm without emotion. Like I said, I'll admit I am wrong sometimes, but when I have time to completely explain my reasoning then I am confident my arguments contain much relevance and truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 This is true... I'll admit my faults. I'm still young, so I'm still trying to figure out where my strong points are. And I find that when I make quick judgements it can backfire on me. However, when I have time to think about it and clarify what my intentions are, then I am more often than not on the right page. I still believe that I am rarely completely wrong, but I will admit certain erroneous comments can and do happen. This I am sure everyone is guilty of. Given the simplistic idea of a message board, it's impossible for everyone to grasp written context with emotion; I can be very sarcastic or facetious at times, and it is difficult to fully exemplify this sarcasm without emotion. Like I said, I'll admit I am wrong sometimes, but when I have time to completely explain my reasoning then I am confident my arguments contain much relevance and truth. Nicely stated, now is cerwin really your gay lover? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.