The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Pittsburgh
Next: Incompatible jpeg?
From: Chris Malcolm on 13 Sep 2009 04:37 In rec.photo.digital David Ruether <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote: > "Walter Banks" <walter(a)bytecraft.com> wrote in message news:4AABFA0C.7A417C71(a)bytecraft.com... >> Bill Graham wrote: >>> In my world, yes, yes, yes. Everyone (all 300 million of us citizens) should >>> have a government ID card, and/or a chip implanted in us that identifies us >>> as US citizens in good standing, and if we are sick, then the chip should >>> get us the treatment we need. Today's technology is more than adequate to >>> accomplish this. >> Well put > I trust you two are joking... Talk about ultimate "socialism", ultimate > government control over its citizenry, and just plain obvious potential > for the development of ultimate nightmare despotism... THINK!!! > (Sheesh!) The problem is that right thinking is only permitted when its conclusions agree with gut feelings. As the disorder progresses the origins of the gut feelings move downwards amd the victime starts shouting at the TV during news programmes. Once the gut feelings have reached the last half of the large colon the condition is incurable. The only teatment is palliative care such as watching Fox News. -- Chris Malcolm
From: Chris H on 13 Sep 2009 06:11 What has some local inter-party politics of a foreign country got to do with photography? In message <EKWdnfDeK_e0TTXXnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d(a)supernews.com>, Larry Thong <larry_thong(a)shitstring.com> writes >It seems the meaning and value of the word "apology" has been watered down >to now mean "I'm sorry I got caught for doing whatever I did but was very >happy doing it up and till the point I got caught." It's sad that this >practice is commonplace with business's, politicians, investment brokers, >religious figures, criminals alike. > >Good ole boy Joe Wilson, a Republican, called out "you lie" during Obama's >speech and shortly apologizes after getting called out over it. It's sad >to see these juvenile actions taken by Wilson and the Republicans when >everyone knows Obama is very passionate and takes seriously the problem of >health care reform. He is the only President in history that is actually >doing something about removing the waste and corruption in the health care >system. Give Obama a round of applause!!! -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: C J Campbell on 13 Sep 2009 11:52 On 2009-09-11 17:07:12 -0700, John A. <john(a)nowhere.invalid> said: > On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:54:37 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> > wrote: > >> >> "wrbrown13" <wrbrown3(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message >> news:xz99h2s243hc$.9skloajqavx8.dlg(a)40tude.net... >>> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:36:20 -0700, Bill Graham wrote: >>> >>>> "Bob G" <mrbobjames(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>> news:adbcdb79-6c7f-4021-8fc0-3adf608d7083(a)w10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... >>>>> Republicans would rather get jerked around by the corporations than by >>>>> the government. Wait until you get a horrible diseaase and your health >>>>> insurance company drops you like a hot potato. >>>>> >>>>> The fact is that this nation is now an oligarchy (and has been for >>>>> some time) and not a democracy. >>>>> >>>>> How does that go, from the corporations, by the corporations, and for >>>>> the corporations? >>>> >>>> That is what litigation is supposed to correct.....You still have the >>>> right >>>> to sue. But I never said that government couldn't regulate. Your health >>>> insurance policy should list the stuff it doesn't cover, in large ten >>>> point >>>> type.......I would vote for a law like that. >>> >>> >>> Now there's a thought. Sue a large corporation who has any number of >>> lawyers on their staff and can drag litigation out intil you don't have a >>> penny to your name. Great in theory, but a joke in reality. >> >> They usually settle out of court. Why? Because juries are very sympathetic >> to the little guy, and have been known to award many millions of the big >> companies money to him. > > Actually, juries have very good "bullshit detectors" by and large, and > it's very rare for a frivolous or fraudulent malpractice suit to > succeed. Any little guy vs big guy sympathies are balanced by the > pleasure to be had in sending a con packing. Seriously, the whole idea > that's been going around of capping awards in these cases serves no > one near as well as the *real* incompetent and/or reckless medical > professionals who will save money but who should be out of the > business entirely. Hey, if folks are hell-bent on capping rightfully > won awards, I guess they will, but let's have some professional > repercussions to weed out the real bad doctors, nurses, etc. and keep > them out. The trouble is that most cases never go to trial. The insurance companies nearly always settle for something, because the cost of defending is greater than the cost of paying something on even the most frivolous claim. That raises insurance rates for everyone, plus it encourages medical professionals to practice exceedingly defensive medicine. -- Waddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor
From: Savageduck on 13 Sep 2009 12:52 On 2009-09-13 08:52:24 -0700, C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> said: > On 2009-09-11 17:07:12 -0700, John A. <john(a)nowhere.invalid> said: > >> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:54:37 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> "wrbrown13" <wrbrown3(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message >>> news:xz99h2s243hc$.9skloajqavx8.dlg(a)40tude.net... >>>> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:36:20 -0700, Bill Graham wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Bob G" <mrbobjames(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:adbcdb79-6c7f-4021-8fc0-3adf608d7083(a)w10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... >>>>>> Republicans would rather get jerked around by the corporations than by >>>>>> the government. Wait until you get a horrible diseaase and your health >>>>>> insurance company drops you like a hot potato. >>>>>> >>>>>> The fact is that this nation is now an oligarchy (and has been for >>>>>> some time) and not a democracy. >>>>>> >>>>>> How does that go, from the corporations, by the corporations, and for >>>>>> the corporations? >>>>> >>>>> That is what litigation is supposed to correct.....You still have the >>>>> right >>>>> to sue. But I never said that government couldn't regulate. Your health >>>>> insurance policy should list the stuff it doesn't cover, in large ten >>>>> point >>>>> type.......I would vote for a law like that. >>>> >>>> >>>> Now there's a thought. Sue a large corporation who has any number of >>>> lawyers on their staff and can drag litigation out intil you don't have a >>>> penny to your name. Great in theory, but a joke in reality. >>> >>> They usually settle out of court. Why? Because juries are very sympathetic >>> to the little guy, and have been known to award many millions of the big >>> companies money to him. >> >> Actually, juries have very good "bullshit detectors" by and large, and >> it's very rare for a frivolous or fraudulent malpractice suit to >> succeed. Any little guy vs big guy sympathies are balanced by the >> pleasure to be had in sending a con packing. Seriously, the whole idea >> that's been going around of capping awards in these cases serves no >> one near as well as the *real* incompetent and/or reckless medical >> professionals who will save money but who should be out of the >> business entirely. Hey, if folks are hell-bent on capping rightfully >> won awards, I guess they will, but let's have some professional >> repercussions to weed out the real bad doctors, nurses, etc. and keep >> them out. > > The trouble is that most cases never go to trial. The insurance > companies nearly always settle for something, because the cost of > defending is greater than the cost of paying something on even the most > frivolous claim. That raises insurance rates for everyone, plus it > encourages medical professionals to practice exceedingly defensive > medicine. That is true in many areas. In Law enforcement for example a cost analysis is always conducted in the case of Citizen Complaints headed to Court, and settlements are offered. Mainly due to Court costs exceding any value to succesful defense. I know of many peace officers accused of various transgressions, false or otherwise, in Citizen Complaints, who protested they were unable to clear their reputation in Court due to a settlement, even when there is clear evidence they were falsely accused, and they have been cleared via internal investigation. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Savageduck on 13 Sep 2009 12:55
On 2009-09-13 03:11:49 -0700, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> said: > > What has some local inter-party politics of a foreign country got to do > with photography? Well they got some pretty candid shots of all the participants, and the distribution was widespread. Without cameras and a few different types of photography, how would we have known? > -- Regards, Savageduck |