Cougarguard Political Leanings Plotted

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

LOL.



Actually that little smiley next to the sentence meant that it was just a friendly TIC jab. But since you always seem to lose your sense of humor at the sight of my name, here's a few:

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthr...0871#post90871
http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthr...8897#post88897

And who could forget this gem of cogent thought:

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...83&postcount=1

The fact is, you avoid legitimate questions by making ad hominem attacks.

It's not the fact that you make them (like most of them) - it's the fact that you use them as a debate tactic, when you have no legitimate argument.

My point here is, I don't think you can state a reasonable basis for hating trial lawyers, other than it's a position held by Republican politicians.

As for the lack of sense of humor at seeing your name - trust me, I'm laughing at you quite frequently.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Calm down, SoCal. Go have a cappuccino. I was just playing around with you, good grief.

That's what you do when you can't support your position. Can we just assume it's blind bias and move on?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

The fact is, you avoid legitimate questions by making ad hominem attacks.

It's not the fact that you make them (like most of them) - it's the fact that you use them as a debate tactic, when you have no legitimate argument.

My point here is, I don't think you can state a reasonable basis for hating trial lawyers, other than it's a position held by Republican politicians.

As for the lack of sense of humor at seeing your name - trust me, I'm laughing at you quite frequently.

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

That's what you do when you can't support your position. Can we just assume it's blind bias and move on?

I don't actually hate trial lawyers. It ... was ... a ... joke.

If I ever lacked evidence of a visceral reaction to me, you've provided boatloads of it.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't actually hate trial lawyers. It ... was ... a ... joke.

Okay, okay. Except that when I was a p.i. lawyer, I found that there was an element of truth underlying the joke - that the people who made those types of jokes about trial lawyers really did have a bias against them.

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=2439755

But to me, this is a good litmus test for independence of thought among those who identify with the Republican party. And since you claim to be the board moderate, you should be able to pass this test.

So do you admit that the Republican bias against trial lawyers is ill-founded? If not, what is the factual basis for the bias?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Okay, okay. Except that when I was a p.i. lawyer, I found that there was an element of truth underlying the joke - that the people who made those types of jokes about trial lawyers really did have a bias against them.

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=2439755

But to me, this is a good litmus test for independence of thought among those who identify with the Republican party. And since you claim to be the board moderate, you should be able to pass this test.

So do you admit that the Republican bias against trial lawyers is ill-founded? If not, what is the factual basis for the bias?

You don't really think that trial lawyers' reputations is borne of Republican bias, do you?

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

You don't really think that trial lawyers' reputations is borne of Republican bias, do you?

In large part, yes - that and propaganda by the insurance industry and fostered by the Republican party.

Of course, how can I be certain without asking the question? And getting answers?

Usually, when I ask the question of people who identify with the Republican party, I get the usual crap back about frivolous lawsuits, punitive damages, and tort reform. All of these are part of the insurance industry propaganda. But by bringing these issues up, the proponent shows that they really don't understand the trial system and personal injury law.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Usually, when I ask the question of people who identify with the Republican party, I get the usual crap back about frivolous lawsuits, punitive damages, and tort reform. All of these are part of the insurance industry propaganda. But by bringing these issues up, the proponent shows that they really don't understand the trial system and personal injury law.

Well I vote Republican most of the time, but I don't identify with those issues and many of my lawyer friends who also vote Republican would disagree with that characterization.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Well vote Republican most of the time, but I don't identify with those issues and many of my lawyer friends who also vote Republican would disagree with that characterization.

I already know you can think independently, so I'm not surprised.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

In large part, yes - that and propaganda by the insurance industry and fostered by the Republican party.

Of course, how can I be certain without asking the question? And getting answers?

Usually, when I ask the question of people who identify with the Republican party, I get the usual crap back about frivolous lawsuits, punitive damages, and tort reform. All of these are part of the insurance industry propaganda. But by bringing these issues up, the proponent shows that they really don't understand the trial system and personal injury law.

Please explain why "frivolous lawsuits, punitive damages, and tort reform" are "crap." And for the record, I don't have any particular love for insurance companies, either.

Also, I wouldn't say John Edwards has helped your case. His apparent inclination to channel the voices of injured children, combined with his "people like Reeve are going to walk again" speech do nothing to shore up the public's view of lawyers in general (to say nothing of trial lawyers), and it has nothing to do with Republicans.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Please explain why "frivolous lawsuits, punitive damages, and tort reform" are "crap." And for the record, I don't have any particular love for insurance companies, either.

Have you bought into the insurance rhetoric?

Without engaging in lengthy debates, the frivolousness can often involve the actions of counsel for the very industry complaining about "frivolous" lawsuit.

In some countries, industries are regulated through heaving bureaucratic administration; in our vaunted economy, we regulate through reactions by consumers. Without such consumer regulation, we would have to rely upon government regulators. Would you rather rely upon government?

I certainly would not. Lawsuits are really a form of market reform. It's the consumers contesting the actions of industry, manufacturer and insurance. IOW, it's Milton Friedman economics in its purest sense.

Are some lawsuits improvidently filed? Yes. But in large sense a lawsuit is filed when a dispute may not otherwise be resolved. Lawyers would prefer to engage in immediate meaningful settlment, but industry prefers to use the weight of their money to wear people down, just like they do in the marketplace.

Tort reform threatens to take out the consumer and to replace it with an insensitive producer without the benefits of government regulation. I'm surprised you'd favor so much interventionism by government. I doubt you're really a Republican in the truest sense.