Looking for a mid-size domestic car recommendation

Page 10 of 16  
If that is what you think, then perhaps you should think about that some more. Any attorney will tell you the reason they can easily manipulate a jury is because the people sitting in the
jury box are the ones that were not smart enough to get themselves out of jury duty. ;)
mike hunt
Art wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Art wrote:

I think juries are manipulated into making unreasonable awards. Do I need a scientific explanation for what seems so apparent in many cases?
Juries are led to believe only the rich are paying. You know, the evil insurance companies, or the evil large corporations. You aren't really hurting the little guy when you award millions to an injured party - right? Anybody that believes that is an idiot and the perfect candidate for a civil jury.
I have never been on a jury. I've been on the list twice but never actually had to go downtown so to speak. A fellow engineer has had to join the pool a couple of times, but both times he was immediately excused the minute he admitted he was an engineer. I am sure that no trial lawyer would ever want me on a jury. I am old, white, and have a degree in engineering. I would be impervious to most of the BS they throw out.
As I said before. I have no problems with actual and reasonable damages being awarded. I do have a problem with punitive damages. If there is willful negligence involved, put the perpetrator in jail, don't shower money on the injured person and some scum trial lawyer. If you think economic sanctions are the only ones that work, then have the government fine the perpetrators and use the money to benefit society.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 11:15:23 -0400, "C. E. White"

_________________________________________________________
Normally I don't do "me too" posts, but me too!
--
BT

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
C. E. White wrote:

same for me.. good thinking ED... thats the way it was years ago.. i remember my grandfather(who was like most people back then in the 40's and 50's)... if you sued someone you had better have a good reason to do so.. if you got hit by a cop.. the reasoning was that if you did nothing wrong you would never have got hit in the first place... if you did something wrong you go to jail..... but that was the difference back then and now.. now everyone wants something for nothing................ and they have a plague of locus that go by the name of attorneys that get paid to get you something for nothing..... and they get about 40 percent of that something.....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 18:10:25 GMT, " snipped-for-privacy@sprynet.com"

I recall Geoff was saying in an earlier post something about living in a Capitalist society. "scum trial lawyers" help capitalism! How? They take money that is being poorly utilized by insurance companies (government and corporate bonds) and disperse it throughout the society via the springer crowd.
Look at Mike Tyson. $300 Million to 0.00 in the blink of an eye.
Same with most of these "lawsuit lottery winners" A year or two of Cheap booze, cheaper women and 1 fast car and they're either organ donor's or back living at the trailer park. That money spurs the economy helping the growth of developing industries. See !? "scum sucking lawyers" and their "white trash" clientele are an integral part of the nations economy.
For the socialists in the group it's wealth "redistribution" at it's most base.
For anyone who's ever worked in the insurance field its either laughable or maddening. (I'm more the former)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

_________________________________________________________
I must disagree. Transferring money from one person or group to another person or group does *not* spur the economy. True wealth can only be created by the sweat of one's brow, both personally and nation-wide. Paper shuffles do not do anything of benefit to the economy as a whole.
--
BT

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bill Turner wrote:

Sure it can. Transferring money to a person who will invest it in something that increases our GDP is adding to the economy. Someone who just hoards their money under a mattress does nothing to increase wealth. So moving money from a place where it isn't working to a place where it can work, definitely benefits the economy as a whole.
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

_________________________________________________________
Except that nobody "hoards" money except a few hermits up in the hills. Money is always invested, one way or the other.
--
BT

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

_________________________________________________________
In that example, one could argue that society is better off, while the shopkeeper is less well off.
Far more likely, however, is the shopkeeper keeps his money either in a savings account, invested in stocks or bonds or in some kind of commercial account. All of which make society better off.
--
BT

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bill Turner wrote:

Right answer. 8^) (Hmmm - what if he had it in Enron stock? rhetorical question)
Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

_________________________________________________________
When the stock crashed, he would be worse off while anyone who wished to purchase the stock would be better off. Net result for society = zero.
Remember, when the stock crashed, nothing of real physical value was lost, only the price put on it. It was terrible for the employees but beneficial for society as a whole.
--
BT

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
If that is what your really believe, you could be a poster boy for convoluted thinking what our liberal schools and colleges are producing today. What a sad state of affairs.
mike hunt
Bill Turner wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sorry but there is one thing worse than inflation and it is deflation. Tons of people holding expensive debt with collateral worth half and assets being sold off. Happened in Japan.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In many ways, the Lawyer gets a bad rap.
The Lawyer sells "legal representation
"If you want to sue GOD, I'm sure there's a lawyer who'll sell you legal counsel at $500 an hour. The CUSTOMER chooses the complaint. The Lawyer sells his legal service.... The judge and jury decide the merit of the complaint.
If there are stupid judgements or awards, talk to the JURY !!
<rj>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Matt Whiting wrote:

I was responding to your response to BT in which he (BT) said: "Transferring money from one person or group to another person or group does *not* spur the economy. True wealth can only be created by the sweat of one's brow, both personally and nation-wide. Paper shuffles do not do anything of benefit to the economy as a whole." and you replied, in part, that "Sure it can...Someone who just hoards their money under a mattress does nothing to increase wealth. So moving money from a place where it isn't working to a place where it can work, definitely benefits the economy as a whole." There are some people who would take that to mean, and who actually think about the economy in terms of, property damage actually creating wealth (they equate stimulating the economy with creating wealth) even though you may not have actually said that. In fact, in economics, this type of fallacious thinking has a name that is given to it - I forget it exactly, but, in the field of economics, it's commonly referred to as the "shop keeper's broken window" or the "jewelry store owner's broken window" (or some similar phrasing) mentallity, and is used to illustrate the fallacy of certain false principles.
Sorry if I insulted you by insinuating that you might think that way. I was just waving off others who might misinterpret what you were saying and falling into the common misconception which only seems to be the same as what you were saying but in fact is not. 8^)
Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bill Putney wrote:

Bill, that is really a stretch to go from what BT and I said to suggesting we were advocating property damage!

I wasn't insulted as much as confused as to where you created that theory from given what I'd written. I hadn't even implied causing intentional damage, I simply said that putting idle money to work can benefit the economy.
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You mean the way Warren Buffit did? ;)
mike hunt
Bill Turner wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 16:28:13 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@mailcity.com wrote:

I like the Buffit response. Though one does wonder why the Exxon Valdez <sp> spill was counted as adding to the GDP the year that happened (or why Exxon hasn't paid yet for the cleanup).
Wealth transfer in some circumstances works. (read a bit on the Plague's effect on the British economy and the effects of war mobilization in some countries, I won't mention the US but...).
I'm just saying that every toxic cloud has a silver lining (even if it is only shiny lead....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 16:28:13 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@mailcity.com wrote:

_________________________________________________________
Warren Buffet did not "create" any wealth, he merely moved it from someone else's pocket to his own. He is richer, they are poorer. The net wealth of the nation is the same.
You're equating money with wealth. In the common vernacular they are often interchanged, but when discussing economic theory they are two different things.
--
BT

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Why? Did his 'work' not effect the GNP? Does he not pay those people that work for him? Are all of those working in the jobs that now exist, because of his products being sold and serviced, not compensated? Or do they not count because they work in air conditioned facilities and therefore do not work up a 'perspire?'
mike hunt
Bill Turner wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.