So tell me how that is not saying, “Screw the poor.”
And as for your “solution,” zev_steinhardt originally wrote:
You responded:
And zev so eloquently countered:
You seem to have completely ignored this, though, and continue to rail against lawyers and the oh-so-unjust legal system, evidently at the poor’s expense.
No, it seems it’s your business that keeps getting sued. Maybe if you had better hiring and firing practices people wouldn’t sue you so often. Heaven forfend you hire an attorney to help you improve your workplace instead of fixing all the problems you make for yourself.
Don’t point fingers at me when you’re the one swinging in a noose of your own creation.
Ladies and gentlemen of the SDMB jury, I rest my case.
Well, he is the person who over at LBMB claimed that, nevermind that a peron might be the best person for the job, and who cares if it was something that would ever be an issue on the job, he would NOT hire a homosexual to work for his company because of their deviant lifestyle.
Note: It is times like this I am glad to have chose the name “Satan.”
*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Five months, three weeks, four days, 21 hours, 49 minutes and 28 seconds.
7156 cigarettes not smoked, saving $894.55.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 3 days, 20 hours, 20 minutes.
*“I’m a big Genesis fan.”-David B. (Amen, brother!) **
That’s low, even for here. WB hasn’t had anyone trucked off for the deathcamps yet. He may be a couple cans short of a six pack, but he is not a Hitler by a longshot.
I guess he’ll be voting a “straight” Republican ticket this fall, then. But anyway, what’s LBMB? I’m guessing the something-something Message Board?
[aside] Those of you interested, the American Family Association has finally found the “Gay Agenda” and has it available on their website at http://www.afa.net. And I didn’t even know they were a gay group!
[/aside
If I was one of those “bloodsucking plaintiff’s attorneys” representing one of Wildest Bill’s employees, I sure would love to find that quote during discovery and ream him with it on the witness stand.
“So, Mr. Bill, you would discriminate against against Mr. Doe or any other employee on the basis of his sexual preference. Are you sure you wouldn’t discriminate against Mr. Doe on the basis of his age? Would you discriminate against him on the basis of his religion?”
Esprix, I, too, picked on Wildest Bill for his ideas (or lack of ideas) and his innovative mangling of English grammar, spelling, and syntax, but there is no point in mocking a truly stupid person. Wildest Bill is amiable, but he lacks the facts and logic necessary to mount a cogent argument; besides, I’m sure he’s too busy balancing his duties as Texas governor and Republican candidate for president to devote much time to researching SDMB debates.
I would make the argument that personal injury lawyers are useful consumer advocates. Companies install safety features in products not because they wish to protect their customers, but because they know that not doing so will potentially cost them multi-million dollar damage settlements.
I had the advantage of living for several years in South Korea, a nation where personal injury lawsuits are unknown.
It is also a nation of shoddy, dangerous products where consumers have no redress for damages. Example: My school, Banpo ECC, was a few blocks down the street from Sampoong Department Store in Kangnam-gu, Seoul. On June 29, 1995, cracks appeared in the walls and ceilings of the store. The president of Sampoong decided to keep the store open because he didn’t want to lose sales. Around 6 p.m., the store collapsed, killing over 1,000 people. The president and vice-president of the Sampoong chaebol spent a short time in prison and a token payment was made to survivors. There was no further punishment. As a result, there has been no examination of safety standards for new buildings. (As it turned out, safety inspectors were bribed to overlook modifications to building specs put in to cut costs. Nobody was punished for that, either.)
Last year, many Korean children died in a fire at at a youth camp because of inadequate safety precautions. In the US, there would have been lawsuits filed, damages paid, and safety standards checked.
Well, I dunno - advocating a judicial system that would rob an entire segment of society (an “undesirable” one at that) of their rights under those laws to “better” society… sounds kinda Nazi-esque to me.
A fundamentalist, a Unitarian, a gay man, and a pagan walked into a bar. Ordering the beverages of their choice, they sat down at a table and had an amiable conversation, into which rancor and stereotypes never entered.
Sensing the setup, the bartender came over and asked them, “C’mon, is this a joke?”
They looked up at him and answered, in unison, “Unfortunately, yes.”
