ut see AJ, that's what I'm talking about wanting to solve. If I want to sue you for 'pain and suffering' and for whatever else I feel so inclined to sue you for. Let's play with numbers (because I like numbers ) here and say I'm suing you for 250,000 in pain and suffering for whatever injustice I felt you caused me. I being the plantiff would be responsible to pay YOU AJ, the defendent $250K if I (the plantiff) LOSE my law suit against you. With the plantiff knowing that this could be reversed and that I might have to pay what I'm suing for, I see two things happening: 1) I'm going to make sure I have a case. 2) I'm probably not going to sue you for these crazy amounts that we hear about if I may have to court ordered to pay you back (even garnished wages).
Besides if I lost a couple times I'd be to broke to sue you again!
Meh, to each their own. I don't plan on doing anything suit worthy any time soon.
After few such complaints having turned out to have been bogus, I think it is safe to assume that they all are.
I don't know how almighty Palin really is.
But I also don't think she is a threat to Democratic rule. What the Republicans need is someone closer to the centre, not more extremist. Palin is certainly not an extremist and she is better than Bobby Jindal, but there are some things Republicans have to understand.
The reason Democrats and independents voted for Obama was because they perceived the Republican party to have worked on the wrong problems. The Democrats around Obama campaigned on the premise that everything George Bush did was wrong and evil and the Republican party sent a strong message that the only fault they could find with George Bush was that he wasn't right-wing enough. The criticism is true but unlikely to convince those on the left of Bush who have fewer problems with him than with those more on the right.
John McCain, I guess, was a respected candidate even among most of the left (I'll exclude the many loonies who even made fun of how he looked because he had been tortured for years). But many Republicans made it clear that they didn't consider him a true conservative. Well, maybe he was not, but the voters didn't want a "true conservative". If John McCain could have mananed to run with Joe Lieberman, I think many Democrats might have voted for the mixed ticket. After all, Obama also campaigned on the ticket of building bridges between the parties. With Obama it was an obvious lie, but a McCain/Lieberman ticket would have been a bridge.
And last but not least, liberals are very conservative. In America there is a tendency to use the words "liberal" and "conservative" in ways that are not always correct. For example, a "conservative" in the US is often someone who wants to change back rather than preserve. Liberals don't want a change back but they also don't want change forward. They want things to stay the same, notwithstanding calls for "change". That's why Obama isn't doing anything except spending. Conservatives are also more likely to accept and support a woman leader than liberals. In general conservatives are more likely to accept change and liberals are more likely to demand change. That's why, with the exception of Golda Meir, women leader in the western world have been conservatives. Women do not fare well among liberal voters. And many liberals vote rather for evil than for a woman, probably to keep the world alive in which they can demand change.
Mmm, perhaps. Just because 99 out of 100 things turned out to be false means that that 1 is not. Let the evidence and courts decide it, not public bias.
It's not (or shouldn't be) about 'who' wins, it should be about what policies and positions win. Why vote for McCain if he's just a liberal in Republican dress (except as 'the lesser of evils')? Our cult of personality, nurtured and matured by our sycophant media, will be our downfall.
Interesting you mention that. I was watching a movie last night, called Swing Vote. While I would give it a B- or C+ over all, there was a really good line in it that I think is apt for the issue of the media, elections and votes. The line went:
"All the world's great civilizations have followed the same path. From bondage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy back to bondage. If we are to be the exception to history, then we must break the cycle, for those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."