Dont forget to vote!!
by Jayslick on Mar 4, 2008 12:27 PM CST
Email
Printi dont care who you vote for, but lack of political involvement is how we've gotten where we are in this country. Your boss has to give you time to vote. take off early and go vote. vote republican or vote democrat i couldnt care less. just show that texas' say in the political process cannot be silenced.
153 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Personally...
If you aren't that familiar with the candidates or the issues, stay home.
Let people who know what they are doing vote.
At first
There is something inherently wrong with that logic
Are we to say that someone who votes for Nader is too unintelligent to vote? or one can argue that anyone who voted for W is obviously not intelligent.
I don't think Adam said that
Unlike many people, I believe that people can be rational and well-informed and still vote for almost anyone in recent history (W, Kerry, Gore, Nader, Perot, etc). Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they are ignorant.
But there are people who truly don't know what is going on. And I don't want them deciding anything. No need to guilt trip them into participating in a system they don't care about.
Generally speaking
If ideologues vote regardless of candidate, why can't ugly people vote for the ugly candidate and no other reason.
Where would you draw the line.
i thought about it for a while too
newsflash! i bet most of the voters have doubts about the issues and candidates.
I 100% agree with this
Rock the vote?
you lost me.
I went and voted this morning
I do the same thing
very few people
is it wrong for people to vote based largely on how confident candidates looked in a debate and extrapolating that into deciding how they would govern under pressure?
or, do you have to know candidates' stances on issues or is it enough that you know party stances?
i think you were saying that you shouldn't encourage people to vote if they don't know anything. i would just say you shouldn't discourage people from voting if you think they are uninformed
Are employers
generally yes
http://www.inc.com/news/articles/200611/employees.html
In Texas
If polls are not open two consecutive hours outside the employee's regular shift, the employee is allowed reasonable time to vote.
Paid
also remember most companies of any size and red tape require some proof that you actually went to vote so bring sumpn with ya back to the job.
Traffic
Adam is wrong
My point is, this country generally has around 35-46% turnout on national election day, and for a free and democratic nation that is pathetic.
In your defense, kind of, it is not only your duty as an American to vote, but also to be apart of your community, city, state, and national government.
If you are uninformed on what is going on in todays politics or you dont know what the issues are, you are unpatriotic... You spend all day on your computer blogging on the Rangers, everyone should try and go over to CNN, Fox, and read about the Economy and the different plans and packages that encompass the solutions to our current problems.
You have to vote, but you also have a duty to stay informed and get involved. If you dont do both of these things, you are no American brother of mine.
Ignorance is not an excuse people, get informed, and then get out there and vote. Otherwise, dont complain when things dont go your way, you didnt give the effort, why should you have a chance to reap any of the benefits.
by FormerLSBUser on Mar 4, 2008 1:32 PM CST reply actions
35%-46% tells me
But what if they're not informed
Personally I'd rather have those persons stay home.
come on
every1 is uninformed in some manner when you walk into a booth. quit making it sound like the 35-45% that vote are some kinda geniuses and that the rest are just so uninformed that if they even thought about voting its not up to par with the gloriously informed 45% max that do vote.
yeah
everything ive ever heard is political change starts at the bottom and moves to the top. ie your more likely to see change from a new state assemblyman or local positions in many ways as you are from a national senator. unfortunately i dunno how many people are that informed on these guys. i consider myself an educated voter and the rr commission was a perfect example of me, an an educated voter being uninformed on a race. made me feel crappy kinda.
Personally, I think
not really
hers's an example: let's say you own a shit hole apartment building that you've never seen; you don't bother to have an on-site manager or maintenance person; you simply have a PO Box to which tenants send the rent checks
six months after you buy the building, one tenant's ceiling falls in because one of the beams in the attic is rotting or eaten up with termites;
let's say that if you had ever been to the building, you would immediately know -- as would anyone with any common sense -- that those sagging ceilings were a strong signal that something was terribly wrong and it was just a matter of time before the ceiling fell in;
the collapsed ceiling kills your son who is asleep in his bed;
under current Texas law as our wise Supreme Court has twisted it, you would have no liability to the family
you know why? because you didn't "actually know" about the premises defect and because there's no way to prove that you should have been aware of it...after all, you've never even seen the place
now let's say that your child breaks his leg on the playground; you take the child to the hospital; it's a complex, dislocated fracture and they have to do a surgery to fix the leg; the anaesthesiologist comes into the ER drunk, gives your 38 pound kid enough gas to knock out a horse; your kid dies as a result;
guess what your dead child is worth in this state after a drunken multi-millionaire anaesthesiologist kills him?
$250K...at the most
but not really even that; here's how the game is played; the doctor's insurance company tells you to go jump in a lake because, under current law, there's a good chance no lawyer will take the case and even if you can find one, it's no bid deal to them because their maximum exposure is only $250K, so why not roll the dice?
so you decide to hire a lawyer; the lawyer charges a 40% fee (standard); he spends at least $60K to get the case to trial (if the atty's upside is only $100K and he is betting $60K or more in up-front costs, you can see why no lawyers are going to reduce their fees);
now your dead child is worth about $100K...maximum
and the drunk multi-millionaire anaesthesiologist goes on about his business without any consequences
by mjh on Mar 4, 2008 5:15 PM CST up reply actions
Mike pretty much nailed it.
Ummm...wrong.
Also, in that scenario, you could sue up to 3 parties, 250K each. So you could sue the Hospital, the anesthesiologist, and the surgeon. That's 750K for pain and suffering. And blame lawyers for their fees. If they don't think something is worth more than 100K, then that's their fault. I don't feel bad that they can't become millionaires off this scenario.
If the point is the punish the doc who made the mistake and to help the people who have been harmed. Note, that is just pain and suffering. If you somehow lost an arm, or suffered some sort of disability, they would be required to compensate you for lost wages, etc...
Finally, stop baiting people. It's ridiculous and it hurts your argument. In this scenario, you could probably press criminal charges and sue outside the malpractice setting. The laws in place are really meant to deal with malpractice and not as much gross negligence.
by GhettoBear04 on Mar 4, 2008 11:18 PM CST up reply actions
umm...wrong
This case rejected the doctrine that a hospital has a non-delegable duty to its emergency patients. It reinstated a summary judgment in favor of a hospital that had posted signs saying that the physicians were independent contractors and had obtained the patient's signature on an acknowledgment of the same. Id. at 950.
A hospital may not be held liable for a physician's error on the theory of negligent credentialing unless it acted with malice. St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital v. Agbor, 952 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. 1997).
You are also incorrect on your damages calculation. In a medical malpractice action filed on or after September 1, 2003, regardless of the number of causes of action asserted, non-economic damages are limited to a total of $250,000 from all doctors and other individuals. Non-economic damages are limited to $250,000 from each hospital or other institution and a total of $500,000 from all institutions. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code. § 74.301 (Westlaw 2007). In actions filed on or after September 1, 2003, this limit applies to the total recovery, not separately to each defendant, and includes exemplary damages. § 74.303(a).
Theoretically, $500,000 is possible, but as I stated earlier it's next to impossible to pin the anaesthesiologist's negligence on the hospital, especially in this situation.
The surgeon is absolutely not vicariously liable and there is no joint-and-several in Texas anymore.
by mjh on Mar 5, 2008 6:01 AM CST up reply actions
Sooo...
What is the motive behind suing doctors, in this case the anesthesiologist? To punish the doctor for their mistake and to compensate the patient's family in some how. In this case, the doctor would lose their liscence and accrediation, so they would not be practicing anymore. Also, I still think that criminal charges could be in order. So the anethesiologist would be punished.
So then it comes back to compensation for the family. What amount of money would make the pain bearable? The honest answer to that is no amount. Not to say that there shouldn't be compensation, but that even if it was a million dollars, it wouldn't make it hurt any less. The number shouldn't be set to punish the doctor (already punished) or because the family is greedy.
So what are the downsides of giving each malpractice case 2 million dollars for pain and suffering instead of 250K? Because it causes premiums for all doctors (at least in that field) to go up. And guess who ends up paying for that? Other patients. And it's not just in increased medical bills, it's in closed practices and less access to health care. Clinics, especially OB/Gyn, were closing in Texas 3-5 years ago because insurance premiums were just too high.
So who benefits from uncapped pain and suffering suits? Not doctors, because all doctors end up having to charge more because of the few doctors mistakes. Not patients as a whole, because they suffer the higher medical bills and the reduced access to health care. To a degree, the patients involved in the lawsuit. The people who benefitted the most off of this were lawyers, who got to collect 40%+ off of these huge sums.
Forgive me if I don't feel bad for malpractice lawyers. If you want to argue that the number should be higher, fine. But the number should be capped.
I have friends in med school
Medical malpractice is insane in this country. There is a big difference between MJH's extreme example of a drunk doctor administering too much dope to the kid (probably a criminal offense, or should be) and a routine operation where something goes on. In the latter case, a cap is not only necessary but reasonable. Medicine is not the equivalent of replacing spark plugs in a mass produced car. Bodies are different and variable, things go wrong. Its life.
from US News & World Report
Looking at three high-risk medical specialties, Weiss found that in states with caps, malpractice premiums actually grew faster than in nearly three dozen states without them.
One possible reason, Weiss Ratings says: In some cap states, insurers may have had more financial problems, which would create pressure for the caps and premium hikes. "The legislative push to ram through new caps is premature and dangerous," says Martin Weiss, the firm's chairman.
During an earlier malpractice crisis, 17 years ago, there was a little-noticed development in Florida. Legislators had enacted rules like those being pushed today, and one malpractice insurer, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., told regulators what the changes would mean: no savings in payouts, hence no rollback of premiums.
Not in Texas
Also, in addition to doctors re-opening their clinics, Texas is finally turning around their lack of doctors. They have been setting state records for the number of new Texas certifications to practice medicine. Also, they have been getting a much larger number of applications for Texas certification from other stats, meaning doctors from other states want to come here. One of the states they are getting the most applications from is New York.
New York is currently classified as severely underserved as far as doctors are concerned, but doctors are leaving in part because of insurance premiums. Texas used to be that way, but has reversed the trend.
From more insurance companies opening up (more choices->more competition->cheaper prices) to more doctors, the health care system in Texas is improving and passing legislation to cap malpractice lawsuits is a major reason why.
That was the campaign rhetoric, certainly.
What was particularly disgusting about the campaign for the caps was that they were supposed to discourage so-called "frivolous" lawsuits. What they were really designed to do was to limit the insurance companies' liability on legitimate cases. Medical malpractice cases have been notoriously difficult to win for many years because juries consistently believe the "shit happens" defense that is commonly asserted. Here in Grayson County, a jury hasn't busted a doctor in over twenty years. But all we ever hear about is how the greedy trial lawyers are raking in their 40% and being unjustly enriched. We never hear about the cases they lost where they were forced to eat $100,000 in expenses they advanced helping their client get to a jury.
Doctors are negligent from time to time like anybody else. When that is the case, they should be held accountable like everybody else. The system has been altered drastically in the recent past to make them less accountable than the average citizen--and the insurance companies have made millions as a result.
Fair point.
Doctors have multiple agencies that are obvserving them. When they mess up, they are already punished by these agencies. In addition, they should be forced to compensate their patients in some way. But I don't think it should be the sort of punishment that tobacco companies get or other cases like that where the jury tries to send a message with their judgement.
Also, I think your town is unique. The average doctor will get taken to court 1.5 times over the course of their career. I agree their should be a system in place to check their actions, but the caps were put in place because of the previous system getting taken advantage of. I've heard some pretty crazy stories about cases lost by doctors...
you are proving Adam's point nicely
Ahh, yes.
Nevermind that it's just one issue among many, let's have everyone pass a test so that we know they are smart and have read about every single issue. And we'll charge them to take the test, to help offset the cost. I forgot that voting is a priveledge, not a right.
No problem
It's those that have no knowledge of the candidates/issues that worry me.
My guess is
That's ridiculous
News flash: In no time in our country have more than a slim majority of people tuned in, and increased turnout in the 19th century had more to do with corruption than participation. Be happy with voting yourself, and let your "American brother" do what he pleases.
notice a trend?
heh.
as cindy lauper sang,
"i see your true colors shining through"
I don't know if its good for america
And what trend are you noticing?
Hmm.
Second, when did I ever say low turnout is good for America? Seriously, read what I wrote, find that little gem, and show it to me please. It would be wonderful if every citizen were well-informed and voted in every election. I just said it's not realistic in a gigantic, wealthy nation, and it's never been the case.
Do me a favor: stop stroking yourself over your perceived cleverness, and learn to read.
quote
that slim majority wouldnt happen to be white land owning males? for most of our countries history neither women nor black people could vote. for decades after both groups could vote their right to vote was suppressed in some form.
so what time in our country do you mean?
a) the era when only white male land owners could vote which coincidentally equalled a "slim majority"
b)the era when we let white non land owning males vote as well as suppress women's views through social pressure in the household and translate it to the polls and also made poll taxes and much violent means in the deep south
c) since about 1970
if by "In no time in our country," you mean the last 40 years or so...
sure.
You've committed a significant error
well
I see
If you
You have to give back, and there are millions of ways of doing this... Voting, staying informed, helping out in your community, volunteering, peace core, etc. etc. etc.
I am fine if all you do is vote, and make your voice heard, but to say that you have the right to be a sap and a lazy slut then I am ashamed... Have some initiative, some resolve, some balls, to go out there and do SOMETHING...
by FormerLSBUser on Mar 4, 2008 3:16 PM CST up reply actions
America
by Randy Richardson on Mar 4, 2008 4:18 PM CST up reply actions
Low turnout means
In my city (Frisco)
I can still remember when Frisco ...
I'd say that just means I'm getting old, but that place has exploded over the last 15 years.
Oh, and your former mayor who is running ...
We had this very discussion recently
All you need to know on state judicial races:
That's assuming
Let me correct myself....
by FormerLSBUser on Mar 4, 2008 3:20 PM CST reply actions
I think the percentages ...
so question...
by knockoutking24 on Mar 4, 2008 3:45 PM CST reply actions
in austrialia
not argueing that
this is why we need an "against all" category
by knockoutking24 on Mar 4, 2008 4:08 PM CST up reply actions
Democrats total and utter meltdown continues
There's absolutely no way either candidate can win this.
Total fucking gridlock, LOL.
Stupid fucking Democrats. They made their primaries biased against the front runner. Win a state 60-40 and the delegate split will be more like 50-50.
Typical of a party run and composed of incompetent lying scum morons, though.
Is this really Shark?
I'm honestly not sure.
Huh?
Is their something illogical in my post? The Democrats did make their primaries anti-front runner biased, which makes it exceedingly difficult for a winner to be crowned in a competitive race, and yeah they are pretty incompetent.
The Democrats need Obama to show some kind of win tonight or they are really screwed. I honestly doubt either candidate can win the necessary majority otherwise. Which means it's going to go into all kinds of lawsuits and mudslinging and absolutely no end in sight.
The liberal media, basically agents of the DNC, is of course trying to force feed us the Obama invincibility story. Whether you buy it is another story.
question
by knockoutking24 on Mar 4, 2008 4:14 PM CST up reply actions
That is how liberals are
Actually you're wrong about that.
Actually I'm right...
Riiiiiight ....
so then
king me
Obama
"He Gone!!!!"
whatever
btw, you're saying israel is the victim or the aggressor??
me?
I just find it kind of funny that you think siding against Israel is siding with victims. how does that make any sense.
if anything, conservatives have been siding with Israel (by definition the biggest victim ever) a lot more often than liberals lately.
Not at all.
Ironically ...
Obama
But whatever you need to make yourself feel better about the Republican Party's chances in November...
another question
...this way people can come out and show their displeasure with the current gov't/choices while still exercising their right to vote?
by knockoutking24 on Mar 4, 2008 3:47 PM CST reply actions
I do not vote
Also to PM productions I have this to say
Fuck you buddy. Don't tell me I am not patriotic because I dont share your views on what I should and should not do. I have the right to do or not do whatever I want. Go take your bullshit somewhere else.
Heh.
They don't vote or argue politics as a religious principle, but simply roll with the punches. Of course, they are also not prone to use of the word "fuck" either. :)
Hah nah
But I am also not one of those people who gets mad about our government, I remind myself I did not vote so I cant talk, and I am fine with that.
I have no problem with voting awanress campagins, encouraging people to get out and vote.
But for someone to call people Un-patriotic? What did you do PM Productions, cross the fucking deleware with Washington? Get off your high horse.
by SaltyGoesYard on Mar 4, 2008 4:35 PM CST up reply actions
voting
not patriotic. no one's calling you a traitor. you just lack the ideals that built this country. whether any1 determines what that actually means? no clue.
Well
by FormerLSBUser on Mar 5, 2008 10:33 AM CST up reply actions
X
by FormerLSBUser on Mar 5, 2008 10:34 AM CST up reply actions
LOL
Could liberals really BE any more hypocritical? HONESTLY. Honestly.
If Republicans had done so..
But it's pro-Obama liberals in this case, so it's okay..they dont have to abide by laws in America..
Got a link
Not really
I'm sure the commenters are gleeful about this at moveon, etc, even as we speak.
Concur...
seriously?
Was this speculation or do we have eye-witnesses? And what gave them away? Scarlet "L" on their chests?
by a bebop a rebop on Mar 4, 2008 6:38 PM CST up reply actions
I do believe...
good news!
yay politics
Yeah
Just like all reported cheating in general elections is for the Republican and against the Democrat.
It's truly an amazing coincidence, and even more amazing, how everybody pretends not to notice this fact.
LOL
>>Witnesses inside the voting location at Mount Olive Baptist Church said some of the victims cried and others yelled, "This is how they're going to steal the election from (Presidential candidate Barrack) Obama.">>
Oh uh-hu, I wont even comment on the type of people likely making these accusations. What demographic of people we might be talking about here.
>>The precinct judge said some of the victims have had their votes stolen in the past, which indicates that once the scammers have someone's personal information, they could become victims again and again in the future.>>
Oh wow, that sounds pretty elaborate. I'm sure that elaborate plot to steal identities, not for money even, but for 10 votes from Obama really happened.
What a bunch of fucking bullshit.
I see
Nothing new there, the normal Democrat cheating.
They were kept open
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Mar04/0,4670,PrimariesVotingProblems,00.html
Can you read?
by a bebop a rebop on Mar 4, 2008 8:24 PM CST up reply actions
Well it's always something
I've been watching this pattern for years, it always seems to occur only in the liberal areas, this keep the polls open late stuff, it's pretty regular procedure now, happened in 2000, 2004, etc. Nobody calls it cheating but I'm sure it in a way, is.
Doesn't seem to make a whole lot of difference, but I guess the liberals feel every vote helps.
The guy in charge of polling was just on tv
Well, if they didn't actually run out of ballots
http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080304/NEWS01/303040022
by a bebop a rebop on Mar 4, 2008 8:59 PM CST up reply actions
Huckabee
Now
Wow, could it work out any better for the Republicans.
You must be new here.
by a bebop a rebop on Mar 4, 2008 8:57 PM CST up reply actions
I know he's not
by a bebop a rebop on Mar 4, 2008 9:00 PM CST up reply actions
i gotta respect
go figure.
Sure
I'm pretty sure you said at one time or another that virtually every Republican candidate was going to win the nomination...except the one who actually won it.
Judging by your track record so far, Obama should win by a landslide in November.
And that's really gonna piss YOU off.
But hey, if you wanna bet, I'm game.
You
That is what I call easy money.
Also
If you just leave it's no biggie, twenty other liberal trolls just take your place. That's why a few others need to be included.
Well
But I'll do a "loser leaves for two weeks" bet with you.
Nightmare continues for Democrats
LOL, how times have changed..
It's been a crazy day and I voted
Then I get to work and my boss starts raising hell about this account I have. Then I have a meeting that flopped. I didn't get to take a lunch. All the time I'm still trying to keep up with the ST game knowing that Hurley is suppose to pitch sometime after Gabbard starts.
I finally get home and my wife says you need to do the taxes tonight (btw... she didn't cook anything and said she would order pizza) You've put it off for over two weeks. So I start doing the Turbo Tax Deluxe and get have way through and her sister calls and says she needs her to come over it's very important. So my wife leaves, she forgot to order the pizza and I just finshed doing the taxes like 30 minutes ago.
I'm fixin to have a nervous breakdown
at least
Why would McCain...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbrRpVYqiOQ&feature=related
Of course by genius a mean a colosal clown.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
