dagblog - Comments for "A PHILOSOPHICAL TAKE ON THE ELECTIONS"

I was dinkin around into the

Richard Day — Tue, 05 Sep 2017 02:13:25 +0000

In reply to A PHILOSOPHICAL TAKE ON THE ELECTIONS

I was dinkin around into the older days and this may sound dumb but I actually forgot about this old song....

https://youtu.be/ST86JM1RPl0

I have lost the old embed thingy but here is the link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?https://youtu.be/ST86JM1RPl0v=ST86JM1RPl0

It just got to me now, as it must have a year ago or so that this song means nothing without context.

Bigger? What could be bigger?

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 01 Sep 2016 16:57:50 +0000

In reply to I actually went to your link

Bigger? What could be bigger? well, ....

I actually went to your link

Richard Day — Thu, 01 Sep 2016 14:24:05 +0000

In reply to Ha! I just read a WaPo

I actually went to your link three times.

I conclude:

WHAT COULD BE BIGGER THAN ANTHONY'S WEINER?

hahahahhahahah

I also scanned about three other links concerning this SETI thingy. hahahahha

Oh it is just some earthly magnetism phenomena.(you know I never spell this word correctly without spell check. ha)

Again, thanks for the link.

Oh there are famous instances

Richard Day — Wed, 31 Aug 2016 18:45:39 +0000

In reply to Yes, I see what you are

Oh there are famous instances where the British Judges would jail the jurors until they came to the 'correct' verdicts. hahahaha

Not that there have not been abuses in our jury system over the years.

I am a sucker after all these years of Law & Order episodes discussing Jury Nullification as an issue.

We are humans, judges are humans, jurors are humans....

Oh, and you are correct.

Many times Doctors or Attorneys or people of substance refuse to honor the advice of their insurance company attorneys.

THANK THE GOOD LORD FOR THAT!.

We have a First Amendment.

Richard Day — Wed, 31 Aug 2016 18:40:43 +0000

In reply to A recent Fox poll indicates

We have a First Amendment.

And that Amendment is construed by our Supreme Court in light of legislation and action by governments both state and federal.

And to that extent, First Amendment protections become 'in the eyes of the Beholders'. hahahahsah

Judges in the context of media would become censors, of course.

I witnessed some CSPAN discussion recently and one scientist remarked about his visit to China.

All these Chinese scientists approached him requesting some way to come to America.

Censorship is such a buggard in China.

We or some of us are so goddamned angry at the repubs for attempting to censor scientists with regard to evolution or climate change of late. But damn! We really do have some freedom of speech in this nation even though nothing is really 'free'.

There is irony of course regarding your links.

The ratings have decided all issues concerning the 'will of the people'.

Anyway, it took me a while to discuss your comment and your links.

The so-called tea partiers hate the media or the press.

We on the Left wonder how some issues come to the fore whilst other issues linger.

the end

Much thanks Danny.

Richard Day — Wed, 31 Aug 2016 18:27:05 +0000

In reply to Very well argued.

Much thanks Danny.

Very well argued.

Danny Cardwell — Wed, 31 Aug 2016 17:46:21 +0000

In reply to A PHILOSOPHICAL TAKE ON THE ELECTIONS

Very well argued.

Yes, I see what you are

CVille Dem — Tue, 30 Aug 2016 22:39:37 +0000

In reply to As to the medical malpractice

Yes, I see what you are saying. My friend didn't have that information. She did say the the doctor had no previous lawsuits and looked utterly defeated during the trial.

I did find out later who he was. He was a beloved and respected doctor in this town, (he is now dead) so it might have been he who wanted to go to court.

As to the medical malpractice

NCD — Tue, 30 Aug 2016 21:44:06 +0000

In reply to Very thoughtful post, DDay,

As to the medical malpractice case, it would be interesting to know if it was the retiring doctor or the insurance company that insisted on taking the case to trial. I've talked to lawyers who exclusively handle these cases. The insurance lawyers usually negotiate a settlement knowing how juries sympathize with a particularly debilitated plaintiff. That is business as usual over 85% of the time.

The doctor can insist on fighting it of course to keep his record 'clean'. The insurance must cover the legal expenses to defend him even when the insurance lawyers judgment is to settle out of court.

Very thoughtful post, DDay,

CVille Dem — Tue, 30 Aug 2016 20:37:29 +0000

In reply to A PHILOSOPHICAL TAKE ON THE ELECTIONS

Very thoughtful post, DDay, as usual. As to juries, I am of the opinion that juries should be professionals, schooled in the very meanings you discussed. I think they should be equivalent in a way, to para-legals. Example: A friend was on a jury to decide a malpractice case. Basically, the plaintiff was a very sympathetic character who had a very poor quality of life prior to his surgery and the problem that occurred was one of the potential problems listed in the pre-op papers that the patient signed.

The doctor was elderly and was going to retire. My friend said that according to the instructions from the judge, it was clear that there was no malpractice and the decision should reflect that. She was sympathetic to the young man who now had one more medical issue to deal with, but the verdict was obvious. Evidently it was to all of the jury as well, but they felt that since the doctor was retiring and his insurance company was going to pay anyway, they voted to help the plaintif out. She held out but eventually relented (or as she put it -- "caved")

I think with a professional jury pool, things like this would be uncommon. I also think, based on what I have read about them, is that juries take their responsibilities very seriously. I just think that not everyone can sift through what they have seen and heard during the trial, and apply it objectively to the judges instructions.

BTW, New Subject: I am surprised that I have heard no one else note that Trump's latest mud-slinging at Hillary by saying that Anthony Weiner would have access to state secrets because he is married to Huma Abedyn. And ergo, Hillary has bad judgment.

DOES THIS MEAN THAT HE HAS, AND WILL CONTINUE TO SHARE THE STATE SECRETS HE HAS BEEN EXPOSED TO, WITH MELANIA?

Does he even know that he isn't supposed to do that? Why doesn't anyone pose this question to Kellyanne, or any one of the many sycophants that apologize for his every idiotic statement.